Hi – welcome to newcomers from the latest link(s) from other blogs. Feel free to take a look around and comment if you like.
Here’s another example of what you’ll get lots more of if Prop 8 fails: School holds surprise ‘Gay’ Day for kindergartners. Right out of the gay agenda playbook.
It is interesting that some people criticize those who have the audacity to take exception to the things being pushed on children. The same rationale people use to criticize me for criticizing the gay lobby could also be used to justify showing pornography to kindergarteners. After all, you don’t want moral busybodies trying to prevent the victimization of children, do you? You’ll just hurt them all the more, right? I mean, anyone who wants to protect the innocence of children must have a series of psychological problems, don’t you think?
But I probably shouldn’t use that pornography example with one of the guys pointing people to my site, considering what he considers normal in their parades and how he enjoys blogging about gay camping – what with its fluid sleeping arrangements, tubes of lube on the picnic tables and dozens of naked guys in the pool. And he claims to be a “Christian,” no less! Of course, that guy thought that reading illustrated gay fiction to 2nd graders was a good thing and had no issues with kissing his “husband” in front of little kids.
This is what we are dealing with, people. Sick. Of course, this is also the guy who said I was “worse than an abortionist’ and had “blood on my hands” because I think that pushing condoms on kids gives implicitly and explicitly wrong messages.
And of course, he offers his favorite line of attack: If you criticize schools for teaching the normality of sodomy to 5 year olds then it must be because you are a closeted homosexual. Uh, yeah, good logic there, folks. I must also be a closet abortionist, pagan, tax-and-spend liberal as well. (P.S. to my good buddy: It ain’t gossip if you quote someone off their blog on another blog, though it is a sin to make things up about someone and accuse them of things they have never said or done. But I sincerely forgive you.)
But he does offer one insurmountable argument. Maybe one day I’ll be clever enough to rebut it, but so far I’ve failed. You see, he always refers to people like me as “wacky fundies” multiple times in each post. So he must be correct in his views, eh? And here I am, just stuck with facts and logic (Oh, and for authentic Christians, the Bible).
Such desperation. It is a strong delusion.
P.S. I was amused that those who defended the field trip did so on the grounds that the parents signed permission slips. Aside from the obvious peer-pressure issue, it misses the larger point: Even without field trips, just imagine the garbage they are pouring into these kids without parental awareness!
Be sure to read the comments of Joanne below, who proudly says that she pushes the gay agenda whether oxymornic “same-sex marriage” is legal or not. Reason #13 to home school if you are in California.
—
Also see What Same Sex Marriage Does to Kindergarteners.
I hope Californians vote “yes” on proposition 8 before it is too late. Read Field Trip Takes First-Graders to San Francisco City Hall for Lesbian ‘Wedding’
This is so disturbing. It is exactly what many of us have identified already and predicted would spread further wherever oxymoronic “same sex marriage” is made legal. First graders are being fed the lie that this behavior is somehow normal and positive.
Some people try to deny the slippery slope argument, which is sometimes, but not always, a logical fallacy. But things like this are exactly what one should expect when a few rogue judges override the will of the people and invent civil rights for sexual preferences.
Once this is legal then the state becomes an enemy of the church, because the church “discriminates.” The state must give equal, or at least proportional time and space to these relationships in classes and textbooks. Sadly, this whole process is aided and abetted by many fake and/or seriously confused Christians.
The San Francisco Chronicle ran this photo Oct. 11 by photographer Mike Kepka showing first-grade students from a local public grade school cheering their teacher’s lesbian “wedding.” This homosexual “marriage” “field trip” occurred just eight days after the Chronicle editorialized against the “fear tactics” used by pro-Proposition 8 forces in defending their proposed amendment preserving marriage in California as between a man and a woman. The newspaper had mocked a Prop 8 TV ad on the adverse effects of legal “gay marriage,” stating: “People would be sued on the basis of their personal beliefs! Churches would lose their tax-exempt status! Gay marriage would be taught in public schools!” The troubling photo above certainly contradicts the Chronicle editorial’s assertion that, “Public schools certainly would teach that same-sex marriage is legal, and the history behind it. But the value judgments surrounding matters of marriage and family would remain in the domain of home and church as they are today.” The school’s principal justified allowing the lesbian-wedding excursion to be considered a “field trip” on the basis that it would be a “teachable moment” for the young students.
Yes, it is teachable. Another teachable moment is to show how God used behavior like this as exhibit A in the teaching that the sinfulness and rebellion in the world has turned the created order upside down.
Romans 1:18-33 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Not surprisingly, you also get public nudity, sex and indescribable perversions out in the streets in San Francisco – Nancy Pelosi’s district, no less – and nothing is done by the police! Will this be the next field trip for the 1st graders? After all, it appears to be legal since nothing was done to stop it.
Or will the next field trip be to a Creationist Museum? Probably so, if that is what the parents agree to, right? Or would the “wacky liberals” complain about that, or would they be as creative in justifying the trip as they were this time?
If you are in California, please vote “yes” on proposition 8!
The good news buried in this atrocity is that it will show people what they will have – and more! – if proposition 8 fails.
P.S. I’m amused and encouraged that some EONs (self-described Enemies Of Neil) are linking to this post and using all their intellectual power to refute my arguments, mainly by using the phrase “wacky fundies” over and over and getting simple facts wrong, such as insisting that this public school was private. Hard to argue with that, right?
Eternity Matters 
Yes, I see your problem. You hate God.
Actually, it isn’t “my” book, it is God’s. Call Jesus a hater if you like and ignore that He died for your sins.
As you know, of course, I don’t consider throwing flower petals to be atrocious. Stealing a child’s innocence by portraying that behavior as normal and desirable is.
Your last circular reasoning really sums up your whole line of thinking rather well. Hate is ok, as long as you are hating people you think are haters.
You, like my other critics who can only resort to personal attacks, will do anything to side step the obvious: Our religious arguments are sound and fully protected by the Constitution, yet we don’t even need them to debate issues like this and abortion. As one would expect with moral laws that God set up, there is plenty of secular evidence to argue against them, i.e., the gov’t has no need to regulate same-sex unions, which by nature and design do not produce the next generation and which are far less than ideal for raising children.
Time to move on, Tony. This went past unproductive a long time ago.
LikeLike
I don’t hate God. I don’t believe God exists.
Neil said: Then, of course, you have no foundation for making any moral claims. Just survival of the fittest and all that. So please quit moralizing so much. It is irrational of you. If there really is no God, then we’re just bags of chemicals who were born with the desire for religious beliefs. We can’t help ourselves, we were born that way. So why be so hateful towards us?
And here you go again with your words of hatred. “Stealing a child’s innocence”, you say. Yet there is nothing more innocent than the scene in the photograph you display.
Neil said: Exposing kids to sexual perversion is not innocent. It is sickening.
You say I’m engaged in personal attacks. I’m only pointing out where you use hateful words and promote anti-homosexual ideas, to the extent of describing them as deserving of death and a beautiful marriage ceremony as an “atrocity.”
Your secular argument presented here is weak and I assume that you know it, so I won’t pursue that.
Neil said: Thanks for the laugh to start the day. I love it when debaters insist that my primary argument is so weak that they won’t pursue it, so they turn to other bad arguments. Sure. I’ll take that as a concession speech, thanks.
The reason other people are attacking you on blogs is that you are engaged in the most horrible hate-mongering. It’s something your church and others have engaged in for years, to the extent that secular society has only recently managed to break free of the horrible grip. To say that I’m being circular in pointing this out is simply incorrect. Cause and effect. Stop preaching hatred.
Neil said: No, you are completely circular and hypocritical. You dismiss truly hateful speech as acceptable because it is in response to allegedly hateful speech. Sounds like a childish “he started it” type of reasoning, though as kids usually learn fairly young it doesn’t exonerate them from their reaction (except in the liberal world, I suppose).
I’m still waiting for the libs to show me how gay marriage has flourished and been celebrated in Communist countries for decades since they threw off the shackles of religion.
LikeLike
For those interested in some rational dialogue about hate, check this out: http://gcmwatch.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/speaking-the-truth-in-love-or-hate/
LikeLike
Neil
Ours is a secular government. So what it does is none of any religion’s business. Just as what you do is none of government’s business (unless harm is being done to others, of course). That’s why churches don’t pay taxes.
This whole “argument” is very simply solved. You don’t approve of gay marriage – don’t have one. Don’t, however, push your religious views on to others who don’t have the same beliefs as you. Frankly, it’s none of your business. If society wants to allow gay marriage, it will be allowed.
I – and many many others – are very sick and tired of pompus religious jerks attempting to force their views into the laws and policies of the government.
LikeLike
Mark, the “Don’t like it? Don’t have one” argument was bad when slaveowners used it, and it has been bad every since. Pro-abortionists like that one as well. It is flawed because it ignores the human victims.
The fact that our gov’t is secular doesn’t mean our religious views can’t inform our political opinions. See the 1st Amendment.
Please consider your own logic: One could say, “If society wants to allow gay bashing, it will be allowed.” As a Christian I would fight that, except that you insist that my religious views shouldn’t support my political views . . .
Sadly, you seem to be following Tony’s irrational arguments and ignoring the foundational premise: Gov’t has an interest in validating traditional marriage because by nature and design one man and one woman produce the next generation and provide the best model for parenting. That is a fact that you all choose to avoid, either deliberately or out of ignorance.
Sidestepping that argument with straw men about people imposing religious views on you (eek!), or as with Tony, claiming the argument is so weak that you’ll address a separate argument instead, just betray the weakness of your view.
P.S. If you are in the “born that way” camp that says gays “must” be able to marry someone of the same sex – i.e., that the sex of one’s partner is paramount, then I assume you’ll agree that the sex of one’s parents is relevant as well (i.e., that by definition gay parenting is far from the ideal). Otherwise you’d be arguing that the sex of a mate is paramount and the sex of one’s parents is irrelevant. And that would be wildly inconsistent, of course.
LikeLike
Thomas said that Neil ” shuns the issue and reverts to issues that have no real political significance, like abortion and same sex marriage..”
Thomas you must not be a regular reader of Neil’s. If you were, you’d know he has been discussing issue like abortion and same sex marriage LONG before this election even kicked off.
“Does he not have the courage to admit that according to his beliefs God has finally turned against the Republicans and their backward views?”
I’ve never known Neil to not have the courage to discuss his beliefs (sorry about the double negatives). I have also known him to correct other people who misinterpret what they think his beliefs should be and glad he’s stepped up to the challenge.
Given today’s economic times, why are schools taking field trips that are not directly related to education? Unless this qualifies under the subject of “health education” (sorry of that sounds sarcastic).
And why is a field trip to a church allowed? I thought we had separation of church and state (again, apologies is the sarcasm comes through in the text).
LikeLike
Neil, suppose that you did have a reasonably strong, compelling secular argument against same-sex marriage. Why would you instead resort to saying that homosexuals deserve death, that a pretty wedding ceremony is an “atrocity”, that children are being exposed to “sexual perversion”, and so on, all of which are based on religious teachings about homosexuality?
LikeLike
Good points, Randy. Some of the proponents of this sort of thing fall back on the notion that if it is parent-driven and permission slips are involved then anything goes. Sure. Can’t wait to hear about their trips to an orthodox seminary, apologetics speakers and a creationist museum.
Tony, it is my blog, and if I want to address both secular and religious reasoning in a single post I’m pretty sure I still have that right. Perhaps my segue was too subtle. I was poking fun at the lame “teachable moment” claim the principal justified the trip with. After all, if it is just about teachable moments, there are all sorts of things we could teach, such as the Bible. Of course they couldn’t do that. Joanne, a real live teacher in California, exposed the real motive above. Kudos to her for that.
How about if their next field trip is to the Folsom Street Fair? http://americansfortruth.com/news/slavery-makes-a-comeback-in-progressive-san-francisco-headed-for-a-city-near-you.html Are you ok with that, provided a parent sponsors it and the kids get permission slips? Will you insist that those who criticize the trip just parent their own kids and mind their own business? Will you shriek that they are imposing their religious views on others? Or will you impose your morals on others with your nanny-state, fundie views and object to the trip?
Do you think events like that (e.g., public nudity and sex acts, S&M, etc.) are a good thing or a bad thing? If you think it is a bad thing, are you imposing your religious beliefs on us?
LikeLike
Yes, you used that “trips to a creationist museum” argument in the posting.
You don’t see how weak it is, I suppose. Look at the California Education Code. There you will see that “Family relationships and parenting education” is in the Code at 8850.5. This is a very broad in scope and ample enough to accommodate the wedding you complain about.
Creationism is conspicuously absent from the California Code. A school field trip to a Creationism museum would not be appropriate.
I can’t believe I actually have to explain this, but there it is.
Neil said: Yes, you do have to explain it, because all the reasoning I’ve seen is that the parents proposed it and got permission slips. One could easily reason that creation is the foundation of families and parents, so why not a field trip there since the scope is so broad?Why not have the wedding on a weekend? Why not go to heterosexual weddings as a field trip in a fundie church? Because it is all about the liberal indoctrination (see Joanne’s confession above).
LikeLike
Folsom Street Fair would not be age-appropriate (see 8850.5). I do wish you’d actually take the trouble to read the code yourself before spouting off at random like this.
Neil said: How can you say it isn’t age appropriate? Who are you to impose your values on others? In your Godless universe, what is your foundation for that? If the majority says its ok, then it must be.
P.S. Please don’t make idiotic assertions that we should have all read the whole California code before commenting on this.
LikeLike
” One could easily reason that creation is the foundation of families and parents”
Good grief. Establishment clause, silly.
Neil said: I’ve actually read that clause a couple times. I’m pretty sure that going on a parent sponsored and approved field trip wouldn’t mean that Congress established a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Schools can study religous themes in history, so there are plenty of ways to rationalize such a trip, and in much more defensible ways than viewing “marriages” like this.
I’m obviously not suggesting such a trip, btw, just pointing out the double standard used by the liberals on this topic.
“How can you say it isn’t age appropriate?”
Educated guess.
Neil said: There’s some solid reasoning for you. So my educated guess that going to oxymoronic gay weddings is not a good use of educational time and money doesn’t apply, just because the secular reasoning happens to come to the same conclusion as the religious reasoning. But your “educated guess” is enough to make policy on because you deny God? Indeed.
You’re dense, Neil. Or you’re pretending to be dense to try to anger me. Enough.
Neil said: Yes, enough. Thanks again to you and Joanne for so fully and candidly exposing the flaws in your worldview and the hidden agenda of indoctrination. I disagree with your views but appreciate the candor.
Have nice days, everyone.
LikeLike
Neil: “Mark, the “Don’t like it? Don’t have one” argument was bad when slaveowners used it, and it has been bad every since. Pro-abortionists like that one as well. It is flawed because it ignores the human victims.”
— Wha?? Government gets involved when there ARE victims. This argument is flawed because in the case of gay marriage, there ARE NO VICTIMS.
Neil: “Please consider your own logic: One could say, “If society wants to allow gay bashing, it will be allowed.” As a Christian I would fight that, except that you insist that my religious views shouldn’t support my political views . . .”
— Again, gay bashing would mean there are victims. I would expect you to fight it. With gay marriage, there ARE NO VICTIMS.
Neil: “Sadly, you seem to be following Tony’s irrational arguments and ignoring the foundational premise: Gov’t has an interest in validating traditional marriage because by nature and design one man and one woman produce the next generation and provide the best model for parenting. That is a fact that you all choose to avoid, either deliberately or out of ignorance.”
— Don’t be ignorant yourself, Neil. The “next generation” will happen with or without the governments intervention. Are you saying that gays cannot raise children in a loving, caring, and compassionate way? Of course they can. Just as a heterosexual couple can. Why wouldn’t the government have an interest in validating a loving commitment between two homosexuals. It’s certainly more healthy (in a societal sense) than not promoting it (i.e. promiscuous sex).
Neil: “Sidestepping that argument with straw men about people imposing religious views on you (eek!), …”
— Straw men!! The ONLY straw men I see here are trying to inject abortion, slave ownership, and gay bashing into a conversation about gay marriage! Get over yourself. Yeah, it’s your blog, but come on already!
LikeLike
“This argument is flawed because in the case of gay marriage, there ARE NO VICTIMS.”
That is an unfounded premise. I see a lot of 1st grade victims.
“Don’t be ignorant yourself, Neil. The “next generation” will happen with or without the governments intervention.”
Of course, but the gov’t has an interest in the next generation having stable families. The ideal model is a mother and a father. To say that the sex of one’s parents is irrelevant while claiming that a gay guy absolutely must have a male mate (not a butch female or a female who thinks she’s a guy) is illogical.
“Why wouldn’t the government have an interest in validating a loving commitment between two homosexuals.”
Huh? There is no reason the gov’t should be involved in personal relationships like that. Seems to me that the gay folks would want freedom from gov’t, not intervention. I know what they really want is validation, but logically speaking, the gov’t has no reason to intervene.
“Are you saying that gays cannot raise children in a loving, caring, and compassionate way?”
All other things being equal, a one father / one mother situation is by far the best and should be encouraged.
“The ONLY straw men I see here are trying to inject abortion, slave ownership, and gay bashing into a conversation about gay marriage!”
Again, your premise is that there are no victims and that is false.
LikeLike
You see a lot of 1st grade victims.
Really?
How so? Oh, that’s right – They “are being fed the lie that this behavior is somehow normal and positive.”
Well, the behavior may not be normal in the truest sense of the word (normal being the way the majority of people behave), but that doesn’t mean it isn’t natural. It most asuredly is. Homosexuals have existed since the dawn of man. I assure you that they didn’t choose to be gay – especially knowing that the choice would quite probably get them killed.
And why can’t it be a positive experience? Why can’t they be accepted in society? What harm is it doing to anyone?
It is your (and others) thinking that this is somehow a choice that is the root of the problem.
Me not believing in God – THAT’s a choice.
What the kids are being taught is that two people displaying their love for one another is (still) being persecuted by a closed minded society. And that a few brave people are attempting to open society’s eyes to what should be seen as normal and positive.
LikeLike
Sorry I cant say much more than this is nasty and perverted.
LikeLike
And the children shouldnt have been there to see it.
LikeLike
Why even post, gcmwatch. You have nothing to say.
LikeLike
Well Mark, per freedom of choice, I posted what I wanted to post at this time. Does an abundance of words signify some sort of intelligence?
LikeLike
One line “zingers” signify a need for attention if nothing else. Kind of like bumper sticker politics where short, catchy phrases are supposed to signify a real plan or policy. In reality they are nothing but short, catchy phrases.
LikeLike
Mark, the best advice I can give you is dont be a hypocrite. If such one liners indeed signify need for attention, you are a fool for playing into it.
You were all for choice when it came to you not believeing in God, but when it comes to me choosing to write what I want to write and how to what degree I want to write it, you get all knotted up. There’s another short, catchy, bumper sticker zinger of a sentence to wrap your realities around.
LikeLike
Mark, do you realize the net of your claims here?
Taking 1st graders to see homosexual union = moral good, worthy of defense and praise
Pithy comments on a blog = moral bad, worthy of critique
LikeLike
Sorry Neil, just passing time…
LikeLike
Neil — My wife & I cast our CA absentee ballots over the weekend. Yes on 8! Jailer
LikeLike
I just got through watch a movie titled “Quid Pro Quo”. It’s a strange movie, I don’t really recommend it. It’s based on some characters who want to be paralyzed and in wheel chairs.
One memorable line is when the main character asks one of the “wannabees” why he wants to be paralyzed. The response was “you think I choose to be this way?”
Somehow that just seemed to fit with this discussion.
LikeLike
Mark – no problem.
Philippian Jailer – excellent! That’s two down . . .
Randy – yep.
LikeLike
Tony: “Stan, your defense of Neil against the charge of promulgating hatred for homosexuals would be more convincing had he not quoted with manifest approval a passage of Paul, in which that writer states that homosexuals ‘deserve death’.”
Oh, I see the problem. You are using a different Bible than we are. In the Bibles that I own Paul says that “the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10) and includes those who practice homosexual behavior (along with other sexual immorality, idolatry, adultery, thieves, and many more). The idea is clearly not about “deserving death” in the sense that Neil is going to mete it out. It’s about deserving the judgment of God … which, of course, can be said about any immorality … which, of course, brings us back to my defense. I consider the activity immoral. You consider that hate speech.
Mark: “This whole “argument” is very simply solved. You don’t approve of gay marriage – don’t have one. Don’t, however, push your religious views on to others who don’t have the same beliefs as you.”
It IS, apparently, okay if you push your irreligious views on to others who don’t have the same belief as you. Oddly, in California even the Supreme Court justices who voted to redefine the term “marriage” understood that the “longstanding and traditional definition of marriage is between one man and one woman.” It wasn’t a religious definition. It is a “longstanding and traditional definition.” Why does this have to be about religion?
LikeLike
Good points, Stan. The religion thing is a smokescreen. I’m still waiting for any of them to demonstrate how clearly non-religious countries like the former Soviet Union and China promote the equality of “gay marriage.”
LikeLike
Neil,
First of all, I object to that other guy calling himself Mark (even if that is his real name) I was the first and original Mark to comment on your blog. Tell him to add a Number 2 to his name or a Roman numeral II or something, so we may be distinquished from each other. Especially since our two views on tnis subject are so vastly different
This is the Original Mark’s take:
Taking first graders to their Lesbian teacher’s lesbian wedding is serial child abuse.
Not only are the blatantly indoctrinating the students but they are forcing them, because the children have no choice, to accept the lifestyle as normal and natural, which it is neither. They are being held hostage and forced to witness something that is neither natural or normal, regardless of their parent’s moral ideology.
The homosexual agenda to recruit children to be homosexual in America is well documented. One merely has to use the google tool to understand that fact.
Forcing children who have no choice but to comply, to witness a homosexual anything is child abuse, just as allowing homosexuals to adopt and raise children is child abuse.
LikeLike
There’s something even sadder about that picture, and that is only TWO parents opted out of this field trip! townhall.com Parents were given the choice of opting their children out of this “field-trip.”
The indoctrination has gone even deeper than those teachers and the schools, but the PARENTS? Our society is getting sicker and sicker because of the terrible direction our young are being raised by their parents! Parents have been brought into the homosexual agenda as well.
My liberal ‘professing’ Christian sister who used to live in San Jose responded to my 16 year old nephew’s “coming out” by taking him to his first gay parade there in San Francisco. Talking about horrified! You can imagine the family discussion that followed that!
Thanks for posting this Neil as I’ll be linking to it from my blog.
LikeLike
Hey – original Mark. You have alot of nerve bringing up indoctrination. It’s what the church does best.
The church’s agenda to recruit children to be religiouis in America is well documented. One merely has to use the google tool to understand that fact.
Forcing children who have no choice but to comply, to witness any church proceeding – is child abuse, just allowing churches to run day cares is child abuse.
See, the paragraphs work pretty well no matter what you put in it. Your statements are just a silly as these.
LikeLike
Mark 2 – can you see the distinction between parents taking their kids to church vs. public schools promoting the gay agenda? Why can’t they just teach the basics?
LikeLike
Neil
You’ll note that I said my statments were silly. Just a silly as “original” Mark’s comments.
Children are “slave” to many things: Bad parents, stupid religions, school teachings, bad teachers, etc. Yet they grow up to become productive members of society, complete with their own thoughts and ideals.
As for schools, why can’t they just teach the basics? Indeed, why can’t they…
LikeLike
I know you were trying to be silly, but your silliness obviously had a point.
Ideas and teaching has consequences. The whole point of the gay agenda folks is that we must teach kids to affirm this behavior (just see this thread). If teaching such things is irrelevant, why bother?
LikeLike
I applaud Mark 2 (wasn’t that a car by Lincoln-Ford-Mercury? I liked the Mark IV.) for defending what he thinks is right. I pity him for being so horribly wrong.
The fact that there have been homosexuals throughout human history does NOT make it normal. Normal is based on design. We were each designed to be with members of the opposite sex. THAT is normal. Homosexuality is abnormal. It is unnatural because it conflicts with nature’s design. It is a perversion, because it perverts the intent of nature’s design for humankind. It is deviancy, because it deviates from that which is normal and natural. D’ya see where this is going? None of the preceeding has been hate, it has been fact. There is, however, quite a bit of hatred from the homosexual community and their supporters toward those who maintain traditional standards of decency and truth.
LikeLike
You’re right, Marshall. The leaders of those movements (gay and straight) are some of the most hateful, viscious people I’ve seen.
LikeLike