Posted on 08/17/2005 7:58:48 AM PDT by Dr._Joseph_Warren
Question:
Ignoring all legal issues....
Would you care/object if your children's teacher was openly (not flaming) gay?
Would it make any difference if the gay teacher was male or female?
Would it make any difference if the gay person taught elementary, middle school or high school?
To your 3 questions:
Would you care/object if your children's teacher was openly (not flaming) gay? YES
Would it make any difference if the gay teacher was male or female? YES
Would it make any difference if the gay person taught elementary, middle school or high school? No (in light of questions 1 and 2)
I mis read question 2. "No" is my opinion. There should be no room in the teaching profession for someone who is gay.
Those who say that homosexuals cannot change can only repeat, over and over again, "They're born that way! They are, they are!"
Without one scrap - not one teeny, tiny little scrap - of evidence of any kind whatsoever to support their personally held opinion.
And that's in the face of personal testimony of thousands of former homosexuals and many respected professionals with many years in the field of homosexuality and its causes, and treatment thereof.
It's actually pretty amazing. It's as though using proper grammar is their only argument. And just repeating over and over againt that anyone who disagrees with them - no matter how heavy the weight of evidence - is wrong.
And btw - if someone is born with an immutable characteristic, is that not by definition genetic?
So you say, but since his conclusions align with the growing number of ex-gays and the position of a growing number of therapists, I'll align myself with Spitzer here.
What's interesting is Spitzer has been given a chance to retract his new position that gays can go straight, yet he refuses. And this, according to you, based on faulty conclusions. The enormous amount of pressure put on Spitzer along with the personal struggles he's endured hasn't convinced him his conclusions were faulty.
And neither do you. You are the one proposing the existence of ex-homosexuals. So far, you have provided no valid proof for that claim.
Sigh. You are playing games, wasting time, misrepresenting my position and acting as if previous posts don't exist. Anytime you want pointers to more information please feel free to checkout my profile.
It's almost as if some folks think there's nothing wrong with the fox guarding the hen house. They're not interesting in hearing what ex-gays have to say nor what a growing number of therapists have to say. And when they blindly adhere to such a worldview it looks pretty silly to everybody else.
Of course you will, because they are saying what you want to hear. The faultiness of the study are irrelevant to you because you agree with its conclusions.
What's interesting is Spitzer has been given a chance to retract his new position that gays can go straight, yet he refuses. And this, according to you, based on faulty conclusions. The enormous amount of pressure put on Spitzer along with the personal struggles he's endured hasn't convinced him his conclusions were faulty.
So, fervent belief is an argument in favor of the truthfulness of a position? You realize that, applying this logic, Radical Islam's fervency of belief in the idea that Jews are the descendants of pigs and monkeys is proof of that claim?
Anytime you want pointers to more information please feel free to checkout my profile.
I've seen your profile. The evidence is overwhelmingly from such organizations as NARTH, various Christian ministries and WorldNetDaily.
If you can't see just how little credibility such sources have when it comes to this issue, you're beyond help. You accuse others of having an agenda, but are completely unable to see the agenda guiding you.
No offense, but you are simply the other side of the coin of a radical gay activist.
There you go misrepresenting my position again. I align with Spitzer here because it aligns with the growing number of ex-gays, a growing number of therapists and the fact that a gay gene doesn't exist.
So, fervent belief is an argument in favor of the truthfulness of a position?
I can see how someone bent on misrepresenting my position would try and twist what I've said. Here are the facts:
"the mental health professionals should stop moving in the direction of banning therapy that has, as a goal, a change in sexual orientation. Many patients, provided with informed consent about the possibility that they will be disappointed if the therapy does not succeed, can make a rational choice to work toward developing their heterosexual potential and minimizing their unwanted homosexual attractions."
When asked if reorientation therapy chosen only by clients who are driven by guilt--that is, what's popularly known as "homophobia"? To the contrary, Spitzer concludes. In fact,
"the ability to make such a choice should be considered fundamental to client autonomy and self-determination."I've seen your profile. The evidence is overwhelmingly from such organizations as NARTH...and WorldNetDaily
Please provide evidence that NARTH isn't credible. Please provide evidence that anything from WorldNetDaily on the subject of homosexuality isn't credible. I expect credible scientific studies that discredit either organization on the subject.
No offense, but you are simply the other side of the coin of a radical gay activist.
Thank you.
Didn't Jung or Freud say that people are just basically bisexual, meaning that on an animal level they just want their sexual urges met. It is conditioning and choice that directs a person toward whatever gender or activity they are drawn.
What agenda do you think guides me?
A belief that if we can "save" homosexuals from themselves, the world will be a better place.
It would appear you haven't really read or understood what I've been saying for years nor what's in my profile.
In 2003, the Gay/Straight Alliance at Newton North High School (MA), with the help of the state Dept, of Education, is handing out leaflets to students arriving at the school, which ask questions such as,And some folks wonder why parents are concerned."If you have never slept with a person of the same sex, how do you know that you wouldn't prefer that?"
Again, feel free to correct me with Sacred Scripture... The personal attacks are not convincing me of your genuine wish to understand... I suspect either defense of ego or subversive intent -either way you are on the wrong path...
I have no idea what either Freud or Jung stated about peoples' innate sexuality. But, whatever Freud said, I discount since he based his entire psychological theory on a handful of neurotic rich Vienna housewives, was a cocaine addict, and a miserable unbalanced man himself.
The truth is that people are naturally attracted, by nature's arrangement, to the opposite sex.
Here's a good article about some of the causes of homosexuality:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1420619/posts
Root Causes, Homosexual Consequences
Most homosexuality is a combination of poor parenting, absent parent, molestation (which includes seduction) when a child or young adolescent, and cultural conditioning. By conditioning I include non-stop "gay" movies, entertainment, propaganda that says "gay is good - try it, you'll like it", "gay" counsellors, clubs and the like in schools, and the lie that kids are told that if they have ONE "gay" thought, desire, or experience, then are forever gay and cannot change.
Homosexuality is not a normal variation of human sexuality. It is a psychological dysfunction and people who suffer from it are not gay - in the sense of happy and carefree. If you read some of the personal accounts of former homosexuals - there are some in the linked article and on the thread - you'll read for yourself what peole who have left the gay life say about their own lives.
Amazing. I had forgotten that particular incident.
And people want to deny that homosexuals are recruiting kids in school.
In other words, not only "if you've ever had one gay thought/experience you ARE gay", but urging them to try it once to see! And then, "Aha! You tried it once, you're now gay!" Kind of like a leg trap.
I don't think so. There are plenty of conditions that are apparent at birth that are not genetic (as far as I know, but I am not a scientist). Birth defects, cerebral palsy, retardation, I would assume many more.
As far as having a 'scrap' of evidence..it is almost impossible to prove the birth theory since it is impossible to 'test' for sexuality at birth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.