California Overturns Gay Marriage

[Rob Henderson]

I haven't seen any cases of actively attempting to turn someone homosexual... I mean, I have gay friends that tell me all the time that I should be gay, but they're just joking. I've never heard of trying to actively FORCE someone gay... Please give some documentation to support this point, Del Boy.

 

[senojekips]

But there is a move to make homosexuality look "normal" and that sends completely the wrong message to our kids and impressionable others.

The homos in Australia wanted it to be included in the educational syllabus as a viable alternative to heterosexuality. Needless to say the parents had it thrown out on its elbow. (Shhh,.. Don't mention "butts" the homos will get all excited and start dancing around squealing with anticipation).

 

[Rob Henderson]

But there is a move to make homosexuality look "normal" and that sends completely the wrong message to our kids and impressionable others.

The homos in Australia wanted it to be included in the educational syllabus as a viable alternative to heterosexuality. Needless to say the parents had it thrown out on its elbow. (Shhh,.. Don't mention "butts" the homos will get all excited and start dancing around squealing with anticipation).

Well first and foremost, who is ANYONE to define "normal"? And secondly, you're telling me there is a difference between normalcy and acceptance? If heterosexuality is taught in schools, why SHOULDN'T homosexuality be taught? It's the same basic concept... Prevention of disease... It's not a pitch to kids to try and turn them gay... It's educating them on how to make safe choices in their lives, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual.

 

[Chukpike]

You're correct, but there are rights of individuals that should override the rights of the States. According to you yourself the power of the people should be the ultimate authority, so the people should have the authority to decide who they marry, right?

Yes, Individual rights are outlined in the first ten Amendments to the Constitution. Also known as the Bill of Rights. Those rights should override States rights. Note how well that works in regards to the Second Amendment. Ask your Gay friends how many support the right to keep and bare arms.

No, an individual person does not have the right to override the authority given to the States by the people.

The first three words of the Constitution are We the People. They are not "I Fred of the United States".

 

[Rob Henderson]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Just because it's not said in the Constitution doesn't mean it's thrown to the States.

When did the people decide to give the power of telling you who you could marry to the States?

It should NOT be the States right to tell you who to spend the rest of your life with; it should be up to the people themselves as individuals.

 

[senojekips]

Well first and foremost, who is ANYONE to define "normal"?

well in the context of this thread, heterosexual.

And secondly, you're telling me there is a difference between normalcy and acceptance?

you bloody betcha

If heterosexuality is taught in schools, why SHOULDN'T homosexuality be taught?

For the same reason as public nose picking should Not. It is anti social.

It's the same basic concept... Prevention of disease... It's not a pitch to kids to try and turn them gay... It's educating them on how to make safe choices in their lives, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual.

BS,... it is designed to make homosexuality look like an acceptable alternative lifestyle.

 

[Chukpike]

Just because it's not said in the Constitution doesn't mean it's thrown to the States.

When did the people decide to give the power of telling you who you could marry to the States?

It should NOT be the States right to tell you who to spend the rest of your life with; it should be up to the people themselves as individuals.

All powers not given to the Federal Government remained with the states.

Actually, that was done before the Constitution was written. Go back and study the history. The States by Ratifying the Constitution gave up certain rights to a Federal Government outlined in the Constitution.

The people have never given up their right to the States to decide who could marry. In States where their has been concern the State legislatures would give the right to marry to Gays and Lesbians the people have stood up and said no. The people of California have now done this twice.

There never has been a right of the individual to decide what he or she can or can't do. That right was given up when a society was formed.

If an individual persons right was supreme there would not be any need for any government or laws. The individual could do whatever they wanted. Most people might do anything they wanted "as long as they didn't hurt anyone else". Others would do whatever they wanted regardless of who it hurt. It is called survival of the fittest.

 

[Rob Henderson]

All powers not given to the Federal Government remained with the states.

No no, it's states that just because it's not SPECIFICALLY STATED IN THE CONSTITUTION. Just because something isn't specifically said in the Constitution doesn't deny it to the people.

Actually, that was done before the Constitution was written. Go back and study the history. The States by Ratifying the Constitution gave up certain rights to a Federal Government outlined in the Constitution.

Great... So what?

The people have never given up their right to the States to decide who could marry. In States where their has been concern the State legislatures would give the right to marry to Gays and Lesbians the people have stood up and said no. The people of California have now done this twice.

But what I'm saying is the State has no right to give it to the people! Even if the people wanted something done, the States have no right to pass legislature either way.

There never has been a right of the individual to decide what he or she can or can't do. That right was given up when a society was formed.

If an individual persons right was supreme there would not be any need for any government or laws. The individual could do whatever they wanted. Most people might do anything they wanted "as long as they didn't hurt anyone else". Others would do whatever they wanted regardless of who it hurt. It is called survival of the fittest.

The right of the individual is what The United States is all about man... Freedom... Individuality... Anything ringing a bell here? Look, if this was ONE PERSON complaining about wanting to marry another person of the same sex, it probably wouldn't matter, but homosexuals are becoming a larger and larger portion of our population, we can either be stubborn old fools and not accept the inevitable; or we can learn to live with these people because other than their sex lives, THEY'RE NO DIFFERENT.




To Senojekips:

But we can't judge just because they don't have sex the way straight people do! Who GIVES a damn what they do in their bedrooms?! Who CARES if they hold hands in public?? I can PROMISE you God has bigger things to worry about when He's looking at people wanting to enter into Heaven. If we just let them have their wedding, let them be legally married, they would be happy... Here's a scary fact that occurred a few years ago... Married couples (heterosexual only) became a minority. There were more DIVORCED couples than married ones... Now, how can you say that it should only be heterosexuals who get married when we divorce more than stay married anyway?! A woman in my church choir has been with her partner for 30+ years. Can't say that about another straight woman though... She divorced twice. I don't know about you, but I SURE as hell know which couple is more in love.


Now, when comparing the EDUCATION of homosexuality, you cannot compare it to the "education" of picking your nose. You don't TEACH someone to pick their nose... But you CAN teach someone to make healthy and safe decisions about their own personal life. They're going to do it anyway, you can't stop them, it's the way they were made, so why try? 10 people b*tching on a forum isn't going to stop homosexuals from existing, so why not try and have an open mind about it... I promise, they're not bad people... Most of them are more honest, friendly, and true people than some of the straight people I know anyway... It takes a lot of courage to say you're gay in today's society, whereas straight people create all types of visages to mask insecurities.


Seno, I've never seen any videos on homosexual education, so I'm not going to pretend I know anything about it's contents... And knowing you, I'd be willing to bet the farm that YOU haven't exactly looked it up on YouTube either, so I think we steer clear of this particular topic until we're both actually informed on it. Now, from my very recent experiences with heterosexual education, it did NOT promote a lifestyle, it taught about the diseases that can be contracted from the different forms of sexual contact, it tought about the ways said diseases can be prevented, and that sexual abstinence was the only way to 100% prevent any diseases. It did not show men and women together, it didn't even infer that sex was between a man and a woman... It only referred to SEXUAL INTERCOURSE ITSELF. Which is defined as "coitus between humans."

 

[blackeagle]

And all of a sudden Al Jazeera is a solid, scientific source. That is very convinient isn't it? We all know the point of view by Islamics on homo's. But we can say the same about their point of view on Israeli's or Christians.

it is apparently not an islamic point of view,but a sientafic view which improves that practice of homosextuality causes diseases that are unkown and very deadly to humans.
you know?

other sources on homosexuality
http://mrssatan.blogspot.com/2006/06/flesh-eating-virus-calls-it-quits-for.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1954444/posts
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html
enough?

 

[senojekips]

THEY'RE NO DIFFERENT.

So you are the same as they are?

To Senojekips:

But we can't judge just because they don't have sex the way straight people do! Who GIVES a damn what they do in their bedrooms?! Who CARES if they hold hands in public?? I can PROMISE you God has bigger things to worry about when He's looking at people wanting to enter into Heaven. If we just let them have their wedding, let them be legally married, they would be happy... Here's a scary fact that occurred a few years ago... Married couples (heterosexual only) became a minority. There were more DIVORCED couples than married ones... Now, how can you say that it should only be heterosexuals who get married when we divorce more than stay married anyway?! A woman in my church choir has been with her partner for 30+ years. Can't say that about another straight woman though... She divorced twice. I don't know about you, but I SURE as hell know which couple is more in love.

Now, when comparing the EDUCATION of homosexuality, you cannot compare it to the "education" of picking your nose. You don't TEACH someone to pick their nose... But you CAN teach someone to make healthy and safe decisions about their own personal life. They're going to do it anyway, you can't stop them, it's the way they were made, so why try? 10 people b*tching on a forum isn't going to stop homosexuals from existing, so why not try and have an open mind about it... I promise, they're not bad people... Most of them are more honest, friendly, and true people than some of the straight people I know anyway... It takes a lot of courage to say you're gay in today's society, whereas straight people create all types of visages to mask insecurities.

Insecurities???... of course you jest. If I were insecure I would be like yourself and just letting this matter slide. One thing I am not,.. is insecure, you can safely bet next years wages on that. Other than that, you miss the point entirely, I don't expect to stop it on my own, but I will certainly express my opinion in the vain hope that I might enlighten just one person to what is going on.

As for bringing god into it, well,... that might explain your lack of grip on reality. I'm sorry, but if you are going to wait for god, you might find yourself severely disappointed as he has a notoriously poor record in such matters.

Courage???? they have the same courage as any greedy group of social misfits trying to get what they can out of the system. You mistake greed for courage.

We have already seen our social and legal system distorted by similar reasoning based on political correctness, whereby our criminals can now sue the people they have committed, or attempted to commit crimes against. This ludicrous issue will turn to bite us similarly.

Seno, I've never seen any videos on homosexual education, so I'm not going to pretend I know anything about it's contents... And knowing you, I'd be willing to bet the farm that YOU haven't exactly looked it up on YouTube either, so I think we steer clear of this particular topic until we're both actually informed on it. Now, from my very recent experiences with heterosexual education, it did NOT promote a lifestyle, it taught about the diseases that can be contracted from the different forms of sexual contact, it tought about the ways said diseases can be prevented, and that sexual abstinence was the only way to 100% prevent any diseases. It did not show men and women together, it didn't even infer that sex was between a man and a woman... It only referred to SEXUAL INTERCOURSE ITSELF. Which is defined as "coitus between humans."

I think your time would be better spent looking at what this is doing to our society, and who is going to end up paying for it. The social disruption it will cause is reason enough to ban it out of hand.

I find myself answering all manner of questions here, that I've already given my reasoning on, so rather than start repeating myself I urge you to go back through my posts and find the answers for yourself.

 

[Ted]

It is a legitimate question, because of the fact that love cannot be succinctly defined, it really cannot be used as a criteria for marriage. Marriage more than anything is no more than a legal state, either declared by the physical act of marriage, or undeclared as in common law relationships, as it's former religious meaning has long since lost any meaning.

Eventhough I hate to admit it.... you have a very good point there mate! Damn...... what to say?

The homos in Australia wanted it to be included in the educational syllabus as a viable alternative to heterosexuality.

But isn't it a viable alternative? If it wasn't, then there wouldn't be any gays and this discussion naught. Pretending that "they" don not exist doesn't solve it. Informing people that some prefer same sex relations is called realism.
Actively trying to turn people does not work. If it would then there would be hordes of them. But by that ratio, then kids would buy everything that the telephone marketeers want them to buy.

 

[senojekips]

Eventhough I hate to admit it.... you have a very good point there mate! Damn...... what to say?

Well Ted, at least I know you are bright enough and honest enough to give my posts your honest attention. I hope that i'm doing the same to yours.

But isn't it a viable alternative? If it wasn't, then there wouldn't be any gays and this discussion naught. Pretending that "they" don not exist doesn't solve it. Informing people that some prefer same sex relations is called realism.
Actively trying to turn people does not work. If it would then there would be hordes of them. But by that ratio, then kids would buy everything that the telephone marketeers want them to buy.

I don't care what they do in private, but the instant they try to change society's values to suit their anti social lifestyle, I will say my piece.

I do not support many of today's politically correct values, this is only one of many, and I do that because I feel that it will retard the progress of man's civilization. I would also actively resist the recognition of witchcraft as a viable alternative to modern medicine (imperfect as it is) and any of a hundred other things that are non productive and will end up costing society dearly.

Like homosexuals, telemarketers work on the premise that if they get one sale out of a hundred calls they have done their job. Attempts at "cleaning up" the image of homosexuality works on the same principal. All they need is one easily led or otherwise "weak minded" individual and they have had a win.

 

[A Can of Man]

Spike, forget it. They've already made up their minds and it doesn't matter how well you present your idea. It just doesn't matter.
It's something I've learned in more recent times. People form their ideas and will not change their minds, at least in the larger context of things, especially if it becomes a conflict. It's a bit why I'm less likely to change my mind now as well. It doesn't seem to matter whether I'm right or wrong to other people, so why the heck should I listen and back down in any argument anyway?
On this matter, I ask, how many of you have actually LIVED with gay people that isn't related to you? I lived with two, and I knew this one other guy who also lived with a gay guy (though he was straight). Believe me, I see right through the political correctness crap. In fact, BEFORE I lived with them, I had an open mind towards homosexuality. No, I wasn't into that sort of stuff but it was something I thought was just a part of life and nothing more and nothing less. Boy was that an enlightening experience.

 

[Rob Henderson]

LMFAO!!! Hahahaha! "They" Like we're some kind of outcasts for believing in acceptance of human beings...


And by the way 13, I don't see you all changing your minds any time soon... Perhaps Ted and I could start our own little alliance.


PS, my room mate is gay... Though "it doesn't matter, they've already made up their minds."



Senojekips:

I'll give you the attention to your posts as soon as you give them to mine...

...because other than their sex lives, THEY ARE NO DIFFERENT.

So yes, they are the same as me, other than their sex life. They need the same basic needs, food clothing shelter.. They have feelings, they think...

Insecurities???... of course you jest. If I were insecure I would be like yourself and just letting this matter slide. One thing I am not,.. is insecure, you can safely bet next years wages on that. Other than that, you miss the point entirely, I don't expect to stop it on my own, but I will certainly express my opinion in the vain hope that I might enlighten just one person to what is going on.

As for bringing god into it, well,... that might explain your lack of grip on reality. I'm sorry, but if you are going to wait for god, you might find yourself severely disappointed as he has a notoriously poor record in such matters.

Courage???? they have the same courage as any greedy group of social misfits trying to get what they can out of the system. You mistake greed for courage.

Thereby calling ME insecure? Oh no, again, YOU must jest... To say that because of insecurities is WHY I'm letting the matter slide... Haha. Rather, I'm so completely secure that it doesn't bother me what other people do... Again I pull the "Before reaching to pull the speck out of your neighbors eye, be sure to remove the plank in your own" quote, but I'm sure the Bible doesn't hold much sway with you... Doesn't matter, the point remains the same... Make sure YOU'RE perfect *cough* before you start criticizing others.


Seno, let's take a hypothetical for a second... Say God truly does exist... We know for sure, and there are two more people wanting to enter His kindgom... A homosexual (John) and a heterosexual (Jim). Now, if John's biggest sin is lying, and Jim's biggest sin is...say... Murder, which one do YOU think God is going to let into Heaven?? In today's society, the biggest problems in the world are not anti-social sexual behaviors... There are MUCH more important matters in the world to be dealt with. Enlighten someone on the fact that drugs can kill, or that little girls being raped is WRONG. Homosexuality appears much more "tolerable" after looking at it from that aspect.

You say greed, I say FIE. Greed is seperating and not filing the paperwork to continue drawing marriage support. Courage is coming out to your father, who happens to have homophobia. Risking that you will never talk to the man who raised you "to be a good boy." Courage is willing to risk being mocked, ridiculed, and even abused because of something you PROBABLY didn't want to happen in the first place... I know my room mate would be just fine straight, he just doesn't find the attraction there.

We have already seen our social and legal system distorted by similar reasoning based on political correctness, whereby our criminals can now sue the people they have committed, or attempted to commit crimes against. This ludicrous issue will turn to bite us similarly.

How is this going to "bite us"? How is letting two people of the same sex get married the same as criminals suing against victims?!

I think your time would be better spent looking at what this is doing to our society, and who is going to end up paying for it. The social disruption it will cause is reason enough to ban it out of hand.

I find myself answering all manner of questions here, that I've already given my reasoning on, so rather than start repeating myself I urge you to go back through my posts and find the answers for yourself.

There are over 200 posts on this thread. I'd rather not go back and find your references to where you are knowledgeable on homosexual sex ed. Or is that something to "razzle dazzle" me into thinking that you actually know something about it? Because, quite frankly, I think you're as ignorant on the topic as I am.

 

[Del Boy]

.. Please give some documentation to support this point, Del Boy.

No Rob, I said that the teaching of homosexuality as just an alternative life-style to heterosexual marriage to INFANTS at school was an encouragement. I said nothing about force. I am talking of political persuasion imposed upon vulnerable kids.

Do you really want me to develop this viewpoint ? Let me know, here , and I will do my best.

 

[Rob Henderson]

That's what I wanted documentation of... The teaching of ANY sexual education to infants. Homosexual OR heterosexual.

 

[senojekips]

I'll give you the attention to your posts as soon as you give them to mine... So yes, they are the same as me, other than their sex life. They need the same basic needs, food clothing shelter.. They have feelings, they think...

Now that's an astounding piece of logic. They are the same,... but in the same sentence you admit they are different??? I'll find that point hard to devote my attention to.

Thereby calling ME insecure?

That is purely your assumption.

Oh no, again, YOU must jest... To say that because of insecurities is WHY I'm letting the matter slide... Haha. Rather, I'm so completely secure that it doesn't bother me what other people do... Again I pull the "Before reaching to pull the speck out of your neighbors eye, be sure to remove the plank in your own" quote, but I'm sure the Bible doesn't hold much sway with you... Doesn't matter, the point remains the same... Make sure YOU'RE perfect *cough* before you start criticizing others.

I never mentioned the fact of your supposed insecurity. If you bother to read my post you will see that all I did was clear my own yardarm regarding this matter, this is your own assumption. Is there a reason for this? Do you feel guilty about something? Believe me, no one is perfect Christians perhaps more than most. I am a pragmatist not a believer in fairy stories. Fairy stories never make a good basis for any kind of argument.

Seno, let's take a hypothetical for a second... Say God truly does exist... We know for sure, and there are two more people wanting to enter His kindgom... A homosexual (John) and a heterosexual (Jim). Now, if John's biggest sin is lying, and Jim's biggest sin is...say... Murder, which one do YOU think God is going to let into Heaven?? In today's society, the biggest problems in the world are not anti-social sexual behaviors... There are MUCH more important matters in the world to be dealt with. Enlighten someone on the fact that drugs can kill, or that little girls being raped is WRONG. Homosexuality appears much more "tolerable" after looking at it from that aspect.

Let's not as it is totally pointless. I'm not into making hypothetical judgements based on a pretend person who lives in the sky. It is "reasoning" such as this that discredits your argument completely. Lets stick with the facts, such as we know them to be.

You say greed, I say FIE. Greed is seperating and not filing the paperwork to continue drawing marriage support. Courage is coming out to your father, who happens to have homophobia. Risking that you will never talk to the man who raised you "to be a good boy." Courage is willing to risk being mocked, ridiculed, and even abused because of something you PROBABLY didn't want to happen in the first place... I know my room mate would be just fine straight, he just doesn't find the attraction there.

Greed is wanting that to which you are not entitled. If I wish to be anti social, the stigma it carries is no one's fault but my own.

How is this going to "bite us"? How is letting two people of the same sex get married the same as criminals suing against victims?!

In the future i have no doubt that our system will be just as litigious as it is today, if not worse, we will have people sueing the Government for ever having opened up this totally unrealistic can of worms. The first case I can see will involve some person who was "adopted" by homos, then eventually wakes up to the fact that (s)he has been raised with a false idea of how the world really works. Hell, the government have been dragged into court for far less, and lost. We already have enough "screwed up" kids.

There are over 200 posts on this thread. I'd rather not go back and find your references to where you are knowledgeable on homosexual sex ed. Or is that something to "razzle dazzle" me into thinking that you actually know something about it? Because, quite frankly, I think you're as ignorant on the topic as I am.

Well, I've read them all, and I know what has already been debated, that's why I'm not willing to keep repeating myself. If you want to be taken half way seriously you should have the decency to do the same instead of dropping into the middle of a thread and expecting others to chase after you answering material that has already been covered.

Also, IF you bother to read my post, nowhere do I state that I know anything about homosexual education, other than the fact that I see it as another way homos are trying to gain credibility and gain recognition as a viable alternate lifestyle.

 

[Del Boy]

You got it Rob - backed up by police you will see.

Just a start - the louder you scream, the faster I go.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-373145/Lessons-gay-history-pupils-aged-seven.html


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-457047/The-schools-pupils-aged-learn-gay-lifestyle.html


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-441542/Four-year-olds-gay-fairytales-school.html



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-511209/Dont-say-mum-dad--teachers-told-assume-pupils-heterosexual-parents.html

 

[MontyB]

You got it Rob - backed up by police you will see.

Just a start - the louder you scream, the faster I go.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-373145/Lessons-gay-history-pupils-aged-seven.html


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-457047/The-schools-pupils-aged-learn-gay-lifestyle.html


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-441542/Four-year-olds-gay-fairytales-school.html



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-511209/Dont-say-mum-dad--teachers-told-assume-pupils-heterosexual-parents.html

I see a lot in those articles teaching kids about the homosexual lifestyle which is vastly different to teaching kids to be homosexual which seems to be your inference.

From what I see all four of those articles are about campaigns teaching an understanding of diversity which I do not see as a bad thing, hell perhaps if the a religious version was taught maybe we would have a lot less people blowing themselves and others up around the world.

Spike, forget it. They've already made up their minds and it doesn't matter how well you present your idea. It just doesn't matter.
It's something I've learned in more recent times. People form their ideas and will not change their minds, at least in the larger context of things, especially if it becomes a conflict. It's a bit why I'm less likely to change my mind now as well. It doesn't seem to matter whether I'm right or wrong to other people, so why the heck should I listen and back down in any argument anyway?
On this matter, I ask, how many of you have actually LIVED with gay people that isn't related to you? I lived with two, and I knew this one other guy who also lived with a gay guy (though he was straight). Believe me, I see right through the political correctness crap. In fact, BEFORE I lived with them, I had an open mind towards homosexuality. No, I wasn't into that sort of stuff but it was something I thought was just a part of life and nothing more and nothing less. Boy was that an enlightening experience.

I see the pot is still calling the kettle black.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Now that's an astounding piece of logic. They are the same,... but in the same sentence you admit they are different??? I'll find that point hard to devote my attention to.

I said other than their sex lives... No two people are exactly the same... You're nitpicking, Spike.

That is purely your assumption. I never mentioned the fact of your supposed insecurity. If you bother to read my post you will see that all I did was clear my own yardarm regarding this matter, this is your own assumption. Is there a reason for this? Do you feel guilty about something? Believe me, no one is perfect Christians perhaps more than most. I am a pragmatist not a believer in fairy stories. Fairy stories never make a good basis for any kind of argument.

Again, I bothered to read your post, and you DID call me insecure. You said and I directly QUOTE: "If I were insecure I would be like you..." Inferring that I am insecure. I bloody read it. Now, the fact that you are a pragmatist has absolutely no bearing on the quote itself, simply it's origin. Before criticizing someone's way of life, make sure you're life is completely free from critique. If it's not, then there is no room for you to make any judgments on other people.

Let's not as it is totally pointless. I'm not into making hypothetical judgements based on a pretend person who lives in the sky. It is "reasoning" such as this that discredits your argument completely. Lets stick with the facts, such as we know them to be.

Fine, then let's say a judge is looking at two people... Which one is he going to sentence, the one who is homosexual or the one who raped the 5 year old? There are worse things in the world that homosexuality. Again, you are nitpicking, trying to punch meaningless holes into my argument by asserting your pragmatism.

Greed is wanting that to which you are not entitled. If I wish to be anti social, the stigma it carries is no one's fault but my own.

And who is to say that gays are NOT entitled to marriage? You? Me? The government? No, it should be up to the couple themselves.

In the future i have no doubt that our system will be just as litigious as it is today, if not worse, we will have people sueing the Government for ever having opened up this totally unrealistic can of worms. The first case I can see will involve some person who was "adopted" by homos, then eventually wakes up to the fact that (s)he has been raised with a false idea of how the world really works. Hell, the government have been dragged into court for far less, and lost. We already have enough "screwed up" kids.

That's your opinion... In my eyes, it's not a FALSE way of how the world works... Simply ANOTHER way the world works...

Well, I've read them all, and I know what has already been debated, that's why I'm not willing to keep repeating myself. If you want to be taken half way seriously you should have the decency to do the same instead of dropping into the middle of a thread and expecting others to chase after you answering material that has already been covered.

Very good then, I'll come back to you.

Also, IF you bother to read my post, nowhere do I state that I know anything about homosexual education, other than the fact that I see it as another way homos are trying to gain credibility and gain recognition as a viable alternate lifestyle.

Guess what? Again... I read the damned post, and you said "BS,... it is designed to make homosexuality look like an acceptable alternative lifestyle."
That's claiming to know something (quite a lot actually) about homosexual sex ed! If you say ANYTHING about the content of homosexual sex education, you are claiming to know something about it! That's claiming that you've seen someone say "Homosexuality is an acceptable alternative lifestyle." But you haven't... Have you? You haven't seen ANY homosexual education videos/speeches/classes, have you?




To Del Boy:

The first article simply addresses gay history. Granted, they are a little young to be learning about ANY relevant history just yet, but it's not like they're encouraging homosexuality.

The 2nd and 3rd article are the same... Again, it's only introducing the idea as acceptable, NOT encouraging them to partake in it... I'm sure heterosexual stories are read as well, they just don't make the news.

The 4th article is basically correct... I'm not saying fire the teacher for saying mum and dad, but parents is a much more gender-neutral and therefore time-appropriate term.