Crime Mother of 9 shot and killed for selling pride flags.

[kflo]

Alright, this is the last time I'm gonna bother to post ITT.

-Homosexual teleiophiles and homosexual ephebophiles, while different, are still homosexuals.
-80-90% of sexual victims in the church were mid-to-late adolescent boys, making the perpetrators homosexual ephebophiles. They're homosexual and thus are part of the LGBT+
-Saying I'm conflating "homosexual teleiophiles" and "homosexual ephebophiles" by saying they're both homosexuals is as silly as saying I'm conflating white men and black men by pointing out both groups are men.

-The Catholic priest deflection was to avoid discussion about the child sexualization problem in the LGBT+ community that's both accepted and sometimes even encouraged as soon with multiple videos earlier ITT
-That deflection was hilarious because it just exposed the ephebophile Catholic priests as been heavily lopsided to one sexual orientation: homosexuality.

The creepy posters will all chirp "cOnFlaTiOn" and "yOu jUsT hAtE tHe lGbT+!!" and the regular-minded posters will actually read the arguments and know that regular folk (both gay and straight) condemn child sexualization and child sexual both no matter if it's coming from a gay person or a straight person.

@PhitePhan, @ICHEERTHEBULL, @Fox by the Sea you can stay and argue with these questionable posters but this thread really is a massive waste of time

Yet you’re using your sig to advertise that you believe pedophiles are part of lgbtq. Every post you make it’s there.

In a thread about murder over a lgbtq flag.

 

[helltoupee]

I don’t see how you can introduce a child to lgbt- a group who is literally defining themselves in relation to their sexual orientation- without introducing the child to sexual ideas of some sort.

It doesn’t have to be explicit, but even introducing the idea of two men who “love” each other opens the door to a discussion about sex. I mean, are we going to tell the child that “love” means the same as familial love (ie the love between a father/son)? If so, now I have to dance around this topic and obfuscate, or otherwise explain sex/romance (“like a mommy and daddy”) to my child.

Ultimately, there are very significant differences between hetero/homo relationships- both culturally/sociologically and biologically. For some reason, I’m pretty sure that the teacher or other adult who wants to let my child know that lgbt folks “exist” doesn’t want to talk about the insanely high rates of HIV in the gay community, or the high rates of DV within the lesbian community, right? So what lgbt proponents want, is to proclaim their sexuality and lifestyle as “equal” when it simply is not. I feel the same way about non-monogamous relationships as my goal is to promote marriage and a stable family…is it offensive if I don’t want my child’s teacher talking about their five different girlfriends?

The messaging that lgbt relationships are “the same” can be delivered implicitly (two men love each other) or explicitly (“we’re all the same”) but regardless, now my child has a certain idea that is underdeveloped and/or not developmentally appropriate (depending on age of the child). Now they’ve been introduced to ideas that don’t fit within our families norms, and now there is something distracting them from our desired outcomes. If a family wants to promote lgbt to their child fine, that’s their choice, but why does it also have to be mine?

Are we supposed to introduce children to other sexualities or types of relationships (ex polygamy)? Where does this need to expose kids to adult relationships end?

That's a fair argument. But I can't help but think that your complaints about teaching something lgbt being a slippery slope in to a discussion about sexual acts exists whether the child is learning about hetero or homo relationships. Certainly all of the pitfalls you mentioned could be opening the door for the child to wonder just what sex is, upon seeing something like a male and female character kiss in Aladdin or something. However, your apprehensions seem to exist only when it relates to homo relationships.

I don't really think we see things all that differently here, and I suspect that the issue is we may be misunderstanding each other. When you reference something like "lgbt" being taught in the classroom, I'm more getting the feeling that you are talking about a year long course that dives in to the details of what it means to be "lgbt" - that I wouldn't agree with at that age. However, this entire time, I have been looking at it more innocuously, assuming that teaching "lgbt" to school kids would involve something more along the lines of "some people are attracted to the same sex, and prefer their partner in life to be same sex - everyone's different". And that's it.

If we are talking about little kids, I wouldn't take it any further than what I stated above. It's not even something that an entire day would be spent on, just as, when little kids ask about straight relationships, we kind of dance around the subject and give vague answers until the child is older and better able to understand.

You are saying that "LGBT" eventually necessitates a discussion about sex, and maybe that comes later on, ad maybe you say that because you are thinking of some class or subject matter that time is spent on and all manner of subjects could come up (however the same could be said about exposing them to straight relationships). I never imagined something like "teaching lgbt" in an elementary school setting to be anything like that, just as straight relationships are not explored in an depth at that age. As stated, I was more thinking of the imagery of the two male bears holding hands. First off, most kids wouldn't even notice that both bears are male, as it's sometimes hard to tell in the animal kingdom. But even if a kid did ask, all I'm saying is the answer would be something vague like "lgbt people are simply people who choose to spend their life/time in relationships of the same sex". And that would be the entirety of my hypothetical lgbt learning in elementary school.

In all honesty, it's more teaching kids to be tolerant of those who are different than anything else, and you could have the complaints about many different types of issues when it comes to kids. What about race? What do you tell a child who asks why some people's skin is black? Does it necessarily involve a long study in racism and how African Americans were treated as slaves, Jim Crow, etc? Not at the elementary school level. A very simply explanation is given in a vague manner and that's all there is to it. However the alternative implied, that we don't even acknowledge black people or gay people or whatever, is wrong in my opinion and doesn't do well for anyone.

 

[PhitePhan]

That's a fair argument. But I can't help but think that your complaints about teaching something lgbt being a slippery slope in to a discussion about sexual acts exists whether the child is learning about hetero or homo relationships. Certainly all of the pitfalls you mentioned could be opening the door for the child to wonder just what sex is, upon seeing something like a male and female character kiss in Aladdin or something. However, your apprehensions seem to exist only when it relates to homo relationships.

Yes, I’d prefer teachers NOT discuss their sex lives or romantic preferences with my kids, regardless of sexual orientation. I do have slightly more apprehension when it comes to exposing my kids to sexuality outside of our cultural and family norms- this goes for homosexual, non-monogamy, polyamorous, etc.

I don't really think we see things all that differently here, and I suspect that the issue is we may be misunderstanding each other. When you reference something like "lgbt" being taught in the classroom, I'm more getting the feeling that you are talking about a year long course that dives in to the details of what it means to be "lgbt" - that I wouldn't agree with at that age. However, this entire time, I have been looking at it more innocuously, assuming that teaching "lgbt" to school kids would involve something more along the lines of "some people are attracted to the same sex, and prefer their partner in life to be same sex - everyone's different". And that's it.

If we are talking about little kids, I wouldn't take it any further than what I stated above. It's not even something that an entire day would be spent on, just as, when little kids ask about straight relationships, we kind of dance around the subject and give vague answers until the child is older and better able to understand.

I see no reason to introduce my kids to sexuality topics in any form or fashion- this is particularly true with regards to a teacher discussing their sexuality and preferences… if anything, I’d rather there be a realistic discussion (ie discussion about actual dangers versus minimization/“we’re all the same”) over some anecdotal fluff.

You are saying that "LGBT" eventually necessitates a discussion about sex, and maybe that comes later on, ad maybe you say that because you are thinking of some class or subject matter that time is spent on and all manner of subjects could come up (however the same could be said about exposing them to straight relationships). I never imagined something like "teaching lgbt" in an elementary school setting to be anything like that, just as straight relationships are not explored in an depth at that age. As stated, I was more thinking of the imagery of the two male bears holding hands. First off, most kids wouldn't even notice that both bears are male, as it's sometimes hard to tell in the animal kingdom. But even if a kid did ask, all I'm saying is the answer would be something vague like "lgbt people are simply people who choose to spend their life/time in relationships of the same sex". And that would be the entirety of my hypothetical lgbt learning in elementary school.

When introducing kids to sexual identity in any form or fashion, you are opening the door to sexuality… there’s just no way around it. Sure, you can soften it and leave it vague, but it plants the seed and most definitely has an impact on how sexuality is understood in the future.

In all honesty, it's more teaching kids to be tolerant of those who are different than anything else, and you could have the complaints about many different types of issues when it comes to kids. What about race? What do you tell a child who asks why some people's skin is black? Does it necessarily involve a long study in racism and how African Americans were treated as slaves, Jim Crow, etc? Not at the elementary school level. A very simply explanation is given in a vague manner and that's all there is to it. However the alternative implied, that we don't even acknowledge black people or gay people or whatever, is wrong in my opinion and doesn't do well for anyone.

A black person isn’t black because or racism or Jim Crow, and to-date we don’t have a huge push to tell kids they can be trans-racial… these are completely different topics and if you hadn’t been so respectful and put so much thought into your posting, I’d argue this is a disingenuous comparison.

I’ll introduce my children to adult topics in my own time and in a manner I see fit. It’s not up to the school to decide this, and again, does this push to create tolerance extend to serial womanizers, or polygamists, etc?

 

[helltoupee]

Yes, I’d prefer teachers NOT discuss their sex lives or romantic preferences with my kids, regardless of sexual orientation. I do have slightly more apprehension when it comes to exposing my kids to sexuality outside of our cultural and family norms- this goes for homosexual, non-monogamy, polyamorous, etc.



I see no reason to introduce my kids to sexuality topics in any form or fashion- this is particularly true with regards to a teacher discussing their sexuality and preferences… if anything, I’d rather there be a realistic discussion (ie discussion about actual dangers versus minimization/“we’re all the same”) over some anecdotal fluff.



When introducing kids to sexual identity in any form or fashion, you are opening the door to sexuality… there’s just no way around it. Sure, you can soften it and leave it vague, but it plants the seed and most definitely has an impact on how sexuality is understood in the future.



A black person isn’t black because or racism or Jim Crow, and to-date we don’t have a huge push to tell kids they can be trans-racial… these are completely different topics and if you hadn’t been so respectful and put so much thought into your posting, I’d argue this is a disingenuous comparison.

I’ll introduce my children to adult topics in my own time and in a manner I see fit. It’s not up to the school to decide this, and again, does this push to create tolerance extend to serial womanizers, or polygamists, etc?

I really don't think we are that far off in the way we see this.

I only brought up the race thing because it was the first thing that popped in to my head that would be a subject that has a lot of negative history. As stated, we don't dive in to that in a detailed manner with elementary kids, so I simply referred to that to say that race could also be a slippery slope subject just as human sexuality might be. Maybe I didn't think it through completely, but I didn't mean much by it other than to say that certain subjects are vast, may include uncomfortable or negative histories, and that with elementary school kids we rarely teach these subjects in a highly detailed way. It's more just vague references until they get older.

I appreciate you detailing out your thoughts - I think the combative nature of these forums often distracts us from trying to understand each other and where we are coming from - life is all about perspective so to speak. I used to really get angry while posting at this place, and have since moved on from that. I'd rather communicate with someone like yourself, who I might not necessarily agree with politically, but who is reasonable enough to present some intelligent arguments that gets me thinking about any given subject.

Have a good holiday weekend.

 

[Scerpi]

smh.

dude. really?

if a man sexually assaulting a 6 year old girl doesn't mean they are straight, a man sexually assaulting a 6 year old boy doesn't make him gay. or lgbtq. you couldn't make that connection? lol.

lol...

The fuck dude? What a fucked up hill to die on.

You sure you want to go with this?

You can be gay and a pedo... they aren't mutually exclusive.

Also, a Gay Pedo says nothing negative about the gay community over-all. There's plenty of fucked up hetero pedos running around too.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

Yes, I’d prefer teachers NOT discuss their sex lives or romantic preferences with my kids, regardless of sexual orientation. I do have slightly more apprehension when it comes to exposing my kids to sexuality outside of our cultural and family norms- this goes for homosexual, non-monogamy, polyamorous, etc.

It's a little silly this has to be explained. If a teacher was making espousing his libertarian beliefs a large part of the school day, progressive parents would throw a shit fit.

If a christian teacher was making his christianity a big part of the school day, again they would shit.

They know this.

How about teachers just teach academic subjects and let the parents teach ideology at home.

Is it that difficult?

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

A quick google gives pages of results. Progressive parents 100% support keeping a teacher's personal beliefs out of the classroom on every subject except homosexuality.

My ordeal, by Christian teacher fired for offering to pray for sick pupil

Olive Jones, who has more than 20 years' experience, fears she may never work again after managers ruled her comments could be seen as 'bullying'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Teacher reprimanded for giving students 'prayer cards' after atheist group accuses her of ‘proselytizing’

A separation of church and state advocacy group is lauding the actions of a school district that agreed to reprimand a teacher who handed out prayer cards

www.christianpost.com

NORWAY: Parallel complaints agree schools must teach, not preach — CRIN

home.crin.org

 

[kflo]

lol...

The fuck dude? What a fucked up hill to die on.

You sure you want to go with this?

You can be gay and a pedo... they aren't mutually exclusive.

Also, a Gay Pedo says nothing negative about the gay community over-all. There's plenty of fucked up hetero pedos running around too.

who necro'd this thread??

i didn't say you can't be gay and a pedo. obviously you can be both.

i am not going to rehash the arguments in this thread though. they are there for you to read.

 

[Sara]

Call it what it is: "Christian terrorism"

So we’re going now call every murder committed by someone <insert religion> terrorism?

 

[irish_thug]

So we’re going now call every murder committed by someone <insert religion> terrorism?

I'm all for it.

 

[Sara]

I'm all for it.

Yeah but you enjoy chaos

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

thats crazy. The pride flag is like the autism symbol or the breast cancer ribbon.

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

So we’re going now call every murder committed by someone <insert religion> terrorism?

as long as it's applied equally to everyone

 

[irish_thug]

Yeah but you enjoy chaos

I mentioned this in a training session last week.

 

[Sara]

I mentioned this in a training session last week.

I love that

 

[Rob Rain]

post error

 

[Rob Rain]

Logic dictates that the church raping and molesting like 10k kids means it’s a setting chock full of fucked up sexually charged activity. Just because they try to cover it up in way shape or form means it’s not real dummy. Thousands and thousands of literal rapes of kids don’t count as sexual activity to you? This is dumber than you arguing nfl cheerleaders aren’t doing sexy routines.

It’s really disgusting how much effort your are putting into downplaying the rapes of these kids so you can try to compare to adults dancing.

Btw drag is not inherently sexual. A man can put on a pants suit and cover himself his head to toes revealing nothing and sit on a stool and do a Hillary Clinton impersonation and that’s a drag performance. Which part of that is sexy to you? You really suck at this logic thing.

pics or it didn't happen