Judge orders 'gay' agenda

[webdog]

When one is arguing apples, it is inadvisable to use oranges as examples.

Hardly apples and oranges...sin is sin. You seem to think a certain sin should be constitutionally protected. I think it's discrimination, injustice and open abuse to cater to only one group of sinners, then. Under your thinking, they should all be protected.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Hardly apples and oranges...sin is sin. You seem to think a certain sin should be constitutionally protected. I think it's discrimination, injustice and open abuse to cater to only one group of sinners, then. Under your thinking, they should all be protected.

I see. So if two people love each other and are committed to one another, it must be the same thing as rape, murder and child molestation in the eyes of the government.

Talking to you is like this: :BangHead:

 

[webdog]

I see. So if two people love each other and are committed to one another, it must be the same thing as rape, murder and child molestation in the eyes of the government.

Talking to you is like this: :BangHead:

The rapist loves raping.
The child molester loves groping and having sexual contact with minors.
I didn't mention murder, but I'm sure a murderer doesn't murder because he's forced to.

It's injustice to not allow these same rights since they "love" what they do, too. A homosexual lifestyle isn't about persons, it's about actions. It violates no constitutional right by omitting this action from childrens books. Period.

Your line of thinking for being "reformed" is anything but.

 

[StefanM]

Why not have a children's book glorifying adultery?

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Read it closer. It is the acceptance and promotion of the homosexual lifestyle that is demanded by this judge, acting on behalf of that agenda.

I have read what WND said the judge said, but I don't have much faith in WND. However, if what you said is true and the homosexual lifestyle is being "promoted," I agree that it is wrong.

Also, the one thing that does bother me is the age of these children. It seem to me like these topics should not be discussed with children this young. They aren't interested in it and it has little or no effect on their lives.

 

[StefanM]

Also, the one thing that does bother me is the age of these children. It seem to me like these topics should not be discussed with children this young. They aren't interested in it and it has little or no effect on their lives.

That is exactly my point. I don't have a problem with the issue of homosexuality being discussed whenever the students have psychologically developed a bit more.

 

[tragic_pizza]

The rapist loves raping.
The child molester loves groping and having sexual contact with minors.
I didn't mention murder, but I'm sure a murderer doesn't murder because he's forced to.

It's injustice to not allow these same rights since they "love" what they do, too. A homosexual lifestyle isn't about persons, it's about actions. It violates no constitutional right by omitting this action from childrens books. Period.

Your line of thinking for being "reformed" is anything but.

When you come up with something new, let me know and we'll talk.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I see. Some kinds of discrimination, injustice, and open abuse are OK. Other kinds aren't.

No. Please thoughtfully consider what was being compared. You compared race (something you don't choose) to homosexual behavior (something you do choose). You compared race (something that is not a sin) to homosexuality (something that is a sin). You compared talking approvingly about race (something that is not a problem) with talking approvingly about homosexuality (something that is a problem).

So to quote you when one is arguing, it is inadvisable to use oranges as a comparison.

To suggest that approving homosexuality is bigoted is simply wrong. It is a gross redefinition of bigotry. If the school was teaching that we should kill or imprison homosexuals, than I would argue that is teaching bigotry. But that is a far cry from what the OP was about.

 

[tragic_pizza]

No. Please thoughtfully consider what was being compared. You compared race (something you don't choose) to homosexual behavior (something you do choose).

Not according to many scientific studies.

 

[webdog]

Scientists say we can choose race?

I know Michael Jackson tried...

 

[tragic_pizza]

Scientists say we can choose race?

I know Michael Jackson tried...

Sorry, I forgot to be painfully specific for your benefit. Scientific studies referring to homosexuality being a genetic, or at least predetermined, trait, not a choice or lifestyle.

 

[Daisy]

How does not reading a book about homosexuality tell some children that their families aren't families? What did I miss there? Why not just keep quiet about it? Why does anything need to be said?

There were two books, "King and King" and "Who's in a Family?". I read some of the other articles on this continuing saga linked at the bottom - the graphic of the second book was in many. I was referring to that one - I realize that was not at all clear.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Not according to many scientific studies.

Really?? I am not aware of any scientific studies that say that people do not have a choice about homosexual behavior. Can you link to some?

 

[Pastor Larry]

There were two books, "King and King" and "Who's in a Family?". I read some of the other articles on this continuing saga linked at the bottom - the graphic of the second book was in many. I was referring to that one - I realize that was not at all clear.

Ah, I see what you are saying. I don't know anything about the second book. But I see no reason for a school to delve into that kind of area. I see no problem teaching the biblical and traditional view of the family and omitting any discussion of alternatives.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Really?? I am not aware of any scientific studies that say that people do not have a choice about homosexual behavior. Can you link to some?

I don't think that's permitted here. You're welcome to use Google on your own.

 

[webdog]

Why wouldn't links to scientific studies be allowed?
Me thinks you have none.

Must be the same scientists that say we come from monkeys.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Why wouldn't links to scientific studies be allowed?
Me thinks you have none.

Must be the same scientists that say we come from monkeys.

It's against the TOS to post things supporting homosexuality. I'm already in danger here with what I've posted, and I'm not going to go over the line and get banned because someone can't be bothered to Google.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The truth is that there are no such links, TP. The studies you refer to suggest that homosexual orientation may be genetic. They do not suggest in any way that homosexual behavior is anything but a choice. If you notice my post, I was very specific about what I was referring to.

People do have a choice about who they are sexually active with. That is not forced on anyone but rape victims, and I assume you weren't talking about rape. Attraction may be genetic, or partially genetic. That's a different issue.

 

[Daisy]

Who is telling them their families aren't really families within the context of what the schools teach them?

The guy who is protesting the book "Who's in a Family?" because one of the families has two dads and one has two moms. He seems to think that only families like his are real families.

I see the majhor problem here is too many adults like yourself are projecting YOUR views upon CHILDREN who could care less what YOU think.

My view is that there are diverse families and that this is more about the children in the families than it is about the adults.

Children of this age group do not NEED your agenda crammed down thier throats by the evil and wicked Sodomite proponents.

My agenda is each child's family should be tolerated (except the ones where members are abused). I'm not a proponent of evil and wicked Sodomites, but I recognise that they are people whose children deserve the same consideration as other people's children.

And the soonoer your ilk get a clue about what REALLY goes on in themind of a CHILD the better.

My ilk? What do you think my ilk think goes on?

Let them be children for God's sake!

My ilk isn't stopping them from being children. You seem to be the one who can't stop thinking about what goes on in the bedroom - I don't think that is any of my business, quite frankly. That is not what is being taught here.

 

[StefanM]

My objections center mainly on "King and King" rather than the other book.