evolution and sex education- your choice?

[Morm]

In my home province it seems we are retarded.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/st...l-evolution-law-alberta-classes-teachers.html

It means that parents will have the right to pull their kids from sex education and from education. The sex ed thing I guess is alright, so long as the parents teach the kids themselves so we don't end up with more random bastard children.

However, pulling your kid from evolution is twofold: cowardly and hypocritical. If you are going to let your kids learn the leading theories (not hypothesis, but THEORY) in physics, chemistry or any other science related thing...or even let them take antibiotics since bacterial transmission of disease is only a theory, you really shouldn't be pulling them from evolution. That is called hypocrisy, when you practise one thing (ie teaching gravity, giving antibiotics based on a theory) and not something else when they are held in the same scientific esteem. Science class is to teach children the leading theories and as far as theories go, evolution is a real zinger, having more combined individual pieces of evidence and even various proofs (as much as you can prove a theory, that is) than ANY OTHER THEORY IN BIOLOGY. It's pretty clear that parents pulling their kids from evolution classes is because the parents are against it for religious reasons and aren't going to be teaching it to the kids themselves.

Pulling a child from a legitimate educational program is hideous- if evolution is so incorrect by the parents viewpoint, let a child learn it first and it should be plainly obvious from there to even the most intellectually dwarved child that it's wrong. Hiding your kid seems to me to indicate that the parents doing it are afraid, insecure or don't believe their child has a choice in life. Either way, something isn't right there.

I know I'm pretty much begging to have this derailed by a few choice users into an evolution vs theology debate, but my hope is that we can actually discuss the merits of the bill itself- making evolution and sex ed optional.

 

[b0b3rt]

Being a socialist institution, I support making education in general optional.
Or, at the very least, making home-schooling more practical (i.e. not banning it, in many places).
Hell, you can run a private school with the money that parents get taxed per child (even if they don't go to a public school). At least, in the US.

 

[jjfun]

I pretty much agree with you, pulling a child from evolution is basically the same as pulling a child from any and every science class.

I can't believe that this is happening in Canada of all places and how reluctant people are to accept evolution as the truth. I mean, it's been proven so many times that this is basically the same as someone covering their ears and screaming "THE SKY IS NOT BLUE!!!'. Even the Catholic Church have accepted evolution as fact.

I'm pretty sure that the majority of people lose their virginity before the age of 18, I know I and most of the people I know did. It's a rite of passage. If the children aren't being taught about safe sex they better learn about it from their friends because they sure as hell aren't going to respect their parents "No sex before marriage" wishes. Lol how punny.

I think that withholding sex education is dangerous and is destructive. People need to know these things, especially females who are more at risk than males ie: pregnancy.

Sorry for answering your points backwards.

edit:

If you give them an inch they're going to take a mile. It's a form of censorship. On Saturday a Jehova's witness knocked on my door and tried to rap with me. He started his argument with "I've already proven that evolution is false, it's just a theory and it's entirely baseless". I nearly slammed the door in his face but then I realized that I was just as bad so I endured it.

It was the same old story: "It's just a theory", "If evolution exists then we're all screwed", "If evolution were true then how come there are so many people starving in the world, wouldn't they have evolved differently?"

I replied with "Gravity is a theory", "Christians believe in the apocalypse, where is your god now?" and "What is this I don't even".

The removal of evolution from the curriculum is offensive and it's a compromise and we all know that giving these people an inch will result in them gaining a mile. They probably see this as some sort of ideological victory and it's probably strengthening their resolve.

 

[Morm]

Also, I realized just now that pulling evolution from science is no different than pulling jesus from religion class- you're removing a keystone part of it on both accounts. Funny, I don't think they'd ever want to remove jesus from religion but somehow evolution is fair game?

Jesus no wonder Canada's minister of science is a chiropractor (lol) and won't confirm that he thinks evolution happens because he's actually a creationist. Good choice for minister of science!

 

[b0b3rt]

I forgot to state that I totally support evolution and sex ed being taught in public schools, just that I didn't think school attendance should be mandatory.

 

[jjfun]

Also, I realized just now that pulling evolution from science is no different than pulling jesus from religion class- you're removing a keystone part of it on both accounts.

It's called Intelligent Design.

 

[Morm]

Intelligent design isn't a viable scientific idea, nor is it actually a legitimate theory anyways, having had it's ass handed to it in a very official way before (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/). So that arguement of ID being a suitable scientific alternative is completely unfair.

To illustrate this more, ID requires belief in a god that has no direct evidence; that is unacceptable in science and we are talking about science classes.

 

[jjfun]

I know, I was just saying that Intelligent Design is basically Christianity taught as science with "jesus" removed. Not trying to derail. Sorry.

 

[Morm]

Oh, yeah no we're not talking about non science being taught as science, it's more about science not being allowed to be taught in science class. The example given for comparison is removing something that is a major player in religion from religion class- it makes no sense but it's the same thing.

 

[Deck Knight]

You keep your damned monkey parents and monkey avatar out of the little childrens' life, ya hear? Have you found that missing Lynx yet? I'm hungry for something gamey.

In all seriousness, homeschool can and has produced better results than public school. It reinforces two concepts foreign to today's decadent society: parental involvement and direct student-teacher interaction. Public education is an inferior product that has been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Evolution is probably the only class where the children ever hear the concept that life is an unfair and cruel place to biological underachievers. Everywhere else they are told they are special, unique, and wonderful for drawing breath and having a pulse.

Unfortunately the concept of survival of the fittest is never broadened outside the world of science.

Also as long as we're splitting hairs, evolution is not a fact and no one, especially not the Catholic Church, has acknowledged it, it's a theory. 2+2 is a fact. My understanding is that the church has said evolution is not inherently contradictory to creation.

 

[CaptKirby]

Taking sex education out of school is a proven terrible idea. It leads to kids having more children and less knowledge about homosexuality and absolutely nothing more. Homosexuality is what is still left out more than general sex education, but both are often delayed in many ways that are harmful.

To talk about what is more pertinent here, if children can choose - they have adamantly stated they want to learn about/include homosexual topics and learn about sex early and completely. Kids do not want to stay ignorant; parents want their kids sexually retarded and ignorant and damage them in the process.

Keeping evolution out of science is just fucking retarded and I doubt any kid who is not essentially brainwashed by religion would not care.

Home schooling slightly increases academic performance and destroys children emotionally. On average, it incredibly weakens a person. Sounds great. It is not really relevant to this discussion anyway.

 

[obi]

I don't think it should be something parents can take their children out of. Education is a way to protect children from their parents. The act of reproducing does not guarantee quality parenting, and education systems should take this into account.

 

[Morm]

Also as long as we're splitting hairs, evolution is not a fact and no one, especially not the Catholic Church, has acknowledged it, it's a theory. 2+2 is a fact. My understanding is that the church has said evolution is not inherently contradictory to creation.

We're talking about science though and the way that science works is with theory pretty much being the pinnacle of observable ideas. In science, when something gets to the level of theory, it means it hasn't had a SINGLE piece of evidence to disprove it- in evolutions case, in 150 years. Sure, there have been small additions etc, but that's how science works- it changes things. So suddenly the phrase "just a theory" really becomes stupid, because a theory holds alot of ground when you consider things like hypothesis and the proper methods of science. I'm not sure what side you're on deck knight...but if it's against teaching evolution, then I'll kindly ask you to stop taking antibiotics and antivirals, as well as flu vaccines since that is all based on a theory.

If the church isn't crying about it, then who is? Honestly, it IS the christian community here in alberta with all their zaney antics that is responsible for this.

Glad to see you once again think the same as I do, CK, though if you can confirm that the parents will be teaching their kids appropriate sex ed then I can see them wanting to pull their kids from it. Unfortunately, that is a pipe dream and won't be happening anytime soon- those that get pulled are far more likely to have little bastards running around.

 

[Deck Knight]

Taking sex education out of school is a proven terrible idea. It leads to kids having more children and less knowledge about homosexuality and absolutely nothing more. Homosexuality is what is still left out more than general sex education, but both are often delayed in many ways that are harmful.

To talk about what is more pertinent here, if children can choose - they have adamantly stated they want to learn about/include homosexual topics and learn about sex early and completely. Kids do not want to stay ignorant; parents want their kids sexually retarded and ignorant and damage them in the process.

Keeping evolution out of science is just fucking retarded and I doubt any kid who is not essentially brainwashed by religion would not care.

Home schooling slightly increases academic performance and destroys children emotionally. On average, it incredibly weakens a person. Sounds great. It is not really relevant to this discussion anyway.

What is there to "know" about homosexuality? It's a sexual fetish wherein one desires the sexual attention of people of the same gender. The idea it is a topic which requires further elaboration is a profoundly disturbing notion. It is a dysfunctional behavior that has built a cult around itself. That doesn't change what homosexuality is at it's core: a mental tendency towards a dysfunctional sexual behavior. All the pink, leather, and raibow flairs are just window dressing.

A purely homosexual species (with multiple different functioning genders, of course) would die off. Theoretically they teach that in evolution. Except that animals don't build a lifestyle out of it, they just do it and inevitably die off without offspring.

The age at which extreme leftists want to start sex education is ridiculous. Little boys and little girls are not thinking about what they do with their genitals, the perverted adults who run the early sex ed programs are. What the hell other reason is there for a 26+ year old man or woman to be teaching first graders about such an adult concept?

The age of the students is not discussed in the article. Do you have any more specifics Morm?

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Yeah, I agree that education *can* be done better, with both homeschooling and the private sector helping to step in...but this is ridiculous. I personally think that removing your child from sex education, and any other legitimate academic exploit is child abuse. You are willfully and purposefully withholding vital information that will have a great impact on the child's life. The parents of a boy who impregnates a girl because he really thinks that "its not sex if you pull out" should be legally responsible for that child, especially if the parent removed them from sex education.

Children don't give a shit about the religious controversy around evolution (since there is no actual controversy). If you Canadians think you have it rough, you should read about Kansas and Texas.

It's just funny how the most outspoken people against evolution are by far the least qualified to talk about it. Same with sex education and sexual regulation in particular...iirc it was George Carlin that said "ever notice how the only people who oppose abortion are the people nobody would ever want to fuck anyways?"

 

[Morm]

What is there to "know" about homosexuality? It's a sexual fetish wherein one desires the sexual attention of people of the same gender.

Pardon? Homosexuals looking at same sex people and straight people looking at opposite sex people aren't very different at all. Their brains light up in the exact same way under a scan. Looks like someone needs to take some sex ed.

A purely homosexual species (with multiple different functioning genders, of course) would die off. Theoretically they teach that in evolution. Except that animals don't build a lifestyle out of it, they just do it and inevitably die off without offspring.

Oh really? Some species in the Xantusia genus of lizards actually only have females. They reproduce via parthenogensis- no mating needed, genetically! However, in order for a successful 'breeding', the females have to 'mate' in something that is nothing more than a pure homosexual species surviving just fine (one mounts the other and they 'go at it', with the one playing the part of the female getting gravid and the one playing the part of the male not). This theme of female love has actually been observed in species that have two functioning genders, where the males have to rape the females every single time because the females don't like boys or the males simply don't participate in the breeding, since it's done through parthenogensis. I find it amazing that someone who clearly believes in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ overlooks the simple mode of parthenogensis by many lizard species.

Deck Knight: The bill basically means that at ANY age they'd be able to opt out. I agree that teaching kids sex in grade 4 is a bit young, as I spent most of the time laughing at words like penis being said by the teacher, but I do think around grades 6 or 7 it should be introduced.


Jrrrr: I'm well familiar with the stupid people in kansas and texas. It makes me sad.

 

[Luduan]

This is obviously an extremely bad idea on both counts, as I think practically everyone here will agree.

Home schooling slightly increases academic performance and destroys children emotionally. On average, it incredibly weakens a person.

To be fair, this is a rather bad case of overgeneralizing. The success of homeschooling is contingent on the situation and the individuals involved. Obviously the process can be extremely detrimental to the child in the case of fanatics, but that reflects more who tends to homeschooling than the system itself.

My understanding is that the church has said evolution is not inherently contradictory to creation.

Theistic evolution is not synonymous with "creation" as the term is generally applied.

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_catholicism#Pope_Benedict_XVI
​

That's a far cry from "God created everything ex nihilo within the past ____ thousand (or million, for OEC) years". (Although characterizing the Big Bang as an "explosion" is not entirely accurate.)

What is there to "know" about homosexuality? It's a sexual fetish wherein one desires the sexual attention of people of the same gender. The idea it is a topic which requires further elaboration is a profoundly disturbing notion. It is a dysfunctional behavior that has built a cult around itself. That doesn't change what homosexuality is at it's core: a mental tendency towards a dysfunctional sexual behavior. All the pink, leather, and raibow flairs are just window dressing.

Dysfunctional as defined by the gender discourse of your interpretive community. Too bad there is no biological, psychological, or neurological evidence backing your assertions.

A purely homosexual species (with multiple different functioning genders, of course) would die off. Theoretically they teach that in evolution. Except that animals don't build a lifestyle out of it, they just do it and inevitably die off without offspring.

Except that our species is not purely homosexual, so this is irrelevant. The vast majority of human beings are sexually attracted to the opposite sex, whether they harbor expressed or repressed desires for their own gender or not. Talking about homosexuality does not suddenly endanger the survival of our species; homosexuality has always existed and will likely exist indefinitely.

The age at which extreme leftists want to start sex education is ridiculous. Little boys and little girls are not thinking about what they do with their genitals, the perverted adults who run the early sex ed programs are. What the hell other reason is there for a 26+ year old man or woman to be teaching first graders about such an adult concept?

What...?


Also I found this line quite humorous:

On Saturday a Jehova's witness knocked on my door and tried to rap with me.

 

[Voltron]

I'm generalizing big time but it's the kids who's parents would pull them out of sex ed that are the ones who need it most. Ironic isn't it?

 

[jrrrrrrr]

What is there to "know" about homosexuality? It's a sexual fetish wherein one desires the sexual attention of people of the same gender. The idea it is a topic which requires further elaboration is a profoundly disturbing notion. It is a dysfunctional behavior that has built a cult around itself. That doesn't change what homosexuality is at it's core: a mental tendency towards a dysfunctional sexual behavior. All the pink, leather, and raibow flairs are just window dressing.

Ok, first of all: fuck you. This is a thread about parents removing their kids from sex education and you decide to post this asinine, offensive pointless hate speech?

You obviously don't understand homosexuality at all. That is understandable, since you are (presumably) straight...however, can you please stop acting like this bullshit homophobia is fact? Homosexuality is no more of a fetish than heterosexuality is, you are just using the word "fetish" because it sounds dirty.

It is a topic that requires further elaboration. I am not attracted to women, and I am attracted to men. You are telling me that this is wrong, yet it still happens no matter how icky you think gay people are (we all have cooties and AIDS you know). I am personally really interested in why this happens to me and not other people......

I am gay and I have never once worn leather pants or rainbow flairs. I personally find obnoxiously homosexual people annoying as well, but that is because they are obnoxious and not because they are gay. Your notion that the core of homosexuality is acting like a (BAN ME PLEASE) to get attention is utterly disturbing.

A purely homosexual species (with multiple different functioning genders, of course) would die off. Theoretically they teach that in evolution. Except that animals don't build a lifestyle out of it, they just do it and inevitably die off without offspring.

Actually, they just found an entirely female species of ant that reproduces via cloning itself. An entire species of one gender, literally a homosexual species by definition: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090417-female-ants-picture.html . So yeah, this "natural" process of male-female breeding might not be natural law after all (as if what one person thinks is natural should have an impact on my life anyways)

 

[jjfun]

http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54499 Discuss (BAN ME PLEASE) and schoolbags here.

 

[Morm]

Deck Knight click your name to learn more about the specifics of the lizards I mentioned; though that's not the specific species I spoke of, it certainly does demonstrate that one in the same genus is doing fucked up things with bisexuality.

also, I don't want this to be overlooked:

Pardon? Homosexuals looking at same sex people and straight people looking at opposite sex people aren't very different at all. Their brains light up in the exact same way under a scan. Looks like someone needs to take some sex ed.

It's also been noted in populations of lagomorphs (rabbits) and even insects that as population density increases past a certain number, so does rate of homosexuality as a natural control on population, to help keep the nasty population drops that come when density passes carrying capacity in a certain environment.

Anyways, back on track, how is it deemed 'fair play' to anyone that you can censor science but not alternatives?

 

[tape]

Wow, I hadn't realized how many animals were gay up until this...

Thanks Morm

 

[Deck Knight]

Yeah, I agree that education *can* be done better, with both homeschooling and the private sector helping to step in...but this is ridiculous. I personally think that removing your child from sex education, and any other legitimate academic exploit is child abuse. You are willfully and purposefully withholding vital information that will have a great impact on the child's life.

At worst you are "witholding" the information of a specific educational program designed by cloistered academics with little to no basis in moral reasoning. Child abuse? Really? See, this is why public schools are a failure. Pulling your kid from a class is now equivalent to starvation, assault, and neglect. Only in public schools could one be instructed in a notion so fundamentally wrong.

We wonder why we have a vulgar society when we hold the petty things and the truly vulgar things on the same level. It isn't really hyperbole if it doesn't surprise you in the least when you hear it spoken or see it written.

The parents of a boy who impregnates a girl because he really thinks that "its not sex if you pull out" should be legally responsible for that child, especially if the parent removed them from sex education.

Chances are it's the child who thinks pulling out doesn't count, not the parents. If anything parents who once thought that would know otherwise by virtue of their being parents. Also you are right on this jrrrrr. That was how it used to be done all the time. If you got the girl pregnant, you were getting hitched and raising that child. Period. It worked for centuries until we started telling kids for $300 you could "fix your problem" with no physical or moral ramifications.

It's just funny how the most outspoken people against evolution are by far the least qualified to talk about it. Same with sex education and sexual regulation in particular...iirc it was George Carlin that said "ever notice how the only people who oppose abortion are the people nobody would ever want to fuck anyways?"

Wasn't George Carlin's degree in late night comedy? You can't honestly tell me the shrill unshaven mavens of NARAL and Planned Parenthood are Top Rack T&A. There's plenty of ugly spokespersons around. Carlin's seven things you could never say on TV were all things he never experienced (by means of petty retort).

Nevermind the inherent stupidity in Carlin's statement. If you're married and have children (the largest base of abortion opposition), clearly you've been fucked. It's rather self-evident, don't you think? Or do pro-choicers believe an abortion is intercepting the stork with an action rifle?

I know you believe Carlin to be a giant of wit, but really, apply some sense.

As a quick retort to the post you've constructed above (as you made it while I was posting this one):

You are attracted to men. That's what makes you homosexual. There's nothing glamorous about it, it's just what you do. There is no homosexual mystique, just like as you rightly indicate there is no heterosexual mystique. That being said, I find it strange you classify engaging in the only truly procreative act a kind of aberration. Heteosexual relationships carry on the species as a rule. While I'm not ignorant of the various tendencies of specific lizards and insects, homosexuality discussed in this context is among mammals.

Also, the ants wouldn't be homosexual, they'd be single-gendered. There's really no sense in calling them male or female if that is a meaningless distinction.

You should know by now I don't fear you or any other homosexual jrrrrrr, I just call a spade a spade. Please don't waste my time with that useless sophism. I have a perfectly justified fear of flowery euphemisms, not an irrational fear of people defined by their attraction to people of the same gender. Why don't you just be honest with me. Why does my belief have to be an object of hatred or fear? Is that the only way you can delegitimize it, by impugning my morals or courage? You do realize as a Catholic I'm a self-admitted sinner. Regarding the scientific inquiry into homosexuality, there have been multiple studies indicating different brain structure and more "feminine" thought patterns. That alone does not remove free will, not change the nature of homosexual relationships as inherently non-procreative.

And don't get in such a tizzy over the pink, leather, rainbow flair bit. As Carlos Mencia (same "school" as George Carlin IIRC) has said: "if you can take a dick you can take a joke."

Morm: I don't oppose the principle of being able to control your own child's education. That said, if you're sending your child to a school you should have known you made the conscious decision to expose your child to whatever they teach there, and your job as a parent is to expand and/or correct it as they go along. So generally I think the notion of taking kids out of a single specific class is a crock.

Dysfunctional as defined by the gender discourse of your interpretive community. Too bad there is no biological, psychological, or neurological evidence backing your assertions.

LOL good job residient pomo artist. I'll have to keep that one.

My interpretive community says that gender discourse is as follows: penis + vagina = life, penis + not vagina = not life. Stick that in your bong and smoke it.

 

[Morm]

My interpretive community says that gender discourse is as follows: penis + vagina = life, penis + not vagina = not life. Stick that in your bong and smoke it.

At the very point where sex became a social aspect within the human species, as it has with our closest relatives and various other animals as well, homosexuality certainly becomes something that transcends pure baby making. Are you one of the people that doesn't enjoy sex at all and only does it for procreation? I'm going to say that it is most likely that at some point or another, you're going to enjoy carving your wife in half and do her for reasons beyond babymaking.

Sex is a social aspect for humanity and that is within our biology. It is therefore acceptable within our biology that homosexuality exist and serve the same social function as heterosexuality, with the key difference of course being physiology within the selected mate.


I really do agree with your point about controlling education. If you want your kid to be christian and not learn evolution, there are specific schools for just that.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

At worst you are "witholding" the information of a specific educational program designed by cloistered academics with little to no basis in moral reasoning. Child abuse? Really? See, this is why public schools are a failure. Pulling your kid from a class is now equivalent to starvation, assault, and neglect. Only in public schools could one be instructed in a notion so fundamentally wrong.

No, pulling your kid from a course that will help them later in life because of a personal moral crusade is harming your child. Opinions should not get in the way of facts, it is unfair to just expect a child to "learn it from somewhere else" because their parents are too busy brainwashing them about the dangers of sex. As soon as that kid finds out how amazing sex is, they are suddenly not going to give a shit about what their parents say is bad, they wont be under the supervision of their parents, and they will be completely unprepared to make the adult decision that they are about to make. How is that fair?

We wonder why we have a vulgar society when we hold the petty things and the truly vulgar things on the same level. It isn't really hyperbole if it doesn't surprise you in the least when you hear it spoken or see it written.

Hyperbole is used to create emphasis, it doesnt matter if its "suprising" or not.

Chances are it's the child who thinks pulling out doesn't count, not the parents. If anything parents who once thought that would know otherwise by virtue of their being parents. Also you are right on this jrrrrr. That was how it used to be done all the time. If you got the girl pregnant, you were getting hitched and raising that child. Period. It worked for centuries until we started telling kids for $300 you could "fix your problem" with no physical or moral ramifications.

Yeah, before people started realizing how futile abstinence-only sex education is, and that hormones+no parental supervision is a pretty powerfully convincing argument to have sex, especially for a kid that doesn't know any better.

I know you believe Carlin to be a giant of wit, but really, apply some sense.

The Carlin reference was a joke to try and alleviate how outrageously fucking pissed I was at your homophobic remarks.

As a quick retort to the post you've constructed above (as you made it while I was posting this one):

You are attracted to men. That's what makes you homosexual. There's nothing glamorous about it, it's just what you do. There is no homosexual mystique, just like as you rightly indicate there is no heterosexual mystique. That being said, I find it strange you classify engaging in the only truly procreative act a kind of aberration. Heteosexual relationships carry on the species as a rule. While I'm not ignorant of the various tendencies of specific lizards and insects, homosexuality discussed in this context is among mammals.

I'm not talking about a "mystique", I'm just looking for an answer. If it's "natural" to want to carry the species on, why are there times when this isn't the case? It is not only interesting to me because it impacts my life every day, it is an interesting look into the way the human brain actually works.

Also, the ants wouldn't be homosexual, they'd be single-gendered. There's really no sense in calling them male or female if that is a meaningless distinction.

single, gendered. homo, sexual...doesnt seem too far off. There is a genetic distinction btw, they are all females.

You should know by now I don't fear you or any other homosexual jrrrrrr, I just call a spade a spade. Please don't waste my time with that useless sophism. I have a perfectly justified fear of flowery euphemisms, not an irrational fear of people defined by their attraction to people of the same gender. Why don't you just be honest with me. Why does my belief have to be an object of hatred or fear? Is that the only way you can delegitimize it, by impugning my morals or courage? You do realize as a Catholic I'm a self-admitted sinner. Regarding the scientific inquiry into homosexuality, there have been multiple studies indicating different brain structure and more "feminine" thought patterns. That alone does not remove free will, not change the nature of homosexual relationships as inherently non-procreative.

And don't get in such a tizzy over the pink, leather, rainbow flair bit. As Carlos Mencia (same "school" as George Carlin IIRC) has said: "if you can take a dick you can take a joke."

You call a spade a spade, but then you go on to stigmatize the entire gay population as nothing but attention-grabbing flamers. It's not about fear or morals, its just completely unnecessary. You talking about leather and rainbows does not address anything relevant to this thread, or to homosexuality. Not only does it promote hatred and violence towards gays, it derails the thread.