Homosexual Agenda Is Greatest Threat To Liberty

[MaryL]

Gays, IE: Homosexuals: Probably the most fictitious group since the illuminati. Phony. False . Imaginary.

 

[mgh80]

The article posts a scan of the entire lesson. I don't see what the hysteria is about.

If you want to see some hysteria, they should try replacing Mohammad with Jesus and Islam with Christianity because those who are defending the intrusion of Islam into schools where it obviously does not belong would be engaging in just that.

You're always going to have ridiculous hysteria when it comes to religion - whether it's athiests having fits over the innocent expression of Merry Christmas or Christians having fits of the mere mention of Islam. The thing is, religion plays a huge role in the development and understanding of cultures around the world, history, and literature. How can you learn about American history without including the role religion played in it's founding and culture? How could you possibly understand how important freedom of religion is if you don't discuss the persecutions that led to that being one of the pillars of American society?

Learning about religion, the role it plays in history, culture, or literature is not "indoctrination". Learning about other people's and cultures and trying to put yourself in their shoes is n ot "indoctrination" - it's smart teaching, and it's teaching children by expanding their awareness of the larger world around them.

I have no problem with that. I believe comparative religion SHOULD be offered, and taught openly, honestly and without whitewashing. Kids should be taught what other people actually believe, though, and not a "see no evil" fairy tale that acts only to obscure the truth.

Inserting Islam into a vocabulary lesson is quite a different matter, however, since this is an English class and not comparative religion. Once again, if the same process of slipping Islam into a vocabulary test is not matched with similar inclusion of other religions, this is most definitely NOT a healthy teaching example. It is merely a pet cause.

Anybody who thinks there's a "homosexual agenda" is a moron. /thread.

However, there is a "Republicans want to bring down the government" agenda. They even tell us.

Anybody who thinks that there's an actual agenda for the Republicans to "bring down the government" are also morons. /thread.

 

[Skylar]

Gays, IE: Homosexuals: Probably the most fictitious group since the illuminati. Phony. False . Imaginary.

What do you mean by that?

 

[MaryL]

Queers need to recognize they have the same rights as the rest of us. I know it's hard to get over. They have the SAME rights. No more, no less. Marriage is about procreation, not sexual equality. If you can make a baby, marriage is for you. It's that simple. No babies, no marriage. Not in vitro fertilization with hetro sperm-eggs...come on now.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

....

There's literally no such thing as 'homophobia'.

Oh but there is, and we see it in your kind day after day. Don't worry, there's a six feet under solution that will find you eventually and your phobia will be resolved.

You bet there is...and it encompasses so much. It could mean the individual who wants to discriminate against gays or it could be the individual that fears the gay in themselves. Such a versatile word.

No... "Homophobia" is a ruse, a complete and utter fabrication.

Except of course where such is merely the relabeling of 'self-discipline', wherein the would-be 'Homophobe' is simply a person who recognizes that rationalizing that abnormality is normal, is delusion, thus such is to be avoided.

But THAT would just be a normal responsible, human being.

Which would mean that "Homophobe" is a word designed to discourage people from being normal, being responsible and applying self discipline.

But that would serve reason, so... which means that THAT is what "Homophobe" is... .


Of course that still requires that for the word to be a lie... it can't be used within the context of what it literally means.

And to determine THAT we should simply look to define the word from it's root... to see what it actually means, then that will tell us if the words usage is relevant to it's actual meaning.

LETS DO IT!

Homo-: Self.

Phobia: irrational Fear.

Therefore, a Homophobe is one who has an irrational fear of them self.

So ... there it is, the 'Homophobe".

EWwww... how positively nefarious

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Gays, IE: Homosexuals: Probably the most fictitious group since the illuminati. Phony. False . Imaginary.

What do you mean by that?

Shhh... She's in the midst of a performance of The Reduction to the Absurd.

 

[Skylar]

Queers need to recognize they have the same rights as the rest of us. I know it's hard to get over. They have the SAME rights. No more, no less. Marriage is about procreation, not sexual equality.

If marriage is about procreation, why doesn't any state in the union require procreation or the ability to procreate as a prerequisite for a valid marriage? What of all the infertile people getting married or remaining married? What of all the childless couples?

If your standard did exist, there are millions upon millions of exceptions. Meaning there's clearly room for a few more with gays and lesbians.

And your standard doesn't exist. No one is required to have kids or be able to have them in order to have a valid marriage. Why then would we invent a standard that doesn't exist, exempt all straights, and then apply it only to gay people for the sole purpose of keeping them out of marriage?

There is no reason.

If you can make a baby, marriage is for you. It's that simple.

All the infertile folks getting married say otherwise. All the old people getting married or staying married say otherwise. And the complete lack of any such requirement for anyone in the law says otherwise.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Queers need to recognize they have the same rights as the rest of us. I know it's hard to get over. They have the SAME rights. No more, no less. Marriage is about procreation, not sexual equality.

If marriage is about procreation, why doesn't any state in the union require procreation or the ability to procreate as a prerequisite for a valid marriage? What of all the infertile people getting married or remaining married? What of all the childless couples?

If your standard did exist, there are millions upon millions of exceptions. Meaning there's clearly room for a few more with gays and lesbians.

And your standard doesn't exist. No one is required to have kids or be able to have them in order to have a valid marriage. Why then would we invent a standard that doesn't exist, exempt all straights, and then apply it only to gay people for the sole purpose of keeping them out of marriage?

There is no reason.

If you can make a baby, marriage is for you. It's that simple.

All the infertile folks getting married say otherwise. All the only people getting married or staying married say otherwise. And the complete lack of any such requirement for anyone in the law says otherwise.

ROFLMNAO!

Adorable...

 

[Skylar]

ROFLMNAO!

Adorable...

Notice you can't actually refute anything I've said. Now that's adorable.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Queers need to recognize they have the same rights as the rest of us. I know it's hard to get over. They have the SAME rights. No more, no less. Marriage is about procreation, not sexual equality. If you can make a baby, marriage is for you. It's that simple. No babies, no marriage. Not in vitro fertilization with hetro sperm-eggs...come on now.

And yet some state REQUIRE couples to be infertile before they will allow them to enter into Civil Marriage.

Wait...
.......... Didn't you just say no baby no marriage?


>>>>

 

[MaryL]

SHH, Don't tell anyone. Homosexulaity may just be a mental illnes

Queers need to recognize they have the same rights as the rest of us. I know it's hard to get over. They have the SAME rights. No more, no less. Marriage is about procreation, not sexual equality.

If marriage is about procreation, why doesn't any state in the union require procreation or the ability to procreate as a prerequisite for a valid marriage? What of all the infertile people getting married or remaining married? What of all the childless couples?

If your standard did exist, there are millions upon millions of exceptions. Meaning there's clearly room for a few more with gays and lesbians.

And your standard doesn't exist. No one is required to have kids or be able to have them in order to have a valid marriage. Why then would we invent a standard that doesn't exist, exempt all straights, and then apply it only to gay people for the sole purpose of keeping them out of marriage?

There is no reason.

If you can make a baby, marriage is for you. It's that simple.

All the infertile folks getting married say otherwise. All the old people getting married or staying married say otherwise. And the complete lack of any such requirement for anyone in the law says otherwise.

It's kinda given, kiddo. We expect people that want to be parents 90 % of them might be biologically capable of producing children theoretically. Not a bunch of sexually twisted perverts buying out popular consensus, like they are now adopting and coopting.

 

[Skylar]

SHH, Don't tell anyone. Homosexulaity may just be a mental illnes

You says it may be a mental illness. The APA says it isn't. A random person on the internet vs. one of the most respected psychiatric associations in the nation on issues of mental illness.

Not a tough pick.

It's kinda given, kiddo.

Well, hun....given that same sex marriage is recognized in 36 of 50 States, it really isn't.

We expect people that want to be parents 90 % of them might be biologically capable of producing children theoretically. Not a bunch of sexually twisted perverts buying out popular consensus, like they are now adopting and coopting.

If there are millions of exceptions made for straights, there can be millions of exceptions made for gays.

And of course, there's still the elephant in the livingroom: no one is required to have children or be able to have children in order to have a valid marriage. Not by any State.

So why would we exclude gays from marriage for failing to meet a standard that doesn't exist?

 

[MaryL]

Straight people make babies, we are the future. I am not sure WHAT Homosexuality means. Gays are artist, intellectuals and they bitch a lot. But do they need to get married? Yeah, really? Some we can get along without gays marrying each other. Somehow, some of us in the Human race can get along just fine without that.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

ROFLMNAO!

Adorable...

Notice you can't actually refute anything I've said. Now that's adorable.

What's to refute?

An Advocate of the normalization of sexual abnormality trots out a load of pro-homo sarcasm and you run to catch it.

As I said... it was ADORABLE.

 

[initforme]

This is such a small minute issue in this day and age. AHow any one could call this any kind of threat... is bizarre. And not worth fighting.

 

[Skylar]

ROFLMNAO!

Adorable...

Notice you can't actually refute anything I've said. Now that's adorable.

What's to refute?

Every point I made that you can neither address nor surmount using logic or reason. Because there's no logic or reason in denying gays and lesbians their right to marry.

There's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children, as demonstrated by all the infertile couples marrying or remaining married. There are states that prove a couple CAN'T have children before their allowed to marry. And no state in the union, not one, requires a couple be able to procreate in order to get married.

So why would we exclude gays and lesbians from marriage based on their failure to meet a standard.....that applies to no one and doesn't exist?

There is no reason. Nor can you possibly provide a rational or logical one. I know, we've debated it already. And you lost. Which is why you now refuse to discuss the topic. I'm not similarly limited.

 

[Skylar]

This is such a small minute issue in this day and age. AHow any one could call this any kind of threat... is bizarre. And not worth fighting.

Because they use hatred and fear as the basis of their reasoning rather than logic, reason, or a firm grasp of reality.

 

[Skylar]

Straight people make babies, we are the future.

Some of them do. Some of them don't. The law doesn't give a shit, as no one is required to make babies or be able to. So the standard you're arguing we should exclude gays over....doesn't exist.

I am not sure WHAT Homosexuality means.

Websters or Miriams might help you with the simple definition. Wikipedia if you'd like a slightly broader overview. The APA if you want to get specific.

Gays are artist, intellectuals and they bitch a lot. But do they need to get married? Yeah, really? Some we can get along without gays marrying each other. Somehow, some of us in the Human race can get along just fine without that.

And guess what? The human race can get along just fine with it too. So if it doesn't matter to you either way, and it makes a big difference in the lives of gays, lesbians, and their children.....seems simple to me: gay marriage is recognized.

 

[initforme]

There are plenty of babies being made and born... there is no shortage.

 

[MaryL]

Nope. Gay marriage is irrelevant, don't you think? Do we really need it? Why?