Jeb Bush hardens position, says he opposes gay marriage

After being a life- long Democrat, since Carter ,I’ll be voting Republican for several reasons such as the disproportionate proliferation of HOMOSEXUAL TV programs and movies and the GUN GRAB ATTEMPTS by the Democratic Party. But , these next reasons really burns me up ! Recently, an openly HOMOSEXUAL teacher in EFLAND , N.C. a few days ago read the book,” KING AND KING “, TO HIS 3RD GRADE CLASS. It’s the story of TWO HOMOSEXUAL PRINCES getting married and it shows them kissing. Also The Girl Scouts of America has been FORCED, by HOMOSEXUAL Groups, TO ACCEPT BOYS WHO IDENTIFY AS GIRLS . People this is beyond the pale. The rampant proliferation of this kind of behavior is what we can expect if we continue to let the 2% TAIL OF THE HOMOSEXUAL POPULATION continue to WAG THE ENTIRE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. The REPUBLICAN PARTY is our last hope in maintaining some kind of MORAL COMPASS AND TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES that are the foundation of this Country . Voting in a another Democratic president will give them the opportunity to appoint 3-4 new Liberal Supreme Court Justices giving the Court a LIBERAL MAJORITY FOR GENERATIONS. Meaning we can expect more of this. The following is the Genesis of a Lawsuit filed in 2006 against the reading of the HOMOSEXUAL BOOK.”KING AND KING” TO 7 YEAR OLDS IN A CLASSROOM.

Funny how you can’t read a lesson from the bible in a classroom .but you can PROMOTE HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE TO 2ND AND 3RD GRADERS !!!!

In 2006 Robb and Robin Wirthlin and David and Tonia Parker filed a federal lawsuit against the school district of Eastbrook Elementary School, which their second graders attended in Lexington, Massachusetts. The Wirthlins' son's teacher had read King & King aloud to the class as part of an educational unit on weddings. Parents countered that the school's job was to teach about the world and that Massachusetts sanctioned same-sex marriage The plaintiffs claimed that using the book in school constituted sex education without parental notification, which would be a violation of their civil rights and state law. Robin Wirthlin appeared on CNN, saying
“ We felt like seven years old is not appropriate to introduce homosexual themes. My problem is that this issue of romantic attraction between two men is being presented to my seven-year-old as wonderful, and good and the way things should be. Let us know and let us excuse our child from the discussion. ”

HERE’S WHAT THE LIBERAL JUDGES RULED: IF THIS ISTHE KIND OF RULINGS YOU WANT , ELECT ANOTHER DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT


The judge dismissed the lawsuit, saying "Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. The Wirthlins and the Parkers appealed the decision; a three-judge panel of the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in favor of the school. Judge Sandra Lynch, writing for the court, rejected the plaintiff's argument that their religious beliefs were being singled out as well as their argument that their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion was violated, writing, "There is no evidence of systemic indoctrination. There is no allegation that [the second-grader] was asked to affirm gay marriage. Requiring a student to read a particular book is generally not coercive of free exercise rights." The court also ruled that the parents' substantive due process rights were not violated, as these rights did not legally give them the degree of control they sought over the curriculum.


caps are for highlighting .I'm not yelling !

 

People are whatever they idnentify as. There is no gaydar to tell us otherwise.

 

Calm down before you have a stroke. I think you posted that a few times before anyway.

 

Let's definitely elect another democratic president. The judge is correct.

 

Whatever you say boss. I'm not getting into a day long tit for tat with you on this when it has nothing to do with the politics of marriage equality which is what this thread is about. And save the crap about equality being inequality. We've all heard it too many times before.

 

A lot of boys being born and raised in Pattaya, Thailand are not bisexual, they are gay, or transgender. They won't have anything to do with women. Ofc I don't have stats, but imo, a much larger proportion of those working girls' male family members are gay or transgender than in other parts of the world. I never even met a transgender in my life until Thailand, where I met dozens. Something about the environment there is producing more transgenders and gays. Anyone who has been there and mingled can clearly see that.

That being said, I also think some people are born gay. Some choose. Why can't it be both?

 

Strawman

 

What has occurred in 30 something states isn't a strawman.

 

Why can't it be both? It just isn't. Feel free to cling to the idea that some people choose to be gay and to ignore the logical and widely accepted explanation that there is a distinction to be made between sexual orientation and lifestyle . Maybe there just appears to be more gays and transgender people in Pattaya, Thailand because it's an environment when they are free to be open about it. The number of gays there proves nothing unless intervening variables are controlled for. Has a study of any kind ever been done?

 

I think both must be occurring, some people are being born gay, and some are choosing it as a lifestyle. I don't see a harm in being gay, so I don't see a purpose in making the distinction between choice and birth when it comes to the law, and rights. I just found what I saw in Pattaya curious. I have factored in the migration factor, and the ability to be more open as reasons I met more gays there. But that doesn't explain, imo, the large percentage of working girls' children and brothers that were gay.

I don't think any studies have been done, but someone should, simply for the sake of more understanding about gayness. I am confident that if a comprehensive study was done on working girls' children in Pattaya, it would indicate a very large proportion of gays compared to the rest of the world.

 

That anyone is arguing ONLY gays should be extended marriage.

 

What ever. It's only words. What really matters is how we treat people, what level of respect we afford them. You're right about the law. The courts are not entertaining any argument about gay being a choice. It is viewed as an immutable characteristic and that's that. However, that does not stop some from insisting that it's a choice for the purpose of painting gays as inferior and not deserving of rights. They claim that the absence of a "gay gene" is proof and ignore the complexity of human sexual development. Or, they point to people who had been in the closet and then can out as gay. People can pretend to be straight, but that does not mean that they were and then made a choice to be gay.

I for one never spoke to a truly gay person who said that it was a choice and most if not all are very offended by that notion.

 

While we are all wrangling over the politics of gay rights, we might want to consider this.

http://www.politicalforum.com/opini...-marriage-please-read-post-before-voting.html

If we don't resolve the issue of gender requirements for marriage real soon, it may get worse before it gets better. A lot worse!

 

Is it disrespectful to claim that gays choose that lifestyle? Or is it disrespectful to claim that gays choose that lifestyle and there is something wrong with that lifestyle?

I view gayness like a religion. People can claim it is wrong; but the govt cannot. Federal or state laws should not excessively entangle gayness, and should not infringe upon someone's ability to practice gayness.

But at the same time, as you said, I think for some people, gayness could be an immutable characteristic.

Under the law, there is no way at this time to distinguish whether a person was born or chose gayness, and I don't think there is a legal purpose in attempting the distinction.

 

As I said, they tend to be offended by it and I respect that. You may be for gay rights, but by pushing that idea, you are doing them a disservice and playing into the hands of the bigots

Yes again. Just worse when it's used against them

I view gayness like a religion. People can claim it is wrong; but the govt cannot. Federal or state laws should not excessively entangle gayness, and should not infringe upon someone's ability to practice gayness.[/QUOTE]

OK but I don't know about the religion part . Is there a god or holy book of gayness? . A doctrine perhaps? BTW, if you want to talk about religion, now that is a choice for some people.

 

But the Pattaya example, and Ben Carson's prison example exist. The environment is already being used as an argument for gayness by choice. It would be best if we didn't ignore it, and developed arguments and logic to show it doesn't matter if it's a choice, and even then it's not like that choice is made like the flip of a switch, it could be a lifelong, irreversible choice.

 

Your Pattaya example does not prove that just because there may be an inordinate number or percentage of people who are openly gay by no means proves that some are making a choice. Carson's example only proves that straight men in prison have gay sex either because they are coerced or because that is all that is available to them. And Carson was just spouting off. It's not as though he was citing any sort of study on the sexual orientation of these guys when they went in vs. after they got out. In addition, he walked it back:

 

The separation of sexuality from procreation entails its freedom from heterosexuality and its emergence as an individual attribute, something individuals can develop, enjoy, change or project as part of their changing definition of the self. Sexuality becomes plastic because the self itself has broken the bounds of traditional institutional expectations and it is now free to constitute and reconstitute itself in a series of narratives answering to nothing else but the growing freedom of individuals to develop their potential.
http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/work/GIDDENS.TXT

 

Pretty good evidence that there is something in the environment in Pattaya that influences more people to choose bisexuality, homosexuality or even the gender they prefer.

Or the Sambia tribe in Papa New Guinea. All boys are taught that women are bad and sexual relations with them are dangerous to your health. All boys are forced to perform oral sex on the men and all men receive oral sex from the boys. Such an environment leads to more choosing to be homosexual or bisexual. Even though even the concept of such a thing as an inherent trait of the individual, never even crossed their mind.

Or Plato and Aristotle, their environment in ancient Greece influenced more people to choose bisexuality or homosexuality. Again, even though they wouldn't have even conceived of either preference as an inherent trait of the individual. Any more than my preference for chocolate ice cream over vanilla is an inherent trait.

 

and I suspect that in Pattaya, its a separation of sexuality from procreation and the attachment of sexuality to what is primarily commerce in the sex trade that leads to such widespread homosexuality and bisexuality.

 

I and many others have always said that sexual orientation is a complex interaction of biology and the social environment. None of this proves the idiotic ide that sexual orientation is a conscious choice that an individual can control. To claim that it is, is just dumbing down the subject matter. But, I understand, it's all that you have. To actually approach the subject in a thoughtful and intellectual way would expose the genetic vs. choice hoax for what it is.

Now what the hell does any of this have to do with Jeb Bush and the politics of gay marriage?

 

The Homosexuals say they don't try and recruit anyone to their ranks, well the evidence overwhelmingly suggests otherwise, there are thousands of books and videos aimed at the very young to make them think that Homosexuality is a normal alternative lifestyle when clearly it's not when the Homosexuals themselves declare," Who in their right mind would choose to be this way if they had a choice ?! "

if the books and videos aren't enough ,when the kids get home they're bombarded with Homosexual programming in PRIME TIME that's overwhelmingly disproportionate to the actual Homosexual population !

Here’s a small % of TV shows with Homosexual Characters or Content without doing an in depth search ,let's see we have the one that started it all Will and Grace, then Six Feet Under , Girls, The L Word, The Walking Dead , The Following, Empire , Backstrom, Chicago Fire , The Royals ,The Big Bang Theory, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Bored to Death , The Cleveland Show, King of the Hill, South park, The Simpsons, Glee, The 100 Black Sails, Madame Secretary , Gotham , Kingdom, How to get Away With Murder, The Modern Family, Dominion, Tyrant, The Night Shift, It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia, Penny Dreadful, Nurse Jackie ,Star Crossed, The Fall , Peaky Blinders , Wentworth , Defiance, Hemlock Grove, Hannibal , The Bridge , Under The Dome ,Ray Donavan , Orphan Black, Banshee, Betrayal , House of Cards , Alpha House , Masters of Sex , Nashville, Da Vinci's Demons , Arrow, Sons of Anarchy Orange is the New Black, Sherlock ,Skins , Lip Service, How I met your Mother, Xena ,Prison Break , Homicide Life On The Streets , East Enders , Teen Wolf , Torchwood, Sex and the City , Bad Girls ,True Blood , Spartacus ,Game of Thrones , The Vampire Dairies , Shameless , #$%$ As Folk , The Wire ,The Office , Weeds ,Ripper Street , #$%$’s Creek , Eye Candy ,Transparent, The Flash ,Chasing Life ,Hit The Floor ,Dracula , Dates , The Originals ,A Place To Call Home , The Fosters , The Carrie Dairies ,Undateable. and American Horror Story just to mention a few there are dozens more

 

Did some one claim it was a "conscious" choice under the "control" of the individual, or is this your next strawman?

 

This would be something I couldn't support. But then they is always something I disagree with when it comes to both Democrat and Republican Candidates; all of them. Since this is a State issue and not a Federal one. What he thinks doesn't really matter, does it?

 

I have one, and only one, question to so-called christians. Why is it you think those of use who disagree with you must nonetheless live by your standards. Take same sex marriage, Sunday blue laws (I can't buy liquor on Sunday's until noon, when it's 10AM every other day, though I'll concede that's better than it used to be, in days gone buy I couldn't buy booze (or even beer) on Sunday's at all. Why is it you think your position on abortion should be the law of the land? Why is it you think your prohibition on mind altering substances should apply to me? I can come up with other examples, but why is it you think you're so important that your religious tenants ought be applied to me? You're simply not that important.