U.S. court upholds same-sex teaching to children

Griff
How can he take trig with pre-calc? Plus, how can he take trig and calc without learning geometry first? Having an engineering degree, you should know this.

I'm not really sure why you are so concerned with this, but my son has already had geometry. Seventh grade-prealgebra, eighth grade-algebra, ninth grade-geometry, tenth grade-algebra 2, eleventh grade-trig and pre clac, and twelth grade calculus.

Originally posted by Odium
Mystery_Lady, can you please point to in the Bible where any of that is said? Furthermore can you show us any harm being caused by homosexuality? I do not mean your opinion (because you can not show us demons or the "seed of evil".)

I was right, it was over your head. Whether you see them or not, they are still there. Why am I so certain? Because I have seen them. More as shadows moving where there is suppose to be no shadow. They are not slow either.

The non-Christians call them shadow people. You can research that on the paranormal board.

As far as the Bible goes, proof is in Jesus casting out demons everything from demons causing torment and making people not act natural to demons causing disease. Just to name a couple, Jesus cast out the demon in a child that made the child try to comit sucide when the child threw himself in the fire. Another time he cast out legion from a man and cast the legion in pigs. The pigs ran over a cliff. These are in the Gospels that anyone should know who have actually read them.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Do me a favor Mystery_Lady and point out every instance in which homosexuality is pointed out as a sin in the bible.

I want you to show me because I'm no longer just going to take your word for it. Can you do that? Do you have enough knowledge of the bible to prove this is a spiritual matter and not just your individual bigotry?

This is open to anyone using religion as a crutch for their own hatred.

No, I won't point out every instance. There is no need. If you insist, I will point out at least one. Romans 1:26-29, but I will only quote the most important part.

"26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also men, leaving the natural use of women, burned in thier lust one toward another ... /b] "

Also add Romans 1:31-32 for the sin part, incase it is unclear from Romans 1:26-29 with the pharase without natural affection being equating to change the natural use and leaving the natural use.

"31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection,, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the sme, but have pleasure in them that do them."

Taken from the King James Version

If you still insist it isn't a sin, it is still vile in God's eyes - Romans 1:26.

Originally posted by thematrix
If you find something like homosexuality so evil and depraved(which I personaly don't btw), wouldn't it do good that your children know everything about it so they know how to stay away from this great evil?

That is the problem, my children are not old enough yet for this subject. Neither are any of the elementary children. When they are older, I will talk to them about it. Not instilling hate, but to clearly let them know it is a sin. That God also wants us to love the sinner and not hate them. Yet at the same time neither are we to get to close to them, friend wise, lest we follow into that sin. No matter what sin they commit, they are still human and God still loves them.

My problem is that the schools want to teach them that it is normal, when the Bible, as I pointed out in anothre response with a quote in Romans 1:26-32, teaches that it is a sin and natural. It becomes a clear conflict of interest. Not only that, it is the school superseeceding the rights of the parents to raise their own children.

Some schools want to even over step that boundry, by making the children "explore" their emotions to see if they are homosexuals themselves. Last year there were news stories about schools having safe zones for homosexuals as if they are somehow extra special.

Oh, and don't worry, I do homeschool.

Mystery_Lady, now proove to us homosexuality is un-natural. I'll thank you in advance for it. By the way, quotes in the Bible will not proove it is un-natural.

What if the story was about a penguin? Would it be okay then?

Roy and Silo, two chinstrap penguins at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan, are completely devoted to each other. For nearly six years now, they have been inseparable. They exhibit what in penguin parlance is called "ecstatic behavior": That is, they entwine their necks, they vocalize to each other, they have sex. Silo and Roy are, to anthropomorphize a bit, gay penguins.

When offered female companionship, they have adamantly refused it. And the females aren't interested in them, either.

At one time, the two seemed so desperate to incubate an egg together that they put a rock in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in the folds of their abdomens, said their chief keeper, Rob Gramzay. Finally, he gave them a fertile egg that needed care to hatch. Things went perfectly, and a chick, Tango, was born.

www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL

If the story were about these penguins would you still be so adamant about children not knowing about it?

Originally posted by Odium
Mystery_Lady, now proove to us homosexuality is un-natural. I'll thank you in advance for it. By the way, quotes in the Bible will not proove it is un-natural.

If it was natural for men to go after men, and women to go after women, then were would all the babies come from? If that was natural, then hetrosexuality would then become un-natural.

Also, another major point your missing is that you are also arguing the physical against the spiritual. Romans is enough for me to know it is un-natural. To me the Bible and spiritual are more real than the physical. The spiritual can change the physical. Already seen that happen. You also have to understand, that to me this is also spiritual warfare. The Bible tells me that it is un-natural and a sin. In no way, shape, or form can I condone it.

[edit on 13-3-2007 by Mystery_Lady]

[edit on 13-3-2007 by Mystery_Lady]

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
What if the story was about a penguin? Would it be okay then?

Roy and Silo, two chinstrap penguins at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan, are completely devoted to each other.

www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL

If the story were about these penguins would you still be so adamant about children not knowing about it?

Here is my response, and also a quote from the same article you posted.

Scientists warn about drawing conclusions about humans. "For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn't natural," Vasey said. "They make a leap from saying if it's natural, it's morally and ethically desirable."

But he added: "Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn't be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don't take care of the elderly. I don't particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes."

ML, good job in not having 1 original opinion yet. I'm sure we can all cut and paste what other people say rather than thinking it on our own.

Equating infanticide to sexual orientation is ridiculous, and obviously very separate things. In the animal kingdom, infanticide is primarily used by the male of a species to prevent other genes from passing on where his should be. It's a natural reaction, but one that can be overcome through rational thought in humans. Sexual orientation is something that can not be overcome with rational thought, as personal sexuality is not a rational thing.

Are you suggesting that homosexuality is natural, and that people are born that way, but must overcome it with rational thought?

the evidence that homosexuality is a perversion can be observed in the fact that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROCREATE in that manner. does anyone here not understand that the purpose of sex IS TO PROCREATE.if homosexuality was natural,then it would allow for reproduction. but IT DOES NOT. therefore,it is not natural.
now, providing kids examples of "heroic" princes who reject beautiful princesses for one of the same sex teaches kids that it is natural,and ok,and perhaps even a good thing to do. this is a lie. DON'T YOU THINK THAT IF SOMEONE THINKS THAT SOMETHING IS GOOD TO DO,THAT THEY WILL WANT TO DO IT!!!??? all of these pro gay arguments simply defy rational thinking and common sense...

so you're proclaiming that EVERY SINGLE TIME that you have sex, it is only with the intention of procreating?

Sorry, but the anti gay movement doesn't have a leg to stand on.

First, we know that animals have been shown to be homosexual. This means that it is a natural biological anomaly. That doesn't mean mutation or disorder, just an anomaly. This means that it is not a matter of choice, but of birth.

Second, the only reason most anti-gay people are anti gay is because they are either afraid that they'll be hit on, and like it.

Third (my favorite leg) If it were a perversion, then why is it that it has nothing to do with sex? Gay men and women can live happily with each other without having sex, so where is the perversion?

It seems when pro-gays get backed into a corner, they start calling names. Yep, got a nice little U2U message about it, and the degrotaray name. I'm not saying it was you. The person who sent that e-mail will not get a reply. To the person who sent that, if you feel you need to stoop that low, then do it out in the open where everyone can see such tatics and quit hiding. Then again, I'm sure you sent that message because you really didn't want to get a warning from the aministrator.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Sorry, but the anti gay movement doesn't have a leg to stand on.

First, we know that animals have been shown to be homosexual. This means that it is a natural biological anomaly. That doesn't mean mutation or disorder, just an anomaly. This means that it is not a matter of choice, but of birth.

An anomaly is not the norm, it is irrigular, it is not normal. If all the animals in a particular species had this anomaly, then that species would be dead. The two male penguins were taking a normal response to the natural reproduction cycle, but couldn't. They could not pass on this anomaly gene. Just because some animals get mixed up, doesn't mean it is by birth. Sorry, it is a choice. If it was by birth or genetics, then that gene would have been long gone, since it is impossible for the same sex couples to pass along that gene.

Even if certain animals or species practiced it, that still doesn't make it right for us to do the same.

Second, the only reason most anti-gay people are anti gay is because they are either afraid that they'll be hit on, and like it.

Third (my favorite leg) If it were a perversion, then why is it that it has nothing to do with sex? Gay men and women can live happily with each other without having sex, so where is the perversion?

Unfortunatly, you are dead wrong on your asumption that most people are anti-gay (as you call it) because we fear that a gay would hit on us. And that we will like it. That really cracked me up. You are really streaching it aren't you?

If you didn't know, being gay has everything to do with sex. The gays try to build up their arguement and put being gay right next to race. It doesn't work at all. You can not choose being Black, White, Mexican, Polish, French, you just are. Nothing, absoutely nothing you can do can change it.

Being gay is a choice. Gays can switch from being homosexual, to hetrosexual, to even bi-sexual. It is all a choice in the mind, and how you preceive things. Sorry, if you try to tell me a gay can't choose, then you have to come up with a way to tell apart "true" gays and those "just testing the waters". For tose testing the waters if they decide to become gay, then it was a choice not biological. They wouldn't need to test the waters to find out if they are or not. They would just know. Too many people who have said I'm gay and nothing can change this, did a complete 180 later on in their lives. If this was hardwired in them as many claim, no one could ever do that. Yet it happens, therefore telling me and the rest of the world that it is indeed a choice.

If gay men and women are living with each other without having sex, then they really aren't gay. People can love each other, and feel emotions for each other that transend gender, race, and age. It is the act that definds a hetrosexual or homosexual. Those people can claim they are gay all they want, but technically they are in an Asexual relationship. That is also by choice.

Where is the perversion? It is in the morality. Most gays can't stand that moral aspect, because their consciencious condems them like the adulterer or person having pre-martial sex. It only condems those who are listening to their conscience. Other than that there should really be no issue for the gay person.

But the gays want to force their hand trying to make it acceptable to society, and try to force everyone to believe it is acceptable and normal. That they will never do, since there will always be those who believe it is immoral, and will not accept them because of that.

Here is where it can get difficult. You see, while I know being gay is an immoral sin, it doesn't mean I treat gays any worse than any other sinner. It doesn't mean to perscute every sinner either. If someone took that attitude, then they might just as well go somewhere without any other humans around, and don't talk or like themselves. The problem is everyone is a sinner. The other problem is that God loves everyone whether sinner or not. It would be much better if everyone saw everyone else through that perspective.

With people being humans, they don't. No, they call each other names. Judge each other based on race, looks, what the person does or doesn't do, their past history, who is hanging with who, and now who has what sexual orientation. Yet the list can go on and on.

People have to sart to understand that it is wrong to gay bash just as much as it is wrong for gays to call everyone who doesn't agree with them bigots and homophobes. Maybe after people can get that through their thick skulls, maybe then we can actually start addressing and dealing with the issue in proper perspectives.

If people can get around the hate and fearmongering on both sides, then we can actually start acting civil towards each other. Just as long as the gays understand there will be those who will never be able to condone their actions. The others with the moral issue understand that the gays made their own choice, they can not force them to choose differently by bashing them over the head with morals, many of them don't want to hear it or believe as you do, and that God will judge them when the time is right.

But yet, the gays push the issue trying to undermine everyone who has morals that says it is wrong, by trying to force the issue in our schools on our children through liturature and sneak it in health class. They want to teach our children that it is normal and there is nothing wrong with it when the parents clearly see it is wrong and immoral.

For that, if they want families with children, then let them have children in the normal way just as everyone else does. If homosexuality is so normal, then they should be able to have children by normal means.

If they wouldn't try so hard to push/shove it in everyones face, then they wouldn't have to face so much hostility and hatered towards them.

[edit on 25-3-2007 by Mystery_Lady]

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
ML, good job in not having 1 original opinion yet.

Yet, I'm also waiting to see an original thought from you that hasen't been said before by those promoting the homosexual agenda.

Equating infanticide to sexual orientation is ridiculous, and obviously very separate things.... Are you suggesting that homosexuality is natural, and that people are born that way, but must overcome it with rational thought?

You missed the entire point. What I thought the article said lound a clear is that what is natural in the animal kingdom, is not always natural for us as human beings. We can not be taking different aspects of what animals do and say we should be doing the same thing whether if it is infanticide or homosexual tendancies.

[edit on 25-3-2007 by Mystery_Lady]

Rasobasi raises some interesting points.

Homosexuality as such can be described as a normal occurrence, anthropological and zoological studies have both found comparisons. Studies on primitive tribes found that certain more effeminate men would aid in the raising of children rather than as hunters or warriors. They were an accepted part of the social structure. However, there are also studies that indicate that sexual interaction within the same-sex are symptoms of population over-crowding and social stresses.

The Penguins exhibiting gay characteristics highlights the latter. I would expect that it is quite normal for penguin males to get on with each other, they breed in close proximity. The unnaturalness of their environment could have distorted this natural behaviour and created a reproductive confusion. The population of the enclosure may be at maximum or the balance of male/female may be out – any number of things could be the cause. Just as with humans, they could have been born that way and or they could have been nutured to behave that way by their environment.

It is possible and perhaps likely that what today represents homosexuality is an adaptation of normal behaviour. Close bonds of brotherhood would have been necessary for primitive peoples, from whom we have had a rather rapid evolution.

There is nothing unnatural about two men or two women loving one another, in fact nothing could be more natural, it is as natural as opposite-sex bonds. We generally have several same-sex bonds and only one or two opposite-bonds. But love, as Rasobasi points out does not necessarily have to involve sex, but it is sex that creates the problems.

Rasobasi, you ask where is the perversion and the answer is simple - anal-sex.

THanks for that Kilgore.

Then, let's now ask this question. As it is relevant to this fairy tale, is this homosexuality exhibited by the princes in the story perverted, as it does not involve any anal sex, but only the desire for companionship?

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
THanks for that Kilgore.

Then, let's now ask this question. As it is relevant to this fairy tale, is this homosexuality exhibited by the princes in the story perverted, as it does not involve any anal sex, but only the desire for companionship?

non-sexual companionship no problems. When the implications become that they love each other so much they want a sexual relationship, yes it becomes a moral problem.

Then let me ask you this ML,

Was a sexual relationship ever implied in Snow White? Cinderella? The Little Mermaid?

Are children supposed to understand that Belle was going to have sex with the Beast?

Originally posted by Mystery_Lady
non-sexual companionship no problems. When the implications become that they love each other so much they want a sexual relationship, yes it becomes a moral problem.

Moral problem for who? This is the whole problem, it's a moral issue for YOU because you CHOOSE to make it so. You simply refuse to listen to scientific truth. You discredit and dismiss an entire group of people simply by condemning the way that they have sex. Ya know, lots of heterosexual people enjoy anal sex - does that make it perverted or deviant?

You yourself said that you wouldn't want your kids associating with gays. How then, can you make assumptions and opinions and condemn a group without knowing anything about them?
This exact same thing happened back in the '60's in the South, except it was said about Blacks. White parents didn't want their white children to have to mix with Blacks (I guess they think it's catching). Most white parents were ourtraged at forced integration. Now I ask you, would you support legislation that was racist? Would you want your kid to grow up thinking an entire group of people is bad, without ever knowing even one single one? FYI, I have had gay/lesbian friends all my life, and guess what? In 52 years, I still haven't become gay!! It isn't catching, it's not a disease. It most emphatically is not a disease that is contagious. Yet you can't even grasp that fact, you prefer to teach your child fear and hate. Why?
Furthermore, where does one draw the line? My husband was a high school biology teacher for 20 years and he used to teach the kids about same sex animal relationships. Why? Because it's factual, it happens and that's just the way it is. Would you want your kids to be ignorant of something just to support your own agenda of prejudice?

I would stipulate for the benefit of the moral argument that I only stated that anal-sex represented a perversion and may I add that goes as much for heterosexuals as it does homosexuals - if not more so.

What this thread set out to discuss is whether it is acceptable to teach children about same-sex relationships. The answer for me is still a resounding no. What Rasobasi says is that the little princes are seeking companionship, not sex. Fair enough, then why is this discussion taking place. If the story is simply that, then no problems. However if the story is then used to introduce sexual themes to the children. Then yes plenty of problems. Homosexual or heterosexual, seven year olds do not need to know this yet. We are constantly bombarding children with sexual imagery that they do not have the tools to deal with.

Children do need to be taught reproduction in a scientific manner and about sex and relationships. But I do not believe in pre-empting young children. Each develops at their own pace and will ask questions when they are raised in their minds. When they are ready to understand complexities they will ask and if they can't ask their parents, yes there should be alternative sources. Books are one of these sources.

Rasobasi raises another important point regarding other children's literature. Look at it another way. Would you want everyone who is reading books that involve male companionship to assume that there is a subtext indicative of a sexual bond. Peter Pan and the Lost Boys, the Seven Dwarfs, Frodo and Sam - were they all homosexual - or to re-phrase it - do we want children to think that any display of closeness is indicative of a sexual relationship? Or that if you are close to someone then you should have sex?

If we are simply wishing to teach children about love and companionship then it is unnecessary to write 'special' stories, there are literally thousands out there already. If we are teaching tolerance then lets choose a non-sexual example to start off with - wait until they reach 11 or 12, when they are at least starting to feel their own sexuality starting to emerge.

As a parent I feel my child has a hell of a lot more important lessons to learn than who has sex with whom.