@vicorii Until there are no more children in foster care / orphanages and there is no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy....YOU ARE JUST TALKING OUT OF YOUR ASS!!!
@neenerpuss You are right. Humanists, aka Unitarian Universalists, are the ONLY faith that believes sex is justification for breaking up a family, just so that gay people can use the babies to play out their fantasies.
Humanists should stop forcing their beliefs on the rest of us! There is no "right" to misrepresent paternity and falsify family trees. It needs to be recognized as CHILD ABUSE when these people force the kids to pretend to have "two mommies". Let those kids meet their real dad!
My absolute favorite part in all of this is when I try to do exactly as Christiangal thinks should be done in schools - ignoring viewpoints, and sticking to facts - she gets mad at me for it.
You can try to share your viewpoint with me as much as you like, but academia and facts are what matters when it comes down to it. And as much as you like to ignore academia and facts- the ones I've presented or presented in schools- or claim that they are viewpoints and not facts, you fail to show that.
Do you ever wonder why the so called expert on "marriage" the one and only Maggie Gallagher is never seen with her husband? If marriage is so great...why is he absent? The reason is Maggie Gallagher is married to a black man. She is in an interracial marriage. She is ASHAMED of her interracial marriage and is afraid that the conservative bigots that support her ideology will STOP DONATING to her scam organization NOM. Need Oppressive Money! 40% goes directly into her pocket.
Including homosexual characters alongside heterosexual characters is education, not indoctrination (as if having heterosexual characters was indoctrination?!).
These aren't viewpoints that are being indoctrinated, they're just educating points and stories. We have these with heterosexuality, what's the problem?
No, this isn't vocabulary. This is pro gay viewpoints dressed up in acceptable ways for children. They use books and other materials because that is what young kids relate to. It's always a pro gay viewpoint. I never see any books that say it's wrong, do you? Give me a break.
You obviously didn't read the material that I sent, nor did you research it. When you have a book with a gay prince who ditches the girls to kiss and go away with his boy prince, then don't tell me that's not pro gay indocination. When they put up posters about "no room for homophobia" then they are telling kids what to think. Kids are not there to learn liberalism 101, they are there to learn academics. So long as liberal progressives are running things, kids will continue to fall behind.
Yes I did read it, not thouroughly, but that's why in my reply I referenced it.
So are books with a straight prince pro straight indoctrination? Should those be out of schools?
WHO put up the posters?
Kids are there to learn academics, and learning about gays is part of academics.
Conservative regressives are not the answer to our schools falling behind. Not when they want to take out much of education like science regarding global warming and evolution.
Do you live under a rock, ruby? I'm not your current events teacher. Look up climate gate, and this time, read it with an open mind. You ignored my points about climate cycles, and liberal hysteria from the 1970's (and other times in history) in regard to global cooling.
I am aware, and it's as I've said. You're saying "wrong" and not backing it up shows you have no intention of an intellectual conversation. I have read about the scandal with an open mind, and am familiar with the entire body of science. One organization omitting a small amount of data- that DOES skew the results- does not make the whole climate change data a lie.
I ADDRESSED your point about climate cycles (saying that while there are cycles, the change is too fast).
I said more than wrong, so quit lying and pretending that it's not backed up. Your little cheerleader cominatrix is the only one going for it. After all, why would either of you pay attention to facts. The climate cycles are NOT too fast, and you can't base claims on FAULTY data. The "science" used by this group has been used by others. IF this was so easily provable, why would climate gate have happened in the first place. Intellectual conversation? You need to worry about on your end.
Oh, I thought you said "wrong" and refused to back it up with sources, saying find it yourself. Since I missed it, could you back it up again by citing your sources again?
I'm perfectly fine paying attention to facts, because I'm a fan of reality.
"The climate cycles are NOT too fast, and you can't base claims on FAULTY data."
This really doesn't make sense. The cycles are fine, the change is TOO FAST for the cycle- not part of it. And you can base claims on true data, which there is.
Let's be real, ruby, you're a fan of yourself, and of showing elitism to anyone who thinks differently. People like you are the reason our country is in so much trouble right now. You make claims as well, and I don't see you adding any "citations". Are you an expert on climate cycles? You seem to think you're an expert on everything. I think not.
Who is "we"? Are you speaking for others? You have not provided evidence, you've given your opinion and whined when I didn't accept it as truth. Speak for yourself, not others, if you can stand on your own two feet.
I did take Biology, and more. It's quite obvious that you didn't, though. Homosexuality is a behavior, not a trait, and people are NOT born with it.
Nice deflection. You want me to cite and prove, but when you state your opinion, it's just from what you've read. Uh huh. That isn't going to fly. Liberals always have one set of rules for everyone else and anything goes for themselves. You're an expert at believing what you want to believe. Now would you please stop pretending I am not answering you when I am. You just don't want to hear it. I am now convinced that you do live on You Tube. Any time, day or night, you answer right away.
"You want me to cite and prove, but when you state your opinion, it's just from what you've read."
No, as I said, what specifically do you want me to source? All other people's research on climate that doesn't come from CRU at the University? I didn't know what specifically you were asking. Please, as I said, what would you like me to cite?
Sex in terms of gender is a trait. Behavior is not a trait. People don't just "fall out of love." Problems with relationships come about BECAUSE of the actions, or inactions of people. In other words, this too in based on behavior. Lying, cheating, selfishness, a lack of patientce and things like that are often what causes break ups. Those are choices, and behaviors, not traits.
Good, I agree. This is very consistent with my post as well.
Sex in terms of gender, like race, is a trait. That's not something we choose. Racial orientation, and sexual orientation is also a trait, not a behavior. Sexual actions are a behavior and not a trait.
People don't just fall out of love, but they can't choose not to fall out of love or to fall back in. Problems occur because of actions, not because we choose attractions and then choose not to be attracted and get divorced.
Orientation is not a trait. Sexual behavior and choices are not traits, either. You said you are college educated. Did you happen to take Biology? Attractions are based in part on what turns us on, which is based on individual thoughts and preferences, not biology. We don't just randomly fall in love. It's based on what we like in people, like tall, short, quiet, outgoing, and so on.
Orientation is a trait- attraction is based in brain chemistry. Researching the science of attraction will get you much information.
Using a brain imaging technique, Swedish researchers have seen gay and straight men respond differently to two odors that may be involved in sexual arousal, and that the gay men respond as women do. The research may open the way to studying a biological basis of sexual preference.
We don't randomly fall in love, it's based in part on our sexual orientation.
Once again, attraction is based on thought process, or what turns one on. It is NOT something a person is born with. If anything is ridiculous, it's the crap you try and tell people. I've studied it, and I know how it happens. Attraction is not a trait. You need to look that word up and stop embarrassing yourself.
Some people like blondes, brunettes, tall, or whatever. That is choice, and decision.
There's a difference between a thought process, or what someone is physically attracted to. People don't have a process in choosing to think about what attracts them. Attraction IS innate, because humans are sexual beings. People do not train themselves or have a thought process to find George Clooney or Jessica Alba attractive. It's no choice for people to find Rosie O'Donnell not attraction.
I've posted studies about attraction, pheromones, it's no thought process.
Thoughts, points of view, preferences have to do with what attracts people. That is not something people are born with. Phermones and hormones have nothing to do with what type of things people find attractive. They may increase (or decrease) desire. You haven't posted anything that proves what you say. I've studied it, and you're wrong. lol, if it was no choice to find people like O'Donnell attractive then she would have a lot more suitors. Obese people are not hit on like thin people are.
All humans are born with sexual attraction. It is not something learned, we're not asexual beforehand. Sexual attraction is defined as attractiveness on the basis of sexual desire (WordWeb- Princeton University).
Pheremones have much to do with attracting a mate.
Google and read "What is the Science of Sexual Attraction" for much info.
If you've studied it, what do pheromones do?
It's not a choice, that's why nobody can CHOOSE to find ugly people like O'Donnell attractive.
I never said that you claimed it was random using those words, I deduced it from what you said- please stop lying. Sexual attraction is from hormones in part, but WHO we are attracted to is from us. I have already decided what attracts me, so don't worry, I won't give you any competition with your girl Rosie. : )
You said " If it were random like you claim," and nothing I have ever said can correctly be deduced to mean aexual attraction is pure random. So you misinterpreted me again, your deduction was off. I didn't lie.
There is no way for gay men to choose to be attracted to women or straight men to choose to be attracted to men. And similar is true for women.
If it is a behavior as you claim, how can one change their behavior to change who they are attracted to? Please cite evidence as well.
guenser- I think you're mixing my reply to ruby dragon up. You are quoting things I said to her, not to you. Wrong, people chose what they are attracted to. No one is born liking blondes, or liking blue eyes. They develop preferences, and some of that may be influenced by environment. In other words, there is no gene for men who love brunettes, or women who prefer men with beards. Genes don't work that way.
Sorry, guenser is a different account that logs in sometimes when I don't want it to.
So how do people develop preferences for liking men and for liking women?
People don't choose to be attracted to men or women. Sexual attraction and physical attractiveness is no choice. Sex appeal is something that people have or don't.
If it is a behavior as you claim, how can one change their behavior to change who they are attracted to? Please cite evidence as well.
Once again, attrcaction is based on brain chemistry, and attraction IS what turns people on. Not the stuff that people can necessarily pin down, because even if someone prefers tall people and blondes, it's still going to be hit and miss how personally attracted they are to each person.
This sexual attraction can also change, and is not a choice to choose for people to be attracted to each other.
The definition of attraction: the force by which one object attracts another
Once again, you are wrong. The definition of attraction that you are using is one used in physics, not in terms of human beings. It's not a "force." Sexual attraction has a lot to do with one's point of view, experiences, and ideas of what they find attractive. If it were random like you claim, then ugly people would be a lot less lonely.
While an overall factor about what people like in a mate does include those, do not forget physical appearance and who the person is.
I never claimed it was random, please do not lie- I did not once use the word random. Sexual attraction is varied, yet similar... hence the Beil vs. Alba debate.
You cannot choose to be attracted to women. It has nothing to do with point of view, experiences, or ideas. The sex you're attracted to is no choice.
ruby-You don't see men drooling over an obese older woman, do you? It's not because they were born disliking obesity, it's because they learned things and developed preferences. The only thing that is chemical is hormones and phermones (scent). Attraction is about thought. Ever watch Blind Date? Some of the women are turned off if the man isn't a jerk toward them. That means they have made a choice that the kind of man they like is a rude one.
In climate gate the data was fixed to reflect a certain outcome, not the truth. That is not science. The rest of my post does indeed relate to this, and I think you want to ignore it.
That's not what any of the data of the climate scandals I've read have said. How was the data fixed? Who, or what individuals and groups, fixed the data? Please cite sources, so I can read this. I think you know I do not want to ignore your evidence.
No, orientation is based on what attracts a person, which is behavior. You need to look up what the word trait means. Responding differently to odors doesn't prove anything. Like climate gate, some of the studies are tainted.
Attraction is not a behavior. I find that statement ridiculous. Attraction, by it's very definition and etymology, is about something that pulls you, not a behavior that you control or push. It is not a behavior to find someone pretty. It is not a behavior for a brain to react to pheremone's in someone's smell.
A trait is a distinguishing characteristic or quality, esp. of one's personal nature. Personal attraction is a trait, sexual orientation is too.
I thought you were not talking to me anymore. What happened? People chose who they are attracted to. Childhood events can have an effect on this, hence the reason many homosexuals had problems with the parent of the same sex. There is NO gene that says, ok, this baby will be born liking the same sex, but this baby will born liking the opposite sex. That is ridiculous at best.
"hence the reason many homosexuals had problems with the parent of the same sex."
Really? Where did you hear that? Could you cite statistics on homosexuals and having problems with a parent of the same sex?
And I totally agree there is no one gene for homosexuality/heterosexuality. Evidence shows it's probably genetic influences and biological influences, but it's not predictable (just like we can't predict handedness though we know genes are involved). Like the transsexual AR gene.
Evidence shows nothing. Ttere are only theories, and no transexual gene either. None of these truths, however, stop pro gay liberals from repeating their lies. Read about Gia and Elton John, and others who had problems with the parents of the same sex. Gia's relationships with women were basically right from her longing for her mother, who left while she watched in tears. No coincidence. I don't need to "cite" anything to know that, but if you want more info read Dr. Joseph Nicolosi's work.
Now you're getting it. People decide what they are attracted to, but society, childhood, and other events help shape these decisions. Society of course places high value on beauty, youth, and being thin.
I didn't show it was made up. You are simply doing what you always do, ignore anything that you don't agree it, or you just claim it isn't true. Talk about making things up. It's more than just a couple celebrities. I've read stories from ex gays who talk about it as well. The experiences of ex gays prove that homosexuality is a behavior, but I am sure you'll claim they are making it up as well. The APA was and is influenced by POLITICS, NOT SCIENCE.
The "many" was made up, because you based it on only individuals personal stories.
I didn't ignore the claim, I asked you to source it. And you proved that what you really meant is that a few homosexuals had problems with a parent of the same sex... which cannot logically or statistically be proven as a cause.
Ex gay ministries admit they cannot change your sexual orientation, only your sex life. The APA has plenty of articles and science to support their claims, do not lie.
@rubydraggon Baloney. You don't know the personal stories of gays and ex gays, and from what I have read, many of them have had problems with the parent of the same sex. You ignorantly claim is was made up because you don't agree with it and you don't like it. When that is the case, you find a way to disregard it, whether it is honest or not. Hey, you probably wrote some of the textbooks that liberals like and that have kids failing. lol
I know the personal stories of many people who have gone through conversion therapy and many conversion therapy leaders who have apologized for the harm they have caused.
What have you read? What percentage of them have problems with a parent of the same sex, compared to heterosexuals? Can you cite statistics that this is more prevalent in the gay community?
I claim it was made up because "most" has a definition, and you showed you didn't follow it.
@rubydraggon If I may quote you, cite it. Who has apologized for alleged "harm"? I never see you cite anything you say. I followed most according to how I see it, and it's defintion. You need to go on the Narth website, and do your own research, instead of asking others to do it for you. I cannot post links on here, you tube doesn't allow it. I can send some.
Sure. Former Exodus leaders Darlene Bogle, Michael Bussee, and Jeremy Marks wrote an apology letter together. Vonnie Pitts of Living Waters, Wendy Lawson of Exodus, and Kim Brett of YANA, Living Waters, and Exodus have all apologized. If you search "ex-gay apology" on google the first link will reproduce their apology letters. Former Love In Action director John Smid also apologized, google "john smid apology" and use the first link.
@rubydraggon I could only find one of those names, Bussee. I'm willing to bet they were threatened, as many outspoken ex gays are, by the pro gay movement. The very people who demand acceptance of their lifestyle will go after anyone who leaves it, It's sick, it's like people trying to leave a cult and being harassed. Ever seen the site ex gay watch, and all of the horrible things gay people say about those who leave the lifestyle.
You have ignored my questions about sources twice, I'm not asking again. I pity you.
You claim now that since your small mind can't believe people can actually see the true harm of ex-gay therapy, that these people were threatened into leaving? Get over it, gay people exist, they don't need to be changed, and these leaders THOUGHT they were doing good but were appalled that the actually hurt people.
I'm seriously done with your "I'm right and ignore the facts" attitude.
@rubydraggon You should pity yourself for the way you treat others. And using my words? You're not even original. You need to get over yourself. Unlike you, I SUGGESTED that threats may have occured, and I told you to check the ex gay watch site. But you never want to look at anything that contradicts your point of view, so you just keep falsely accusing people of not backing things up.
@rubydraggon If those people think that, then that is their perogative, but there are people who CHOOSE to leave the gay lifestyle, and you and many on the left diminish them. It's the same old story, you belittle, demean and diminish anyone who isn't exactly like you. Pathetic. lol You were "done" before and you kept writing. Can't help your need to get the last word in, eh?
Now, since I cited for the questions you have, please cite for mine.
If it's fact, what are all of the decisions they have been basing on politics since the 70's?
If the proof is then number, what is the number of ex-gay people?
What percentage of them have problems with a parent of the same sex, compared to heterosexuals? Can you cite statistics that this is more prevalent in the gay community?
You have not yet sent any links showing statistics, numbers, or politics.
@rubydraggon Nice try, but the APA has been basing it's decisions on politics since the 70's, when they caved in to pro gay activists on the outside and inside of their organization. The proof is in the number of ex gay people who have been successful in marrying the opposite sex and going on to lead a heterosexual lifestyle. That usually upsets pro gay people like you, so you seek to discount it anyway possible. It doesn't matter, though, the people exist.
If it's fact, what are all of the decisions they have been basing on politics since the 70's?
As I've said, ex-gay ministries claim to change your behavior, not your sexual attractions. It's just like putting gay people back in the closet- these are gays who marry and lead a heterosexual lifestyle while being gay. The facts don't accept me, lies do.
If the proof is then number, what is the number of ex-gay people?
@rubydraggon It's written by people who were there in the 70's. Ex gay ministries help many people who chose the leave the lifestyle. It is sad, as well as disturbing and very intolerant, that people like you claim it is "putting people back in the closet." Is that a fact, can you cite it (as you like to say). You belittle the experience of people who are making choices for themselves.
Changing your behavior is, probably as you say, leaving the "lifestyle," if the lifestyle is defined as actions. Commonly they say you will struggle with same sex attraction- meaning you're still gay- just like in the closet gay people.
As president of ExodusAlan Chambers says personally, "he still struggles at times with homosexual temptation." (google that phrase for the link) Straight people don't struggle with homosexuality.
@rubydraggon You call it "closeted" because in your small mind you've decided everything must revolve around YOUR views, and nothing else could possibly be true. It doesn't work that way, and it's disrespectful to those who have left the lifestyle behind. Alcoholics are sometimes tempted, but it doesn't mean they have to go back to their old behavior.
Children learn about WWII and the holocaust in schools, yet there are people who do not believe the holocaust occurred. Should we not teach about the holocaust?
fear is the best (though probably most unfair) way to get people to agree with you. and people dont seem to understand that some things simply dont work through traditional democratic process.
@montsyblackmadonna jesus was from the middle east, how is america god's country? the only thing god about america is how we unfairly allow zealots to get away with practically anything, even murder.
I heard about that gay twin study, it's been debunked. Oh, cominatrix, do you not know how things work in the USA? I can state my views and petitiion my Congress just like anyone else can. I could just as easily say that not everyone believes in secularism, so you can't force us to live by it. Does freedom matter that little to you? Liberals talk about diveristy, but as soon as someone diffrent comes along, the want them to shut up.
Really, it's been debunked? Please cite the source of the debunking.
Also, cominatrix didn't tell you once you didn't have the right to state your views like anyone else can. He never said anything about wanting you to shut up. He never said anything about you not having freedom.
If you are really incapable of reading and hearing and responding to what people actually write and say, then you aren't worth replying to.
You have your agenda, you can keep it, regardless of fact.
we are all free to believe as we please, but in order to prevent civil explosion essentially, we have to take a stance that favours the side that does not favour a religion in this case. im sorry its that way, but not secularism is the way to keep the most people covered
oh and please do provide me something that proves that it has been debunked. this is not one study. there have actually been many done along these same lines now, and they all point in the same direction
Why do you have to have an opinion on EQUAL marriage for gay couples? Do they have an opinion about your marriage? Being gay is not a choice, If that's why you think they don't deserve to be treated equally. If so, when did you chose to be straight? If your argument is that Marriage is a traditional institution between a man and woman....think again, slavery was also a traditional institution. Surprised? Open you eyes...don't deny people what you can have just because of who they chose to love.
Sorry it is a choice. There is no evidence for a so-called gay gene. It is easier not take responsibility for your actions by saying you have not choice this is another lie and a way to avoid responsibility for your actions as well. By the way your response did not apply to my comment whatsoever, I am concerned when those with special interests can come in and change laws without representation.
Not a choice = doesn't necessarily mean genetic, theirs always the nature vs nurture argument, you never chose to be straight. the evidence strongly points towards biology (hormones produced in the womb during pregnancy) even the wording -BEING- gay not doing gay actions.
even IF it was a choice (which it's not) what reasoning is that to ban marriage from this particular group, how is it different from banning people with blue eyes and blond hair, black people or short people. you can choose any characteristic, its still contradictory to the constitution.
lol oh really? when was the last time this "loving God" intervened in ...anything? Jesus died a long time ago, get over it, people have been preaching "the end is nigh" since before jesus, and psst were still here.
@montsyblackmadonna if im going to hell, i get to spend eternity with the lesbians, the atheists and not with the zealots... one persons hell is another person's heaven...
cominatrix- The victim card may work with others, but I see right through that tactic. Homosexuals are not "loathed" by the religious community. Most of us Christians simply do not agree with you, just as you don't agree with us. Does your disagreement mean that you loathe us? Can we be adults here?
@christianangal39 i beg to differ. there are certainly many people who are as you say, but equally, there are plenty of people who are disgusted by homosexuals and who do loathe them (god hates fags?). one way or the other, what makes heterosexual couples more entitled to the offs and ons of LEGAL marriage? or, what makes it so that homosexuals should not be able to take part in that? who does it harm? what happened in dc is just the religious group being stubborn.
"God hates fags" is the ONLY group your side can point to, and it's far from how most Christians operate. AND, you leave out conveiniently that there are plenty of people on your side who hate Christians. I've been told I'm gulliable, I believe in fairy tales, and I've been called every name in the book. So pardon me if I don't cry for you. I don't condone hate on either side, but unfortunately, it exists, but it exists on BOTH sides, not just one.
i dont condone any hate from either side, but i dont think its fair that your religious beliefs are able to come into conflict with my legal rights, not just with gay marriage but with any such situation.
Christians have as much of a right as you do to believe what we want. We've been called names and labeled quite a bit from your side (the ones who scream for "tolerance"). Homosexuality is a sin. We don't want children exposed, and we don't believe that sin is a good for society. It's the same reason we oppose gambling, abortion, etc. The homosexual agenda has resulted in loss of freedom of expression and choice for Christians, ie gay adoption issues, and job loss just for disagreeing.
There has been no loss of freedom of expression or choice for Christians.
Christians are still allowed to adopt, and Christians are still allowed to marry, and Christians are still allowed to do everything they have before- save discriminating against gays (which is not some freedom anyone should be proud of).
Anybody is free to not want their children exposed, that doesn't mean gays have to hide for you.
Anyone is free to think it's bad, that doesn't mean we get rid of it.
Marriage is NOT a right, rubydragon. It's NOT in the constitution. There is no discrimination. There is disagreement about the legal definition of marriage. GLSEN is in schools across the USA indocinating youth into the liberal agenda, so please don't tell me that children are not effected. In the UK, where there is gay marriage and hate crime laws, Christians have been prosecuted for voicing their belief in the Bible.
@Christiangal39 Correct, and I never said it was. Equal treatment IS a right under the Constitution though. "No state shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
If a legal definition of marriage is discriminatory, it needs to be changed. Definitions don't have rights.
GLSEN is making schools a safe place for all students, including GLBT. Children are affected by having their parents married, I would not say they are unaffected, marriage helps them
Equal treatment means equal APPLICATION of the laws to all citizens. It does not mean that it's right to scream discrimination and equality if you don't get what you want in society. It means, for instance, if you and I rob a bank, the law applies to both of us, not just one of us.
Can you tell me how reading books about boys who prefer boys and teaching kids about gay sex is making school safe for all students?
Right, equal application of the laws- I never said it was just about anyone screaming. For instance, if you or I wanted to marry someone, we should both be able to. Or if a black person and a white person wanted to marry the same individual, they should be able to. Sex and race discrimination are especially protected against, for one.
Reading books about boys who prefer boys alongside boys who prefer girls makes everyone equal. And teaching about gay sex alongside straight sex does the same.
Marriage is not a law, it's a priviledge. Again, schools are not for social engineering and molding kids into future liberals and homosexual activists. I realize liberals don't care about academics, given their performance in schools and their never ending focus on political correctness instead of academics and honesty, but taxpayers are getting fed up with paying for Liberal Indocination School. Call us crazy, but we'd like to return to having graduates know how to read and write.
There are laws regarding marriage, I don't know what you are talking about. This "privilege" as you call it needs to be applied equally per the Constitution, call it whatever you like.
Schools are for teaching, so that's what they do- TEACH. And there are things to teach about straights and gays. I get you don't want people to learn about homosexuality, but schools are a place of academics- not religion or PC. Learn that.
Reading those books doesn't prevent people from learning to read.
It does when not all citizens are equal. If I don't get the same health-care benefits, fair pay from jobs, etc. I do have the right to shout about equality.
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. "
In this case they are interpreting the law. They are stating that anti-miscegenation laws violate due process and equal protection as granted in the Constitution.
Also using rights given by your god may be different than rights given by someone else's god, and therefore are very difficult to create cohesive laws around.
There is no law that says marriage is a right, nor is there anything in the constitution, therefore the judges are giving OPINION, and it's not based on anything in our laws or constitution. The Founders recognized a Creator. Ever notice most of our basic laws sound just the Bible?
uncool How sad that you make derogatory comments like religious "hatred". The true hater is someone like you, who judges anyone who disagrees with them. You're pretty self centered and arrogant. I know that Medicare is government run healthcare, never said otherwise. lol, why do they still exist. For all of your arrogance, you're really stupid. Countries with corrupt governments have existed for centuries. Try less name calling and more common sense next time, uncool : )
@Christiangal39 I don't hate anyone, actually. I do disagree with you. "I'm really stupid " and arrogant, but I'm the one who needs to stop name calling?
Religious hatred is where you draw the line? Well you keep saying indoctrination, I'll stick with hatred. If teaching children
about other cultures and traditions is indoctrination, then let's indoctrinate them all!
If you don't "hate anyone" then why are you calling people names and talking down to them, and then taking issue if someone feeds you your own medicine? I can make the case for indocination, you are just being hateful toward Christians by using false lables against them. Children go to school for academics, not social viewpoints. There's a reason our kids continue to fall behind other countries. I did not see your holocaut comment.
I understand why children go to school. I also understand that when children are
in school there is a wide range of students and differences can lead to conflict.
Teaching students to respect others although they are different is vital to creating a safe environment for all students to learn You claim my label is false. I say yours is. Whose to say we're not both wrong? School is a social construct and should be respected as such.
I understand what you are saying, coolthomas, but a simple and enforced no bullying rule is good enough. What is going on in some schools is outright pro gay indocination. They don't teach kids about Christians, fat kids, or other groups who may be picked on. And they don't need to. They just need to lay down the rules and enforce them.
@Christiangal39 You keep saying indoctrination, but what you mean is that you disagree with something that does exist in the world. Homosexuality is a reality in this world. While schools don't NEED to address it, sometimes to ensure the safety of some students, addressing this reality is required. I don't know about your schools, but I was taught not to attack people for their religious beliefs. In fact I had 2 Jehovah's Witnesses in my class and none of made fun of them for their beliefs.
YOU don't tell me what I mean. I will tell you what I mean, and I mean indocination. That is the purpose behind it, and the left uses the bullying issue to cover it up. This is typical of their tactics. An anti bullying rule that is enforced would keep ALL students safe. What's wrong with that?
@Christiangal39 Many conservative Christians argue that taking their god out of schools has hurt the educational system. If religion were to be brought back, how would this not be indoctrination as well? Explaining that there are different people in the world is not indoctrination, it's preparing them for the real world. Also you said I was hateful towards Christians, so your claim is no more valid than mine.
I'm not suggesting that a religion be taught in school. I think kids should be able to express their religious at appropiate times, like at graduation, and so on. Kids know that people are different, and they don't need literature about gay bars, books about kissing princes, and the rest of the pro gay propganda to know that. Let's just quit pretending and call it what it is. It's liberal indocination of the minds of young children, and it's done for the purpose of advancing the gay agenda.
uncoolthomas: I am college educated, thank you. I guess you are not, considering the fact that you resort to personal attacks while staying away from debate. You think that you're smart, and you talk down to others, but that is all it is. You have no substance, no ability to debate, and no class. I'm well aware of what is going on in the world, and I read from a variety of sources and then I decide to myself. YOU are threatened by anyone who doesn't think exactly like you. Get over yourself.
@Christiangal39 Debating is not something you have seemed to be interested in neither is substance. You're claim that liberals are trying to indoctrinate children would seem contrary to what you seem to do. You read thinks and make your own opinions from these materials. I think that's great, more people sould do this. Informing students about different view points, cultures and beliefs, is a vital part of molding students into civic-minded citizens. This is something you seem to be against.
uncool- You're the one telling me to open a book, and insulting me, so don't sit there and do the usual left wing twisting and lying. You are the one not interested in debate. Students are not in school to listen to viewpoints, and the viewpoints are generally liberal. The Bible and conservative viewpoints are shunned, so let's be real about what this about. Liberals want to indocinate children into their point of view. Of course I am against that.
Umm...viewpointS includes viewpoints of students (seeing as most classes have 1 teacher). Have you not seem what Texas just did with their textbooks? That's very conservative. I do find it interesting that you say Christian rather than religious. Do you not feel that if Christian viewpoints are discussed so should Islamic and Jewish ideas? Also I haven't said anything that could be perceived as insulting in quite some time, yet you keep claiming that I'm trying to indoctrinate the children.
Good, it's about time there was some balance in schools. ALl they have been hearing is liberal indocination. What they are doing in Texas is protecting the truth and stopping liberals from deleting it or rewriting history. I am a Christian, so what's the difference what I say? I don't think ANY viewpoints should be discussed in terms of academics. I think we need to go back to teaching facts, all of them, whether liberals agree with them or not.
Every thing is a viewpoint. Gravity is a theory. There are very few solid truths in academia. History is always about viewpoints. There are always multiple sides of history, many are not discussed, because it would be impossible to discuss everything. Texas banned "Brown Bear, Brown Bear what do you see," a children's book, because the author had the same name as a Marxist. How is this good for children? This is conservative indoctrination, how is this any different than what you claim?
@coolthomas2011 No, history is about events. Wars, treaties, you know, things that actually happened? There are plenty of solid truths in academics. I would have to see the book and know why they banned it. Banning a book is not necessarily indocination, and please, what conservative indocination? Liberals have had the schools in their clutches for years now.
You're comprehension of history is very simplistic. Ask a historian, there a lot more to history than events it's the causes and results of events. Truth is a very relative term by the way that you use it. Google the book, it's a simple children's book that deals with colors and animals. Banning this is nothing more than conservative indoctrination.
@coolthomas2011 Ah, the usual liberal elitist "you don't get it" attitude. It won't work with me, uncool. You claimed that history is viewpoints. Maybe for you lefties, and that is likely why kids don't know it. I never said it was ALL events. It is in large part events, but of course there are reasons and results. What is the name of the book?
This isn't elitist anything. This is a simple fact. Ask historians. They will tell you that there are a lot of ways history is written. Sticking to lists of events would not help students except with memorization.
@coolthomas2011 Either the event happened or it didn't. Are you telling me that you are ok with writing history any way it suits you regardless of the TRUTH? No wonder our country is falling apart. Insanity has taken over.
@rubydraggon You present opinion or theory and claim it as fact. That won't work. In Texas they are preventing liberals from doing what they have been doing for years, which is rewriting and deleting history. The left needs dumb people who don't understand the Constitution and how capitalism works so they can push the country into Marxism. Texas isn't putting viewpoints in, it's letting history speak for itself. Sorry that upset you.
What opinion did I claim as fact? What theory did I claim as anything besides having supporting evidence?
I assume by that you mean Texans are changing it BACK from the liberal changes, correct? Then please cite, when were all of these changes they are making previously present in history books, and when did liberals rewrite them to change it?
What do capitalism and marxism have to do with rewriting history books?
And WHY are you saying I'm upset again????? Ridiculous!
are you implying that the constitution is from god? and if courts interpreted the law to say that marriage is a right, then how does that not support my point please?
@christiangal39 children are going to be exposed to it one way or another. this is not a homosexual thing, this is a reality thing. they should be taught to deal with it in a respectful way and then, if mommy/daddy has something to say about it, then like anything else, take care of it at home. the fact of the matter is that if a religious organization wants to be involved in secular matters like adoption then they need to follow the rules and be fair to everyone, just like everyone else.
Schools are for academics, NOT social engineering. This is one reason US schools are failing. Kids don't need seminars on the gay sex to understand a simple rule about bullying, so let's not pretend, Let's call it what it is: The homosexual agendas goal to indocinate children into their beliefs. And it's working, as over the last decade most kids can recite Political Correctness 101, but they can't read or write. That ought to be good for America, if America still exists in the future.
@christiangal39 again i beg to differ. ive seen schools grow into dishevel over the past decade or two in both civil teaching and academic teaching. the real culprit looks to be that most places are teaching to standardized tests instead of actual academic teaching. particularly at a young age, it is useful to teach children proper social conduct so that they can use their academic knowledge effectively. and not to point fingers, but intelligent design in science has a big push from the right
@christiangal39 oh, and no one is teaching a young kid any sex. lessons, if they exist generally consist of something to the effect of: a lot of the time, tom and sally fall in love, but sometimes sally and jane or tom and john fall in love, but they are just as good as each other and should be treated as such. unless the circumstances are unusual, it doesnt go beyond that. and what about the kid who has the gay parents? if all theyre taught is man-woman. all else is bad. what will they feel?
No, one sociological aspect to school IS for 'social engineering'. * socialization * cultural innovation * social integration * knowledge transmission * child care for workers
The constitution is not there to be added to and taken from as you please. There is NOTHING in it that guarentees you anything. You sound like another entitled person who thinks everyone should be clones and that life should be handed to you on a silver platter by the government. Ever sit back and think about WHERE government dollars come from? That's right, the backs of working people. So it's NOT free, and we are NOT free if our lives are run by them.
I have never said anything about government doing anything other than the necessary basics. Also, I advocate individuality. Everyone is different, but that doesn't mean that we should bash each other for it. I'm looking for the longevity of our species and on the premises that we are all living, conscious, and SENTIENT beings, we all deserve the same rights, we all deserve to be able to reach goodness/happiness.
It is exactly mind-sets that are like yours that prevents us from reaching
a) Have equal privileges of economics, religion, speech, health care.
b) Not have to worry about racism, prejudice, ego-centrism, ethnocentrism.
c) Express their individuality and talents.
And this is just the bare minimum. Never said anything about saying that the government has to "hand it to us on a silver platter" we are fighting for it and it has to be recognized as long as we have valid evidence, data, and cause. Which we do.
Are there unicorns in your universe, too? Everyone is NOT equal because everyone is not the same. People will disagree, argue, and (gasp!), discriminate.. We're not "bashing it in for each other" Maz. We're disagreeing. You claim you are about individuality, and then you tell me that my views are stopping your rights. It's bull. Marriage is not a right. Arguements like yours are used to silence Christians by shaming them, and it's wrong.
I would like you to tell me what justice is along with virtue. If you cannot hold that argument than you have no right what so ever to judge anything.
Shouldn't we be working to reduce discrimination? I am fine with disagreement and arguments, but I am not fine with disagreements and arguments that have little to no factual data or supporting evidence in the claims.
Never said we were the same. I never called marriage a right either. Right now, I am trying to shame you, making you see your
@vicorii Until there are no more children in foster care / orphanages and there is no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy....YOU ARE JUST TALKING OUT OF YOUR ASS!!!
neenerpuss 1 year ago
Comment removed
neenerpuss 1 year ago
Religion should NEVER make public policy! All laws must be secular in reasoning.
neenerpuss 1 year ago
@neenerpuss You are right. Humanists, aka Unitarian Universalists, are the ONLY faith that believes sex is justification for breaking up a family, just so that gay people can use the babies to play out their fantasies.
Humanists should stop forcing their beliefs on the rest of us! There is no "right" to misrepresent paternity and falsify family trees. It needs to be recognized as CHILD ABUSE when these people force the kids to pretend to have "two mommies". Let those kids meet their real dad!
vicorii 1 year ago
Ron Paul on gay marriage (Dr. Paul says yes and even wins the Values Summit GOP Straw Poll!)
/watch?v=l1gzs27HswQ on gay marriage statement
/watch?v=ug1nZSI_fsA Values Straw Poll result conservation
Vote Ron Paul, President 2012! -- The anti-war candidate -- and champion of the Constitution!
vechorik 4 months ago
Brian Brown is a closet case if ever I saw one.
ginb1289 1 year ago
My absolute favorite part in all of this is when I try to do exactly as Christiangal thinks should be done in schools - ignoring viewpoints, and sticking to facts - she gets mad at me for it.
You can try to share your viewpoint with me as much as you like, but academia and facts are what matters when it comes down to it. And as much as you like to ignore academia and facts- the ones I've presented or presented in schools- or claim that they are viewpoints and not facts, you fail to show that.
rubydraggon 1 year ago
Do you ever wonder why the so called expert on "marriage" the one and only Maggie Gallagher is never seen with her husband? If marriage is so great...why is he absent? The reason is Maggie Gallagher is married to a black man. She is in an interracial marriage. She is ASHAMED of her interracial marriage and is afraid that the conservative bigots that support her ideology will STOP DONATING to her scam organization NOM. Need Oppressive Money! 40% goes directly into her pocket.
neenerpuss 1 year ago
Lol I said Chris brown...Whoops, meant Brian
Kevstar19 1 year ago
Aww!! Chris Brown! Such a sad fucking day for you! No one fucking cares. Get friends and stopping hating you douche bag.
Kevstar19 1 year ago
D.C. has sinned away its day of grace !
God shall not be mocked !
God bless Pat Robertson,one of the last prophets of God,
and God bless the righteous 700 club !
montsyblackmadonna 1 year ago
@Christiangal39 re: your message
Vocabulary is education, not indoctrination.
Current events are education, not indoctrination.
Including homosexual characters alongside heterosexual characters is education, not indoctrination (as if having heterosexual characters was indoctrination?!).
These aren't viewpoints that are being indoctrinated, they're just educating points and stories. We have these with heterosexuality, what's the problem?
rubydraggon 1 year ago
No, this isn't vocabulary. This is pro gay viewpoints dressed up in acceptable ways for children. They use books and other materials because that is what young kids relate to. It's always a pro gay viewpoint. I never see any books that say it's wrong, do you? Give me a break.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
@Christiangal39
You realize me referring to vocabulary was in the message you sent me?
Please point out how these are pro-gay viewpoins and that the same things that deal with heterosexuality are not pro-straight viewpoints.
They use books and other materials because stories are a good way to teach facts- heterosexuals have them too.
There's no book that says heterosexuality is wrong either, nor that say homosexuality is "right." Right and wrong are viewpoints, and are not taught.
rubydraggon 1 year ago
You obviously didn't read the material that I sent, nor did you research it. When you have a book with a gay prince who ditches the girls to kiss and go away with his boy prince, then don't tell me that's not pro gay indocination. When they put up posters about "no room for homophobia" then they are telling kids what to think. Kids are not there to learn liberalism 101, they are there to learn academics. So long as liberal progressives are running things, kids will continue to fall behind.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
@Christiangal39
Yes I did read it, not thouroughly, but that's why in my reply I referenced it.
So are books with a straight prince pro straight indoctrination? Should those be out of schools?
WHO put up the posters?
Kids are there to learn academics, and learning about gays is part of academics.
Conservative regressives are not the answer to our schools falling behind. Not when they want to take out much of education like science regarding global warming and evolution.
rubydraggon 1 year ago
Do you live under a rock, ruby? I'm not your current events teacher. Look up climate gate, and this time, read it with an open mind. You ignored my points about climate cycles, and liberal hysteria from the 1970's (and other times in history) in regard to global cooling.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
@Christiangal39
I am aware, and it's as I've said. You're saying "wrong" and not backing it up shows you have no intention of an intellectual conversation. I have read about the scandal with an open mind, and am familiar with the entire body of science. One organization omitting a small amount of data- that DOES skew the results- does not make the whole climate change data a lie.
I ADDRESSED your point about climate cycles (saying that while there are cycles, the change is too fast).
rubydraggon 1 year ago
@rubydraggon agreed. again, CG you need
to back up your claims if you want us to think
that it has merit. like ruby says, a one off
incident of someone flubbing results is not a
case to discredit the rest of the well supported
data.
its sort of like how we shouldnt think that all
christians are angry and destructive because
of what the westboro baptist church has done
cominatrix 1 year ago
I said more than wrong, so quit lying and pretending that it's not backed up. Your little cheerleader cominatrix is the only one going for it. After all, why would either of you pay attention to facts. The climate cycles are NOT too fast, and you can't base claims on FAULTY data. The "science" used by this group has been used by others. IF this was so easily provable, why would climate gate have happened in the first place. Intellectual conversation? You need to worry about on your end.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
Oh, I thought you said "wrong" and refused to back it up with sources, saying find it yourself. Since I missed it, could you back it up again by citing your sources again?
I'm perfectly fine paying attention to facts, because I'm a fan of reality.
"The climate cycles are NOT too fast, and you can't base claims on FAULTY data."
This really doesn't make sense. The cycles are fine, the change is TOO FAST for the cycle- not part of it. And you can base claims on true data, which there is.
rubydraggon 1 year ago
Let's be real, ruby, you're a fan of yourself, and of showing elitism to anyone who thinks differently. People like you are the reason our country is in so much trouble right now. You make claims as well, and I don't see you adding any "citations". Are you an expert on climate cycles? You seem to think you're an expert on everything. I think not.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
I won't indulge personal attacks.
What would you like me to cite? Please ask.
I'm not an expert on climate cycles. I have just read the work of experts. I've never claimed otherwise.
Now, will you answer my questions?
rubydraggon 1 year ago
@Christiangal39 CG, please apply all of your
insults back at yourself. you are no better
than you claim that we are. at least we have
tried to provide you with evidence. you are yet
to show anything at all, be it false, true or
complete fantasy.
who cares if she isnt an expert, at least she
has been backing her claims
cominatrix 1 year ago
Who is "we"? Are you speaking for others? You have not provided evidence, you've given your opinion and whined when I didn't accept it as truth. Speak for yourself, not others, if you can stand on your own two feet.
I did take Biology, and more. It's quite obvious that you didn't, though. Homosexuality is a behavior, not a trait, and people are NOT born with it.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
@Christiangal39 You really need to change your screen name. You seem dispossessed of anything close to humanity.
GayGeisha 1 year ago
GayGeisha- Typical leftie, attack the person, and show how you can't debate. You're a dime a dozen.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
Nice deflection. You want me to cite and prove, but when you state your opinion, it's just from what you've read. Uh huh. That isn't going to fly. Liberals always have one set of rules for everyone else and anything goes for themselves. You're an expert at believing what you want to believe. Now would you please stop pretending I am not answering you when I am. You just don't want to hear it. I am now convinced that you do live on You Tube. Any time, day or night, you answer right away.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
"You want me to cite and prove, but when you state your opinion, it's just from what you've read."
No, as I said, what specifically do you want me to source? All other people's research on climate that doesn't come from CRU at the University? I didn't know what specifically you were asking. Please, as I said, what would you like me to cite?
rubydraggon 1 year ago
Sex in terms of gender is a trait. Behavior is not a trait. People don't just "fall out of love." Problems with relationships come about BECAUSE of the actions, or inactions of people. In other words, this too in based on behavior. Lying, cheating, selfishness, a lack of patientce and things like that are often what causes break ups. Those are choices, and behaviors, not traits.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
Good, I agree. This is very consistent with my post as well.
Sex in terms of gender, like race, is a trait. That's not something we choose. Racial orientation, and sexual orientation is also a trait, not a behavior. Sexual actions are a behavior and not a trait.
People don't just fall out of love, but they can't choose not to fall out of love or to fall back in. Problems occur because of actions, not because we choose attractions and then choose not to be attracted and get divorced.
rubydraggon 1 year ago
Orientation is not a trait. Sexual behavior and choices are not traits, either. You said you are college educated. Did you happen to take Biology? Attractions are based in part on what turns us on, which is based on individual thoughts and preferences, not biology. We don't just randomly fall in love. It's based on what we like in people, like tall, short, quiet, outgoing, and so on.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
@Christiangal39 if YOU took bio, you would
know that attraction is nothing more than a
complex soup of hormones and chemicals
floating around your body and brain.
please stop with the personal attacks.
it is childish.
if attraction is exactly as you say in your last
sentence, then homosexuals are not unusual
at all, they simply like the traits of the same
gender.
cominatrix 1 year ago
Orientation is a trait- attraction is based in brain chemistry. Researching the science of attraction will get you much information.
Using a brain imaging technique, Swedish researchers have seen gay and straight men respond differently to two odors that may be involved in sexual arousal, and that the gay men respond as women do. The research may open the way to studying a biological basis of sexual preference.
We don't randomly fall in love, it's based in part on our sexual orientation.
rubydraggon 1 year ago
Once again, attraction is based on thought process, or what turns one on. It is NOT something a person is born with. If anything is ridiculous, it's the crap you try and tell people. I've studied it, and I know how it happens. Attraction is not a trait. You need to look that word up and stop embarrassing yourself.
Some people like blondes, brunettes, tall, or whatever. That is choice, and decision.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
@Christiangal39
There's a difference between a thought process, or what someone is physically attracted to. People don't have a process in choosing to think about what attracts them. Attraction IS innate, because humans are sexual beings. People do not train themselves or have a thought process to find George Clooney or Jessica Alba attractive. It's no choice for people to find Rosie O'Donnell not attraction.
I've posted studies about attraction, pheromones, it's no thought process.
rubydraggon 1 year ago
Thoughts, points of view, preferences have to do with what attracts people. That is not something people are born with. Phermones and hormones have nothing to do with what type of things people find attractive. They may increase (or decrease) desire. You haven't posted anything that proves what you say. I've studied it, and you're wrong. lol, if it was no choice to find people like O'Donnell attractive then she would have a lot more suitors. Obese people are not hit on like thin people are.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
@Christiangal39
All humans are born with sexual attraction. It is not something learned, we're not asexual beforehand. Sexual attraction is defined as attractiveness on the basis of sexual desire (WordWeb- Princeton University).
Pheremones have much to do with attracting a mate.
Google and read "What is the Science of Sexual Attraction" for much info.
If you've studied it, what do pheromones do?
It's not a choice, that's why nobody can CHOOSE to find ugly people like O'Donnell attractive.
rubydraggon 1 year ago
I never said that you claimed it was random using those words, I deduced it from what you said- please stop lying. Sexual attraction is from hormones in part, but WHO we are attracted to is from us. I have already decided what attracts me, so don't worry, I won't give you any competition with your girl Rosie. : )
Christiangal39 1 year ago
You said " If it were random like you claim," and nothing I have ever said can correctly be deduced to mean aexual attraction is pure random. So you misinterpreted me again, your deduction was off. I didn't lie.
There is no way for gay men to choose to be attracted to women or straight men to choose to be attracted to men. And similar is true for women.
If it is a behavior as you claim, how can one change their behavior to change who they are attracted to? Please cite evidence as well.
guenser 1 year ago
guenser- I think you're mixing my reply to ruby dragon up. You are quoting things I said to her, not to you. Wrong, people chose what they are attracted to. No one is born liking blondes, or liking blue eyes. They develop preferences, and some of that may be influenced by environment. In other words, there is no gene for men who love brunettes, or women who prefer men with beards. Genes don't work that way.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
Sorry, guenser is a different account that logs in sometimes when I don't want it to.
So how do people develop preferences for liking men and for liking women?
People don't choose to be attracted to men or women. Sexual attraction and physical attractiveness is no choice. Sex appeal is something that people have or don't.
If it is a behavior as you claim, how can one change their behavior to change who they are attracted to? Please cite evidence as well.
rubydraggon 1 year ago
@Christiangal39
Once again, attrcaction is based on brain chemistry, and attraction IS what turns people on. Not the stuff that people can necessarily pin down, because even if someone prefers tall people and blondes, it's still going to be hit and miss how personally attracted they are to each person.
This sexual attraction can also change, and is not a choice to choose for people to be attracted to each other.
The definition of attraction: the force by which one object attracts another
rubydraggon 1 year ago
Once again, you are wrong. The definition of attraction that you are using is one used in physics, not in terms of human beings. It's not a "force." Sexual attraction has a lot to do with one's point of view, experiences, and ideas of what they find attractive. If it were random like you claim, then ugly people would be a lot less lonely.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
@Christiangal39
While an overall factor about what people like in a mate does include those, do not forget physical appearance and who the person is.
I never claimed it was random, please do not lie- I did not once use the word random. Sexual attraction is varied, yet similar... hence the Beil vs. Alba debate.
You cannot choose to be attracted to women. It has nothing to do with point of view, experiences, or ideas. The sex you're attracted to is no choice.
rubydraggon 1 year ago
ruby-You don't see men drooling over an obese older woman, do you? It's not because they were born disliking obesity, it's because they learned things and developed preferences. The only thing that is chemical is hormones and phermones (scent). Attraction is about thought. Ever watch Blind Date? Some of the women are turned off if the man isn't a jerk toward them. That means they have made a choice that the kind of man they like is a rude one.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
No.
But you don't see men drooling over ugly women, do you? Why not?
You don't see WOMEN drooling over hot women, do you? Why not?
You don't see men drooling over hot men, do you? Why not?
It's solely because they learned things and developed preferences?
How can you teach people to change their behaviors so you'll be attracted to Rosie O'Donnell or Charlize Theron in Monster?
rubydraggon 1 year ago
In climate gate the data was fixed to reflect a certain outcome, not the truth. That is not science. The rest of my post does indeed relate to this, and I think you want to ignore it.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
That's not what any of the data of the climate scandals I've read have said. How was the data fixed? Who, or what individuals and groups, fixed the data? Please cite sources, so I can read this. I think you know I do not want to ignore your evidence.
rubydraggon 1 year ago
No, orientation is based on what attracts a person, which is behavior. You need to look up what the word trait means. Responding differently to odors doesn't prove anything. Like climate gate, some of the studies are tainted.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
Attraction is not a behavior. I find that statement ridiculous. Attraction, by it's very definition and etymology, is about something that pulls you, not a behavior that you control or push. It is not a behavior to find someone pretty. It is not a behavior for a brain to react to pheremone's in someone's smell.
A trait is a distinguishing characteristic or quality, esp. of one's personal nature. Personal attraction is a trait, sexual orientation is too.
Is the odor study tainted? How so?
rubydraggon 1 year ago
@Christiangal39
I have a challenge for you. Change your behavior to find Rosie O'Donnell attractive. Come back once you have a crush on her
rubydraggon 1 year ago
I thought you were not talking to me anymore. What happened? People chose who they are attracted to. Childhood events can have an effect on this, hence the reason many homosexuals had problems with the parent of the same sex. There is NO gene that says, ok, this baby will be born liking the same sex, but this baby will born liking the opposite sex. That is ridiculous at best.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
"hence the reason many homosexuals had problems with the parent of the same sex."
Really? Where did you hear that? Could you cite statistics on homosexuals and having problems with a parent of the same sex?
And I totally agree there is no one gene for homosexuality/heterosexuality. Evidence shows it's probably genetic influences and biological influences, but it's not predictable (just like we can't predict handedness though we know genes are involved). Like the transsexual AR gene.
rubydraggon 1 year ago
Evidence shows nothing. Ttere are only theories, and no transexual gene either. None of these truths, however, stop pro gay liberals from repeating their lies. Read about Gia and Elton John, and others who had problems with the parents of the same sex. Gia's relationships with women were basically right from her longing for her mother, who left while she watched in tears. No coincidence. I don't need to "cite" anything to know that, but if you want more info read Dr. Joseph Nicolosi's work.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
@Christiangal39
The evidence shows what it shows, whether you call it a lie or ignore it or whatever.
So, your comment about "many homosexuals" stems from a few celebrities?
And YOU can say it's no coincidence? How? You have no evidence to point to anything other than correlation, not causation.
You have no idea on the statistics or if "many homosexuals" had problems. Thanks for showing that was made up.
Nicolosi's conversion therapy has been condemned as potentially harmful by APA.
rubydraggon 1 year ago
Now you're getting it. People decide what they are attracted to, but society, childhood, and other events help shape these decisions. Society of course places high value on beauty, youth, and being thin.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
@Christiangal39
If it is a behavior as you claim, how can one change their behavior to change who they are attracted to? Please cite evidence as well.
rubydraggon 1 year ago
I didn't show it was made up. You are simply doing what you always do, ignore anything that you don't agree it, or you just claim it isn't true. Talk about making things up. It's more than just a couple celebrities. I've read stories from ex gays who talk about it as well. The experiences of ex gays prove that homosexuality is a behavior, but I am sure you'll claim they are making it up as well. The APA was and is influenced by POLITICS, NOT SCIENCE.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
@Christiangal39
The "many" was made up, because you based it on only individuals personal stories.
I didn't ignore the claim, I asked you to source it. And you proved that what you really meant is that a few homosexuals had problems with a parent of the same sex... which cannot logically or statistically be proven as a cause.
Ex gay ministries admit they cannot change your sexual orientation, only your sex life. The APA has plenty of articles and science to support their claims, do not lie.
rubydraggon 1 year ago
@rubydraggon Baloney. You don't know the personal stories of gays and ex gays, and from what I have read, many of them have had problems with the parent of the same sex. You ignorantly claim is was made up because you don't agree with it and you don't like it. When that is the case, you find a way to disregard it, whether it is honest or not. Hey, you probably wrote some of the textbooks that liberals like and that have kids failing. lol
Christiangal39 1 year ago
@Christiangal39
I know the personal stories of many people who have gone through conversion therapy and many conversion therapy leaders who have apologized for the harm they have caused.
What have you read? What percentage of them have problems with a parent of the same sex, compared to heterosexuals? Can you cite statistics that this is more prevalent in the gay community?
I claim it was made up because "most" has a definition, and you showed you didn't follow it.
rubydraggon 1 year ago
@rubydraggon If I may quote you, cite it. Who has apologized for alleged "harm"? I never see you cite anything you say. I followed most according to how I see it, and it's defintion. You need to go on the Narth website, and do your own research, instead of asking others to do it for you. I cannot post links on here, you tube doesn't allow it. I can send some.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
@Christiangal39
Sure. Former Exodus leaders Darlene Bogle, Michael Bussee, and Jeremy Marks wrote an apology letter together. Vonnie Pitts of Living Waters, Wendy Lawson of Exodus, and Kim Brett of YANA, Living Waters, and Exodus have all apologized. If you search "ex-gay apology" on google the first link will reproduce their apology letters. Former Love In Action director John Smid also apologized, google "john smid apology" and use the first link.
rubydraggon 1 year ago
@rubydraggon I could only find one of those names, Bussee. I'm willing to bet they were threatened, as many outspoken ex gays are, by the pro gay movement. The very people who demand acceptance of their lifestyle will go after anyone who leaves it, It's sick, it's like people trying to leave a cult and being harassed. Ever seen the site ex gay watch, and all of the horrible things gay people say about those who leave the lifestyle.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
@Christiangal39
You have ignored my questions about sources twice, I'm not asking again. I pity you.
You claim now that since your small mind can't believe people can actually see the true harm of ex-gay therapy, that these people were threatened into leaving? Get over it, gay people exist, they don't need to be changed, and these leaders THOUGHT they were doing good but were appalled that the actually hurt people.
I'm seriously done with your "I'm right and ignore the facts" attitude.
rubydraggon 1 year ago
@rubydraggon You should pity yourself for the way you treat others. And using my words? You're not even original. You need to get over yourself. Unlike you, I SUGGESTED that threats may have occured, and I told you to check the ex gay watch site. But you never want to look at anything that contradicts your point of view, so you just keep falsely accusing people of not backing things up.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
@rubydraggon If those people think that, then that is their perogative, but there are people who CHOOSE to leave the gay lifestyle, and you and many on the left diminish them. It's the same old story, you belittle, demean and diminish anyone who isn't exactly like you. Pathetic. lol You were "done" before and you kept writing. Can't help your need to get the last word in, eh?
Christiangal39 1 year ago
@Christiangal39
Now, since I cited for the questions you have, please cite for mine.
If it's fact, what are all of the decisions they have been basing on politics since the 70's?
If the proof is then number, what is the number of ex-gay people?
What percentage of them have problems with a parent of the same sex, compared to heterosexuals? Can you cite statistics that this is more prevalent in the gay community?
You have not yet sent any links showing statistics, numbers, or politics.
rubydraggon 1 year ago
@rubydraggon Nice try, but the APA has been basing it's decisions on politics since the 70's, when they caved in to pro gay activists on the outside and inside of their organization. The proof is in the number of ex gay people who have been successful in marrying the opposite sex and going on to lead a heterosexual lifestyle. That usually upsets pro gay people like you, so you seek to discount it anyway possible. It doesn't matter, though, the people exist.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
@Christiangal39
Is this your opinion/perception, or is this fact?
If it's fact, what are all of the decisions they have been basing on politics since the 70's?
As I've said, ex-gay ministries claim to change your behavior, not your sexual attractions. It's just like putting gay people back in the closet- these are gays who marry and lead a heterosexual lifestyle while being gay. The facts don't accept me, lies do.
If the proof is then number, what is the number of ex-gay people?
rubydraggon 1 year ago
@rubydraggon It's written by people who were there in the 70's. Ex gay ministries help many people who chose the leave the lifestyle. It is sad, as well as disturbing and very intolerant, that people like you claim it is "putting people back in the closet." Is that a fact, can you cite it (as you like to say). You belittle the experience of people who are making choices for themselves.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
@Christiangal39
Changing your behavior is, probably as you say, leaving the "lifestyle," if the lifestyle is defined as actions. Commonly they say you will struggle with same sex attraction- meaning you're still gay- just like in the closet gay people.
As president of ExodusAlan Chambers says personally, "he still struggles at times with homosexual temptation." (google that phrase for the link) Straight people don't struggle with homosexuality.
I don't belittle the choice to be closeted.
rubydraggon 1 year ago
@rubydraggon You call it "closeted" because in your small mind you've decided everything must revolve around YOUR views, and nothing else could possibly be true. It doesn't work that way, and it's disrespectful to those who have left the lifestyle behind. Alcoholics are sometimes tempted, but it doesn't mean they have to go back to their old behavior.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
@Christiangal39 you are again ignoring the
fact that one set of people screwing up does
not discredit books of other reliable studies
and scientific findings.
cominatrix 1 year ago
Children learn about WWII and the holocaust in schools, yet there are people who do not believe the holocaust occurred. Should we not teach about the holocaust?
coolthomas2011 1 year ago
Yaaaay Washington DC!!!!!!!!
halfbro 2 years ago
Isn't it gluttony a sin? Folks from NOM just keep getting bigger and bigger and biggets....
newkillerstardust 2 years ago
So basically, the adoption services were TRANSFERRED to another group...(Baptists)...so....uh....the children are going to be fine.
As far as spouse benefits....uh...they are fine with hiring gay people....so who cares about benefits?
Did they cut spouse benefits for people who remarry without having the first marriage religiously annulled?
Brian Brown is making millions on the fears of the masses. Its a good business, and the only ppl hurt don't have enough numbers for fair fights.
Darkbison7 2 years ago
@Darkbison7 two points you make that i like:
fear
limited numbers creating an unfair fight.
fear is the best (though probably most unfair) way to get people to agree with you. and people dont seem to understand that some things simply dont work through traditional democratic process.
cominatrix 2 years ago
Gay marriage will destroy america !
Gays have sinned away their day of grace !
My New Years Resolution for 2010 is to Ban Gay Marriage !
Jesus died over 2000 years ago so we could have America !
America is God's Country !
Impeach Obama and all gay enabling democrats now !
montsyblackmadonna 2 years ago
Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!
Darkbison7 2 years ago 4
America is a product of the enlightenment... not god
MrSamissane 2 years ago
@MrSamissane
You lie for the devil !
montsyblackmadonna 2 years ago
@MrSamissane most contemporary action begs to differ, unfortunately
cominatrix 2 years ago
@montsyblackmadonna jesus was from the middle east, how is america god's country? the only thing god about america is how we unfairly allow zealots to get away with practically anything, even murder.
cominatrix 2 years ago
Unless you are Mormon, then Native Americans are believed to be the lost tribe of Israel.
coolthomas2011 1 year ago
unless were talking creationism, were all most likely from africa either way :)
cominatrix 1 year ago
I heard about that gay twin study, it's been debunked. Oh, cominatrix, do you not know how things work in the USA? I can state my views and petitiion my Congress just like anyone else can. I could just as easily say that not everyone believes in secularism, so you can't force us to live by it. Does freedom matter that little to you? Liberals talk about diveristy, but as soon as someone diffrent comes along, the want them to shut up.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
@Christiangal39
Really, it's been debunked? Please cite the source of the debunking.
Also, cominatrix didn't tell you once you didn't have the right to state your views like anyone else can. He never said anything about wanting you to shut up. He never said anything about you not having freedom.
If you are really incapable of reading and hearing and responding to what people actually write and say, then you aren't worth replying to.
You have your agenda, you can keep it, regardless of fact.
rubydraggon 1 year ago
im a she :)
cominatrix 1 year ago
we are all free to believe as we please, but in order to prevent civil explosion essentially, we have to take a stance that favours the side that does not favour a religion in this case. im sorry its that way, but not secularism is the way to keep the most people covered
cominatrix 1 year ago
oh and please do provide me something that proves that it has been debunked. this is not one study. there have actually been many done along these same lines now, and they all point in the same direction
cominatrix 1 year ago
Why do you have to have an opinion on EQUAL marriage for gay couples? Do they have an opinion about your marriage? Being gay is not a choice, If that's why you think they don't deserve to be treated equally. If so, when did you chose to be straight? If your argument is that Marriage is a traditional institution between a man and woman....think again, slavery was also a traditional institution. Surprised? Open you eyes...don't deny people what you can have just because of who they chose to love.
equalityusa 2 years ago
Sorry it is a choice. There is no evidence for a so-called gay gene. It is easier not take responsibility for your actions by saying you have not choice this is another lie and a way to avoid responsibility for your actions as well. By the way your response did not apply to my comment whatsoever, I am concerned when those with special interests can come in and change laws without representation.
AequitasVeritas7777 2 years ago
Not a choice = doesn't necessarily mean genetic, theirs always the nature vs nurture argument, you never chose to be straight. the evidence strongly points towards biology (hormones produced in the womb during pregnancy) even the wording -BEING- gay not doing gay actions.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
even IF it was a choice (which it's not) what reasoning is that to ban marriage from this particular group, how is it different from banning people with blue eyes and blond hair, black people or short people. you can choose any characteristic, its still contradictory to the constitution.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
@BenJEMean
Sin shall not be tolerated much longer !
The end is nigh !
Gay marriage is a slap in God's face,and God is about to slap back !
Jesus Lives !
montsyblackmadonna 2 years ago
lol oh really? when was the last time this "loving God" intervened in ...anything? Jesus died a long time ago, get over it, people have been preaching "the end is nigh" since before jesus, and psst were still here.
BenJEMean 2 years ago 2
@montsyblackmadonna if im going to hell, i get to spend eternity with the lesbians, the atheists and not with the zealots... one persons hell is another person's heaven...
cominatrix 2 years ago
cominatrix- The victim card may work with others, but I see right through that tactic. Homosexuals are not "loathed" by the religious community. Most of us Christians simply do not agree with you, just as you don't agree with us. Does your disagreement mean that you loathe us? Can we be adults here?
Christiangal39 2 years ago
@christianangal39 i beg to differ. there are certainly many people who are as you say, but equally, there are plenty of people who are disgusted by homosexuals and who do loathe them (god hates fags?). one way or the other, what makes heterosexual couples more entitled to the offs and ons of LEGAL marriage? or, what makes it so that homosexuals should not be able to take part in that? who does it harm? what happened in dc is just the religious group being stubborn.
cominatrix 2 years ago
"God hates fags" is the ONLY group your side can point to, and it's far from how most Christians operate. AND, you leave out conveiniently that there are plenty of people on your side who hate Christians. I've been told I'm gulliable, I believe in fairy tales, and I've been called every name in the book. So pardon me if I don't cry for you. I don't condone hate on either side, but unfortunately, it exists, but it exists on BOTH sides, not just one.
Christiangal39 2 years ago
i dont condone any hate from either side, but i dont think its fair that your religious beliefs are able to come into conflict with my legal rights, not just with gay marriage but with any such situation.
cominatrix 2 years ago
Sooooo, hate exists. That's fine? Perfect, because that is exactly what God says not to do. Please stop generalizing.
Mazaloth 2 years ago
Christians have as much of a right as you do to believe what we want. We've been called names and labeled quite a bit from your side (the ones who scream for "tolerance"). Homosexuality is a sin. We don't want children exposed, and we don't believe that sin is a good for society. It's the same reason we oppose gambling, abortion, etc. The homosexual agenda has resulted in loss of freedom of expression and choice for Christians, ie gay adoption issues, and job loss just for disagreeing.
Christiangal39 2 years ago
@Christiangal39
There has been no loss of freedom of expression or choice for Christians.
Christians are still allowed to adopt, and Christians are still allowed to marry, and Christians are still allowed to do everything they have before- save discriminating against gays (which is not some freedom anyone should be proud of).
Anybody is free to not want their children exposed, that doesn't mean gays have to hide for you.
Anyone is free to think it's bad, that doesn't mean we get rid of it.
rubydraggon 2 years ago
Marriage is NOT a right, rubydragon. It's NOT in the constitution. There is no discrimination. There is disagreement about the legal definition of marriage. GLSEN is in schools across the USA indocinating youth into the liberal agenda, so please don't tell me that children are not effected. In the UK, where there is gay marriage and hate crime laws, Christians have been prosecuted for voicing their belief in the Bible.
Christiangal39 2 years ago
@Christiangal39 Correct, and I never said it was. Equal treatment IS a right under the Constitution though. "No state shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
If a legal definition of marriage is discriminatory, it needs to be changed. Definitions don't have rights.
GLSEN is making schools a safe place for all students, including GLBT. Children are affected by having their parents married, I would not say they are unaffected, marriage helps them
rubydraggon 2 years ago
Equal treatment means equal APPLICATION of the laws to all citizens. It does not mean that it's right to scream discrimination and equality if you don't get what you want in society. It means, for instance, if you and I rob a bank, the law applies to both of us, not just one of us.
Can you tell me how reading books about boys who prefer boys and teaching kids about gay sex is making school safe for all students?
Christiangal39 2 years ago
Right, equal application of the laws- I never said it was just about anyone screaming. For instance, if you or I wanted to marry someone, we should both be able to. Or if a black person and a white person wanted to marry the same individual, they should be able to. Sex and race discrimination are especially protected against, for one.
Reading books about boys who prefer boys alongside boys who prefer girls makes everyone equal. And teaching about gay sex alongside straight sex does the same.
rubydraggon 2 years ago
Marriage is not a law, it's a priviledge. Again, schools are not for social engineering and molding kids into future liberals and homosexual activists. I realize liberals don't care about academics, given their performance in schools and their never ending focus on political correctness instead of academics and honesty, but taxpayers are getting fed up with paying for Liberal Indocination School. Call us crazy, but we'd like to return to having graduates know how to read and write.
Christiangal39 2 years ago
There are laws regarding marriage, I don't know what you are talking about. This "privilege" as you call it needs to be applied equally per the Constitution, call it whatever you like.
Schools are for teaching, so that's what they do- TEACH. And there are things to teach about straights and gays. I get you don't want people to learn about homosexuality, but schools are a place of academics- not religion or PC. Learn that.
Reading those books doesn't prevent people from learning to read.
rubydraggon 2 years ago
Once again neither were woman's rights, something I think you would fight for if you were denied it.
Racial equality wasn't a right either.
Mazaloth 2 years ago
It does when not all citizens are equal. If I don't get the same health-care benefits, fair pay from jobs, etc. I do have the right to shout about equality.
Mazaloth 2 years ago
according to the 1967 ruling of loving v virgina with the help of the 14th amendment, marriage is defined as a civil right.
cominatrix 2 years ago
Neither was racial equality or woman equality. Was it still wrong then?
Now it is in the Constitution, but was the act of slavery justified because it wasn't in a governmental law?
Mazaloth 2 years ago
From Loving v. Virginia
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. "
coolthomas2011 1 year ago
Courts do not make rights. The rights come from God and are listed in the constitution. Courts are supposed to interpert law, not make it.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
In this case they are interpreting the law. They are stating that anti-miscegenation laws violate due process and equal protection as granted in the Constitution.
Also using rights given by your god may be different than rights given by someone else's god, and therefore are very difficult to create cohesive laws around.
coolthomas2011 1 year ago
There is no law that says marriage is a right, nor is there anything in the constitution, therefore the judges are giving OPINION, and it's not based on anything in our laws or constitution. The Founders recognized a Creator. Ever notice most of our basic laws sound just the Bible?
Christiangal39 1 year ago
Comment removed
coolthomas2011 1 year ago
The laws from the 13 colonies is primarily derived from English law. Also a creator doesn't necessarily mean a literal creator nor your god.
Law can and have come from the Court, so therefore by stare decisis it's precedent and more or less law.
coolthomas2011 1 year ago 2
then according to your logic, its still fine to treat black people poorly.
most of the country's early founding was careful to not make this country based in one religion or another.
cominatrix 1 year ago
uncool How sad that you make derogatory comments like religious "hatred". The true hater is someone like you, who judges anyone who disagrees with them. You're pretty self centered and arrogant. I know that Medicare is government run healthcare, never said otherwise. lol, why do they still exist. For all of your arrogance, you're really stupid. Countries with corrupt governments have existed for centuries. Try less name calling and more common sense next time, uncool : )
Christiangal39 1 year ago
@Christiangal39 I don't hate anyone, actually. I do disagree with you. "I'm really stupid " and arrogant, but I'm the one who needs to stop name calling?
Religious hatred is where you draw the line? Well you keep saying indoctrination, I'll stick with hatred. If teaching children
about other cultures and traditions is indoctrination, then let's indoctrinate them all!
P.S. You never replied to my holocaust comment.
coolthomas2011 1 year ago
If you don't "hate anyone" then why are you calling people names and talking down to them, and then taking issue if someone feeds you your own medicine? I can make the case for indocination, you are just being hateful toward Christians by using false lables against them. Children go to school for academics, not social viewpoints. There's a reason our kids continue to fall behind other countries. I did not see your holocaut comment.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
@Christiangal39
I understand why children go to school. I also understand that when children are
in school there is a wide range of students and differences can lead to conflict.
Teaching students to respect others although they are different is vital to creating a safe environment for all students to learn You claim my label is false. I say yours is. Whose to say we're not both wrong? School is a social construct and should be respected as such.
coolthomas2011 1 year ago
I understand what you are saying, coolthomas, but a simple and enforced no bullying rule is good enough. What is going on in some schools is outright pro gay indocination. They don't teach kids about Christians, fat kids, or other groups who may be picked on. And they don't need to. They just need to lay down the rules and enforce them.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
@Christiangal39 You keep saying indoctrination, but what you mean is that you disagree with something that does exist in the world. Homosexuality is a reality in this world. While schools don't NEED to address it, sometimes to ensure the safety of some students, addressing this reality is required. I don't know about your schools, but I was taught not to attack people for their religious beliefs. In fact I had 2 Jehovah's Witnesses in my class and none of made fun of them for their beliefs.
coolthomas2011 1 year ago
YOU don't tell me what I mean. I will tell you what I mean, and I mean indocination. That is the purpose behind it, and the left uses the bullying issue to cover it up. This is typical of their tactics. An anti bullying rule that is enforced would keep ALL students safe. What's wrong with that?
Christiangal39 1 year ago
@Christiangal39 Many conservative Christians argue that taking their god out of schools has hurt the educational system. If religion were to be brought back, how would this not be indoctrination as well? Explaining that there are different people in the world is not indoctrination, it's preparing them for the real world. Also you said I was hateful towards Christians, so your claim is no more valid than mine.
coolthomas2011 1 year ago
I'm not suggesting that a religion be taught in school. I think kids should be able to express their religious at appropiate times, like at graduation, and so on. Kids know that people are different, and they don't need literature about gay bars, books about kissing princes, and the rest of the pro gay propganda to know that. Let's just quit pretending and call it what it is. It's liberal indocination of the minds of young children, and it's done for the purpose of advancing the gay agenda.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
@Christiangal39
You know what, You are so confused about what's going on in the world. You need to turn off the Fox News and open a book.
coolthomas2011 1 year ago
uncoolthomas: I am college educated, thank you. I guess you are not, considering the fact that you resort to personal attacks while staying away from debate. You think that you're smart, and you talk down to others, but that is all it is. You have no substance, no ability to debate, and no class. I'm well aware of what is going on in the world, and I read from a variety of sources and then I decide to myself. YOU are threatened by anyone who doesn't think exactly like you. Get over yourself.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
@Christiangal39 Debating is not something you have seemed to be interested in neither is substance. You're claim that liberals are trying to indoctrinate children would seem contrary to what you seem to do. You read thinks and make your own opinions from these materials. I think that's great, more people sould do this. Informing students about different view points, cultures and beliefs, is a vital part of molding students into civic-minded citizens. This is something you seem to be against.
coolthomas2011 1 year ago
uncool- You're the one telling me to open a book, and insulting me, so don't sit there and do the usual left wing twisting and lying. You are the one not interested in debate. Students are not in school to listen to viewpoints, and the viewpoints are generally liberal. The Bible and conservative viewpoints are shunned, so let's be real about what this about. Liberals want to indocinate children into their point of view. Of course I am against that.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
Umm...viewpointS includes viewpoints of students (seeing as most classes have 1 teacher). Have you not seem what Texas just did with their textbooks? That's very conservative. I do find it interesting that you say Christian rather than religious. Do you not feel that if Christian viewpoints are discussed so should Islamic and Jewish ideas? Also I haven't said anything that could be perceived as insulting in quite some time, yet you keep claiming that I'm trying to indoctrinate the children.
coolthomas2011 1 year ago
Good, it's about time there was some balance in schools. ALl they have been hearing is liberal indocination. What they are doing in Texas is protecting the truth and stopping liberals from deleting it or rewriting history. I am a Christian, so what's the difference what I say? I don't think ANY viewpoints should be discussed in terms of academics. I think we need to go back to teaching facts, all of them, whether liberals agree with them or not.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
Every thing is a viewpoint. Gravity is a theory. There are very few solid truths in academia. History is always about viewpoints. There are always multiple sides of history, many are not discussed, because it would be impossible to discuss everything. Texas banned "Brown Bear, Brown Bear what do you see," a children's book, because the author had the same name as a Marxist. How is this good for children? This is conservative indoctrination, how is this any different than what you claim?
coolthomas2011 1 year ago
@coolthomas2011 No, history is about events. Wars, treaties, you know, things that actually happened? There are plenty of solid truths in academics. I would have to see the book and know why they banned it. Banning a book is not necessarily indocination, and please, what conservative indocination? Liberals have had the schools in their clutches for years now.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
You're comprehension of history is very simplistic. Ask a historian, there a lot more to history than events it's the causes and results of events. Truth is a very relative term by the way that you use it. Google the book, it's a simple children's book that deals with colors and animals. Banning this is nothing more than conservative indoctrination.
coolthomas2011 1 year ago
@coolthomas2011 Ah, the usual liberal elitist "you don't get it" attitude. It won't work with me, uncool. You claimed that history is viewpoints. Maybe for you lefties, and that is likely why kids don't know it. I never said it was ALL events. It is in large part events, but of course there are reasons and results. What is the name of the book?
Christiangal39 1 year ago
This isn't elitist anything. This is a simple fact. Ask historians. They will tell you that there are a lot of ways history is written. Sticking to lists of events would not help students except with memorization.
coolthomas2011 1 year ago
@coolthomas2011 Either the event happened or it didn't. Are you telling me that you are ok with writing history any way it suits you regardless of the TRUTH? No wonder our country is falling apart. Insanity has taken over.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
So in the state of Texas where they are doing absolutely everything you claim that you are opposed to liberals doing, you are supportive.
You say you don't think any viewpoints should be discussed, but you support Texas putting in the viewpoints they are putting in.
You cannot protect against indoctrination by indoctrinating, nor protect against rewriting history by rewriting it.
Facts should be taught. If anyone can ever prove something is viewpoint and not fact, I am for it being removed.
rubydraggon 1 year ago
@rubydraggon You present opinion or theory and claim it as fact. That won't work. In Texas they are preventing liberals from doing what they have been doing for years, which is rewriting and deleting history. The left needs dumb people who don't understand the Constitution and how capitalism works so they can push the country into Marxism. Texas isn't putting viewpoints in, it's letting history speak for itself. Sorry that upset you.
Christiangal39 1 year ago
@Christiangal39
What opinion did I claim as fact? What theory did I claim as anything besides having supporting evidence?
I assume by that you mean Texans are changing it BACK from the liberal changes, correct? Then please cite, when were all of these changes they are making previously present in history books, and when did liberals rewrite them to change it?
What do capitalism and marxism have to do with rewriting history books?
And WHY are you saying I'm upset again????? Ridiculous!
rubydraggon 1 year ago
are you implying that the constitution is from god? and if courts interpreted the law to say that marriage is a right, then how does that not support my point please?
cominatrix 1 year ago
@christiangal39 children are going to be exposed to it one way or another. this is not a homosexual thing, this is a reality thing. they should be taught to deal with it in a respectful way and then, if mommy/daddy has something to say about it, then like anything else, take care of it at home. the fact of the matter is that if a religious organization wants to be involved in secular matters like adoption then they need to follow the rules and be fair to everyone, just like everyone else.
cominatrix 2 years ago
Schools are for academics, NOT social engineering. This is one reason US schools are failing. Kids don't need seminars on the gay sex to understand a simple rule about bullying, so let's not pretend, Let's call it what it is: The homosexual agendas goal to indocinate children into their beliefs. And it's working, as over the last decade most kids can recite Political Correctness 101, but they can't read or write. That ought to be good for America, if America still exists in the future.
Christiangal39 2 years ago
@christiangal39 again i beg to differ. ive seen schools grow into dishevel over the past decade or two in both civil teaching and academic teaching. the real culprit looks to be that most places are teaching to standardized tests instead of actual academic teaching. particularly at a young age, it is useful to teach children proper social conduct so that they can use their academic knowledge effectively. and not to point fingers, but intelligent design in science has a big push from the right
cominatrix 2 years ago
@christiangal39 oh, and no one is teaching a young kid any sex. lessons, if they exist generally consist of something to the effect of: a lot of the time, tom and sally fall in love, but sometimes sally and jane or tom and john fall in love, but they are just as good as each other and should be treated as such. unless the circumstances are unusual, it doesnt go beyond that. and what about the kid who has the gay parents? if all theyre taught is man-woman. all else is bad. what will they feel?
cominatrix 2 years ago
No, one sociological aspect to school IS for 'social engineering'. * socialization * cultural innovation * social integration * knowledge transmission * child care for workers
Are all part of school and education.
Mazaloth 2 years ago
The constitution is not there to be added to and taken from as you please. There is NOTHING in it that guarentees you anything. You sound like another entitled person who thinks everyone should be clones and that life should be handed to you on a silver platter by the government. Ever sit back and think about WHERE government dollars come from? That's right, the backs of working people. So it's NOT free, and we are NOT free if our lives are run by them.
Christiangal39 2 years ago
We are no more separated from the government then a politician is, are we?
Mazaloth 2 years ago
I have never said anything about government doing anything other than the necessary basics. Also, I advocate individuality. Everyone is different, but that doesn't mean that we should bash each other for it. I'm looking for the longevity of our species and on the premises that we are all living, conscious, and SENTIENT beings, we all deserve the same rights, we all deserve to be able to reach goodness/happiness.
It is exactly mind-sets that are like yours that prevents us from reaching
Mazaloth 2 years ago
that point. Everyone should be able to:
a) Have equal privileges of economics, religion, speech, health care.
b) Not have to worry about racism, prejudice, ego-centrism, ethnocentrism.
c) Express their individuality and talents.
And this is just the bare minimum. Never said anything about saying that the government has to "hand it to us on a silver platter" we are fighting for it and it has to be recognized as long as we have valid evidence, data, and cause. Which we do.
Mazaloth 2 years ago
Are there unicorns in your universe, too? Everyone is NOT equal because everyone is not the same. People will disagree, argue, and (gasp!), discriminate.. We're not "bashing it in for each other" Maz. We're disagreeing. You claim you are about individuality, and then you tell me that my views are stopping your rights. It's bull. Marriage is not a right. Arguements like yours are used to silence Christians by shaming them, and it's wrong.
Christiangal39 2 years ago
I would like you to tell me what justice is along with virtue. If you cannot hold that argument than you have no right what so ever to judge anything.
Shouldn't we be working to reduce discrimination? I am fine with disagreement and arguments, but I am not fine with disagreements and arguments that have little to no factual data or supporting evidence in the claims.
Never said we were the same. I never called marriage a right either. Right now, I am trying to shame you, making you see your
Mazaloth 2 years ago