Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Are you an asshole or just pretending to be one to irritate me?
No, I'm not gay. That fact doesn't preclude me from having opinions about the treatment of gays or an opinion on some of the bullshit theories about them.
If you disagree with my opinions, present your own or STFU!
So your answer to all societies ills would be to have schools teach Christian values? How exactly would that not be having the schools do the parents and clergy's job? Or is this notion only laughable when schools are being used to teach something you disagree with?
We can open another thread to debate whether secularism is a religion if you'd like, but I'm pretty sure that horse died a long time ago.
Actually what I have been saying in all my posts is that schools should remain neutral. Nice try at twisting my words though. And interstingly enough you yourself stated all types of beleifs should be taught in schools..Intersting
My answer to societies ills is to have parents do their job, and not have it handed over to the government.
Tell you what, when you are ready to give me substantive replies to my very extensive and clear posts on this matter Ill be happy to debate, otherwise don't waste my time with twisting words and subderfuge...
I wasn't trying to twist. It appeared to me that "I have to laugh when I hear people say school just like government is the answer to all societies ills. " and " I find it also very ironic that teaching Christian values is taboo in public school but it is precisely the Christian teachings and other religions that say love thy neighbor and treat all with respect as we are all made in God's image and likeness." seemed to contradict each other. I can see now that what you were intending to say is that it's ironic that the same people who would use the schools to teach tolerance are opposed to Christian teaching whose cornerstone is tolerance. I admit it, I misread your intent.
In your opinion of course.
And, if I can present a scenario that it's possible for two women to both have a biological connection to the same child, what then?
Homosexual "parents" are not normal because they are NOT real biological parents. That's not just my opinion - that's a fact. Yet you, the so-called "realist", want school children to be taught that "two mommies" are normal parents.
A "biological connection" is not the same as a biological parent. An aunt or uncle or an unrelated wet nurse can have a "biological connection" to a child too. That does NOT mean they are the biological, normal parents.
Man, do you sound cold-hearted. Just tell that rhetoric to loving parents who take the time and trouble to adopt children that no one wants. “Sorry, son – I mean boy, but it is time that you learn the truth. Though we really wanted you and took you in and raised you and cared for you these many years, we are not real parents. You are not our son. Your sperm donor and egg donor, the people who gave you away, they are your real parents”.
That's right. Adoptive parents are NOT the real parents.
They can be good substitute "parents" however. Especially when they are a man and a woman, like the child's real, true parents. That's why getting a man and a woman to parent an orphan is a more normal family than two gays.
When "two mommies" have a child together with sperm implantation, they are creating a totally bogus family. So now give me the liberal song and dance "we are family" bullspit.
That's right. Adoptive parents are NOT the real parents.
They can be good substitute "parents" however. Especially when they are a man and a woman, like the child's real, true parents. That's why getting a man and a woman to parent an orphan is a more normal family than two gays.
When "two mommies" have a child together with sperm implantation, they are creating a totally bogus family. So now give me the liberal song and dance "we are family" bullspit.
So, in your opinion, are all families that aren't "one mom/one dad" unacceptable? If not, what family arrangements do you consider a good substitute for a state institution with "no mom/no dad"?
mattskramer said:Oh well. We agree to disagree. I think that you give sperm donors too much credit. It is easy to be a biological father. It takes work to be a daddy.
Regardless of whether you find them normal or not, they do exist. Whether the child they are raising is biologically theirs or adopted, they are parents. It's pure hysterics to believe that any child will be damaged if they learn that not all families fit a Christian-cookie-cutter mold...Oh, The Horror!We were talking about teaching children that "two mommies" are normal parents...which they are not.
Regardless of whether you find them normal or not, they do exist. Whether the child they are raising is biologically theirs or adopted, they are parents. It's pure hysterics to believe that any child will be damaged if they learn that not all families fit a Christian-cookie-cutter mold...Oh, The Horror!
and to pass a law saying it must be so is even more fucked up and then to not present a symmetrical argument that it is out of the norm biologically and theologically....is diabolical.
Abortion, artificial insimination for lesbians, and other ways for liberals to use technology to make the world a bastardized version of what they think it should be.
You know, God was really smart when he made it so that you had to have one man and one woman to make a baby. No more, no less. Why then, do we have to twist everything around to accomadate a few people's sick desires?
And then, as the title of the thred is talking about, we have to force people who do have an ounce of common sense to accept this twisted version of reality.
That's right. Adoptive parents are NOT the real parents.
teaching my 8 year olde son in a public school that two mommies or two daddies is a normal an acceptable and must be accepted as a normal life style and an acceptable alternative to a man and a women is just not acceptable....and to pass a law saying it must be so is even more fucked up and then to not present a symmetrical argument that it is out of the norm biologically and theologically....is diabolical.
Who gives you the right to make it your bastardised version?
There is no such thing as a god. Just nature. Things change. Get used to it.
They don't have to accept anything. Just wallow in their own ignorance and walk on by. It will not affect them one iota. All you are Hobbit, is a 21st century luddite.
Man, do you sound cold-hearted. Just tell that rhetoric to loving parents who take the time and trouble to adopt children that no one wants. Sorry, son I mean boy, but it is time that you learn the truth. Though we really wanted you and took you in and raised you and cared for you these many years, we are not real parents. You are not our son. Your sperm donor and egg donor, the people who gave you away, they are your real parents.
It's not diabolical. It's human nature. The gay rights movement is so used to being placated that they can't be expected to do anything else but expect their chosen habits and lifestyles to not only be tolerated but celebrated.
It's just a natural progession from how they began the whole movement.
Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile.
The gays rights movement is proof of that cliche. They started out by claiming they just wanted to be left alone. They didn't want to be arrested for performing the private sexual acts that were none of the states business. Fine.
Then it became an "civil rights" issue. Jobs, housing. Fine.
Then it became an "equal rights" issue. Medical decisions. Inheritance. Child custody in divorce due to one parent deciding to stop "lying" about their true sexual orientation. Fine.
But then they went into the public schools. They decided that gay men had the right to be boy scout leaders. Anyone who disagreed, for any reason, was automatically a bigot and a homophobe. Celebrities like Tom Selleck, Richard Gere, Tom Cruise, who denied being gay were called names simply because they denied being gay. All married men, all called the worsst names in the book, because they had the stupid idea that saying they weren't gay was something they had the right to do. Stupid them.
Then we got the whole gay marriage thing.
Give 'em an inch.....
