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.
From Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name (http://http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/arts/love-that-dare-not-squeak-its-name.html - broken link) (emphasis mine)
Before you shoot off your mouth again, read the article, do some research, learn something. Surely you must be tired of being wrong by now.
Correction: Earlier I had credited The Bronx Zoo, I was in error. It is the Central Park Zoo.
You site the NY Times? What a joke.
Their Gay agenda is beyond the pale.
The ZOO is not their natural habitat.
When were females introduced to them? After they had deviated? What was the scientific measures to study.
This by no means makes it a natural occurence.
There are disfunctional animals out there as well, it doesn't make it anything but a abhoration.
Forcing other people's children to be indoctrinated in a lifestyle that is not acceptable to them is the issue.
If some parents want this type of education then that is their freedom. Did you read the part that parents can't opt out of this?
Did you read the part of the article that discussed what the classes are about? They are NOT about any 'lifestyle'! They are about teaching children not to be bullies.
What do you know about the Gay Agenda -- the New York Times' or any other? I'm still trying to track down a copy of it. I asked the last person who seemed familiar if s/he had a copy because I wanted to see it. Do you have a copy of it? Can you post it? Send it to me?
Quote:
The ZOO is not their natural habitat.
So what? You're grasping at straws. Females were available. They rejected females, the females rejected them. (Hmm...female penguins must have better gaydar than Republicans.)
Quote:
When were females introduced to them? After they had deviated? What was the scientific measures to study.
"After they had deviated"? WTF? Explain what you mean? Are you really suggesting that if you -- for some reason -- had a homosexual experience that you would be totally changed and never want a female again?
Do you understand the meaning of your implication?
The scientific measure in this case, as in most cases of behavioral studies, is observation and reporting. Sorry, that's the best science has to offer.
Quote:
This by no means makes it a natural occurence.
Don't bother you with facts, you believe what you want.
Quote:
There are disfunctional animals out there as well, it doesn't make it anything but a abhoration.
As a gay person, I agree with the parents here that part of this "curriculum" is not age appropriate. I know that when I was in the 7th grade in the 1970's, they put us in a classroom and made us watch a TV program. They didn't tell us what the subject matter was and then, all of a sudden, there's naked body parts on the TV screen! I shut down and learned nothing.
I agree wholeheartedly that bullying and bigotry start young and should be discouraged and I also believe parents should teach their children how to interact properly and with respect. But what do you do if you're an educator and you see that parents fail miserably at teaching their children practically everything? It's no gay agenda, it's no hidden evil that drives these attempts at teaching children. Either we come to some understanding that this area of life is to be taught by the teacher and this other area of life is to be taught by the parents or we get into trouble like this. This inability to opt out of this class for legal reasons is absurd.
When's the right time to teach children about sex? When they ask about it.
When's the right time to teach children about gay people? When they first encounter them and acknowledge the difference.
so you think this indoctrination will have 100% success, you think all bullying will cease?
Another posters opinion is that they wouldnt' even grasp the teaching, or they would forget it straight way.
No I don't think it will be 100%, but there are math and English lessons that also have to be repeated multiple times across multiple grades. It is about starting to create a climate where certain hostile actions are found to be unacceptable by the majority of the children. I believe that is possible.
Quite frankly it goes beyond the children. Hopefully as a result of the teacher training that comes with the new curriculum we won't have incidents like a teacher telling a child that she can't put both her mothers names on a mother's day card or on father's day card a child being told to pick one of your mother's to be a father. Or the home work assignment were the only acceptable answer to the question about who is raising you was a mother and father. I don't have the exact wording of the question but it was much more offensive and troubling to children of "non-traditional" families. And not just the families same-gender couples.
It is not natural for two males to raise a child. It is un natural.
Why would it be less natural for two males to raise a child than for a single father? Why would this be less natural than, say, a polygamous Mormon family where there are seven or eight Mothers caring for a flock of children?
I am most fortunate to count several gay couples, both male and female, among my friends. Any one of these couples would make excellent, nurturing, loving parents. If my children were still small, I would not hesitate for a minute entrusting their care to a gay couple.
Can a completely infertile woman and a man procreate in a natural manner?
Homosexuality occurs in nature - so yeah, it is natural.
Once again, the "nature" argument has been brought into play. You know, it's funny how so many people seem to think just because some male monkey was humping another male monkey, they are homosexual. Sorry, but that isn't the case. They are animals who operate by using instinct. Their instincts are based on a number of different factors. Reactions in nature that seem homosexual are hormone based, nothing more. There are no gay lovers in nature. Not in the sense the gay community would like to suggest. I mean, just the other day I watched a dog hump another male dog, right after he tried to hump my little girl's leg and my cousin's leg. See, the dog was all hopped up on hormones because the neighbor's dog was in heat and he was ready to go. But, since he was humping that male dog, I guess you think that is proof of homosexuality in nature. No, it's proof of the power of natural stimuli. The dog was turned on by the female's scent, but he couldn't get to her so he was just trying his best to procreate with anything it could get it's legs around.
Also, to compare humans with animals just to try and justify an alternative lifestyle is ridiculous. They are animals, we are evolved human beings. By your use of animals as a comparison, couldn't I easily say that a serial killer is only exhibiting the natural actions that house cats display. Because house cats will kill for fun. They will get a mouse or a bird, torture it to death, then leave it to rot in the yard. That is in a cat's nature. So I guess we should accept the actions of the serial killer,rapist,etc. because we could find an example in nature to justify it. Sorry, but that whole line of thinking is patently ridiculous.
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.
