Indiana teacher wants straight prom because LGBT people have no 'purpose'

http://www.facebook.com/hoodnews247

Indiana teacher wants straight prom because LGBT people have no 'purpose'

• Category

  News & Politics

[MostlyVintageVoices]

The statement that she sees gay people just like she sees her special education students is also disturbing. If she thinks that homosexuals are less than human, does that mean she feels the same way about those who have developmental problems? If that's the case, it's scary that she's a teacher! Also, if there are Diana Medleys counseling gay teens in schools all over America it's no wonder so many commit suicide. Do they have a white supremacist councilor for the black kids who are bullied?

[Wes Danforth]

I think that special education teacher is a horrible teacher for not supporting her students. Bad bad bad....

[Lorne Pribbeno]

I disagree, homosexuality happens in nature all the time. Thousands of species show this and its not hard to find the evidence. So based on that, I flatly reject the notion that it is unnatural and whether it is an important clarification to make. We are what we are, and we are hurting no one while doing so. And we will not carry any classification for the sake of anyone who wishes to label us wrong or unnatural. Period.

[LAMFi1ms]

Okay I'm glad you clarified your point on consent because I definitely misinterpreted what you were trying to say. But as far as natural, the determination comes from science and nature and the natural order of things. So you're right to suggest that I can't and you can't but to suggest that being gay is natural is grounded in no reasoning, at least none that I can determine. It doesn't necessarily achieve anything but it is an important clarification to make.

[LAMFi1ms]

You seem to misunderstand me. I never suggest it is a choice for all people. It is definitely a choice for SOME people as I know many who have switched back from one to another. But for most this is certainly not the case. That does not, however, automatically mean that it is therefore biological. Just because it is not a choice does not mean anyone is born gay or straight. If you learn about psychology things like multiple personality disorder, this is mental but not a choice.

[LAMFi1ms]

It's not that I deny the validity its that there is no validity to even deny in the first place. There is a difference between rejecting evidence and not having evidence. But anyway, you are now getting into the "function" of gay people as if their "purpose" is to make use of excess children. Gay people should not be regarded as a "tool" for society. Look, if they possess an unnatural attraction, that doesn't necessarily hinder them but it makes them biologically insignificant

[Lorne Pribbeno]

I never said consent was a determination of "naturalness" only a determination of legality. Which is enough to make them different things. And there is no law against two horses having sex, nor is there any against two consenting adults. And frankly, whether or not this is "unnatural" is irrelevant. Who determines natural? You can't, I can't, no one can so this argument only serves to what then? Some people want gays to say they are wrong or unnatural. Why? What does that achieve?

[Lorne Pribbeno]

Yeah, that is why I personally reject the genetic argument. But I as I said it hasn't been disproved either, nor has being born with it been disproved. So my point stands.

[Lorne Pribbeno]

Yes, I get that. You are playing devils advocate. But you do have an opinion on this issue. You say that it is unnatural when there is at least some evidence to say otherwise (though you deny its validity) and use equally if not more so invalid evidence to make your point. Its not logical. And as for "no purpose" we have a huge population and starving kids. I think couples with an interest in not having kids of their own and willing to raise some that are not at present would be very useful.

[LAMFi1ms]

(sorry, couldn't fit it all in one comment) Therefore the theory of genetic "gayness" doesn't hold up. Scientifically it cannot possibly make sense. If what you're saying is true, genetically the gay gene would slowly die out yet what we're seeing is a trend in the opposite direction.

[LAMFi1ms]

To be genetic it would have to be inherited through a geneticly positive parent to be passed down. That means people contain dormant "gay genes" inside them. Much like two people with brown eyes could not have a baby with blue eyes, either one or both would have to contain the "gay gene". Yet people with this gene would have a higher probability of not reproducing. On the off chance that a gay person does reproduce there has not been any signs of showing that their child is more likey to be gay

[Lorne Pribbeno]

But in this instance you do not know if A or B are indeed not true. That's an assumption. They have not been confirmed nor disproved therefore C is nothing but conjecture based on that assumption. Mr. Holmes would laugh at you. And if you reread my comment you will see that I said there is ample evidence for being born gay, just nothing conclusive. In other words I did say I do lack proof, doesn't make me wrong.