GAY TEACHER READS HOMOSEXUAL STORY TO 3RD GRADERS

Pot...kettle....achromatic?

 

Well, other kids in school the kid's mothers are gay. It wouldn't necessarily mean the kid is weird.

Not always.

A male mother? What on earth is that?

Not doing those things.

 

But by whose definition is it considered to be a deviancy? By certain churches, the fact that my wife and I trying a different position qualifies as deviancy.

Homosexuality may be a deviation of the normal trend of heterosexuality...but to call it a deviancy you would have to define what society feels about it.

Deviancy - Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society. One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards.

Currently, between 62-64% of Americans are in support of Same Sex Marriages, and this number is growing as the older, less tolerant generations are gradually dying out and being replaced by the newer generations which are more tolerant. Which means the acceptance of homosexuality being a part of our society is likewise growing.

This is why I keep saying that society changes. As we encounter new things, we adapt. Child sexual abuse wasn't something that was talked about. Hell you almost never heard about it and the word pedophile is a comparatively new one for most Americans. As the internet developed and the pedophiles started using it as a very obvious way to share information and child porn...America learned more and more about it and society shifted to become less tolerant of child sexual abuse and to be more proactive in dealing with it and to protect the children.

It also used to be a thing to think that minorities were second class citizens. We have a ways to go on that one some days...but again society changes.

Homosexuality is nothing new. It's been around for quite a while. The only thing that's changing is that society is starting to not be jerks about it.
Share This Page

 

The same way that my friend did. "I have two moms."

No, he was written off as being weird because he liked Dr. Demento, Dungeons and Dragons and was a part of our school's AADA chapter (American AutoDuel Association - Local Car Wars chapter). But then again I was also written off as being weird for the same reasons. The fact that he had two moms instead of a mom and dad, while a bit odd, didn't really enter into his weirdness.

Perhaps in the Ozzy and Harriet, Leave it to Beaver mentality of the 1950s but since then families have changed. There are women who are in the workforce and fathers who stay at home either being a househusband or being a telecommuter. There are families who have lost one parent and the other one has to step up and cover both nurturer and provider roles.

Well there's the fact that I learned about menstruation in biology class in my freshman year back in '85, there's tons of books on the subject on how a father can talk to daughters about it, the father can simply take the daughter to the gynecologist, there's the entirety of the Internet which can help fathers understand menstruation and how talk to their daughters about it...

Bras are even easier for a father to deal with. Simply take the child for a fitting at a place that does such (Ala Mode Intimates in Annapolis for example) and whip out the credit card to pay for whichever one she needs. No muss, no fuss.

If my mom could find a way to teach me about male issues back in the 1970s...a father can certainly learn about female issues today.

"Nature" and the traditional "Nuclear Family" had to be changed to cover heterosexual issues long before homosexuality started gaining acceptance.

 

I see it as education in an effort to mitigate bias as homosexuality is outside the accepted norm and often a target of bigotry. Bigotry is ignorance based thus my having no problem with education.

What harm is caused to heterosexuals by being exposed to the contents of the book in question?

 

Then you must also be OK with teaching children about coprophilia as to "mitigate bias".

 

Strawman as coprophilia is not the topic of the OP.

 

Just taking what you said to its logical conclusion.

I see that you had no counter-argument.

 

No you must not also be okay with that. That's a false cause.

 

So why is it OK to teach kids about homosexuality but not coprophilia?

 

I didn't say it was okay to teach kids about either.

I said your argument was a false cause.

 

No you are making a logical fallacy called a false cause.

You normally don't make counter points to logical fallacies.

 

It's a false cause in your mind only.

Except it wasn't a logical fallacy.

 

In fact, I actually looked up "false cause" under logical fallacies. Turned out, it's not even what you thought it was. Lol. Laughable.

 

And in the mind of any logical debator as well.

But out really was.

 

Sing someone has to support A because they support B is a logical fallacy.

I've noticed you can't make any argument without eventually leading into fallacy

 

I really don't think you know what the false cause logical fallacy is.

I quote: the fallacy committed when an argument mistakenly attempts to establish a causal connection.

In that post of mine, I was not trying to ascribe causality to anything. Much less doing so erroneously.

In short, you don't know what you are talking about.

 

Even if I did do this, which I maintain I didn't, it would STILL not be the false cause logical fallacy.

 

I don't care what you think.

that's what you did.

you said because someone Deportes homosexuality they must also support some paraphilia.

yeah riiiight I'm the one who doesn't know what they're talking about

 

You did it right here.

you said that if he was okay with teaching homosexuality then he must be okay with teaching coprophilia.

You did exactly what I said you did. I even quoted you doing it.

it is A false cause

 

This reminds me of once when I was walking outside, and some guy just un-zipped his pants and started urinating in public. Like you, he didn't care what I thought.

Except I didn't. If you claim that I did, prove it.

I didn't say that. I said if the reason they want to expose kids to homosexuality is because they want to mitigate bias, then logic (do you know what this word means?) tells us we should do this uniformly and universally. We need to expose kids to ALL forms of sexual deviancy, as to be logically consistent.

 

There is no need to mitigate to bias because teaching about homosexuality and teaching about coprophilia are not congruent.

One describes a relationship between two people of the same sex and the other describes asexual fetishization of an object and this case excrement

 

No I didn't. Although I am sure if you will just come back with, "yes you did". You are predictable and lacking in imagination.

This is going to get really stupid, tedious, and boring (all thanks to you), I have a feeling.

Except that's not what I said. You are misrepresenting what I said.

No I didn't.

What is your definition for the false cause fallacy? I want to see if we are talking about the same thing.

 

It IS congruent. They are both forms of sexual deviancy.

 

You are blathering about what you think. In this case I didn't do anything. You're loudly broadcasting your thoughts and I'm just telling you I don't care about them.

I quoted your words saying just that

no you wouldn't. It's okay to be biased against other things that are not congruent