• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Breaking: Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar” Is Promoting Child Porn in the Classroom

ptif219 said:
So Jennings and the GLSEN have had no influence on teaching about gays in school? GLSEN also brought us the day of silence.
Click to expand...

By that argument, everyone who ever offers advice on educating children has power over them, including me.
 
ptif219 said:
This is disgusting.


Gateway Pundit


What we discovered shocked us. We were flabbergasted. Rendered speechless.

We were unprepared for what we encountered. Book after book after book contained stories and anecdotes that weren’t merely X-rated and pornographic, but which featured explicit descriptions of sex acts between pre-schoolers; stories that seemed to promote and recommend child-adult sexual relationships; stories of public masturbation, anal sex in restrooms, affairs between students and teachers, five-year-olds playing sex games, semen flying through the air. One memoir even praised becoming a prostitute as a way to increase one’s self-esteem. Above all, the books seemed to have less to do with promoting tolerance than with an unabashed attempt to indoctrinate students into a hyper-sexualized worldview.

We knew that unless we carefully documented what we were reading, the public would have a hard time accepting it. Mere descriptions on our part could not convey the emotional gut reaction one gets when seeing what Kevin Jennings wants kids to read as school assignments. So we began scanning pages from each of the books, and then made exact transcriptions of the relevant passages on each page.

Are we exaggerating, or misconstruing quotes that could be interpreted a different way? No: Read the passages below and judge for yourself. There’s no wiggle room. The language is explicit, the intent clear.

To be specific, the books we read were:

Queer 13

Being Different

The Full Spectrum

Revolutionary Voices

Reflections of a Rock Lobster

Passages of Pride

Growing Up Gay/Growing Up Lesbian

The Order of the Poison Oak

In Your Face

Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son

Love & Sex: Ten Stories of Truth

We can only vouch for what’s in these 11 books, since these are the only ones we’ve read through. Are there other books on the GLSEN reading list that are similarly outrageous? We can’t say for sure, but it seems very likely. What you see excerpted below is probably only the tip of the iceberg.

Let it be clear: This issue has nothing to do with gayness or straightness, which is irrelevant to this report. The point proven here is that the GLSEN reading list promotes the sexualization of children in general, regardless of the “orientation.”
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter that DP has a forum for blogs, blogs are not credible news sources. They never were, are not, and likely never will be. Not from Fox. Not from CNN. Not even from gatewaypundit.

A specific reason why is the list your link gave is not the actual list. It's a cherry-picked partial list at best, serving not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but only the political angle the author needs to create controversy and generate hits on the site.

While I might object to some of the books on that list, they are behind a parental advisory warning and not mandatory reading, so I find no problem here.

Also, to everyone who is attempting to whitewash the specific books in question by likening them to valid literature such as The Lord of the Flies, STFU :2wave:

***
And now, another reason to vote for Obama:

kids_20books.jpg
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
And my link(you know, the one that did not go to one psychologists opinion piece but went to an actual legit source) explained the difference in research that resulted in the change in stance the APA made. I even bolded that portion for you.
Click to expand...

The one from the APA?
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Oh, you mean the parts that you agree with? :lol:

That's interesting. So apparently, an opinion is an opinion until you agree with it and then it becomes a fact.
Click to expand...

So you deny there are any facts?
 
ptif219 said:
The one from the APA?
Click to expand...

Yes, you may have heard of them, they are a professional organization that you are now going to try and disparage without any real facts.
 
jallman said:
It states opinion of a rogue professional who has broken ranks with every professional organization in his field.

It's still an opinion piece. Try again.
Click to expand...

You mean just like the consensus of Global warming. nice try
 
ptif219 said:
So you deny there are any facts?
Click to expand...

Okay, let me give you an example. Let's say that we were arguing some other topic that was more of a left vs. right political issue, like some Obama or Palin-related issue. Let's say someone posts a link to a liberal blog or liberal media watchdog site like Crooks and Liars or some other site like that. Would you take that as legitimate source?
 
Redress said:
Gay is more normal than many things we consider normal. Redheads are more rare than gays. Being left handed is about as common as being gay.
Click to expand...

That is if you accept that 'being homosexual' defines a person. Does being redhead define a person? No. Does being left handed? No. Being Homosexual carries about as much importance as hair color or being left handed. Woop-dee-do you're different, but not different enough for anyone to care.

Unfortunately people DO care, why? Culture, society, human nature. A number of things. Can we overcome this? Yes. Have we overcome 'differences' in the past that now mean nothing and are accepted as uncommon occurrences and nothing more? Yes.

tl;dr - You cannot be anymore homosexual than you can be left handed. :lol: You're not different if you are, get over it.
 
Did you know that Glenn Beck is gay, just like Hitler was?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-T-VKOczdE"]YouTube- Glenn Beck's Scandalous Gay Past[/ame]

More evidence that Beck is gay:

[ame=http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54876]Is Glenn Beck Gay? - Theology Forum | Theology Online[/ame]

http://gawker.com/5212220/glenn-becks-big-gay-moment
http://survivorsucks.yuku.com/reply/2314659/t/Re-Glenn-Beck-GAY-or-NAY-.html
http://www.headlinezone.com/lofiversion/index.php?t8097.html
http://www.sodahead.com/entertainment/is-glenn-beck-gay/question-629331/
http://www.mahalo.com/answers/love-and-relationships/is-glenn-beck-gay
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
What risks? You admit the gay agenda is just about being accepted, what is harmful in that. The risk that idiots on the internet will be offended by them?
Click to expand...

I have shown the risks. If they are going to teach about homosexuality then the health risks including depression should be taught also
 
EpicDude86 said:
That is if you accept that 'being homosexual' defines a person. Does being redhead define a person? No. Does being left handed? No. Being Homosexual carries about as much importance as hair color or being left handed. Woop-dee-do you're different, but not different enough for anyone to care.

Unfortunately people DO care, why? Culture, society, human nature. A number of things. Can we overcome this? Yes. Have we overcome 'differences' in the past that now mean nothing and are accepted as uncommon occurrences and nothing more? Yes.

tl;dr - You cannot be anymore homosexual than you can be left handed. :lol: You're not different if you are, get over it.
Click to expand...

If we were in a society where it didn't matter I could see your point. This is precisely why many hetero people don't understand the purpose of a gay pride parade. It's easy to grow up and be heterosexual, because that is the acceptable standard. However, if you come out as gay there are a lot of potential hurdles that you have to get over. Though, in a utopian society, what you posted should be how it is. Unfortunately, that's not the way our society works.
 
Redress said:
By that argument, everyone who ever offers advice on educating children has power over them, including me.
Click to expand...

There is a differnece between advice and teaching and indoctrination.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
:rofl And yet another biased, agenda driven article. Good lord, is that really all you have? You really don't get how this works, do you?
Click to expand...

I do you attack every source so as not to have to address the facts and points in the article. Only what you see as credible matters.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
If we were in a society where it didn't matter I could see your point. This is precisely why many hetero people don't understand the purpose of a gay pride parade. It's easy to grow up and be heterosexual, because that is the acceptable standard. However, if you come out as gay there are a lot of potential hurdles that you have to get over. Though, in a utopian society, what you posted should be how it is. Unfortunately, that's not the way our society works.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm going to ram this point of view home until homosexuals are accepted and the parades stop. Or, we make it difficult for ANYONE of any sexual preference to be accepted. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
 
ptif219 said:
I do you attack every source so as not to have to address the facts and points in the article. Only what you see as credible matters.
Click to expand...

Because every single source you have brought up is either biased or an opinion piece. And I'm not the only one who has called you on this.
 
Redress said:
Yes, you may have heard of them, they are a professional organization that you are now going to try and disparage without any real facts.
Click to expand...

Really he stated why you just disagree.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Okay, let me give you an example. Let's say that we were arguing some other topic that was more of a left vs. right political issue, like some Obama or Palin-related issue. Let's say someone posts a link to a liberal blog or liberal media watchdog site like Crooks and Liars or some other site like that. Would you take that as legitimate source?
Click to expand...

If that was the case would it not be easy to show why it is wrong?
 
Ptif219, it's sources like the ones you've posted, and sentiments like yours that will make my dream of normalizing the homosexual community impossible. STOP MAKING IT SEEM LIKE THEY ARE ANY DIFFERENT THAN ANYONE ELSE!
 
EpicDude86 said:
That is if you accept that 'being homosexual' defines a person. Does being redhead define a person? No. Does being left handed? No. Being Homosexual carries about as much importance as hair color or being left handed. Woop-dee-do you're different, but not different enough for anyone to care.

Unfortunately people DO care, why? Culture, society, human nature. A number of things. Can we overcome this? Yes. Have we overcome 'differences' in the past that now mean nothing and are accepted as uncommon occurrences and nothing more? Yes.

tl;dr - You cannot be anymore homosexual than you can be left handed. :lol: You're not different if you are, get over it.
Click to expand...

Do redheads and south paws demand rights and demand schools teach they are normal?
 
ptif219 said:
If that was the case would it not be easy to show why it is wrong?
Click to expand...

What is the point when it is clearly biased or an opinion piece? Just because you are having difficulty understanding the difference between opinion and fact doesn't mean that everyone else is struggling. The only reason you have shown that you see these things as "facts" is because you agree with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom