Homosexual Propaganda

[Amused]

Originally posted by: mchammer

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mchammer

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JS80

I did. My point was "separation of church and state" is a made up liberal term.

Oh really???

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus, building a wall of separation between Church and State"
(Thomas Jefferson, 1802, letter to Danbury Baptist Association)

"The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State"
(James Madison [author of the first amendment], 1819, Writings, 8:432)

"Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance"
(James Madison, 1822, Writings, 9:101)

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history"
(James Madison, undated, William and Mary Quarterly, 1946, 3:555)

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Govt (sic) will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
(James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, 1822)

"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
(Treaty with Tripoli, 1797. Presented by President and Founding Father John Adams, and ratified unanimously by Congress)

It is plainly obvious that "separation of church and state" is the very spirit of the establishment clause of the first amendment. Why? Because the same people who wrote the fscking thing said so.

So, do you think you'll keep spreading that lie, JS80?

I think it is silly to say that separation of church and state is a made up liberal term, however it is important to note that it is not in the Constituiton. It is job of the Supreme Court to work out exactly what the first Ammendment means. They have decided among other things that school prayer is not allowed, but that public money can pay for bussing to religious schools.

"Right to privacy" isn't there either. It is plain to see, by the writings of the men who wrote the Bill of Rights, that the first amendment is MEANT to create a total separation of church and state.

It may be clear to you, but it is not clear to many others and in a Democracy they are free to advocate their point of veiw. I think think that you are cherry picking only the quotes from the founding fathers that back up your posistion rather than looking at the bigger picture and what some of the other founding fathers have said, such as Alexander Hamilton. What exactly does total separation of church and state mean anyway, see we are now back at the same place again.

No, we're not. This is plain English we are talking about here. It's NOT open to interpretation unless your goal is to change it's meaning from the obvious to the absurd.

There is no cherry picking here. These are the words of the very men who WROTE the Bill of Rights. Yes, that's right... Madison was the main author of the Bill of Rights.

Who better to turn to to get an explanation of it's intent?

Finally, there can be no true religious freedom without a government that remains 100% religiously neutral.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Tab
First things first, I am not gay but I also have no problems with same-sex marriage. I do however, find homosexsual and even some hetrosexsual PDAs rather disgusting.

Originally posted by: Garth
But the bible doesn't declare homosexuality to be sinful.

'Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God' (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

Homosexsuals, put along side thieves? I don't know what you have to say, but I am pretty sure theft is going to be considered a sin... and so would homosexsuality or at least the act of it...

the word "homosexual" in your quotation is merely the English translation of a word written in ancient greek. there is plenty of debate as to whether that English translation is correct. The original word (in it's original language) quite possibly meant something quite different than "homosexual". You could argue that the selection of the word "homosexual" or "sodomite" reflects the anti-gay bias of the people who originally translated the various English versions of the Bible.

 

[zendari]

It's the gay agenda on the march.

 

[LLCOOLJ]

Originally posted by: zendari
I'm a repressed homosexual.

Fixed.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Jesus prefered the company of men. Ever wonder why he didn't marry when all men his age were married back then?

Judas to Jesus "I can't quit you"

that reminds me a of a good porno starring jesus and judas in a dual bondage sort of thing. The guy playing Jesus played the role great, the best part is Jesus was the reciever. The money shots were excellent. good stuff.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Jesus prefered the company of men. Ever wonder why he didn't marry when all men his age were married back then?

Judas to Jesus "I can't quit you"

that reminds me a of a good porno starring jesus and judas in a dual bondage sort of thing. The guy playing Jesus played the role great, the best part is Jesus was the reciever. The money shots were excellent. good stuff.

So you are into Gay Porn?:roll:

 

[Accipiter22]

this thread needs some eminem


homophobic? nah you're just heterophobic
starin at my jeans watchin my genitals bulgin
those are my mother******* balls you better let go of em
they belong in my scrotum you'll never get a hold of em

 

[ryan256]

One benefit of living in the conservative south. I'd never have to worry about crap like this at my kid's school.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Jesus prefered the company of men. Ever wonder why he didn't marry when all men his age were married back then?

Judas to Jesus "I can't quit you"

that reminds me a of a good porno starring jesus and judas in a dual bondage sort of thing. The guy playing Jesus played the role great, the best part is Jesus was the reciever. The money shots were excellent. good stuff.

So you are into Gay Porn?:roll:

I'm secure in my sexuality. In fact, I'd probably be a raging homo if it weren't for vaginas and breasts.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Jesus prefered the company of men. Ever wonder why he didn't marry when all men his age were married back then?

Judas to Jesus "I can't quit you"

that reminds me a of a good porno starring jesus and judas in a dual bondage sort of thing. The guy playing Jesus played the role great, the best part is Jesus was the reciever. The money shots were excellent. good stuff.

So you are into Gay Porn?:roll:

I'm secure in my sexuality. In fact, I'd probably be a raging homo if it weren't for vaginas and breasts.

So I guess that's a yes.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Jesus prefered the company of men. Ever wonder why he didn't marry when all men his age were married back then?

Judas to Jesus "I can't quit you"

that reminds me a of a good porno starring jesus and judas in a dual bondage sort of thing. The guy playing Jesus played the role great, the best part is Jesus was the reciever. The money shots were excellent. good stuff.

So you are into Gay Porn?:roll:

I'm secure in my sexuality. In fact, I'd probably be a raging homo if it weren't for vaginas and breasts.

So I guess that's a yes.

Your fiery curiosity about the porn I watch is flattering. What's the best way to let you down easily?

 

[imported_Stew]

Originally posted by: jordanz

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: mchammer
I think that the question comes down to how much a school should try to influence the opinions of its students and how far should they go to do it.

Schools have a legal (not to mention moral) obligation to protect all students, including gay students, from bullying. Basically the obligation is on the school to provide a safe environment for children. Currently, schools in the USA are not safe places for homosexual children and teenagers. I don't know what the situation is like in Canada. The only way to make schools safe for gay kids is to directly tackle the culture of homophobia which is prevalent throughout USA society and institutions. That is what posters like these are attempting to do. It's a fact that schools play a role in socializing children with regards to acceptable public behavior. The posters are basically a policy statement on what is acceptable in the school environment. Just as it is not acceptable to fling around racist or sexist language or terms of abuse, it is also not acceptable to use homophobic language or terms of abuse.

I think we're going to need a poster with two girls making out to tackle this thing head-on.

Actually, I think if that were to happen it would be taken down because it would be conceived as being sexually provocative(if they are good looking, like the guys in this poster are meant to be), whereas the two guys are just shocking/unseemly to most.

 

[6000SUX]

All this talk about whether homosexuality is a choice or not is beside the point. Sexual imprinting does happen; people learn by experience and from the examples with which they're presented. Being presented with non-stop images of gayness from birth, and being encouraged in a gay lifestyle, could help make someone gay, just as correct training helps someone be normal and straight. The issue isn't one of choice and tolerance alone; it's also about training.

I don't want my children being encouraged to be gay. Homosexuality is deviant; I want my children to be normal. It's that simple. When deviant behavior is presented as normal and even desirable, the opposite of correct cultural transmission occurs.

 

[Cabages]

I say you burn the place down.

Whatever administration you have, they MUST be crazy. This is highly inappropriate, and if I saw a poster like that at my high school I would light it on fire.

If you teach them its alright, they might just think it is. When did we start teaching kids about there own sexuality, there own problems and life?

When did gender studies ever become a class? Why did sex changes ever become available?

I would never pay taxes to be taught by such idiots.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
All this talk about whether homosexuality is a choice or not is beside the point. Sexual imprinting does happen

Do you have anything factual to back this up? How do you explain how all the other kids in the past became gay, when all that stuff was kept in the closet?

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
All this talk about whether homosexuality is a choice or not is beside the point. Sexual imprinting does happen

Do you have anything factual to back this up? How do you explain how all the other kids in the past became gay, when all that stuff was kept in the closet?

You should learn to use Google for yourself. From the very first hit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect#Sexual_imprinting

There's plenty of well-documented research out there. If you're curious, it makes for good reading. As for gay people in the past, gay culture has been around for a long time, and so has closet sexual abuse. The word "gay" arose as a code word for gays to recognize each other easily in cultural situations. You don't suppose any of those gay people hit on impressionable youth, do you?

In addition, I never said that some percent of the population won't turn out gay due to to random chance. I just said that gay behavior is deviant behavior, and I would prefer (only prefer) my children to be normal and healthy. I don't hate gays at all. I wish everyone were normal so this issue wouldn't arise, and so everyone could have a good chance at a normal family life with their own children. I am not a Christian, just a realist.

 

[Legend]

This is the article's source:

http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n14/experimento/lorenz/index-lorenz.html

Another form is sexual imprinting, in which birds learn the characteristics of their siblings, which later on will influence their mating preferences as adults. In greylag geese, filial and sexual imprinting occur almost simultaneously, but in other animals there is a clear interval between the two processes.

Some of the information in this article or section has not been verified and might not be reliable. It should be checked for inaccuracies and modified as needed, citing sources.

That's not even sexuality, and it's much younger age than high school, and it's not human.



also this:

http://www.faculty.uci.edu/profile.cfm?faculty_id=2138&name=Nancy%20T.%20Burley

which isn't about sexuality.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Legend
This is the article's source:

http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n14/experimento/lorenz/index-lorenz.html

Another form is sexual imprinting, in which birds learn the characteristics of their siblings, which later on will influence their mating preferences as adults. In greylag geese, filial and sexual imprinting occur almost simultaneously, but in other animals there is a clear interval between the two processes.

Some of the information in this article or section has not been verified and might not be reliable. It should be checked for inaccuracies and modified as needed, citing sources.

That's not even sexuality, and it's much younger age than high school, and it's not human.



also this:

http://www.faculty.uci.edu/profile.cfm?faculty_id=2138&name=Nancy%20T.%20Burley

which isn't about sexuality.

Sigh. That's just the first of zillions of hits. I'm not your personal search engine. Search on "Lorenz geese", "sexual imprinting fetishism", etc. etc. etc. Happy reading and learning.

P.S. The Burley page is indeed about sexuality. It's not squarely on the topic of human sexual imprinting, but that just makes it strange for you to focus on it here.

 

[TechBoyJK]

i have alot of gay friends... but they aren't flamers either. And I don't think its a choice, I think its a combo of pyschological and chemical imbalances.. Kinda like being depressed... I think eventually, the missing chemicals that makes a gay man less of a man and more of a woman will eventually be put in pill form to correct gayness..

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Legend
This is the article's source:

http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n14/experimento/lorenz/index-lorenz.html

Another form is sexual imprinting, in which birds learn the characteristics of their siblings, which later on will influence their mating preferences as adults. In greylag geese, filial and sexual imprinting occur almost simultaneously, but in other animals there is a clear interval between the two processes.

Some of the information in this article or section has not been verified and might not be reliable. It should be checked for inaccuracies and modified as needed, citing sources.

That's not even sexuality, and it's much younger age than high school, and it's not human.



also this:

http://www.faculty.uci.edu/profile.cfm?faculty_id=2138&name=Nancy%20T.%20Burley

which isn't about sexuality.

Sigh. That's just the first of zillions of hits. I'm not your personal search engine. Search on "Lorenz geese", "sexual imprinting fetishism", etc. etc. etc. Happy reading and learning.

P.S. The Burley page is indeed about sexuality. It's not squarely on the topic of human sexual imprinting, but that just makes it strange for you to focus on it here.

If it's so easy, then give me a decent link with relevant and reputable sources.

http://www.faculty.uci.edu/profile.cfm?faculty_id=2138&name=Nancy%20T.%20Burley

Has nothing to do with sexuality. It talks about how males/females like certain characteristics of the opposite sex. It also talks about how males tend to favor characteristics of the mother. Point out to me where exactly it talks about sexuality. Not once does it mention the word sexuality or anything between same sexes.

The burden is on you. The idea that you can change the sexuality of teenage kids with dumb posters like the one in the OP's first post is laughable. The burden is on you.

 

[LiquidImpulse]

yea...I've got some posters similiar to this in my school...quite disturbing...I live in Ontario btw.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
i have alot of gay friends... but they aren't flamers either. And I don't think its a choice, I think its a combo of pyschological and chemical imbalances.. Kinda like being depressed... I think eventually, the missing chemicals that makes a gay man less of a man and more of a woman will eventually be put in pill form to correct gayness..

They're finding it's a chemical imbalance, but it can't be changed after early development because it has to do with hormones while the brain is being wired. The prenatal hormone theory is pretty strong because they've done tests on rats to make them be attracted to the (edit) same sex by playing with prenatal hormones.

And here's a good source:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/09/60minutes/main1385230_page4.shtml

 

[EXman]

It is an attempt to mainstream a perverse fringe agenda. Indoctrination at a young age about sexuality is pretty low. Yea that is my opinion so what. I'm entitled just as you are to yours. You don't have to be a bigot if you don't like homos. I don't like green peas. Am I a bigot cause I don't like green peas? Many leftists out there don't like Christians and bash them up and down but let Muslims have a free pass even though their hobbies include flying 757's into buildings. Yea they are Bigots. BUT there are some that just don't like Christians in a non biggoted way as well. It is fine not to like all groups. I don't know many people that love everyone truely. Does that make them bad people? No.

Want to keep Church out of the classroom? I do. I want you to keep your morally corrupt sexuality out of it too. School is not appropriate for either.

Sounds pretty fair to me.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
i have alot of gay friends... but they aren't flamers either. And I don't think its a choice, I think its a combo of pyschological and chemical imbalances.. Kinda like being depressed... I think eventually, the missing chemicals that makes a gay man less of a man and more of a woman will eventually be put in pill form to correct gayness..

They're finding it's a chemical imbalance, but it can't be changed after early development because it has to do with hormones while the brain is being wired. The prenatal hormone theory is pretty strong because they've done tests on rats to make them be attracted to the opposite sex by playing with prenatal hormones.

And here's a good source:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/09/60minutes/main1385230_page4.shtml

I was thinking that. That its rooted in a chemical imbalance, but as the gay person grows up with that chemical imbalance, this way of thinking is embedded into their psychology, so even if teh chemical imbalance is corrected, what they link to pleasure in sex, etc. will already be hardcoded in....

almost like, when your baby is born, check it for gayness and if found, give it the pill?

im not trying to hate on gay people at all, but i tend to think its a "sickness" and that they need help.... I know if I tell a gay person that they are "sick" I'll be labeled as a hater... But I have gay friends, just like I have depressed friends and friends that are hooked on drugs...

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Legend
This is the article's source:

http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n14/experimento/lorenz/index-lorenz.html

Another form is sexual imprinting, in which birds learn the characteristics of their siblings, which later on will influence their mating preferences as adults. In greylag geese, filial and sexual imprinting occur almost simultaneously, but in other animals there is a clear interval between the two processes.

Some of the information in this article or section has not been verified and might not be reliable. It should be checked for inaccuracies and modified as needed, citing sources.

That's not even sexuality, and it's much younger age than high school, and it's not human.



also this:

http://www.faculty.uci.edu/profile.cfm?faculty_id=2138&name=Nancy%20T.%20Burley

which isn't about sexuality.

Sigh. That's just the first of zillions of hits. I'm not your personal search engine. Search on "Lorenz geese", "sexual imprinting fetishism", etc. etc. etc. Happy reading and learning.

P.S. The Burley page is indeed about sexuality. It's not squarely on the topic of human sexual imprinting, but that just makes it strange for you to focus on it here.

If it's so easy, then give me a decent link with relevant and reputable sources.

http://www.faculty.uci.edu/profile.cfm?faculty_id=2138&name=Nancy%20T.%20Burley

Has nothing to do with sexuality. It talks about how males/females like certain characteristics of the opposite sex. It also talks about how males tend to favor characteristics of the mother. Point out to me where exactly it talks about sexuality. Not once does it mention the word sexuality or anything between same sexes.

The burden is on you. The idea that you can change the sexuality of teenage kids with dumb posters like the one in the OP's first post is laughable. The burden is on you.

There's no burden on me. Sexual imprinting is a more viable hypothesis than the CBS News article that you linked to, a populist article quoting one researcher with no statistical sources given to back it up. You are being ridiculous if you say that mate selection has nothing to do with sexuality; are you really trying to claim that?

To think that sexual behavior cannot be learned is laughable. I suppose that's why cybersex, phone sex, and the like exist, eh? I suppose in your book, a latex fetish is the result of a hormone imbalance. Just do some reading and you'll change your mind.

Homosexuality is deviant behavior. To encourage homosexuality is irresponsible.

Edit: Here's a decent short article on hormone research. It's not exactly proven as you seem to think.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h...res=9A05E0D9173BF932A1575AC0A962948260

I recall the first "proof" of a genetic basis for homosexuality, based on brain differences of gay men who had died of AIDs. You don't suppose a horrible wasting disease could change the brain's structure or chemistry, do you? There is also significant research that indicates that modifications to behavior patterns can change both the brain's structure AND chemistry. Hence it is not unreasonable to think that homosexual behavior (for instance, acting effeminate as a man) could trigger physical and chemical changes.