Pro-Homosexual Booklet to Be Distributed to All 16,000 US School Districts

[LiveUninhibited]

I just see it as not right. It's not what we are made for. The parts work the way they do for a reason. I do believe in God and I think that creation is the most beautiful thing and I think God meant it to be the way it is. To do otherwise just seems wrong to me. Just because something feels good doesn't mean we should do it.

I don't know. As late as the early 80s a majority of Americans thought that interracial marriage was "just not right" because it was "unnatural." It wouldn't quite be accurate to say a majority of Americans were terrible or immoral because of that. It was just the way they were raised and eventually we overcame it. That's the way I view the struggle for gay rights and acceptance.

Something that feels good should not be done when it has consequences that hurt others especially. If it feels good and it's harming yourself in the long run, that would be ones own choice to make of course and my only intervention would be in making sure the person in question understands what's going on. I see no distinct disadvantage of homosexual sex over heterosexual sex in that regard.

If you have your money sitting on a table and it would feel good to me if I had it should I take it? No, that would be wrong. I love ice cream, I could eat it until I threw up. It would feel good to pig out on it, should I do it? No, our bodies aren't meant to take that kind of abuse, it would be wrong to do it. I can give lots of examples of what I mean. You don't have to agree, but do you understand?

Your examples aren't really comparable to homosexuality though. If you take my money you hurt me economically and that'd be wrong unless you're using it to feed your starving children or something. Two lesbians licking each other is much less likely to hurt anybody than heterosexual sex as no unwanted children are possible and STD transmission is less likely than other forms of sex.

Eating ice cream until you throw up not only wouldn't be too enjoyable, but would not make you feel good in the long run due to poor health. I don't think lesbians who engage in a sexual lesbian relationship are worse off than lesbians who decide to be alone.

 

[Sunni Man]

If faggots waht to pack each others fudge. That's their nasty business.

But don't tell be that it's normal or that I have to accept it as being OK.

 

[Amanda]

I don't know. As late as the early 80s a majority of Americans thought that interracial marriage was "just not right" because it was "unnatural." It wouldn't quite be accurate to say a majority of Americans were terrible or immoral because of that. It was just the way they were raised and eventually we overcame it. That's the way I view the struggle for gay rights and acceptance.

I don't really care about interracial marriage, people are people, I'm just not attracted to guy that are different races, I dunno know. Some people say that makes me a racist.

Something that feels good should not be done when it has consequences that hurt others especially. If it feels good and it's harming yourself in the long run, that would be ones own choice to make of course and my only intervention would be in making sure the person in question understands what's going on. I see no distinct disadvantage of homosexual sex over heterosexual sex in that regard.

Harming oneself is an important consideration but there is more to consider IMO. There is the way things are made to work. I think whether you believe in evolution or creation it is undenaible that things work in a certain way. I believe this is the right way and that not doing things the right way is wrong. I'm being a little blunt cos I'm a little drunk, forgive me if you can.

Your examples aren't really comparable to homosexuality though. If you take my money you hurt me economically and that'd be wrong unless you're using it to feed your starving children or something. Two lesbians licking each other is much less likely to hurt anybody than heterosexual sex as no unwanted children are possible and STD transmission is less likely than other forms of sex.

Eating ice cream until you throw up not only wouldn't be too enjoyable, but would not make you feel good in the long run due to poor health. I don't think lesbians who engage in a sexual lesbian relationship are worse off than lesbians who decide to be alone.

It depends on how you see nature and the nature of things. I think there is a natural order to things. Do I think it's wrong to kill? Yes. But I will shoot an animal in a heartbeat if it meant I could feed my children (no, I don't have any just saying). But shooting an animal just for fun would be wrong.

"worse off" is subjective. Maybe to you or me, but what about to out purpose? I guess if you don't think you're here for a reason that's a weal argument, but I know I'm here for a reason and it wouldn't be right for me to spend my time not reaching for those things.

And why do you only use lesbians for your examples? Just wondering.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

I don't know. As late as the early 80s a majority of Americans thought that interracial marriage was "just not right" because it was "unnatural." It wouldn't quite be accurate to say a majority of Americans were terrible or immoral because of that. It was just the way they were raised and eventually we overcame it. That's the way I view the struggle for gay rights and acceptance.

I don't really care about interracial marriage, people are people, I'm just not attracted to guy that are different races, I dunno know. Some people say that makes me a racist.

No I don't think having a preference for a certain ethnicity in your mate is any more racist than not being homosexual is homophobic. Telling homosexuals they can't marry another homosexual, or telling a White girl she can't marry a Black man, however, would be more along those lines. The point I was alluding to is that the same arguments used against gay marriage today were used against interracial marriage decades ago.

Something that feels good should not be done when it has consequences that hurt others especially. If it feels good and it's harming yourself in the long run, that would be ones own choice to make of course and my only intervention would be in making sure the person in question understands what's going on. I see no distinct disadvantage of homosexual sex over heterosexual sex in that regard.

Harming oneself is an important consideration but there is more to consider IMO. There is the way things are made to work. I think whether you believe in evolution or creation it is undenaible that things work in a certain way. I believe this is the right way and that not doing things the right way is wrong. I'm being a little blunt cos I'm a little drunk, forgive me if you can.

Undeniable that things "work in a certain way."... So an example of that would be that heterosexual couples shouldn't have anal sex because it's an "exit only?" I'm personally not interested in that, but I see no problem with it and I know heterosexuals who enjoy it.

I'm not sure if this is distinct from saying something is right or wrong based upon it being natural. Appeal to nature is a fallacy. Appeal to nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It depends on how you see nature and the nature of things. I think there is a natural order to things. Do I think it's wrong to kill? Yes. But I will shoot an animal in a heartbeat if it meant I could feed my children (no, I don't have any just saying). But shooting an animal just for fun would be wrong.

It's not like there's no homosexuality in nature, but if there weren't that wouldn't prove that homosexuality is harmful. If you disagree with what I had said, you might want to say why "harm" and "consent" are insufficient in some way. These others things you cite as wrong do harm others...

"worse off" is subjective. Maybe to you or me, but what about to out purpose? I guess if you don't think you're here for a reason that's a weal argument, but I know I'm here for a reason and it wouldn't be right for me to spend my time not reaching for those things.

In a worldly sense at least. I don't really believe in the supernatural and lesbians raised in Christian families who feel guilty about their sexuality would be a good example of harm caused by even the more tame forms of Christianity we have today.

And why do you only use lesbians for your examples? Just wondering.

No reason that I recall. In retrospect it's more applicable to you since you're female and have what you consider unnatural urges while intoxicated.

 

[SilentAugust]

Okay, here's what's weird.

How, exactly, is loving on homosexuality "progressive?"

No I don't think having a preference for a certain ethnicity in your mate is any more racist than not being homosexual is homophobic. Telling homosexuals they can't marry another homosexual, or telling a White girl she can't marry a Black man, however, would be more along those lines. The point I was alluding to is that the same arguments used against gay marriage today were used against interracial marriage decades ago.

That's because people thought it was wrong back then. But how is it "progressive" that we now think it's right? What are we progressing towards? Remember the slippery slope argument? Well, it's happening! First interracial marriage. Now homosexual marriage. Now I'm hearing more and more people claim that "well, just anything goes." More and more tolerance for more and more things. Is that a safe way to think? Or even normal?

Interracial marriage was wrong before, and now it's right. Same for homosexual marriage. We have basically just agreed that definitions of right and wrong can be changed, and so yes, it is possible and likely that some truly freakish and deviant behaviors will "have" to be accepted by people because it's "right."

But we just agreed that what's right now wasn't right not long ago. So where's the justice in making people "see the light?" Doesn't anyone realize how arrogant and condescending people are when they say things like social progressives do? It's exactly the same thing as those funky religious people. "Well, you're allowed to think it's right, but only if you admit that you were wrong." At least religious people are willing to give the other side the intellectual dignity of having an opposite camp. From what I see in the homosexual debate, there is no "rightness" or "wrongness" except when it involves those certain people who shall not be named. Namely anyone who doesn't go along with the mainstream. Yeah, I'd love to see the end point of a society like that.

It's like how black people are allowed to say "******." It's a bad word, but they're still allowed to use it, because "it's not hurting anyone." Wow.

And yes, homosexuality does hurt things. It's inherently a non-productive lifestyle (no kids) which hurts the entire human race. Population control, anyone? Just convince everyone to become homosexual! But in any case, because it's gauranteed that no kids will come out of it, there's no basis to consider relational stability. You want to know why homosexual people have monogamous relationships? Because heterosexuals had them first, because we have to. Monogamy is our cultural standard; there's no rhyme or reason that homosexuals in America won't move from partner to partner except for that the majority consensus is polygamy is wrong. Monogamy is a given where children are concerned. Oh, but I think we agreed in the abortion debate that some children aren't people, so who cares about them either?

You see where this is going? And people call the slippery slope a fallacy.

There's also the spread of disease. Someone, please, tell me how sticking your penis up someone's rectum is in any way healthy or normal. Heterosexuality spreads disease, sure, but uh... that's not the issue, so I won't discuss that.

Take this away if nothing else. Homosexuality is only becoming more and more right because more and more people think it is right. If I hear one more argument about "basic human rights" my head's going to explode.

 

[catzmeow]

Take this away if nothing else. Homosexuality is only becoming more and more right because more and more people think it is right. If I hear one more argument about "basic human rights" my head's going to explode.

After reading all of this, I can't help but think of at least one person who would be greatly benefitted by a penis up the ass.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I can understand why no other gay or lesbian poster has come out on this message board.

 

[Sunni Man]

I can understand why no other gay or lesbian poster has come out on this message board.

Maybe you are the only sick homo here

 

[N4mddissent]

I just see it as not right. It's not what we are made for. The parts work the way they do for a reason. I do believe in God and I think that creation is the most beautiful thing and I think God meant it to be the way it is. To do otherwise just seems wrong to me. Just because something feels good doesn't mean we should do it.

If you have your money sitting on a table and it would feel good to me if I had it should I take it? No, that would be wrong. I love ice cream, I could eat it until I threw up. It would feel good to pig out on it, should I do it? No, our bodies aren't meant to take that kind of abuse, it would be wrong to do it. I can give lots of examples of what I mean. You don't have to agree, but do you understand?

I don't think anyone should have a problem with you having the right to choose your own beliefs. But no matter how strong your conviction that your beliefs are correct, it does not make it acceptable to codify those beliefs in policy. Muslims are forbidden to eat swine. If social policy was based upon their beliefs, eating pork would be denied to everyone. The only way to maintain a free society while also maintaining order is through tolerance. A neutral approach which does not condone nor condemn is really the only way the government should participate. However, I do think it is important to have avenues for support for young people who are homosexual and have difficulty coming to terms with it. I'm not sure public school should be the vessel for that support. Additionally, I think that it is appropriate and should be considered an American value to teach children to respect others, even if they have a lifestyle you don't necessarily condone.

 

[N4mddissent]

I can understand why no other gay or lesbian poster has come out on this message board.

Maybe you are the only sick homo here

I find your inability to maintain socially acceptable dialogue and constant pejorative outbursts which are base and demeaning to be sick. You reflect poorly upon yourself when instead of reasonable conversation, you resort to communication barely above an animalistic level, consisting of the linguistic equivalent of grunting and pounding your fists on the ground.

 

[Amanda]

I don't think anyone should have a problem with you having the right to choose your own beliefs. But no matter how strong your conviction that your beliefs are correct, it does not make it acceptable to codify those beliefs in policy. Muslims are forbidden to eat swine. If social policy was based upon their beliefs, eating pork would be denied to everyone. The only way to maintain a free society while also maintaining order is through tolerance. A neutral approach which does not condone nor condemn is really the only way the government should participate. However, I do think it is important to have avenues for support for young people who are homosexual and have difficulty coming to terms with it. I'm not sure public school should be the vessel for that support. Additionally, I think that it is appropriate and should be considered an American value to teach children to respect others, even if they have a lifestyle you don't necessarily condone.

I have said many times that I'm in favor of civil unions for all. My point here, and I think you got it, was that public schools should not be in the business shaping morals/values. I think that gay teens (I don't think you can really be gay until you hit puberty, but I'm sure I'll be told I'm wrong) should have some kind of counseling available, but I'm sure there are very different ideas about what form it should take. I agree that it should be an American value to respect others. I'm hopeful for the day when we will no longer have protected classes, we just have people.

 

[N4mddissent]

I don't think anyone should have a problem with you having the right to choose your own beliefs. But no matter how strong your conviction that your beliefs are correct, it does not make it acceptable to codify those beliefs in policy. Muslims are forbidden to eat swine. If social policy was based upon their beliefs, eating pork would be denied to everyone. The only way to maintain a free society while also maintaining order is through tolerance. A neutral approach which does not condone nor condemn is really the only way the government should participate. However, I do think it is important to have avenues for support for young people who are homosexual and have difficulty coming to terms with it. I'm not sure public school should be the vessel for that support. Additionally, I think that it is appropriate and should be considered an American value to teach children to respect others, even if they have a lifestyle you don't necessarily condone.

I have said many times that I'm in favor of civil unions for all. My point here, and I think you got it, was that public schools should not be in the business shaping morals/values. I think that gay teens (I don't think you can really be gay until you hit puberty, but I'm sure I'll be told I'm wrong) should have some kind of counseling available, but I'm sure there are very different ideas about what form it should take. I agree that it should be an American value to respect others. I'm hopeful for the day when we will no longer have protected classes, we just have people.

You say civil unions for all. In a post long ago I talked about civil unions for ALL, meaning government should stay out of marriage- especially with all of its religious connotations which provide the main stumbling block for homosexuality- altogether. Heterosexual and homosexual couples should be issued civil unions by the government. Marriage can be something that happens in your church. Is that the policy you feel is correct?

 

[Amanda]

You say civil unions for all. In a post long ago I talked about civil unions for ALL, meaning government should stay out of marriage- especially with all of its religious connotations which provide the main stumbling block for homosexuality- altogether. Heterosexual and homosexual couples should be issued civil unions by the government. Marriage can be something that happens in your church. Is that the policy you feel is correct?

Essentially.

I'm really flexible about it, I'm not trying to deny anyone any rights. I also don't want to see people feeling their religion is being disrespected. I think there can be a happy balance found that would work for most people, but many are so entrenched in their agendas they can't find common ground.

 

[N4mddissent]

You say civil unions for all. In a post long ago I talked about civil unions for ALL, meaning government should stay out of marriage- especially with all of its religious connotations which provide the main stumbling block for homosexuality- altogether. Heterosexual and homosexual couples should be issued civil unions by the government. Marriage can be something that happens in your church. Is that the policy you feel is correct?

Essentially.

I'm really flexible about it, I'm not trying to deny anyone any rights. I also don't want to see people feeling their religion is being disrespected. I think there can be a happy balance found that would work for most people, but many are so entrenched in their agendas they can't find common ground.

I think it would be the best all around solution. If you can find a church to "marry" you, then you can tell people you're married. As far as the eyes of the government is concerned, you have a civil union. Personally, if marriage is a tradition which is denied to homosexuals, then I find it offensive and would like to instead have a civil union as heterosexual. How do you think that would go over? Hmmm... wonder what the legal possibilities are...

 

[Sky Dancer]

I wouldn't care if my civil marriage were called a civil union if I had the same rights as any other married couple.

It doesn't work that way in America.

I've been married by a Buddhist lama with the full support of my spiritual community. I've been civilly married as well.

Proposition 8 came along, and our marriage is still legal.

What we don't have that other married people do, is their union acknowledged in every state in the US, and the rights and priveleges that go along with it.

 

[Abelian Sea]

Maybe you are the only sick homo here

She's not the only homo that posts here. There's me, too, for example.

I do think it is important to have avenues for support for young people who are homosexual and have difficulty coming to terms with it. I'm not sure public school should be the vessel for that support.

I agree. Schools have enough to teach in the limited time they have the kids to begin with. They should focus on things like science, mathematics, history, civics, geography, literature, art, music, and physical fitness. That's quite a full plate. Individual personal issues, when the school staff can realistically help with them at all, should be handled individually and hopefully not during regular classtime.

Additionally, I think that it is appropriate and should be considered an American value to teach children to respect others, even if they have a lifestyle you don't necessarily condone.

*nod* It is important for schools to instill, as much as they are able, a sense of respect for oneself and others, but that can't effectively be done in a seperate lesson. It must be integrated into the daily functioning: how the teacher runs the classroom, how the office handles discipline issues, etc.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Schools unfortunately are dealing with behavior and psychological issues of their students. This is to the detriment of science, math,civics, english, art and music.

Not all high schools are alike, I'm speaking about our local high school.

 

[Sunni Man]

I can understand why no other gay or lesbian poster has come out on this message board.

Maybe you are the only sick homo here

I find your inability to maintain socially acceptable dialogue and constant pejorative outbursts which are base and demeaning to be sick. You reflect poorly upon yourself when instead of reasonable conversation, you resort to communication barely above an animalistic level, consisting of the linguistic equivalent of grunting and pounding your fists on the ground.

You are right N4mddissent

I could say #1) As a Health profession I find Homosexuality to be detrimental to the mental well being of those who practice it. And is a lifestyle that can lead to serious healths risks and serious diseases. Also, homosexuality seems to contribute to the break down of society and they are culturally dysfunctional people. Homosexuals need to be hospitalized and given psychological therapy to help them effect a cure for their illness.

Or

#2) Homos are sick perverted degenerates, who do nothing but spread disease and infections. Faggots are a nasty plague. They should be locked up for the benefit and protection of society and the safety of children.


Looks like either way I say it. It comes out meaning the same thing.

 

[del]

Maybe you are the only sick homo here

She's not the only homo that posts here. There's me, too, for example.

I do think it is important to have avenues for support for young people who are homosexual and have difficulty coming to terms with it. I'm not sure public school should be the vessel for that support.

I agree. Schools have enough to teach in the limited time they have the kids to begin with. They should focus on things like science, mathematics, history, civics, geography, literature, art, music, and physical fitness. That's quite a full plate. Individual personal issues, when the school staff can realistically help with them at all, should be handled individually and hopefully not during regular classtime.

Additionally, I think that it is appropriate and should be considered an American value to teach children to respect others, even if they have a lifestyle you don't necessarily condone.

*nod* It is important for schools to instill, as much as they are able, a sense of respect for oneself and others, but that can't effectively be done in a seperate lesson. It must be integrated into the daily functioning: how the teacher runs the classroom, how the office handles discipline issues, etc.

you're pretty smart for a homo.

 

[Valerie]

Maybe you are the only sick homo here

I find your inability to maintain socially acceptable dialogue and constant pejorative outbursts which are base and demeaning to be sick. You reflect poorly upon yourself when instead of reasonable conversation, you resort to communication barely above an animalistic level, consisting of the linguistic equivalent of grunting and pounding your fists on the ground.

You are right N4mddissent

I could say #1) As a Health profession I find Homosexuality to be detrimental to the mental well being of those who practice it. And is a lifestyle that can lead to serious healths risks and serious diseases. Also, homosexuality seems to contribute to the break down of society and they are culturally dysfunctional people. Homosexuals need to be hospitalized and given psychological therapy to help them effect a cure for their illness.

Or

#2) Homos are sick perverted degenerates, who do nothing but spread disease and infections. Faggots are a nasty plague. They should be locked up for the benefit and protection of society and the safety of children.


Looks like either way I say it. It comes out meaning the same thing.

Yeah right!

Either way it comes out meaning you are an