Teaching homosexual "normalcy" to impressionable young children. (polls, states, support)
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.
The fundamental concept to a just society is the every individual has the right to do as they please until and unless their action harms, or has a very high likelihood of harming others. Thus shooting a gun into a target, so long as reasonable precautions are taken to insure the projectile will not become dangerous to others is legal, shooting it into your neighbor is not.
Of course, this is just another thinly veiled attempt to justify discriminating and legislating against homosexuals because, well, when push comes to shove the only thing you have is either "God said so", "I think it's icky", or possibly both.
Those days, while not yet over, are coming to an end, and we're seeing their death knell. 100 years from now society will look back upon 2012 with the same sense of shame about the way homosexuals are treated and vilified that we feel when we look back on slavery, and shake their heads and wonder how in the hell we could ever be so backwards.
Your time is up. I would say sorry, but I most certainly am not.
I believe schools teach those subjects as well.
Why not teach acceptance.
Did you think that people would stop calling blacks the n word on their own, or denying them jobs or housing because they're "different" - or is this an I've got mine, forget you scenario?
(Using an example that you might relate to).
What's the problem with education?
Seems like most parents just don't bother.
Bullying is learned at home.
When it affects the education process and classes, it has to be addressed.
You misunderstand my premise. Teaching acceptance isn't the school's job.
Additionally, at the age they are teaching this acceptance, is one where the children have no comprehension or understanding of, what they are being taught, and could really care less.
Most of it is ridiculous. I was in the 5th grade when I was first bussed to First Ward Elementary in Charlotte NC, an all black school clear on the other side of town. I was on the bus for an hour and 15 minutes each way.
I remember being in a new school. We didn't care that some people were black or white, it made not a difference to us. I remember the parents making a big deal about it, to us it was a classroom, teacher and homework. BTW, I first heard the "N" word being used by my new friends.
In Junior high, is where we learned what it all meant, that's when the riots started.
Most bullying is learned in school, and is best dealt with, utilizing a swift poke in the noodle, or a well placed kick, followed by several punches in the noodle.
No - it is not a good thing to teach young children that homosexuality is normal. Children need time to be children - keep their innocence - and mature at a normal pace.
Sex topics should be handled by the parents. and at the appropriate age.
So you refrain from holding hands or kissing your spouse in front of your kids, because that is sexual?
My kids have been around gay people since their births, they never saw being gay as a "sexual" issue...our gay friends are just people, and some of them are in relationships with other people who happen to be the same gender.
No one talks about sex, or has sex in front of them or anyone else.
Why do you people always think about sex so much?
There is a valid reason to teach children to be more accepting of homosexuality, but there could also be harmful effects if it is note done without proper input from Christians in the process. Not to teach the religion, but to have their viewpoints included because the nation itself was founded with Christian principles.
Teaching all aspects of human sexuality is nothing but a positive thing, as it reduces the hatred taught by bigoted religious people...My kids did not grow up hating others just because they are different and I am proud of them, and no, learning that there are homosexual people in this world did not turn any of them gay.
They have no problem with homosexuals, unlike you bigots.
Your interest in propagandizing the very young is well noted.
We see that over the past several years public schools have been most helpful in this endeavor by providing young captive audiences.
How else will homosexuals promote their twist on human sexuality if not by targeting the young?
Most adults have already developed common sense, or what liberals call "bigotry" and "hate", so they're no fun.
The same kids who expect candy from a giant bunny who hides eggs in their house are ripe for a story about two gay penguins and their hatchling.
From "And Tango Makes Three", pivoting to stories about two daddies or two mommies is seamless.
Most of these kids have only sketchy ideas about how babies are made in the first place, so two guys poking each other's poopers is normal if they are told it is so.
For those kids who have a gut feeling that homosexuality is disgusting, you'll never have a better chance to punish them for feeling so.
No one will mention that heterosexual intercourse provides a biological function the species needs to survive, adapt and prosper or that homosexuality never really accomplishes anything except spreading novel pathogens which it does in spades.
No one will mention the innate human behavioral immune system or how it uses the emotion of disgust to prevent contact with pathogens spread by homosexuals.
Of course, if you're a kid who finds homosexuality disgusting because of the behavior immune system you were born with, don't look for a liberal or homosexual activist to explain that you are entitled to be what you are.
I read the entire article. I found nothing therein that demonstrated what harm allowing polygamous marriages would cause, only a whole lot of fear that if same sex marriage is untimately found to be constitutionally protected, the same might happen for polygamy. To that I say, "So what?"
(Minor language nit: "Polygamy" means one husband, many wives. There is also a word that now escapes me that means one wife, many husbands. What I think the article is fearful of is polyandry, which is three or more spouses in a relationship regardless of the gender makeup. In fact, legalizing JUST polygamy would be a violation of equal protection, but as I said, I don't think they're using the term that specifically.)
I think the real gist of the article comes from the following quote:
Quote:
The person who claims legitimacy for same-sex marriage, if he or she is to remain consistent, must also claim legitimacy for bisexual polygamous marriage, thus exposing the fact that the basis of their position is not an affirmation of civil rights but a total indifference toward foundational values.
The real problem here, the subtext that underlies every front, every battle-line in the religious right's culture war can be seen in this quote. Society has been, and is continuing to be indifferent to and move away from what they perceive as their, and the only legitimate foundational values. Any dissent from that needs to be quashed in their (and seemingly, yours) world view.
However, as you can see by observing societal reality, they are losing that argument virtually everywhere. Which is as it should be.
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.
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.
