Let’S Face It, We Want To Indoctrinate Children

[Stargazer]

Personally I think everyone is naturally born gay. If you look at the behavior of typical small boys, they think girls are icky. They want nothing to do with them. Every young boy knows that girls have the cooties. But society is so bent on indoctrination them in the heterosexual agenda that it causes them to become straight. They hear this straight agenda in their schools, churches and the public square. The straight agenda is on every TV show and Hollywood glamorizes it in the movies. Entire movies are made pushing heterosexuality on our youth.. The straight agenda is in their text books in our public schools from the age of 5 and taught directly in the classrooms on a regular basis.

It is amazing to me that through all of this straight indoctrination agenda that any kid survives to remain gay when they grow up. Americans need to start standing up against this radical right wing conspiricy shoved down our throats by the right wing media. If we don't make a stand against this radical ideology, our youth will be lost forever.

You're a scream, CB.

I don't know about other little boys, but I was utterly fascinated with girls from my earliest recollections. I never held to the cooties myth; I wanted cooties.

[Libs]

I really don't know what to tell you, TAO.

Maybe, it's a war of values that only one side can win.

It's really difficult.

[Walden]

Personally I think everyone is naturally born gay. If you look at the behavior of typical small boys, they think girls are icky. They want nothing to do with them. Every young boy knows that girls have the cooties. But society is so bent on indoctrination them in the heterosexual agenda that it causes them to become straight. They hear this straight agenda in their schools, churches and the public square. The straight agenda is on every TV show and Hollywood glamorizes it in the movies. Entire movies are made pushing heterosexuality on our youth.. The straight agenda is in their text books in our public schools from the age of 5 and taught directly in the classrooms on a regular basis.

It is amazing to me that through all of this straight indoctrination agenda that any kid survives to remain gay when they grow up. Americans need to start standing up against this radical right wing conspiricy shoved down our throats by the right wing media. If we don't make a stand against this radical ideology, our youth will be lost forever.

Though I am a staunch supporter of gay rights, including their right to enter into marriage, this claim seems to go against the very basis of biological. If homosexuality is what "nature" intended with regard to evolution, then the human species would eventually be wiped out, if not for the "heterosexual" indoctrination that you describe. In your case, without this heterosexual indoctrination, man would live in his "natural" state, which you summise as being homosexual, and thus would not reproduce naturally, thus seriously affecting the propagation of the species.

Bottom line....what is the evolutionary advantage of propagating a species that does not have a biologically driven urge to procreate? That species would quickly disappear.

Like I said, I fully support gay rights, but this belief that "everyone is naturally born gay," does not make any biological or evolutionary sense.

[mercyngrace]

Though I am a staunch supporter of gay rights, including their right to enter into marriage, this claim seems to go against the very basis of biological. If homosexuality is what "nature" intended with regard to evolution, then the human species would eventually be wiped out, if not for the "heterosexual" indoctrination that you describe. In your case, without this heterosexual indoctrination, man would live in his "natural" state, which you summise as being homosexual, and thus would not reproduce naturally, thus seriously affecting the propagation of the species.

Bottom line....what is the evolutionary advantage of propagating a species that does not have a biologically driven urge to procreate? That species would quickly disappear.

Like I said, I fully support gay rights, but this belief that "everyone is naturally born gay," does not make any biological or evolutionary sense.

I think california boys's comment was tongue in cheek.

[Daniel2]

I will do my best to act Christ like on this issue, but it saddens me really to see people going after each other with such hate and malice. I mean... is it not supposed to be 'I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it' or something like that? Where did that value go? I hate the contention that goes on, I hate it with a passion. Both sides of it. =(

And I am flawed myself.

Silent Wishes,

TAO

Well said, TAO.

I fully agree with what you wrote above.

For my part, when it comes to selecting an anti-bullying curriculum, I'd be ALL for a curriculum that includes sections on both religious tolerance (the need to tolerate and respect the beliefs of all religions, conservative and liberal; traditional and progressive); as well as toleration of sexual orientation, not to mention national origin, gender, race, and ableness (there's probably more I would support--that isn't meant to be an exhaustive list).

If we could "indoctrinate" children with the value of respecting others' right to live and "pursue happiness" "according to the dictates of their own conscience," I'd be all for it.

Darin

[Libs]

If we could "indoctrinate" children with the value of respecting others' right to live and "pursue happiness" "according to the dictates of their own conscience," I'd be all for it.

Amen, Darin.

General respect for all, is definitely what is needed.

[TAO]

For my part, when it comes to selecting an anti-bullying curriculum, I'd be ALL for a curriculum that includes sections on both religious tolerance (the need to tolerate and respect the beliefs of all religions, conservative and liberal; traditional and progressive); as well as toleration of sexual orientation, not to mention national origin, gender, race, and ableness (there's probably more I would support--that isn't meant to be an exhaustive list).

I would like this too... unfortunately, it seems unlikely to happen .

[Stargazer]

Though I am a staunch supporter of gay rights, including their right to enter into marriage, this claim seems to go against the very basis of biological. If homosexuality is what "nature" intended with regard to evolution, then the human species would eventually be wiped out, if not for the "heterosexual" indoctrination that you describe. In your case, without this heterosexual indoctrination, man would live in his "natural" state, which you summise as being homosexual, and thus would not reproduce naturally, thus seriously affecting the propagation of the species.

Bottom line....what is the evolutionary advantage of propagating a species that does not have a biologically driven urge to procreate? That species would quickly disappear.

Like I said, I fully support gay rights, but this belief that "everyone is naturally born gay," does not make any biological or evolutionary sense.

Walden's been pwned!!

[Mordecai]

I don't know about other little boys, but I was utterly fascinated with girls from my earliest recollections. I never held to the cooties myth; I wanted cooties.

I never went through that stage either. I secretly liked kiss tag and liked holding hands with my little kindergarten girlfriend. I was all for the cooties, too. ha ha

I would like this too... unfortunately, it seems unlikely to happen .

It seems to me, the trick is to promote emotional maturity, self-discipline and the Golden Rule. Of course, what interest group is going to push that into the schools effectively? Someone wants to be singled out as the victim, and tell everyone that they're the victim, convincing them that everyone that isn't kind to them is the bad guy. Never mind that they'll go out and be mean to someone else.

[california boy]

You're a scream, CB.

I don't know about other little boys, but I was utterly fascinated with girls from my earliest recollections. I never held to the cooties myth; I wanted cooties.

I am willing to accept the fact that there is a small percentage of boys who may be born heterosexual. Maybe there is a gene for that, but none have yet to be found. Or maybe something happens in the womb. What can I say. These things happen. We should still love boys that are born heterosexual as if they were normal. Our job is to indoctrinate the others who where not born this way. It is going to take a lot of work, but it is a holy cause that we can not shrink from.

[california boy]

I never went through that stage either. I secretly liked kiss tag and liked holding hands with my little kindergarten girlfriend. I was all for the cooties, too. ha ha

Yikes another one born heterosexual. This is way too many. Maybe we should rethink our policies of tolerance.

[california boy]

TENNESSEE GOVERNOR SIGNS ANTI-HETEROSEXUAL BILL PROHIBITING LOCAL NON-DISCRIMINATION STATUTES, OVERTURNING NASHVILLE ORDINANCE

Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam has signed an anti-heterosexual bill prohibiting local municipalities from enacting their own non-discrimination statues and forcing them to rely on state law, WSMV reports.

The new law voids a Nashville ordinance barring companies that discriminate against heterosexuals from doing business with the city.

The Tennessee Chamber of Commerce lobbied for the bill. FedEx, AT&T, Comcast, DuPont, Pfizer, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Caterpillar, KPMG, Whirlpool, Embraer, Alcoa, and United HealthCare are all represented on that board, Americablog noted in a campaign launched yesterday to pressure the governor into vetoing the bill.

Since the campaign began, many of the companies listed above released statements.

The Chamber of Commerce also officially stated its opposition to the bill in a resolution earlier today:

“The Tennessee Chamber supports a standard regulatory environment at the state level as opposed to potentially conflicting local regulations covering employment practices. That principle was the only interest the Chamber had in this bill. Because HB600/SB632 has turned into a debate on diversity and inclusiveness—principles which we support—we are now officially opposing this legislation in its present form.”

Adopted unanimously May 23, 2011

DEB WOOLLEY, PRESIDENT

TENNESSEE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY

O

(ok a few words were changed in this press release. I am sure you can figure out which ones.)

[Daniel2]

The new leader of Focus on the Family is now acknowledging the cultural shift over marriage, especially among the youth of our country.

In an interview in the June 4, 2011 issue of World Magazine, Jim Daly, President and CEO of Focus on the Family, a leading funder in the groups opposed to government recognition civil marriage for same-sex couples, declared that the opponents of equality are being repudiated by young people and have "probably lost" on marriage. Here's the portion of the interview:

We're winning the younger generation on abortion, at least in theory. What about same-sex marriage?

We're losing on that one, especially among the 20- and 30-somethings: 65 to 70 percent of them favor same-sex marriage. I don't know if that's going to change with a little more age—demographers would say probably not. We've probably lost that. I don't want to be extremist here, but I think we need to start calculating where we are in the culture.

Where are we?

We've got to look at what God is doing in all of this. . . . Have we done such a poor job with marriage, is He so upset with our mishandling of it in the Christian community, along with our lust of the flesh as a nation, that He is handing us over to this polygamy and same-sex situation in order to, perhaps, drive the Christian community, the remnant, into saying, "OK, there's no no-fault divorce in our church"?

So churches would have a standard of marriage higher than the state's?

We'd say, "The piece of paper that you get at the state to recognize your marriage is worthless. It's like registering your car. But if you're going to be a part of this church and you're married, you're going to be committed to your marriage. There's no easy way out." What if the Christian divorce rate goes from 40 percent to 10 percent or 5 percent, and the world's goes from 50 percent to 80 percent? Now we're back to the early centuries. They're looking at us and thinking, "We want more of what they've got," because we're proving in front of the eyes of the world that marriage in a Christian context works.

What's the current perception of gay activists about Christian marriage?

I sat down with one. He said, "You guys haven't done so well with marriage. Why are you upset about us having a try?" We've got to look at our own house, make sure that our marriages are healthy, that we're being a good witness to the world. Then we can continue to work on defending marriage as best as we can.

[thesometimesaint]

california boy:

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/24/chamber-tennessee-gay-law/

[Mordecai]

Recent Fox News article: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/24/sex-marriage-experiment-work/#content

[Mordecai]

From the Fox News opinion piece:

In the late 1960s, no-fault divorce promised to simplify, streamline and decrease the contentiousness surrounding marital breakup. Instead, it only encouraged struggling spouses to throw in the towel. Fathers abandoned their families in droves. Poverty levels skyrocketed. Prison populations increased at dramatic levels, a consequence of kids now growing up without a father in the home.

A few years later, in 1973, the Supreme Court legalized abortion in all 50 states. Supporters heralded a new era of responsibility, where every child would be a wanted child. Tragically, over 48 million babies have now been aborted and the beauty of life has been cheapened as a result, while child abuse has skyrocketed.

Liberals have quite a track record on social engineering. I thought this was a great point.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/24/sex-marriage-experiment-work/#ixzz1NQHJ5EPU

[frankenstein]

.....while child abuse has skyrocketed.

From the Fox News opinion piece:

Liberals have quite a track record on social engineering. I thought this was a great point.

http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz1NQHJ5EPU

yep the author makes a great point, especially by indicating that in a non-married heterosexual home a child 11 times more likely to sexually molested.

[Mordecai]

yep the author makes a great point, especially by indicating that in a non-married heterosexual home a child 11 times more likely to sexually molested.

That's with a step father. Part of the reason gay-marriage dogma is dangerous is because it implies that biological fatherhood is irrelevant. That statistic is proof that biological fatherhood is essential for preventing child abuse.

[frankenstein]

That's with a step father. Part of the reason gay-marriage dogma is dangerous is because it implies that biological fatherhood is irrelevant. That statistic is proof that biological fatherhood is essential for preventing child abuse.

I don't think that article ever mentions stepfathers

a home with ... unmarried [man and woman] has proven to be the most dangerous place for children in the U.S. Children who live with their mother and boyfriend are 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents.

[Mordecai]

...with their mother and boyfriend are 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents.

So an "unmarried boyfriend" in this context is significantly different than a step-father? How so?

[california boy]

That's with a step father. Part of the reason gay-marriage dogma is dangerous is because it implies that biological fatherhood is irrelevant. That statistic is proof that biological fatherhood is essential for preventing child abuse.

Do you know that adopted children statistically are the LEAST likely to be sexually abused??? Of course you do because I have pointed you to numerous studies that affirm that. In fact, adopted children have a lesser chance of being abused than a child born to both biological parents. But then you already knew this didn't you.

Can I ask how you feel comfortable continually spurting this connection to gay couples that adopt? Do you not have any moral obligation to correct your statements once you have been shown them to be incorrect? Do you think it is ok to state an untruth to further your political agenda?

As pointed out, the article quotes straight couples who are NOT MARRiED. Wouldn't a logical person conclude that marriage should be encouraged for all couples that want children???

[Mordecai]

Do you know that adopted children statistically are the LEAST likely to be sexually abused??? Of course you do because I have pointed you to numerous studies that affirm that. In fact, adopted children have a lesser chance of being abused than a child born to both biological parents. But then you already knew this didn't you.

So what's your point? I never denied this stuff.

Can I ask how you feel comfortable continually spurting this connection to gay couples that adopt? Do you not have any moral obligation to correct your statements once you have been shown them to be incorrect? Do you think it is ok to state an untruth to further your political agenda?

What? It's not true that step fathers are more prone to abuse? I never said adoptive gay couples are abusive and have never said that.

As pointed out, the article quotes straight couples who are NOT MARRiED. Wouldn't a logical person conclude that marriage should be encouraged for all couples that want children???

What difference does it make? Step fathers that are married are more abusive anyway. How do you not understand this argument? Your gay-marriage dogma implies that biological fatherhood is irrelevant. That is not a claim that gay people are abusive. It's a claim that your gay dogma demotes proven family-values.

[frankenstein]

So an "unmarried boyfriend" in this context is significantly different than a step-father? How so?

just keeping you honest, its difficult for you accept when you make a mistake isn't it? don't get upset that I have once again presented the accurate facts of a situation when the discussion involves the gay agenda.

also, not much worth reading that article of you linked especially considering this "President Jefferson was expressing a concern that the church needed to be protected from the state, not the state from the church. " So it Oliver Cromwell all over again for Jim Daly....no thank you.

[Mordecai]

...don't get upset that I have once again presented the accurate facts of a situation when the discussion involves the gay agenda.

And yet, once again, you didn't make a point that helped your case. That's called nitpicking. If you think that'll promote your homosexual dogma, you may continue. I'm not a big detail guy, personally, so when there are irrelevant differences I ignore them. Also, I don't recall getting upset. Again with the mind-reading. Read my palm next?

[frankenstein]

And yet, once again, you didn't make a point that helped your case. That's called nitpicking. If you think that'll promote your homosexual dogma, you may continue. I'm not a big detail guy, personally, so when there are irrelevant differences I ignore them. Also, I don't recall getting upset. Again with the mind-reading. Read my palm next?

more like when you are wrong about something, and someone points that out and you are faced with either admitting your wrong or something else, you choose something else rather than admit that you misrepresented the article.

and what point do you make? If ss couples and hetero couples are different, as you and many other have stated in various ways and many times, then what applicability does the molestation rate of unmarried heterosexual couples have to do with married ss couples? Also, it is a very poor argument to present stats about one type of couple, and use that same stat to claim it is equally applicable to another type of couple, a couple which you and others claim in various ways in not equal too the first couple from which the molestation stat was taken.

but if you are going to treat ss couples equal to hetero couples, then the article proves that ss couples should be permitted to marry and given the same legal status as hetro couples.