To get it correct: two consenting adults = not wrong?????

cruiser_96;886444 wrote:To get it correct: two consenting adults = not wrong?????

Correct.

cruiser_96;886442 wrote:Who says it's wrong?

Writer: I did not. Person a wanted to do something so they did it. You weigh the result. I identified the motives. To which was my point.

Okay, you're one of those "Adam & Eve not Adam and Steve" kind of folks, right? You see some antiquated Biblical verse written in a context far, far removed from today's world and understanding, and you subscribe right and wrong to it. Am I correct?

If so, I'm done. I won't argue Bible verses and interpretations with folks. It leads to nowhere and it's not the type of Christianity to which I subscribe.

I didn't want to make a new thread and this seemed like the most relevant place to post this picture that made me laugh a little bit.

cruiser_96;886375 wrote:You do realize that there are THOUSANDS of people charged with rape who are currently behind bars that use the same reasoning, no?

Now don't go shifting the argument again.

What? Those thousands of people violently harmed someone else and affected someone else. Did gay people's lifestyle harm someone else violently or affect someone else?

They won't have problems re-enlisting for long. Once they start the war in Iran they will take whoever they can get before they are forced to reinstate the draft.

I Wear Pants;932942 wrote:I didn't want to make a new thread and this seemed like the most relevant place to post this picture that made me laugh a little bit.

i saw this on facebook the other day. I almost wanted to post something like "Did you just park your car, or parallel park it?"

I Wear Pants;932942 wrote:I didn't want to make a new thread and this seemed like the most relevant place to post this picture that made me laugh a little bit.

I had gay lunch today and it was FABULOUSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!

Glory Days;933224 wrote:i saw this on facebook the other day. I almost wanted to post something like "Did you just park your car, or parallel park it?"

No one named Liz can parallel park.

dwccrew;933274 wrote:I had gay lunch today and it was FABULOUSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!

Had someone gay quit today. We told her, "Tootles!"

cruiser_96;886444 wrote:To get it correct: two consenting adults = not wrong?????

\

you only think it's "wrong" because a. it's different than what you are used to(being straight) and b. you listen to some retarded book written thousands of years ago that has no withstanding in today's world. If you didn't have the bible to tell you what to believe, then you would rpobably not give two shits about what people do with their personal lives. If they murder someone and being gay causes them to do it, then yes it's wrong to be gay cause it CAUSED THEM TO MURDER SOMEONE.

Continue believing what the bible tells you, it will get you far in life!

DeyDurkie5;933989 wrote:\

you only think it's "wrong" because a. it's different than what you are used to(being straight) and b. you listen to some retarded book written thousands of years ago that has no withstanding in today's world. If you didn't have the bible to tell you what to believe, then you would rpobably not give two shits about what people do with their personal lives. If they murder someone and being gay causes them to do it, then yes it's wrong to be gay cause it CAUSED THEM TO MURDER SOMEONE.

Continue believing what the bible tells you, it will get you far in life!

The bible probably has nothing to do with it. I don't have a problem with the gheys, but I still think it is wrong. And it has nothing to do with the bible. That's pretty hypocritical of you to dislike religious people, who "don't affect you", yet that is your argument for the gheys...lawls.

Bible never said anything about prohibiting gay people in the military, getting legally married, adopting children, showing affection in public, or anything else of the sort.

In America, you are responsible for yourself and your own moral life. You are not responsible for regulating someone else's through legislation.

O-Trap;934394 wrote:Bible never said anything about prohibiting gay people in the military, getting legally married, adopting children, showing affection in public, or anything else of the sort.

I agree but the Bible is quite clear on the general issue of homosexuality. Homosexuality (and all of its sub-issues) is a sin...period.

O-Trap;934394 wrote:In America, you are responsible for yourself and your own moral life. You are not responsible for regulating someone else's through legislation.

Can't disagree with that.

I've said this dozens of times: What consenting adults do is their own business and a moral issue between them and our Creator.

However, do NOT force me by secular legislation to accept homosexuality as an "legitimate lifestyle." Do NOT by secular legislation force me to give homosexuals any preferential treatment with regard to hiring. And do NOT by secular legislation force my kids to be taught in taxpayer funded schools that homosexuality is a normal, "alternative" lifestyle.

Kumbaya

No one is doing those things?

All that's being done is saying you can't not hire someone because they're gay and you can't teach kids that homosexuality is wrong for obvious reasons. No one is trying to turn your kids gay.

I Wear Pants;934582 wrote:No one is doing those things?

All that's being done is saying you can't not hire someone because they're gay and you can't teach kids that homosexuality is wrong for obvious reasons. No one is trying to turn your kids gay.

except when it comes to reproduction

Glory Days;934590 wrote:except when it comes to reproduction

I thought all you conservatives on here didn't want the schools teaching about reproduction?

believer;934531 wrote:I agree but the Bible is quite clear on the general issue of homosexuality. Homosexuality (and all of its sub-issues) is a sin...period.

Homosexual actions are deemed immoral, sure. A gay man is no worse for feeling how he feels about another man than a straight man with those same feelings for a woman who isn't his wife.

And the consummation of those feelings are equitable as well. If two guys bump uglies, it's no worse (biblically) than a man playing "Find The C**k Socket" with a woman who he isn't married to.

believer;934531 wrote:However, do NOT force me by secular legislation to accept homosexuality as an "legitimate lifestyle."

This can't really be done. You have the right to your own convictions, as well as a right to free speech.

believer;934531 wrote:Do NOT by secular legislation force me to give homosexuals any preferential treatment with regard to hiring.

This isn't in the legislation as much as it may be in the enforcement.

believer;934531 wrote:And do NOT by secular legislation force my kids to be taught in taxpayer funded schools that homosexuality is a normal, "alternative" lifestyle.

I don't think the school should be determining "normal" at all.

I Wear Pants;934582 wrote:No one is trying to turn your kids gay.

This makes me think of Lewis Black's skit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ANrvQC4wIk

I Wear Pants;934619 wrote:I thought all you conservatives on here didn't want the schools teaching about reproduction?

It's biology. Biology is a class in school. Therefore, I personally think it should be discussed.

I Wear Pants;934582 wrote:No one is doing those things?

All that's being done is saying you can't not hire someone because they're gay and you can't teach kids that homosexuality is wrong for obvious reasons. No one is trying to turn your kids gay.

If in your school district you want to teach kindergartners that Heather has two mommy's and Johnny has two dads I think its stupid but I am not going to use the power of the federal courts to force you to stop. If your school district wants to teach that homosexuality is a perfectly natural and normal lifestyle go right ahead. If your school district want to have the girls practice by slipping condoms on bananas, dumb but go ahead. If your school district want to give out free condoms fine.

Now if in other school district they want to teach children that abstinence is the best course to take. Or that homosexuality is an unnatural immoral lifestyle, who cares. The district and the state can handle any disagreements. But if the district and state do not decide in your favor many will run to the federal courts to force them to change.

Personally I beleive sexual morals, sex practices, abstinence, consequences of sex outside of marriage, etc. Should be left to the parents. Schools should just teach the basic biology of sex. The "plumbing". I know in some school districts the parental structure is not there. We that school district can decide what may need to added to the curriculum. Its their choice and they can handle it. If not their state is more than apt to intervene.

O-Trap;934394 wrote:...

In America, you are responsible for yourself and your own moral life. You are not responsible for regulating someone else's through legislation.

This. There is simply no reason to have State sanctioned marriage. The State is not needed to determine what is and what is not a marriage.

majorspark;934779 wrote:If in your school district you want to teach kindergartners that Heather has two mommy's and Johnny has two dads I think its stupid but I am not going to use the power of the federal courts to force you to stop. If your school district wants to teach that homosexuality is a perfectly natural and normal lifestyle go right ahead. If your school district want to have the girls practice by slipping condoms on bananas, dumb but go ahead. If your school district want to give out free condoms fine.

Now if in other school district they want to teach children that abstinence is the best course to take. Or that homosexuality is an unnatural immoral lifestyle, who cares. The district and the state can handle any disagreements. But if the district and state do not decide in your favor many will run to the federal courts to force them to change.

Personally I beleive sexual morals, sex practices, abstinence, consequences of sex outside of marriage, etc. Should be left to the parents. Schools should just teach the basic biology of sex. The "plumbing". I know in some school districts the parental structure is not there. We that school district can decide what may need to added to the curriculum. Its their choice and they can handle it. If not their state is more than apt to intervene.

So basically any gay kids at those schools are shit out of luck right? Should have been born into a different school district.

By the same logic you'd be fine if a school district wanted to teach that black people or women aren't as good as white men. It's up to the district and if you don't like it you can move right?

Now don't assume I'm calling you a racist or chauvinist because I'm not since well, you've never demonstrated that you are. What I'm saying is that this idea that every district and locality can decide for themselves what they want to teach and their own laws is fantastic. Except when it infringes on people's rights or does things that are clearly wrong. Now, you're going to argue that you view homosexuality or sex in general as wrong and something that shouldn't be taught. Whatever, we disagree but if you're going to take that stance you might as well say that nothing should be said of homosexuality pro or con then.

The basic biology of sex? That includes sex practices, abstinence, stds, etc. Unless you want a teacher to literally be bound by law to say nothing more than "people have sex, baby sometimes happens". I will never understand that sort of fear of our bodily functions from some in this country. That said, are parents better able to teach this material? Probably. But they don't. And we have a societal interest in the little bastards who have parents that don't give enough of a shit to give them "the talk" knowing what a damned condom is. We've been through this before but it constantly seems to me that there are some that would rather us have a higher instance of teen pregnancy and STDs and protect some idea of what sex is "supposed" to be than to take proactive steps to limit those things.

iclfan2;934314 wrote:The bible probably has nothing to do with it. I don't have a problem with the gheys, but I still think it is wrong. And it has nothing to do with the bible. That's pretty hypocritical of you to dislike religious people, who "don't affect you", yet that is your argument for the gheys...lawls.

I don't dislike religious people, I think their views are retarded when it comes to this issue. nice try though. lawls? seriously?

I Wear Pants;935005 wrote:So basically any gay kids at those schools are shit out of luck right? Should have been born into a different school district.

No they can petition their school district to change its policy. If not they can pursue it further at the state level. Or just change schools. Most school districts in Ohio have open enrollment. If not move. In your world only the gay kid is shit out of luck. The straight kid who thinks that homosexuality is unnatural or wrong and has to sit in class and hear how it is a perfectly acceptable lifestyle. Or grade school kids that are subject to this homosexual stuff. Are they shit out of luck too?

The left talks about intolerance. They can't tolerate any different belief other than their own on these issues. From what you say you fit into lefts mindset on these types of issues. People like me are far more tolerant. I may not agree with what you do in you locality or state concerning these issues but I can accept differences.

I Wear Pants;935005 wrote:By the same logic you'd be fine if a school district wanted to teach that black people or women aren't as good as white men. It's up to the district and if you don't like it you can move right?

This is as ridiculous of an argument as when one argues against gay marriage lamenting about soon some people will be marrying sheep. Race has absolutely nothing to do with sexual preference. In fact many blacks believe homosexuality is immoral. Many women as well. The two issues just don't equate.

I Wear Pants;935005 wrote:The basic biology of sex? That includes sex practices, abstinence, stds, etc.

Sex practices equal: blow jobs, muff diving, and butt sex. Thats what I am referring to . No need for that to be taught in schools unless certain school districts see a need based on their unique situation. Teachers would only be bound by the curriculum approved by the local school district or state.

I Wear Pants;935005 wrote:Unless you want a teacher to literally be bound by law to say nothing more than "people have sex, baby sometimes happens"

This is a stupid argument. The basic biology of sex is a very graphic explanation of the sex act and the bodily functions surrounding it in full detail. There is no fear in teaching them to our children. Virtually no one has any fear of this as it is completely natural.

I Wear Pants;935005 wrote:are parents better able to teach this material? Probably. But they don't. And we have a societal interest in the little bastards who have parents that don't give enough of a shit to give them "the talk" knowing what a damned condom is. We've been through this before but it constantly seems to me that there are some that would rather us have a higher instance of teen pregnancy and STDs and protect some idea of what sex is "supposed" to be than to take proactive steps to limit those things.

Whether there is more left to the parents or the school district is for them to decide. Not some bureaucrat in Washington.

I Wear Pants;935005 wrote:Except when it infringes on people's rights or does things that are clearly wrong. Now, you're going to argue that you view homosexuality or sex in general as wrong and something that shouldn't be taught. Whatever, we disagree but if you're going to take that stance you might as well say that nothing should be said of homosexuality pro or con then.

Like I said and I will repeat. Nothing should be said pro or con concerning morals in a public school. Unless a school district (which is a community of people) see a need or wants to do so. I have no problem with that. For instance if a school district has numbers of students without the family structure to teach the kids these things go for it. If a school district is having a problem with teen pregnancy they should be able to address it in the classroom since obviously the parents have failed. Or if a school district in San Fransisco wan to teach homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle go ahead.

If a student valedictorian wants to thank God or the school district wants to have a prayer at commencement ceremonies that is there right under the 1st amendment. If a school district in Dearborn, Michigan wants to have a prayer to Allah at their commencement ceremony that is their right as well. Why should anyone care? It seems to me that the left does and sues more often to use the power of the federal government via the judicial branch to quash these freedoms.

majorspark;935149 wrote:Like I said and I will repeat. Nothing should be said pro or con concerning morals in a public school. Unless a school district (which is a community of people) see a need or wants to do so. I have no problem with that. For instance if a school district has numbers of students without the family structure to teach the kids these things go for it. If a school district is having a problem with teen pregnancy they should be able to address it in the classroom since obviously the parents have failed. Or if a school district in San Fransisco wan to teach homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle go ahead.

If a student valedictorian wants to thank God or the school district wants to have a prayer at commencement ceremonies that is there right under the 1st amendment. If a school district in Dearborn, Michigan wants to have a prayer to Allah at their commencement ceremony that is their right as well. Why should anyone care? It seems to me that the left does and sues more often to use the power of the federal government via the judicial branch to quash these freedoms.

Absolutely agree there. Because that's something that even should you disagree it doesn't inconvenience you one bit to just ignore it and it's not like it is being taught as "this is the right thing to do".

But teaching that homosexuality is wrong would certainly be a bad thing. I think teaching that we should accept people and be chill with each other is cool but for the purposes of our argument I'd agree that nothing being said at all about sexual orientation and gender identity other than bringing it up when talking about bullying and such (IE don't hurt someone just because they're gay. And well don't hurt anyone). Less said the better perhaps in this case.