'State interest' argued in teaching homosexuality

[Gunny]

My SIL was a middle school teacher before she retired. She complained about the pressure on her to pass kids who, in her opinion, did not deserve to pass. She had an unlisted phone # to avoid harassing phone calls from irate parents, but she still had to deal with the pressures from "management."

Ironically, I think she was really a good teacher. At least she got my brother very interested in English literature, a subject he could have cared less about before he met her.

Couldn't pay me to be a teacher nowadays. The inmates are allowed to run the asylum.

[Missileman]

[COLOR="olive"]
It says exactly what it says. It makes the point that man circumvents the natural order of true homosexuals dying without reproducing by allowing homosexuals to adopt children. Nothing more or less.

The only way that a homosexual adoption would circumvent the natural order of dying out would be to produce another homosexual. If a homosexual raises a child who's a heterosexual the homosexual isn't reproducing, right?

[COLOR="olive"]
I said "there has not been sufficient time to compile any data that supports or refutes a trend." Nowhere does that say there is no data at all available, nor that one cannot formulate an opinion.

Ahh, okay then, how about providing the data on which you are basing your opinion as I asked in the first place.

I can compare children being raised in an evironment that supports certain beliefs to children being raised in an environment that supports certain beliefs. If you don't believe children can be brought up to believe they are homosexual the same way children can be brought up to believe they are racist, then it has to be because you just don't want to hear the truth.

You are attempting to defend the indefensible. Simple as that.

And you continue to ignore the fact that the majority of homosexuals WERE brought up to believe homosexuality is immoral and unacceptable. That fact invalidates your comparison and your adoptive parent hypothesis.

[Missileman]

I don't believe this for a minute. None of the schools I attended growing up were shut down because the parents showed an interest in the cirriculum. And, when my children were growing up none of their schools were shut down due to parental attention to the cirriculum.

What makes you think this would be the situation today?

I'm not talking about a parent having an opinion about what things are included in the curriculum, they are entitled to one. I'm talking about one parent trying to dictate the content as in the law suit, and the resulting stream of other parents who would want the same ability to dictate what to include or exclude in the curriculum.

[Gunny]

The only way that a homosexual adoption would circumvent the natural order of dying out would be to produce another homosexual. If a homosexual raises a child who's a heterosexual the homosexual isn't reproducing, right?

The fact remains, the homosexual is raising a child.



Ahh, okay then, how about providing the data on which you are basing your opinion as I asked in the first place.

I'm begining to wonder what drugs you're on today. Since I have made no definitive statement based on any data, you can do your own homework. The only "data" I used to come to my logical conclusion was the simple math that led to it with the ingredients already listed more than two or three times.

And you continue to ignore the fact that the majority of homosexuals WERE brought up to believe homosexuality is immoral and unacceptable. That fact invalidates your comparison and your adoptive parent hypothesis.

You don't know what the majority of homosexuals were brought up to believe, yet you post it as fact. That's not to mention that what current homosexuals were brought up to believe has absolutely nothing to do with my comparison, and hardly invalidates it.

All you have proven so far is that you are unwilling to see anything that doesn't agree with your pro-homo stance, and because you say so doesn't refute a thing.

[Birdzeye]

Couldn't pay me to be a teacher nowadays. The inmates are allowed to run the asylum.

Years ago, when I was in a job as a lab tech in a medical research lab and hating it, I was considering a career change. One of the options I was considering was becoming a science teacher.

My SIL threatened to have me comitted.

[Missileman]

The fact remains, the homosexual is raising a child.

If the child turns out to be heterosexual and isn't genetically related to the parent, how does that circumvent nature?

Since I have made no definitive statement based on any data, you can do your own homework. The only "data" I used to come to my logical conclusion was the simple math that led to it with the ingredients already listed more than two or three times.

And we FINALLY get to the point. Your statements weren't based on any data at all...merely formed from bias and fallacy.

You don't know what the majority of homosexuals were brought up to believe, yet you post it as fact.

As it is so often thrown around on this board that 90% of the U.S. is Christian, it only stands to reason that most homosexuals were raised in a Christian household. Since at least 95% of the population is heterosexual, it also stands to reason that most homosexuals were raised in a heterosexual household. Being a big fan of common sense, I'm sure you can appreciate those two statements.

That's not to mention that what current homosexuals were brought up to believe has absolutely nothing to do with my comparison, and hardly invalidates it.

On the contrary, the environment that current homosexuals were raised in is relevant, but in typical anti-homosexual fashion, you arbitrarily discard information that contradicts your prejudice.

[Gunny]

If the child turns out to be heterosexual and isn't genetically related to the parent, how does that circumvent nature?

The homosexual raising the child circumvents nature, not the child's sexual orientation.



And we FINALLY get to the point. Your statements weren't based on any data at all...merely formed from bias and fallacy.

Umm .... no. No bias nor fallacy. As I've stated ad nauseum, just logic and common sense. Something you have chosen to ignore since it doesn't support your stance.

Bottom line: your argument sucks, and you're arguing just to be doing so, and doing a rather piss-poor job of it.



As it is so often thrown around on this board that 90% of the U.S. is Christian, it only stands to reason that most homosexuals were raised in a Christian household. Since at least 95% of the population is heterosexual, it also stands to reason that most homosexuals were raised in a heterosexual household. Being a big fan of common sense, I'm sure you can appreciate those two statements.

No. Playing your game, they're just assumptions on your part.


On the contrary, the environment that current homosexuals were raised in is relevant, but in typical anti-homosexual fashion, you arbitrarily discard information that contradicts your prejudice.

The evironment in which current homsexuals are raised is irrelevant, but in typical pro-homo fashion, you arbitrarily discard information that contradicts your prejudice.

[Missileman]

The homosexual raising the child circumvents nature, not the child's sexual orientation.

I'm talking about circumventing nature in the context of dying out which is the context you presented it in.

No. Playing your game, they're just assumptions on your part.

They are assumptions based upon facts unlike yours which are based not only on nothing at all but are in contradiction to existing facts.

The evironment in which current homsexuals are raised is irrelevant, but in typical pro-homo fashion, you arbitrarily discard information that contradicts your prejudice.

Unlike yourself, I can (and have) actually provide the information that you arbitrarily discard.

[Gunny]

I'm talking about circumventing nature in the context of dying out which is the context you presented it in.

Guess you should have asked instead of attacking, huh?

They are assumptions based upon facts unlike yours which are based not only on nothing at all but are in contradiction to existing facts.

What facts? I have seen no facts presented by you.

My argument is based on logic; which, you keep trying to deny. Go for it dude. You're making yourself look close-minded and one-sided, and not harming me in the slightest.

Unlike yourself, I can (and have) actually provide the information that you arbitrarily discard.

I provide whatever information I say I can. I just don't play your little bullshit games about it, denying the obvious to suit an agenda, then turning around and claiming my hearsay to be fact. I have repeatedly validated my conclusion as being based on logic and common sense. Simple as that. You turn around and dishonestly demand some evidence, which you know full-well doesn't exist since same-sex couples adopting hasn't been going on long enough for their to be any evidence compiled.

And if you are going to deny that homosexuals can be a result of an environment, then you're just as narrow-minded as you present yourself to be.

[Missileman]

Guess you should have asked instead of attacking, huh?

I've been asking the question for several posts...you keep answering out of context. Now that you understand the question, what's your answer?

What facts? I have seen no facts presented by you.

It is a fact that 90% of the U.S. is Christian. It is a fact that at least 95% of the population is heterosexual. It is a fact that the majority of current homosexuals must have come from heterosexual, Christian households, there's simply no other place they could have.

Let's hear your facts.

My argument is based on logic; which, you keep trying to deny. Go for it dude. You're making yourself look close-minded and one-sided, and not harming me in the slightest.

You can call it logic until you're blue in the face, it's anything but.

I provide whatever information I say I can. I just don't play your little bullshit games about it, denying the obvious to suit an agenda, then turning around and claiming my hearsay to be fact. I have repeatedly validated my conclusion as being based on logic and common sense. Simple as that. You turn around and dishonestly demand some evidence, which you know full-well doesn't exist since same-sex couples adopting hasn't been going on long enough for their to be any evidence compiled.

I'm being dishonest for asking you to justify your statements with some actual evidence? You're fucking kidding, right?

And if you are going to deny that homosexuals can be a result of an environment, then you're just as narrow-minded as you present yourself to be.

I suppose there's no point in asking you to provide any evidence to back up this statement either, right? I mean I'll admit it's possible, but since they've not figured out what causes it, and given the facts I posted above, environment doesn't seem to be a likely candidate.

[Gunny]

I've been asking the question for several posts...you keep answering out of context. Now that you understand the question, what's your answer?

I answered you. More than once. Don't blame me because you decided to presume what I meant. Try scolling back a few posts.

It is a fact that 90% of the U.S. is Christian. It is a fact that at least 95% of the population is heterosexual. It is a fact that the majority of current homosexuals must have come from heterosexual, Christian households, there's simply no other place they could have.

If in total they represent 5% of the population or less, they could easily have come from homosexual parents, either ones "living the lie" or single-parent homosexual households. They could come from orphanages.

The fact is, you are guessing and don't relly know for a fact WHERE they come from. Are you going to try and tell me you came to a logical conclusion? Guess this is where I should act like you and pretend you have no possibility of being right since no factual evidence supports your theory.

Let's hear your facts.



You can call it logic until you're blue in the face, it's anything but.

It's completely logical. Just doesn't suit your stance. Live in denial. I'll get over it.


I'm being dishonest for asking you to justify your statements with some actual evidence? You're fucking kidding, right?

Let's put this in true context ... you aren't asking me to justify my statements with some actual evidence. You are demanding evidence you KNOW does not yet exist. So yeah, I'd call that dishonest.


I suppose there's no point in asking you to provide any evidence to back up this statement either, right? I mean I'll admit it's possible, but since they've not figured out what causes it, and given the facts I posted above, environment doesn't seem to be a likely candidate.

One, you have posted no facts as of yet. Just your assumptions. Two, I presented the statement as a theory, not a fact. You seem to have a REAL problem with differentiating between the two. Lord knows you can't differentiate between YOUR opinion and fact.

Don't presume to attribute your weaknesses to me.

[Missileman]

I answered you. More than once. Don't blame me because you decided to presume what I meant. Try scolling back a few posts.

Not one of your answers that you've given has a thing to do with circumventing dying out, the original context of your statement.

If in total they represent 5% of the population or less, they could easily have come from homosexual parents, either ones "living the lie" or single-parent homosexual households. They could come from orphanages.

Well, let's examine your answer. Households where one of the parents is "living a lie" would appear to be a heterosexual environment right? We can toss that one out. In 2000, there were approximately 12 million single parents in the U.S. I couldn't find much on orphanages, but one link I found placed the number of children in orphanages in the late 90's at around 100,000.

With the population being 300 million, 5% comes out to 15 million. Even if I make the ridiculous concession that every single parent is a homosexual, and that every single child in an orphanage is a homosexual, that leaves millions unaccounted for.

I suppose you'll now argue that claiming all 12 million single parents are homosexual is logical.

[Gunny]

Not one of your answers that you've given has a thing to do with circumventing dying out, the original context of your statement.

Hell-o-o-o-o .... How many times do I have to tell you that you have read more into the statement than I wrote? Tyr to read this with your plain, simple English glasses on: True homosexuals in nature die out without reproducing. Only Man circumvents this by allowing homosexuals to adopt children.

Thus, one can conclude that my point is that nature does not allow homosexuals to have children, while man does. That's a fact, and there's nothing more to it than THAT.

I didn't say a damn thing in my initial statement, or the mirror statement/explanation of this one that you didn't seem to get, in regard to the gender preference of the children being raised by homosexuals. YOU did. YOU assumed. Simple as that.


Well, let's examine your answer. Households where one of the parents is "living a lie" would appear to be a heterosexual environment right? We can toss that one out. In 2000, there were approximately 12 million single parents in the U.S. I couldn't find much on orphanages, but one link I found placed the number of children in orphanages in the late 90's at around 100,000.

With the population being 300 million, 5% comes out to 15 million. Even if I make the ridiculous concession that every single parent is a homosexual, and that every single child in an orphanage is a homosexual, that leaves millions unaccounted for.

I suppose you'll now argue that claiming all 12 million single parents are homosexual is logical.

Can you ever read what is written without assuming WAY more than is there? Just shake your head and say "No I can't."

I simply offered examples that showed that heterosexual, Christian parents are not the only players in the game; which, is what you have been trying to claim.

I'm not the one sitting here pretending I know where homosexuals come from, nor who has them. YOU are. In each case, I have merely offered a theory based on logical conclusion; which, you refuse to acknowledge simply because they do not suit your argument.

When I start acting like you and making absolute statements based on opinion, THEN you will have every right to bitch. As long as I qualify a theory or opinion as just that, then you have NO right to twist my words nor add meanings to them that you have assumed.

Really, dude, you used to be at least somehwat reasonable to debate with.

[Missileman]

Hell-o-o-o-o .... How many times do I have to tell you that you have read more into the statement than I wrote? Tyr to read this with your plain, simple English glasses on: True homosexuals in nature die out without reproducing. Only Man circumvents this by allowing homosexuals to adopt children.

Thus, one can conclude that my point is that nature does not allow homosexuals to have children, while man does. That's a fact, and there's nothing more to it than THAT.

I didn't say a damn thing in my initial statement, or the mirror statement/explanation of this one that you didn't seem to get, in regard to the gender preference of the children being raised by homosexuals. YOU did. YOU assumed. Simple as that.

Uh, HELLLOOOO back at ya...you still haven't explained how adoption is allowing a homosexual to reproduce if the adopted kid turns out to be heterosexual. Last time I checked, reproducing requires passing something on to your progeny.

Can you ever read what is written without assuming WAY more than is there? Just shake your head and say "No I can't."

I simply offered examples that showed that heterosexual, Christian parents are not the only players in the game; which, is what you have been trying to claim.

I've claimed nothing of the sort, only that due to the demographics of the U.S., unless spaceships are dropping them out of the sky, the majority of homosexuals must come from heterosexual, Christian homes.

[CockySOB]

I've claimed nothing of the sort, only that due to the demographics of the U.S., unless spaceships are dropping them out of the sky, the majority of homosexuals must come from heterosexual, Christian homes.

I'd be interested in how you figure that majority statistic. The heterosexual part is sustainable, but not the Christian part, IMHO.