Lesbian teacher: How I convince kids to accept gay marriage, starting at 4-years-oldl

per Gallup, 96.4% of adults are heterosexual

the other 3.6% are all other deviant sexual behaviors but I doubt that homosexual would be 1%. It's probably more around 3% but not as low as 1%

 

Sorry I thought you were the one that brought it up, :

I was just having to explain your original assesment was incorrect, homosexuality does indeed exist in nature. You stand corrected

 

No, you did by claiming homosexuality is normal because animals do it.

I know it's convenient to forget the things you say. Especially when they are really dumb

 

I have never said human conduct should relate to all animal conduct, feel free to quote a post stating otherwise, what I did say - in regards to your quote that homosexuality is "outside of nature" - is that you are indeed incorrect.

I can attempt to explain in more detail if you are having trouble understanding.

 

There's nothing special about being normal.​

​

 

A far-right blog? Yep, that's convincing

 

Why is it idiotic? We're all animals.

 

After doing a quick search of this "social justice math", I'm not for it.

It's using political examples for a math foundation. Attaching the abstraction of mathematical principles to real world examples. Real world examples are arbitrary and in this case are political and chosen by the teacher. You could just as easily use Star Wars, Legos, Pokemon, or Hello Kitty for real world examples...and kids would probably care about them more than social justice. And learn math a whole lot better.

 

No, replace her with one who teaches math and does not use deceitful tactics to influence adolescents to her social agenda.

Even as a supporter of SSM, I find her attempts to hide what she's teaching from the parents to be both disgusting and unprofessional. She should be pulled from the classroom until she understands that as a teacher she has professional boundaries.

 

Are you a parent?

 

We can all recognize that the Greek philosophers were brilliant for their te, but their opinions on politics haven't exactly stood the test of time.

 

How the hell am I supposed to maximize tolerance while tolerating intolerance? If intolerance could just live and let live, I wouldn't care. But that isn't what intolerance is. Intolerance actively seeks to make people's lives worse and sabotage tolerance.

Tolerating intolerance just doesn't work.

- - - Updated - - -

Nice escape hatch you have there. Don't feel like explaining things with actual reasons? Just call them brainwashed.

 

The first amendment? It's certainly not explicitly mentioned. I'm assuming you must be thinking of a SCOTUS decision, because indoctrinating children, parents or not, isn't specifically mentioned by the first amendment. The first amendment states that the government is not to interfere with the free practice of religion (or "establishing" a state religion), among other things. There is no "free practice" regarding children - they are technically unable to consent and forced to go willingly or not by parents as a matter of parental "rights", not religious rights. In terms of how the law seems to work for whatever reason, parents are generally allowed to fill their kids heads with whatever lies they want so long as there's no permanent damage, e.g. Christian Scientists neglecting to get their kids emergent healthcare is criminal, though I'd argue that being brainwashed before you can think for yourself is permanent damage, just on a milder scale. But teaching kids to accept other people whose actions harm nobody is something anybody can benefit from in becoming a decent person who doesn't waste their time/potential hating people for no good reason. In a society where collaboration with a diverse workforce is increasingly important, this is as important as basic math. It would be like a teacher before the feminist movement trying to help little boys understand that women are just as capable as men at tasks. To hell with the parents who disagree with things like that.

 

Ok. You didn't claim its normal because it exists in animals.

 

Then you should strive to be as abnormal as you can be.

 

You find nothing intolerable? Is society supposed to tolerate everything? Even the intolerable?

 

It would be much more convincing if it was some far left wing blog which didn't care about the facts of a matter, huh?

- - - Updated - - -

Actually it was. The NAZI philosophy was nearly identical to the American Democrat party of today.

 

She's teaching kids to accept homosexuals not to be like them, how come people always make this logical assumption that gays are somehow trying to " convert " other people. Maybe they think their kids will become gay if exposed to a gay teacher, like a kind of contagious disease.

 

I always suspected that you laid eggs.

 

Because marriage is a contract at its core, and non-human animals don't enter into contracts.

 

The idiots will say that swans and some other animals mate for life.

 

You got a point. It depends on the context.

In a biological context, people are animals so there may be relevance when asking some biological questions. The law clearly distinguishes between people and non-people animals. So in a legal context, it's less reasonable to ignore that distinction.

It's reasonable to look at rats and people when you're talking about how cancer progresses. It's less reasonable when we're talking about voting rights.




​

 

That may be the recipe for greatness.




​

 

The only intolerable things are unethical things. Pedophiles are intolerable because children are harmed by them. Intolerance is intolerable because it refuses to coexist. Gay people are perfectly tolerable because they just want to live normal lives with same sex partners.

 

Here let me repeat what I said again since your reading comprehension is apparently lacking, maybe reading it a few more times will help it sink in.

I was just correcting your bs analogy.