Homosexuals and Bisexuals

[BigBadWlf]

It was for years both, but now we are forbidden.

You want to destroy any hope of a nation that would attempt to ensure to as many kids as possible that anyone who has children should be ready willing and able to care for them.

Ready and willing like gay/lesbian parents

 

[BigBadWlf]

I agree.

Still a behavior.

Not according to the APA

 

[Philothei]

That is simply untrue. I don't speak for the school, but that is simply untrue," he said. "He was invited to come in, he came in, there was a dialogue going back and forth, there were faxes sent back and forth, from the school to the school committee. His intent was absolutely not to be arrested. His intent was to establish a dialogue to protect his own children and other children as well."

I guess it is one article against the other...

Father faces trial over school's 'pro-gay' book

The rest prove nothing as I appreciate the "research" in finding the slanted reports... it is useless though as the ones "presenting" their "stories" as as slanted...


Also the fact he lost proves that the information is slanted? ....what a hoax. It merely proves parents are not in control of their children's education no more...or their faith.. There is no seperation between teaching moral issues and plain facts.
Living a homosexual lifestyle is a choice not a fact. You live it because you make a moral decision. Why would you want to "educate" my kid about making moral decision making that belongs to the Church...Get over it... move on and leave the issues of moral formation to parents and their faith. Just like trying to teach atheists what "sin" is. It would be unfair and also irrelevant to their beliefs...

Mass resistance went there and picked up a pamphlet and went on to make all sorts of false claims from there

so what there is freedom of expression here in this country i last checked... That hardly proves anything... so what was your point again ...

And BTW I did not put up the link to bring forth all these...You though went and cut and pasted all "polemics" against those claims... Bravo still though proves nothing.

And you can go on and on with the twisting facts about this :

read it again :

TOVIA SMITH: But many teachers say they're less afraid now since the high court decision legalizing gay marriage. Deb Allen teaches eighth-grade sex ed in Brookline. She keeps a picture of her lesbian partner and their kids on her desk and gay equality signs on the wall. Allen says she's already been teaching a gay-friendly curriculum for nearly a decade, but she says she does begin this year feeling a bit more emboldened
No the site is not lying teahers do teach openly through example that they bring to school... Maybe it is a misquote about the student but reading more you can see they are true to what they claim...

Sad for truth to be twisted to present false ideas of the same text...

 

[Philothei]

You try to claim others are presenting strawman arguments (when they are not) but then you go and produce one yourself. The poster said nothing of the sort and it is dishonest of you to try to claim she did

your say... The poster can come and ask can he? I do not think that this is our discussion perce...You are all over the place... I wonder why this is so?

 

[BigBadWlf]

*BUMP*

What schools are Christians not allowed to pray at?

 

[Shane Roach]

Not according to the APA

Yes, according to the APA. There is nothing to show that members of the APA have changed simple grammar, and no one from the APA states that homosexual behavior is not allowed to be referred to as "homosexuality".

 

[Shane Roach]

Is there a pat little defense for this one?

GLSEN Conference and Little Black Book

Explicit pamphlets displayed at school - The Boston Globe

 

[BigBadWlf]

I guess it is one article against the other...

Father faces trial over school's 'pro-gay' book

Lets see. The worldnutdaily verses the Boston Globe. Hmmm…which one is actually credible?

The rest prove nothing as I appreciate the "research" in finding the slanted reports... it is useless though as the ones "presenting" their "stories" as as slanted...

So are you changing your earlier statement… that it is not OK to lie about a minority so long as one can claim they aren’t lies….just slanted?

Also the fact he lost proves that the information is slanted? ....what a hoax. It merely proves parents are not in control of their children's education no more...or their faith.. There is no seperation between teaching moral issues and plain facts.

As was shown Mass resistance is the one lying

Living a homosexual lifestyle is a choice not a fact. You live it because you make a moral decision.

The moral decision to reject lying about who one is and the moral decision to reject self hatred

Why would you want to "educate" my kid about making moral decision making that belongs to the Church...Get over it... move on and leave the issues of moral formation to parents and their faith. Just like trying to teach atheists what "sin" is. It would be unfair and also irrelevant to their beliefs...

Why would you want to teach my children false statements about gays and lesbians?

so what there is freedom of expression here in this country i last checked... That hardly proves anything... so what was your point again ...

So you are saying it is moral for Mass resistance to blatantly lie?
Is that what you are teaching your children?

And BTW I did not put up the link to bring forth all these...You though went and cut and pasted all "polemics" against those claims... Bravo still though proves nothing.

Why did you put the link up? Did you just assume no one would check the facts and present facts showing the claims made were false?

And you can go on and on with the twisting facts about this :

read it again :

TOVIA SMITH: But many teachers say they're less afraid now since the high court decision legalizing gay marriage. Deb Allen teaches eighth-grade sex ed in Brookline. She keeps a picture of her lesbian partner and their kids on her desk and gay equality signs on the wall. Allen says she's already been teaching a gay-friendly curriculum for nearly a decade, but she says she does begin this year feeling a bit more emboldened

Did she make the quote Mass resistance is claming she did? No she did not.

No the site is not lying

Mass resistance did lie
It lied about the reason Parker was arrested
It lied about the Lexington school district
It lied about the quote it produced
It lied about “literature” being distributed to students
It lied about school assmeblies
It lied about the court ruling

teahers do teach openly through example that they bring to school... Maybe it is a misquote about the student but reading more you can see they are true to what they claim...

So when Mass Resistance falsely claimed that Judge Wolf ruled: “the school has a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children” was that just a “misquote”?

Sad for truth to be twisted to present false ideas of the same text...

Yes it is sad for the truth when les like the ones Mass Resistance are presenting are defended

 

[BigBadWlf]

Yes, according to the APA.

“Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others. It is easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female), and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior).
Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality. Bisexual persons can experience sexual, emotional, and affectional attraction to both their own sex and the opposite sex. Persons with a homosexual orientation are sometimes referred to as gay (both men and women) or as lesbian (women only).
Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept.. “ –Sexual orientation and homosexuality.
http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31


Not a behavior according to the APA

 

[Philothei]

Evidence?

Would be very interesting to read as all the actual published evidence shows that the children of same gendered parents are happy, healthy and well adjusted and no different from their heterosexually raised peers and the evidence shows they remains so well into adulthood.


Same thing was said about interracial marriage

without any 2nd and 3rd generation data easy to prove isn't it? The hard part is to see how well these familes do with domestic violence

also why would they need these laws...(also calling it sodomy!!!) if the homosexual couples were such a tranquil and harmonious couples?

Abstracts: Final reckoning: states allow victims' families to watch executions. 'It's just a quarrel;' some states offer no domestic violence protection to gays

'It's just a quarrel;' some states offer no domestic violence protection to gays



Article Abstract:

The legal system is just starting to acknowledge domestic violence in the gay and lesbian communities. The San Francisco-based National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, made up of 25 advocacy groups for gays and lesbians, states that the type and prevalence of homosexual domestic violence reflects heterosexual violence of the same kind. According to the coalition, however, gays and lesbians are protected less than other victims of violence. Moreover, the sodomy laws of 21 states may discourage the reporting of same-sex domestic violence.

author: Barnes, Patricia G.

Publisher: American Bar Association
Publication Name: ABA Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-0088
Year: 1998


Gays, Crimes against, Conjugal violence

why do they "reflect the heterosexual marriage"? Is that again a card blank for being such a "successful life style" as the supporters of such life style claim it to be?

Seven states define domestic violence in a way that excludes same-sex victims; 21 states have sodomy laws that may require same-sex victims to confess to a crime in order to prove they are in a domestic relationship. Barnes, It's Just a Quarrel', American Bar Association Journal, February 1998, p. 24.

Gay Domestic Violence
why the Goverment calls it sodomy if sodomy means ... malakos???

I guess they mistranslated too...eh? oh well ... too many coinsedences...

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]SAME-SEX BATTERING[/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Domestic violence occurs within same-sex relationships with the same statistical frequency as in heterosexual relationships.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The prevalence of domestic violence among Gay and Lesbian couples is approximately 25 - 33%. Barnes, It's Just a Quarrel', American Bar Association Journal, February 1998, p. 25. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Battering among Lesbians crosses age, race, class, lifestyle and socio-economic lines. Lobel, ed., Naming the Violence: Speaking Out About Lesbian Battering, 183 (1986). [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Each year, between 50,000 and 100,000 Lesbian women and as many as 500,000 Gay men are battered.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Murphy, Queer Justice: Equal Protection for Victims of Same-Sex Domestic Violence, 30 Val. U. L. Rev. 335 (1995). [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]While same-sex battering mirrors heterosexual battering both in type and prevalence, its victims receive fewer protections. Barnes, It's Just a Quarrel', American Bar Association Journal, February 1998, p. 24. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Seven states define domestic violence in a way that excludes same-sex victims;[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]* thus findings are skewed* [/FONT]



[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]21 states have sodomy laws that may require same-sex victims to confess to a crime in order to prove they are in a domestic relationship. Barnes, It's Just a Quarrel', American Bar Association Journal, February 1998, p. 24. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]It is a myth that same-sex battering is mutual. Murphy, Queer Justice: Equal Protection for Victims of Same-Sex Domestic Violence, 30 Val. U. L. Rev. 335 (1995). [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]By 1994, there were over 1,500 shelters and safe houses for battered women. many of these shelters routinely deny their services to victims of same-sex battering. Murphy, Queer Justice: Equal Protection for Victims of Same-Sex Domestic Violence, 30 Val. U. L. Rev. 335 (1995). [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Same-sex batterers use forms of abuse similar to those of heterosexual batterers. they have an additional weapon in the threat of "outing" their partner to family, friends, employers or community. Lundy, Abuse That Dare Not Speak Its Name: Assisting Victims of Lesbian and Gay Domestic Violence in Massachusetts, 28 New Eng. L. Rev. 273 (Winter 1993). [/FONT]


So.... having that extra burden (*notice the text in red) is good for the children and it is normal...to live in such an enviorment of misstrust and black mail...daily. Nice that is what we dream of our children to be in a "safe" family setting... I think not...



And do not bother finding claims in that site to "poison the well" I am only quoting what I need I am not saying all that site claims to be true it will be a waste of your time.

 

[Philothei]

Why would you want to teach my children false statements about gays and lesbians?

how? I do not want anybody to teach anything... By prayer silently I will teach against homosexuality this is absurd...as the rest of the claims about the site I quoted. Readers can read and judge for themselves what it says. No need to keep repeating statments to "poison the well" I think intelligent individuals can discern for themselves what is said in the site and see for themselves the evidence presents itself

 

[Wyzaard]

My friend, I believe in Jesus. Do you not understand? I am not an idiot.

How does this follow exactly? Why should we care?

You are threatening things that I hold to be exceedingly important on incredibly flimsy evidence, and continuing in an anti-Christian tradition that stretches back to Marx and Engel, and probably well beyond if I knew enough of their underlying philosophy to judge.

Which you don't.

 

[David Brider]

Part of behavior is thought.

Depends on the behaviour.

If a person has homosexual thought patterns, that is still a behavior.

Not really, no. To be honest, in terms of the actual experience of attraction towards another person that constitutes the heart of what sexual orientation is about, I really don't think it could be classed as any kind of coherent thought process. Maybe your experience is different, but my experience is, you see someone, and you either see something physically attractive about them or you don't.

And no, that being-attracted-to-someone definitely isn't a behaviour, no matter how many times you try to insist that it is.

That's the whole point. I have never argued that is not possible, though none of you have proven it and there are studies that call it into question.

Not really following your line of thought here - never argued that what is not possible?

If you are sitting doing sums in your head, are you not exhibiting a behavior?

No, you're not exhibiting anything. Nobody looking at you would be able to know that you're doing sums in your head. Similarly, nobody looking at you would necessarily know that you found the girl who'd just walked into the room really rather pretty.

One does not have a black orientation or a female or male orientation. Orientations are specific to behavior.

No; like I've said before, sexual orientation is simply a way of describing who a person is likely to find physically and romantically attractive, and who that person is likely to form romantic relationships with, in terms of gender. Heterosexual = finding people of the opposite gender attractive; homosexual = finding people of the same gender attractive; bisexual = finding people of either gender attractive. Finding someone attractive isn't a behaviour.

That is why you are wrong, and part of why I mistrust gays and bis so deeply. It seems the longer you discuss things with them, the more tortured the logic gets with some. They exhibit a need to be accepted and no concept of why they are not, so they lash out at people for no reason and try to change the meanings of things to rationalize their own positions.

With respect, you seem to be the one trying to change the meanings of things. The concept of "sexual orientation" has a very specific meaning, and it's not, in and of itself, a behaviour. It can lead to people behaving in certain manners - a heterosexual person is more likely to be attracted to, to ask out, to date, to court, to marry, and sooner or later along that path to have sex with, people of the opposite gender to themselves. But that doesn't make heterosexuality a behaviour in and of itself. Different people have different experiences of heterosexuality, and not all heterosexuals will necessarily end up having sex. It's the same with homosexuality. So attempting to define homosexuality as a behaviour that consists of people having sex with people of the opposite gender to themselves, is simply wrong.

And speaking as a bisexual person, I have no problem with being accepted. I've got a loving family, a wonderful fiancee, a good church fellowship with a strong prayer support network, some truly great friends, and a good relationship with God. There may well be some gay people and bi people who fit the pattern you've described, but most of the gay and bi men & women I've known just don't fit that pattern.

This is the same pattern I see with socialists, whose main motive strangely seems to be disgust with religion. They cannot fathom why so many people believe in it, and they convince themselves that it is illogical, yet clearly it is not.

Again, you're over-generalising. There may well be some socialists who are disgusted with religion - there are people of every political ethos who would describe themselves thus. But there are a great many socialists who are also people of faith, including many Christians who derive their socialism precisely from their Christian faith, who genuinely believe (as I do) that of all the political worldviews, socialism is the one that's most in accord with the Christian gospel.

I mistrust pretty much any identifiable group for whom I find it difficult to even have a simple, straight forward conversation. It speaks to motives that are not grounded in truth.

I can only really speak for myself on this one, but basically, I am a pretty simple & straightforward kind of a fella, and my motives are grounded in what I believe to be to the truth, even if you might disagree with my beliefs. I would hope that any conversation we might have would be conducted on that basis, because while it's pretty obvious that we have some pretty fundamental differences of opinion, we also I would hope have much that we can share in terms of our mutual love of Jesus and desire to follow Him.

I was very live and let live about the general subject of homosexuality, and in all honesty I still do not say I dislike individual homosexuals. Heck most times unless they tell you you can't tell anyhow (as opposed to race or gender.....). But the topic has been politically charged now and we are forced to take sides, and the longer the assault on decency goes, the less sympathy I have.

Nobody's forced to take sides; but if you're going to take sides, you have to realise (as I'm sure you do) that it's a very contentious issue, and there is going to be strong disagreement with you, whatever position you take.

It's worth bearing in mind that in all probability, people who disagree with your position don't necessarily regard their position as "an assault on decency". I certainly don't. I mean, it's not as if I'm campaigning for orgies in the street or free porn everywhere. I just happen to think that if two people of legal age of consent or older want to get married, it shouldn't matter greatly whether they're man and woman, two men, or two women - my life doesn't appear to be greatly impacted by such marriages and/or civil unions taken place, and I'm not convinced that it has any sort of negative impact on anybody else. Anyone who doesn't like the idea of same-gender couples getting married doesn't have to like it, doesn't have to support it, definitely doesn't have to take part in it, but OTOH shouldn't, as far as I'm concerned, be so ready to rain on other people's parade. Live and let live.

David.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Is there a pat little defense for this one?

GLSEN Conference and Little Black Book

Explicit pamphlets displayed at school - The Boston Globe

Lets compare the claims of Mass Resistance to this

Mass Resistance claims: “At my own children's high school there was a school-wide assembly to celebrate same-sex “marriage” in early December, 2003. It featured an array of speakers, including teachers at the school who announced that they would be “marrying” their same-sex partners and starting families either through adoption or artificial insemination. Literature on same-sex marriage – how it is now a normal part of society – was handed out to the students.”
Mass Resistance claim: the year is 2003
What you are trying to pass off: the year is 2005

Mass Resistance claim: “a school wide assembly to celebrate same sex marriage”
What you are trying to pass off: no mythical assembly

Mass Resistance claim: “teachers announcing their own same gendered marriage”
What you are trying to pass off: “no teachers at any mythical assembly announcing any impending nuptials”

Mass Resistance claim: “Literature on same-sex marriage – how it is now a normal part of society – was handed out to the students.”
What you are trying to pass off: “10 copies of a pamphlet describing “the ways HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases can be prevented and spread.”

Mass Resistance claim: “was handed out to the students.”
What you are trying to pass off: actual copies going to any student: Zero

 

[Shane Roach]

lol

I was not intending to imply they were the same thing. So in other words you got nothing on the one I posted (which comes from the same site). Thanks, that's all I was asking.

You also said nothing about the NPR one.

You also still have not come clean about what the deal is with the studies you appear to have made up statistics for. I have two more citations from you that appear to be bad as well.

 

[BigBadWlf]

without any 2nd and 3rd generation data easy to prove isn't it? The hard part is to see how well these familes do with domestic violence

also why would they need these laws...(also calling it sodomy!!!) if the homosexual couples were such a tranquil and harmonious couples?

Abstracts: Final reckoning: states allow victims' families to watch executions. 'It's just a quarrel;' some states offer no domestic violence protection to gays

So you have absolutely no evidence to back up your claim about same gendered couples being parents

why do they "reflect the heterosexual marriage"? Is that again a card blank for being such a "successful life style" as the supporters of such life style claim it to be?

This has nothing to do with your unsupported claim about same gendered couples being parents

And do not bother finding claims in that site to "poison the well" I am only quoting what I need I am not saying all that site claims to be true it will be a waste of your time.

Meaning you know that what you are presenting is not representational, is not accurate and not applicable to the topic at hand

 

[Shane Roach]

For someone who has a demonstrable problem getting your own citations right, you sure fling the accusation "lie" around pretty freely, BBW.

Lets see. The worldnutdaily verses the Boston Globe. Hmmm…which one is actually credible?




So are you changing your earlier statement… that it is not OK to lie about a minority so long as one can claim they aren’t lies….just slanted?




As was shown Mass resistance is the one lying




The moral decision to reject lying about who one is and the moral decision to reject self hatred


Why would you want to teach my children false statements about gays and lesbians?







So you are saying it is moral for Mass resistance to blatantly lie?
Is that what you are teaching your children?





Why did you put the link up? Did you just assume no one would check the facts and present facts showing the claims made were false?






Did she make the quote Mass resistance is claming she did? No she did not.



Mass resistance did lie
It lied about the reason Parker was arrested
It lied about the Lexington school district
It lied about the quote it produced
It lied about “literature” being distributed to students
It lied about school assmeblies
It lied about the court ruling




So when Mass Resistance falsely claimed that Judge Wolf ruled: “the school has a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children” was that just a “misquote”?


Yes it is sad for the truth when les like the ones Mass Resistance are presenting are defended

 

[flicka]

You know, all these incidence of things going on in the school really don't mean anything. For every "wrong doing" you site regarding homosexuality there is another "wrong doing" that can be cited regarding promoting christianity. Actually, there are "wrong doings" done regarding just about anything you can think of.

Yes, it's a shame we aren't perfect, and make tons of mistakes. But isn't there supposed to be only one perfect person? Someone, somewhere, this very minute, is doing something stupid. The sooner you accept that the sooner you can stop feeling like life is out to get you.

 

[Philothei]

Lets compare the claims of Mass Resistance to this

Mass Resistance claims: “At my own children's high school there was a school-wide assembly to celebrate same-sex “marriage” in early December, 2003. It featured an array of speakers, including teachers at the school who announced that they would be “marrying” their same-sex partners and starting families either through adoption or artificial insemination. Literature on same-sex marriage – how it is now a normal part of society – was handed out to the students.”
Mass Resistance claim: the year is 2003
What you are trying to pass off: the year is 2005

Mass Resistance claim: “a school wide assembly to celebrate same sex marriage”
What you are trying to pass off: no mythical assembly

Mass Resistance claim: “teachers announcing their own same gendered marriage”
What you are trying to pass off: “no teachers at any mythical assembly announcing any impending nuptials”

Mass Resistance claim: “Literature on same-sex marriage – how it is now a normal part of society – was handed out to the students.”
What you are trying to pass off: “10 copies of a pamphlet describing “the ways HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases can be prevented and spread.”

Mass Resistance claim: “was handed out to the students.”
What you are trying to pass off: actual copies going to any student: Zero

and you have no evidence to claim all this just speculations and your own reflections on the source let the readers decide you do not need to try so hard to "defame" them. Or then you underestimate the average reader's ability to discern for themselves? :o I think you do.

 

[Philothei]

Someone, somewhere, this very minute, is doing something stupid.

oh...here we go with the logic: if my neighbour is a criminal it is okay for me to be one also. Now that truly helps for proving that homosexual lifestyle is "problem free"?

Actually it is proven that domestic violence that gets unreported is hgher indeed than that of heterosexual couples and the list goes on with how many years a homosexual couple stays together the AIDS /HIV cases and so forth...

The fact is that the problems are there and they are first and foremost experimenting with child rearing since there is no available data to agree that these children would be well "adjusted" members of the society... It is zero pass one generation if any...