Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Children to be taught 'heterosexuality not the norm' in Australian schools project

page: 32
22
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
So what is the new normality? Beastality?




posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Okay, here ya go:

Linky


Abstract:
Scientists have found that the level of synthetic environmental estrogens in the environment has greatly increased. DDT is an environmental estrogen that is currently affecting wildlife worldwide. Traces of this pesticide are found the body fat of animals in countries that have never used DDT. Environmental estrogens may cause serious reproductive problems such as reduced fertility, altered sexual behavior, masculinization of females and feminization of males, and undescended testicles.


(Done in One.)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by guitarplayer
So what is the new normality? Beastality?


the new normality is non-caucasian.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

Well then, allow me to retort!

"Homosexism"


Bi-sexism. Is there a problem with that? Sure, it would discriminate against any who do not swing both directions.

I would have a number of problems with the program if its goal were to place homo-sexualism above hetero-sexualism. I may be wrong but I do not believe that is their objective. The whole discussion has become a bit muddled and distorted here to take a firm stand in this argument. That we do not yet have equality among the sexes precludes arriving at an equitable resolve over this matter.

Homo-sexualism, though non-reproductive, is not non-productive. Not all people enter into matrimony with the sole objective of bearing offspring. There are many other reasons to do so and gender need not be a hindrance, though it remains a preferrence.

Why should someone be limited to only the selection of an opposite-sex partner for marriage and the accompanying rights and obligations that union bestows? In case of accident or infirmity why must only an opposite-sex partner be granted visitation and familial rights of a spouse to act in an incapacitated person's behalf, or in event of an emergency?

If we insist in putting the cart before the horse, as it were, in regards to to sexual preference before accepting sexual equality then I would suggest bi-sexualism would be the most equitable and least discriminatory "norm" to promote as a societal standard, though I suggest unbiased gender equality would be the logical first step that would render the rest as superfluous.

edit on 22-10-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 

You realize that is a description for a proposed experiment, right? An experiment by a student.

Feminization and masculinization in the context have nothing to do with homosexuality. They involve alterations of physical sexual characteristics.
edit on 10/22/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Oh, and before I get sidetracked or derailed...

In Before 404, or Derail.

Ban Phytoestrogens in water supplies, and maternity products.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 

In case you didn't notice. You are the one who is off topic.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Children to be taught 'heterosexuality not the norm' in Australian schools project


www.lifesitenews.com

Australian school children are to be told that heterosexuality is not the norm, according to a new education department pilot program called “Proud Schools.”

“Heterosexism” is one of the evils that the Proud Schools program is intended to stamp out, along with “homophobia and transphobia,” education officials have said. According to the minutes from the Proud Schools steering committee on March 22, 2011, the program focuses on reversing “the dominance of heterosexism rather than on homophobia.”
(visit the link for the full news article)



This is EVIL. Why? because “Heterosexism” IS THE NORM. There are far less homosexuals than there are heterosexuals. If they are anything like the USA, then they have a very tiny gay population too.

www.abovetopsecret.com... 3.4% of Americans are LGBT

These people are lying to impressionable age school children. I really can't see Australia turning out tons more gays than Americans. Statistically, it is more normal to have a heterosexual couple than is is to have a homosexual couple. This is a Fact.

Homo's are a very tiny minority. like other minorities they do deserve to be treated as humans civilly and not as animals or slaves but to say their minority is actually the majority simply is not true. It's a LIE.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Can you prove your assertions? Any evidence confirming homosexuality is an inborn trait, like blue eyes? I've never heard of any....conjecture?assumptions? yes. proof....no. how about animals in nature that stick to homosexuality exclusively? It is extremely rare....male sheep (rams) do it......but animal sexuality and their motivating factors have been and continue to be poorly understood. I have a hard time believing that sexual orientation is part of the human genome......

www.narth.com...

www.trueorigin.org...

So is it natural? Depends.....is it natural for some village tribes to stretch huge holes in their ears and lips? I'd say yes....is it for me? No......there is no definite answer outside the individual......if I feel natural pleasuring myself while staring at puppies......who are you to tell me it isn't? This is because it is an action, a behavior, not skin color.......and until otherwise is proven.....homosexuals currently have the same rights as I do. (not counting how people look down on them, which is a shame)

Now, I would like to teach your kids how self pleasure while directly looking at puppies needs to be tolerated.

I know I'm being facetious with that last statement......but I just want to make the point that A) homosexuality has not been proven to be an inherited trait and B) we should teach our kids to treat everybody with respect no matter what non-harmful activities they feel come natural to them.

Peace



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



In case you didn't notice. You are the one who is off topic.


Would you like to explain how, stating that this topic is linked to the chemical population control agenda is, "Off Topic"?



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 

Sure. It has nothing to do with homosexuality.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 10/22/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Wow - I cease to be worked up over these threads anymore. Some people are totally outraged by gays. Let them be. I'm too gay to care.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





I'm pretty sure that children are not taught that homosexual relations lead to procreation.


Of course not .



You don't think that homosexuals are capable of loving relationships?




Of course they are capable of deeply loving romantic relationships, and many in a much more meaningful and soulful , caring way, than many heterosexuals. They are also capable of having deep, caring friendships that last a lifetime and having loving family and parental relationships, and instilling many great moral values in their children.

Maybe I'm just biased, but when I think of the two different ways men and women were physically created, and how those two parts seem to "fit" so perfectly together , and that act can "naturally" " create life , it doesn't take serious critical thinking to understand why one would conclude that this is the more "natural" way of the species.

I'm not here to argue with you , just try to help you understand that I think it is a slippery slope when organizations try and force you to expose your children to teachings about what can be considered morally good, or acceptable, and deemed "natural", regarding many sexual behaviors, and not just regarding homosexuality.

I understand many points you are trying to make, and please don't think I don't...because in no way should people, especially children, be bullied and be made to feel unloved or unimportant, for so many reasons that society today deems others "unworthy".



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by WhisperingWinds
 


Maybe I'm just biased, but when I think of the two different ways men and women were physically created, and how those two parts seem to "fit" so perfectly together , and that act can "naturally" " create life , it doesn't take serious critical thinking to understand why one would conclude that this is the more "natural" way of the species.

Maybe you are biased. Maybe you think there is something evil or dangerous about homosexuality. Maybe you think that the only function of sex is reproduction.


I understand many points you are trying to make, and please don't think I don't...because in no way should people, especially children, be bullied and be made to feel unloved or unimportant, for so many reasons that society today deems others "unworthy".
If you think that way then I don't understand why you think it is alright to teach that there is something "not right" about homosexuals, which is what you seem to want to teach your children (and it is your right to do so).
The existence of homosexuals demonstrates that they are different from heterosexuals, it is obvious. It is also obvious that they are not the statistical norm. But that is not the point, the point is that any societal norm which classifies them as deviant is not based on any natural reality. Homosexuals exist. Homosexuals have always existed. Societal norms will not change that and, in fact, it is societal norms concerning homosexuality which change over time and society. For you it is a moral question but remember, Christians have been and still are persecuted simply because they didn't conform to societal norms. Very many people are taught that being a Christian is morally wrong.
edit on 10/22/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Phenomium

So saith the Georgia Guidestones.


and what authority do they actually represent??

Oh - how about "none at all"


Under the authority of the International Bankers and the Freemason's. Their signs and symbols inundate the world every 10 meters or so. These are Secret Societies that have lasted from generation to generation and all have these same purpose in life and dedicate their lives to this cause with every fabric of their being, serving their god Lucifer. Whether you believe in Lucifer or not...they do and that's all that matters.Geez do you live under a rock or something?
edit on 22-10-2012 by Phenomium because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhisperingWinds
reply to post by Phage
 





I'm pretty sure that children are not taught that homosexual relations lead to procreation.


Of course not .



You don't think that homosexuals are capable of loving relationships?




Of course they are capable of deeply loving romantic relationships, and many in a much more meaningful and soulful , caring way, than many heterosexuals. They are also capable of having deep, caring friendships that last a lifetime and having loving family and parental relationships, and instilling many great moral values in their children.

Maybe I'm just biased, but when I think of the two different ways men and women were physically created, and how those two parts seem to "fit" so perfectly together , and that act can "naturally" " create life , it doesn't take serious critical thinking to understand why one would conclude that this is the more "natural" way of the species.

I'm not here to argue with you , just try to help you understand that I think it is a slippery slope when organizations try and force you to expose your children to teachings about what can be considered morally good, or acceptable, and deemed "natural", regarding many sexual behaviors, and not just regarding homosexuality.

I understand many points you are trying to make, and please don't think I don't...because in no way should people, especially children, be bullied and be made to feel unloved or unimportant, for so many reasons that society today deems others "unworthy".

















Yeah yeah, yeah, yawn. Nature's intention with anything certainly has never come down to just one thing. The purpose of sex in humans AND animals reaches far beyond a means of procreation. Nature and consciousness is so multi-dimensional, with so many layers and functions, all you're really showing when you say that man and woman are the perfect fit, and thus the most natural, is that your perception is extremely limited. I doubt nature her/his/itself would take you very seriously on your pronouncements. It would probably say something akin to, "Oh, so you're seeing about 0.00001% of me," regarding sexuality.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by thebtheb

Originally posted by WhisperingWinds
reply to post by Phage
 





I'm pretty sure that children are not taught that homosexual relations lead to procreation.


Of course not .



You don't think that homosexuals are capable of loving relationships?




Of course they are capable of deeply loving romantic relationships, and many in a much more meaningful and soulful , caring way, than many heterosexuals. They are also capable of having deep, caring friendships that last a lifetime and having loving family and parental relationships, and instilling many great moral values in their children.

Maybe I'm just biased, but when I think of the two different ways men and women were physically created, and how those two parts seem to "fit" so perfectly together , and that act can "naturally" " create life , it doesn't take serious critical thinking to understand why one would conclude that this is the more "natural" way of the species.

I'm not here to argue with you , just try to help you understand that I think it is a slippery slope when organizations try and force you to expose your children to teachings about what can be considered morally good, or acceptable, and deemed "natural", regarding many sexual behaviors, and not just regarding homosexuality.

I understand many points you are trying to make, and please don't think I don't...because in no way should people, especially children, be bullied and be made to feel unloved or unimportant, for so many reasons that society today deems others "unworthy".

















Yeah yeah, yeah, yawn. Nature's intention with anything certainly has never come down to just one thing. The purpose of sex in humans AND animals reaches far beyond a means of procreation. Nature and consciousness is so multi-dimensional, with so many layers and functions, all you're really showing when you say that man and woman are the perfect fit, and thus the most natural, is that your perception is extremely limited. I doubt nature her/his/itself would take you very seriously on your pronouncements. It would probably say something akin to, "Oh, so you're seeing about 0.00001% of me," regarding sexuality.


Of all the dichotomies that nature supplies regarding sex...procreation would be at the top of that list. Things like love, sensuality, passion are all things that initiate and instigate this one action....SEX....that would end in procreation. All of these same initiators applied to gays may cause sex but afterwards...brings no results at all...there is no end product. It is based on lust at the end of the day.

Everyone loves, everyone has passion, everyone can be seduced...but only one pair of thee 2 discussed above can deliver a product from these behaviors and emotions. That would be heterosexuals. Two gays who do this...the end product is death for the both of them with no lineage to follow. Hence, to convince the world that this was normal, would annihilate the world's population. But this will never happen, because now they are just getting cocky. Guys still drop to their knees at the shake of a woman's hips and give her everything in the "hopes" of getting laid.....it doesn't even have to be a promise of it. A vagina makes men stupid, good luck reprogramming them. They are climbing a mountain that they will never fully scale. The Secret Societies' arrogance is starting to look like either lethargy or stupidity.
edit on 23-10-2012 by Phenomium because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Phenomium
 


The Secret Societies' arrogance is starting to look like either lethargy or stupidity.
Or maybe there is no agenda.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
hello EVIL .....what took so long gettin here......your ugly head, man....good God man



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phenomium

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Phenomium

So saith the Georgia Guidestones.


and what authority do they actually represent??

Oh - how about "none at all"


Under the authority of the International Bankers and the Freemason's. Their signs and symbols inundate the world every 10 meters or so. These are Secret Societies that have lasted from generation to generation and all have these same purpose in life and dedicate their lives to this cause with every fabric of their being, serving their god Lucifer. Whether you believe in Lucifer or not...they do and that's all that matters.Geez do you live under a rock or something?


lol - no - I just choose not to be stupid!





new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join