Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long
Well, I am sure you feel providing condoms are not encouraging kids to have sex either. If you handed out candy bars, think that might encourage them to eat them?
There is a difference between offering condoms and candy bars and discussing how condoms and candy bars are uses.
I am sure that you feel it justified that when schools go into direct opposition to many parents, as well as their churches, who are trying to, have the exclusive full right to, teach their kids about morality as they see it…then the majority of school children, being public school students, attend where they teach otherwise, in direct contradiction to their parents and their faith. I am sure you must think this sexual, as well as all the other confusions, confusion that is inevitably created is good for kids.
Don't care one iota about parents or churches in this matter. Information is being presented. That's it. If parents want to keep their children ignorant of that information, place them in parochial schools or home school them. The school imparts information. It is up to the parents to help the child apply value to that information.
Our kids need none of this information provided in our schools and you know it.
Our kids certainly need this information. I have no desire to see our children remain ignorant. Do you?
What, to you, is not encouragement we would certainly differ on. Besides which, I have seen it proven to you on here, that the decision to withdraw homosexuality as a disorder was far more a political decision than anything else.
Actually, what you have seem is people TRY to prove that the decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM was political and you have seen me destroy that argument every time it is presented.
You having brought it up, I would also suggest, tho a bit off topic here, that since we have been giving explicit sex education classes that these, indeed, have taken away much of the anxiety, the fear that was associated with sex to the uninitiated. This encouraged far more promiscuity among those student populations. So education along with its co-horts in crime, our heavily degenerate and left biased mass media… as well as openly disgraceful conduct of many of our leaders [ think BJs didn’t become a lot more common, almost ubiquitous, with under aged boys and girls after the BJ Clinton/Monica episode? ] we have an unneccessarily sexed up student population...like they needed more encouragement. Under aged/teenage sex does not hurt anything either, right? Just leads to more sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, depression/frustration/dissatisfaction long term and living in poverty for most of those who choose to keep their children in that unfortunate circumstance.
And, since you bring it up, what we have learned from the attempts at absinence only sex education is that it doesn't work. Research shows that fully informational sex education is FAR more effective at preventing STDs and teen pregnancy.
Checkmate.
IT IS NOT A SCHOOL’S JOB TO INDOCTRINATE OUR CHILDREN WITH YOUR SIDE'S BELIEF SYSTEMS. Anymore than you might not support, if the other side got its way and took over education the way the left has then started teaching, say religious beliefs… Your belief system should not hold sway just because there was a vacuum created, sorry.
Since indoctrination is not what is happening, your comment above is irrelevant. Sorry.
Yeah, well, you have not debated many folks on that “other side” very much then.
Debated tons. Haven't seen anything from you that I haven't seen scores of times and haven't easily defeated before.
I also am aware from previous debate, that anything you do not believe magically becomes a "logical fallacy".
It is not my fault that my opponents often present logical fallacies because that's all they've got.
Ad homs and straw men are the libs go to arguments, besides the “just shut up, you racist, homophobe, misogynist…”you can take your pick from a long list of the shut-up-added-to-ad homs utilized by libs. Why don’t you go back and add up all the ad homs by libs vs cons and divide by how many of from each side....and I am pretty sure there will be far more by libs. But you can prove me wrong, its your statement to back up or not. My impression is you won’t.
Your experience is your experience. In mine, cons are the first ones to through out the ad homs and EASILY far nastier than libs. Mostly because these are the entirety of their arsenal of debate.
So, now that we have dispensed with the partisan hackery, how about discussing the topic.
Right back at ya Cap’n.:agree
Difference is, I presented facts. You did not.
