Monday, April 07, 2008

Normalizing Sexual Proclivities

Lexington Superintendent Paul Ash is under fire for the new diversity curriculum the superintendent will introduce to his kindergarten through fifth grade students next year at Estabrook Elementary School.

Mr. Ash just recently received threats from New Jersey-based Hal Turner's internet talk show in the likes of:
"I would laugh if concerned fathers donned ski masks and gloves, took a ride over to the this arrogant (expletive) house and knock the living (expletive) out of him."

Click HERE to read full story about threats.

Mr. Ash also received an e-mail from a concerned parent earlier last week over the new diversity curriculum for next years kindergarten through fifth grade classes. Shawn Landon, a father of a child in David Parker's son's class, was irate over this news and sent the following e-mails to Superintendent Ash and other school officials.
Click HERE to read full e-mail exchanges.
It is completely and utterly ridiculous that grown men have to threaten bodily harm upon one another over a situation like this. It just goes to show that some people need to participate in violence because they can not articulate their thoughts responsibly enough. This goes for both sides of this deeply emotionally charged issue. Mr. Parker has received threatening and vulgar voicemails at home over his opinions numerous times. Go to threats against Parkers and others under the article about the threats against Mr. Ash and click on threatening phone calls such as this one.
We don't need to resort to physical or verbal threats when it comes to asking for responsible requests from our school officials. We also don't need superintendent of schools blatantly ignoring the law and preventing tax paying citizens from yanking their sons or daughters
from a class-room setting that is teaching dangerous behaviors.
Why is it that this case is so one sided? Why can't parents take their children out of a classroom if dangerous behaviors are being discussed? Why do children need to be subjected to homosexuality at such a young age? Who is teaching tolerance, the parents or the special interest organizations that are recommending the curriculum? Where do parental rights begin and where should they end?
Just another day at the government run indoctrination camps.
Thank you Mr. Romney!!

66 Comments:

Blogger Share_Boy said...

"Why do children need to be subjected to homosexuality at such a young age?"

Because it is part of real life. To not discuss a part of rea life is to have children unprepaired.

7:17 PM, April 07, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“We also don't need superintendent of schools blatantly ignoring the law and preventing tax paying citizens from yanking their sons or daughters from a class-room setting that is teaching dangerous behaviors.”

What dangerous behaviors are being taught exactly?

Ken Weaver

8:16 PM, April 07, 2008  
Blogger KatieKat said...

Like Ken said, "What dangerous behaviors are being taught exactly?"
As I've mentioned before (though I can't be sure if it was on this blog or not), this is not about 'indoctrinating children', or 'teaching children about sexual deviance' or anything of the sort. It's about teaching children that there are different kinds of families. The fact is, gay marriage is legal in this state, and there are going to be children whose parents are gay (like mine). In fact, the Lexington School System has said that there are quite a few children with same-sex parents in the Lexington Public Schools. If those children are made to feel as if their families are somehow 'less than', or that they are not as important as all the other family types out there, what benefit does that have? All it would do is make those children feel bad - Which is not right. Again, it's not about teaching kids about sex - In fact, this particular issue has nothing to do with sex - It's about teaching our children that there are different kinds of families and that they all deserve respect.
Also, I listened to that voicemail - Other than being quite offensive and insulting, it was not even remotely threatening - As in, there were no threats to the Parkers' physical safety.

10:29 AM, April 08, 2008  
Blogger KatieKat said...

"Why do children need to be subjected to homosexuality at such a young age?"
No one is being 'subjected to homosexuality'. No one is teaching these children how to have gay sex. That would not only be wrong and illegal, but horribly disturbing. It's not even as if the school wants to teach about gay families in every subject. However, the reality is that these families exist, and it does a disservice to all of our children to only discuss certain types of families, and not others.

10:33 AM, April 08, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Share_boy,

How does teaching kindergarten aged children about homosexuality pre-pare them for life? What are the benefits of teaching CHILDREN about dangerous behaviors, such as homosexuality is?

8:34 AM, April 09, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You asked:

"What dangerous behaviors are being taught exactly?"

When a school teaches that homosexuality is ONLY a type of orientation that is O.K. to experiment with, you open up Pandora's box. Saying it's O.K. to be gay/lesbian subjects all those who chose to participate in the dangerous sexual behaviors of homosexuality to the following:

1. Homosexuals die much earlier than heterosexuals and have significantly higher rates of rectal cancer, liver cancer, HIV, and other infectious diseases than heterosexuals.

2. One study reports 70% of homosexuals admitting to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners. Source: Bell, A. and Weinberg, M. Homosexualities: a Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster.

3. Another study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year. The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime. Source: Corey, L. and Holmes, K. "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men." New England J. Med., pp. 435-38.

4. Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles historically accounting for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the "gay bowel syndrome" (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus. Source: United States Congressional Record.

5. Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne Source: Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA.

6. 37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism. Source: Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA.

7. 41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs. Source: Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA.

Ect, ect, ect.

Let's close Pandora's box before CHILDREN want to see what's in it.

8:52 AM, April 09, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Katie,

You said:

"...The fact is, gay marriage is legal in this state..."

Please provide your proof that gay "marriage" is "legal" in MA. Provide the bill number and how the LEGISLATION voted on said bill with a role call list of whom voted for and against the bill.

8:56 AM, April 09, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Katie,

You said:

"No one is teaching these children how to have gay sex. That would not only be wrong and illegal, but horribly disturbing."

Katie,

Please watch these 9 and 6 minute videos where there is actual footage of teachers indoctrinating children that homosexuality is part of a "healthy education."

Go to http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing.html

Enjoy, and please ask yourself Katie, is this a "healthy education" to be teaching children?

9:30 AM, April 09, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Share_boy,

Phedophilia is also a "part of life". Should we teach our children about the choices that these people make and justify it as just another way of life that should be accepted and tolerated by all?

9:33 AM, April 09, 2008  
Blogger KatieKat said...

"Katie,

Please watch these 9 and 6 minute videos where there is actual footage of teachers indoctrinating children that homosexuality is part of a "healthy education."

Go to http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing.html

Enjoy, and please ask yourself Katie, is this a "healthy education" to be teaching children?"

I did, and I asked myself that question - And, surprise, surprise, the answer is a resounding 'YES'.
The content in that video was age-appropriate, and discussed the different types of families children can have. Talking about classmates who have two mommies or two daddies, and making sure the children understand that they simply have a different kind of family is a VERY good thing.
Also, teaching children about contributions to society made by people who happen to be gay is a good thing.
Teaching children that it's ok to be gay, and that you can do amazing things in this world even if you are gay, lets them know that if they happen to be gay or lesbian they can still be productive members of society is an amazing thing. And normalizing gay and lesbian families results in more accepting, tolerant members of society. A society that my daughter, and other children of gay parents, has to be a part of.

10:46 AM, April 09, 2008  
Blogger KatieKat said...

"Share_boy,

Phedophilia is also a "part of life". Should we teach our children about the choices that these people make and justify it as just another way of life that should be accepted and tolerated by all?"
Again with the pedophilia comparison. Aren't we done with this yet?
Sexual orientation is NOT a choice. No one CHOOSES to be gay, period. You cannot compare an innate quality with a chosen behavior.

10:48 AM, April 09, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Katie,

You think that "Teaching children that it's ok to be gay," is a good thing.

What if your child and a multiple of other children were exposed to "The Little Black Book - Queer in the 21st Century"?

Go to http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/black_book/black_book_inside.html

Do you think that is "wrong and illegal, but horribly disturbing"?

You need to take the blind fold off because children are not just being taught about "whose in a family", they are being taught that it is O.K. to "fist" their friends.

Get it??

1:06 PM, April 09, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Katie,

You said:

"Again with the pedophilia comparison."

What am I comparing pedophilia to??? Stop ducking the question and answer it.

You said:

"Sexual orientation is NOT a choice."

Can you please cite your sources.

Oh, and by the way. I had one other question that you have failed to answer:

"Please provide your proof that gay "marriage" is "legal" in MA."

Thank you Katie. It is good to hear from you again and I look forward to your answers to all of the questions that I have proposed to you.

1:10 PM, April 09, 2008  
Blogger KatieKat said...

"What if your child and a multiple of other children were exposed to "The Little Black Book - Queer in the 21st Century"?"
If she were older than 12 (which all the 'children' exposed to this book were) I would have no problem with it. However, since I will teach my child how to have sex SAFELY, I don't think any of it would be news to her by then. The fact is, there are kids having sex at 10, 11, and 12 - A lot of whom actually think that if you're not having penis-in-vagina sex that it's not sex, and therefore totally safe, which also means they're not using any kidn of protection - It wouldn't hurt for there to be a straight version of this book, too.
"What am I comparing pedophilia to??? Stop ducking the question and answer it."
You said,
"Phedophilia is also a "part of life". "
in response to Share_boy's comment of,
"Because it is part of real life. To not discuss a part of rea life is to have children unprepaired [sic]."
Your usage of the word 'also' in your comment denotes a comparison between pedophilia and homosexuality.
""Sexual orientation is NOT a choice."

Can you please cite your sources."
How about me? And my best friend? And my father? And EVERY GAY PERSON I HAVE EVER MET.
If the horse's mouth isn't a reliable enough source, I don't know what to tell you. Except I can tell you with absolute certainty that my queerness was NOT a choice.
""Please provide your proof that gay "marriage" is "legal" in MA.""
Don't need to. The fact that I can go to City Hall and obtain a marriage license for me and my fiancee to be joined together in marriage is proof enough for me.

2:00 PM, April 09, 2008  
Anonymous omd said...

1. Homosexual marriage is NOT a law in Massachusetts. The Legislature never passed any such law. It's all a scam.

2. There is no scientific proof of a homosexual gene. There has been NO homosexual gene found. It's all a scam

3. All sexual behavior IS a choice. Just because you may have a proclivity to a specified sexuality DOES NOT mean you have to act on it. We are not animals that cannot control themselves. Everything we do IS by OUR CHOICE.

4. Scia, great post citing the studies about homosexuality and the issues involved with that behavior. Good book for you to read "The Myths of Sex Education" by Josh McDowell. In the bibliography there are pages of cites. You'd be surprised what the research arm of Planned Parenthood has come up with regarding sexuality training and little kids.

10:36 PM, April 09, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

5. There is no scientific proof that a "god" exists. There has been no god found. It's all a scam.

Ken Weaver

6:47 AM, April 10, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

OMD,

Thank you for your right-to-the-point comments to Katie. She seems to not understand things very well.

Planned Parenthood...I can only imagine what they have come up with now. I will be sure to look into that new book you recommended.

Ken,

If God does not exsist, then you don't exsist. All of those little amino acids swimming around in a hot tub did NOT make you up, God did. Sorry to burst your unrealistic bubble.

7:32 AM, April 10, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“All of those little amino acids swimming around in a hot tub did NOT make you up, God did.”

You don’t believe Katiekat was born gay because there is no science to support that claim, yet you believe in god when no science supports that claim. You’re funny. When god is proven I’ll believe, until then I’ll trust my gut, which tells me there might be a god, but it would be dissimilar to your god in almost every way. Yet I refuse to pray to a might. I refuse to bend my knee for a might. I will not speak respectfully for a might.

Ken Weaver

5:29 PM, April 10, 2008  
Blogger KatieKat said...

"Homosexual marriage is NOT a law in Massachusetts. The Legislature never passed any such law. It's all a scam."
I never said it was a law, I said it is legal - As in, it is allowed. Which it is, if you hadn't noticed. When I get married, my marriage license will provide my and my wife with all of the rights and priveleges that the State of Massachusetts provides.

"2. There is no scientific proof of a homosexual gene. There has been NO homosexual gene found. It's all a scam"
There doesn't need to be a specific gene for a trait in order for it to be inborn. Hell, it might be a small speck on part of the double-helix. Whatever it is, whether it's hormones developing differently in the womb, or a part of the brain that fires differently, it doesn't really matter. The fact is that most, if not all, gay people are gay for reasons that can't be pinpointed. I can tell that no matter how hard I tried to, I could not be straight.
"All sexual behavior IS a choice. Just because you may have a proclivity to a specified sexuality DOES NOT mean you have to act on it. We are not animals that cannot control themselves. Everything we do IS by OUR CHOICE."
Bullsh*t. I could no more choose who I fell in love with than you could choose your eye color. Yes, I could make the CHOICE to marry a man, but I would be miserable, and I would never be in love with him. I share a deep, abiding, uncompromising love with my fiancee, and I would not give that up for all the money in the world.

"Thank you for your right-to-the-point comments to Katie. She seems to not understand things very well."
Please don't be condescending to me. I enjoy our conversations, and there is no reason for belittling. Also, what is it, exactly, that I am 'not understand[ing] very well'?

6:53 AM, April 11, 2008  
Anonymous Rufus said...

Very good points Katie!

I might add that while choosing to act sexually may be a choice, whom you are attracted to (and ultimately fall in love with), is not. And it is grossly unfair to say gays and lesbians must not act on their natural instincts (as all humans I believe are) to partner up, and live happy healthy lives together. This is ultimately not about sexuality, although SCIA keeps painting it that way.

By the way, good luck getting SCIA to not act condescending. I've asked that of him before, with no results.

9:22 AM, April 11, 2008  
Blogger KatieKat said...

Thanks, Rufus. :)
" might add that while choosing to act sexually may be a choice, whom you are attracted to (and ultimately fall in love with), is not."
You are absolutely right. Honestly, if who I fell in love with WAS a choice, I'd probably be married to a man by now - Being straight would certainly have made my life a lot easier, you know?

9:27 AM, April 11, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Katie,

You said:

"I never said it (same-sex "marriage") was a law, I said it is legal."

Katie, if it is legal, it had to be passed as a law. Get it??

You said:

"I could no more choose who I fell in love with than you could choose your eye color."

Please provide your citations (this is the second or third time I have asked you to do this!!).

Rufus,

Please provide facts to the question in which I proposed to Katie regarding the citations that there is a "gay" gene.

4:30 PM, April 11, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"...yet you believe in god when no science supports that claim."

I thought you read Lee Strobels book "A Case for Christ", which is filled with scientific evidence to support the claim that God IS real and that Christ DID rise from the dead to forgive us of our sins.

Read that book again, but slower this time buster!!

4:32 PM, April 11, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Katie, if it is legal, it had to be passed as a law. Get it??”

You’re wrong Scia, if there is no law against it, it is legal.

“I thought you read Lee Strobels book "A Case for Christ", which is filled with scientific evidence to support the claim that God IS real and that Christ DID rise from the dead to forgive us of our sins.”

It was The Case for Faith; and there is no scientific evidence in the book to prove neither god has ever existed nor that Christ rose from the dead. The book answered a few questions about the Christian perception of god, but nothing else. I would suggest you read Ken’s Guide to the Bible by Ken Smith.

Ken Weaver

6:21 PM, April 11, 2008  
Blogger KatieKat said...

Scia, you said:
"Katie, if it is legal, it had to be passed as a law. Get it??"
No, you're wrong. Like Ken said, if there is no law against it, it ls legal.
Scia said:
"Please provide your citations (this is the second or third time I have asked you to do this!!)."
I have cited my sources. The most important and relevant one is me. I am queer, I did not choose to be, and I did not choose to fall in love with a woman. I don't understand why that isn't enough for you.

9:46 AM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger KatieKat said...

Also, you keep citing this as a source: Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA.
Who is this Dr. E. Fields, and where is this study published? I've seen this citation elsewhere, and I have yet to find the actual study it refers to. The only thing I could find, and I sincerely hope this is not the same person, is a reference to an "Ed Fields" who publishes 'The Truth At Last", a publication handed out by various KKK factions and white-supremacy groups... He also was the co-founder of the America First Party, which is a white supremacist political party. So, I really hope that this Dr. E. Fields you refer to isn't the same guy.
Could you maybe provide a little more information on this study?

9:59 AM, April 14, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“I am queer, I did not choose to be, and I did not choose to fall in love with a woman. I don't understand why that isn't enough for you.”

He can’t Scia, and he will more than likely never understand it. I couldn’t understand homosexuality either when I was Christian. I was taught that god would never burden us with challenges we couldn’t overcome. So if people were actually born with their sexuality “pre-chosen” against the norm, than either god has been completely misinterpreted in the bible as seeing homosexuality as an abomination, or god doesn’t exist. Neither option would be even conceivable for the average Evangelical Christian today. When I lost my belief in the existence of a god, I also lost the belief that most “sins” that have no victims were immoral.

Ken Weaver

6:43 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Katie,

Just because your gay does not provide enough evidence to prove your fallacious claim that being gay is genetic based.

Sorry, please try again.

7:12 AM, April 16, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Katie,

Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" did not write "The Truth at Last".

You need to keep on looking because I found many hits when Dr. Field's phamplet titled "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" was punched into a search engine.

7:23 AM, April 16, 2008  
Blogger KatieKat said...

"Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" did not write "The Truth at Last"."

That's interesting, because according to this site, he did:
http://www.biblio.com/details.php?dcx=49029388&aid=frg

8:21 AM, April 16, 2008  
Blogger KatieKat said...

"Just because your[sic] gay does not provide enough evidence to prove your fallacious claim that being gay is genetic based."

You can't call my claim 'fallacious' unless you would like to prove that I'm intentionally deceiving you. The fact is, I know many gay people, and not one of them ever woke up one day and chose to be gay. And, with the exception of a rare few, none of us had abuse in our pasts, or absent/neglectful parents. So, if it wasn't due to outside influence, and we didn't just 'decide' to be queer, I have to come to the conclusion that being gay is an innate trait - Like left-handedness, the direction your hair grows, or having a tendency to like chocolate instead of vanilla.

8:34 AM, April 16, 2008  
Blogger KatieKat said...

Oh, and yet another site that indicates that your Dr. E. Fields is a White Supremacist:
http://www.stormfront.org/truth_at_last/
He IS connected with the publication "Truth At Last". Do you really want to align yourself with these kinds of people?

8:57 AM, April 16, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Katie,

You really need to provide some solid evidence and citations before you start making a blanket statement that being gay is an innate trait.

As to your claim about Dr. Fields: I will have to look at those websites that you provided. I can not look at them now because my work computer is prohibiting me from doing so.

2:32 PM, April 16, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

SCIA, you make blanket statements claiming being gay is a choice! You have no proof.

5:24 PM, April 16, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here’s one;

http://www.courage.org.uk/articles/article.asp?id=146

Man this Fields fellow is a freak. I think Scia just lost some credibility.

Ken Weaver

5:55 PM, April 16, 2008  
Blogger KatieKat said...

"You really need to provide some solid evidence and citations before you start making a blanket statement that being gay is an innate trait."

You really need to provide some solid evidence and citations before you start making blanket statements that being gay is a choice.

11:46 AM, April 17, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Selective demands for evidence. Scia seems to believe in an invisible man that came to earth to save us from our sins then this all powerful being died and became invisible again and he’s somewhere watching us and knows not only what we do but think as well. I wonder what evidence Scia demanded to believe such a tale. Was it stronger than the evidence he demands from Katiekat to prove she was born gay? Was it stronger than the evidence for evolution? Why so selective Scia? Why are the demands for evidence of nature given such a high standard, but so low when it comes to the supernatural?

Ken Weaver

12:13 PM, April 17, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

You said:

"SCIA, you make blanket statements claiming being gay is a choice! You have no proof."

When have I ever CONCLUSIVELY suggested that being gay is a choice?

Yes, you are right, I have NO proof that being gay is a choice, just like you have no proof that being gay is genetic.

1:34 PM, April 17, 2008  
Anonymous Rufus said...

SCIA, there seem to be many studies that suggest homosexuality is biological, and, in at least some people, is predetermined at birth. I suggest you use google and look into it.

I have yet to find any real science that says that homosexual attracation is a choice.

1:46 PM, April 17, 2008  
Anonymous Rufus said...

Actually, I should have said I have never found any real science that suggests homosexual attraction is a choice.

Also, are you now going to ignore the calling out of your source, Dr. Fields?

1:53 PM, April 17, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“When have I ever CONCLUSIVELY suggested that being gay is a choice?”


Posted by Scia March 24 2008 in the thread "Transgender Rights and Gay "Marriage" Bills Drown Under Pressure" “You, on the other hand, were not born with your challenge. God made you a man. Why would He make you something He would NOT want you to be?”

I think right there you were telling Stellewriter he was not born gay. No “I doubt” or “I don’t think so” just a flat out statement of “You were not born with your challenge.”

Ken Weaver

2:48 PM, April 17, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Rufus,

NARTH.com for the studies that INCONCLUSIVELY say being gay is a choice.

Dr. Fields - What is wrong with this source??

9:35 PM, April 17, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

What does Stellewriter's CHOICE of changing to a women have to do with me CONCLUSIVELY suggesting that being gay is a choice?

Transgenderism has NOTHING to do with anyone's sexual orientation.

9:40 PM, April 17, 2008  
Anonymous Rufus said...

"NARTH.com for the studies that INCONCLUSIVELY say being gay is a choice."

I said REAL science, Scia.

"Dr. Fields - What is wrong with this source??"

What is right with this source? Using a confirmed racist and anti-semite as a source makes you almost laughable.

Are you capable of even acknowledging you could be mistaken about something? Don't be so arrogent.

6:28 AM, April 18, 2008  
Blogger KatieKat said...

"NARTH.com for the studies that INCONCLUSIVELY say being gay is a choice."
And, as far as I know, NARTH is one of very few (they may be the only ones) who say such a thing - And, to top it all off, they are a VERY biased source and not at ALL what I would consider reliable.
Do you have any peer-reviewed scientific sources that say being gay is most likely a choice?
Beause all the ones I've read seem to say that all the evidence suggest there is a biological basis for homosexuality.

6:33 AM, April 18, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rufus,

You said to Scia:
Are you capable of even acknowledging you could be mistaken about something? Don't be so arrogent.

I think you're expecting more of him than he could give. Scia is so identified with various beliefs (anti-gay this, anti-gay that) that it would be very difficult for him to admit that one of his beliefs might not be correct. No matter how logical or reasonalbe your argument is, I sadly predict that Scia would have a very tough time admitting that you had a point. Some people are so identified with their beliefs that they would experience a loss of self-identity if they were too admit that they might be wrong. This is similar to someone being so identified with their job that they might become suicidal if they were fired. It's a loss of their identity.

It's too bad. Admitting that you may be wrong or could have done better shows strength and is the first step in true growth.

-Gary

2:38 PM, April 18, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“What does Stellewriter's CHOICE of changing to a women have to do with me CONCLUSIVELY suggesting that being gay is a choice?”

It shows an active arrogance that you KNOW how someone else who’s in a particular position should be. You write to Stellewriter god didn’t make him the way he seems to feel. You write to Katiekat that since she can’t conclusively prove that she was born gay that you find it implausible that she’s telling you the truth. Who would know better than Katiekat what kind of person she is supposed to be? Dr. Fields? Unlikely. I take it upon your word that you are a Christian, I ask for no proof. We’ve discussed before how some people that call themselves Christian actually aren’t, how do I know you’re not one of them?... because I’m willing to take you at your word. Why are you so unable to do the same for people who feel that they were born gay?

Ken Weaver

8:03 PM, April 18, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Rufus,

Very deep stuff Rufus.

You said:

"Some people are so identified with their beliefs that they would experience a loss of self-identity if they were too admit that they might be wrong."

I admit on this blog many a time that I am wrong, but if the facts are presented, than the truth is told. If you can try and refute my facts, please, go ahead. But up until that point, I, as well as others who visit my blog, will either agree with my facts or fail to refute them.

3:55 PM, April 19, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"Who would know better than Katiekat what kind of person she is supposed to be?"

God!

3:57 PM, April 19, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“God!”

I guess I should have seen that coming. I must ask though; what makes you an authority on god’s plan for Katiekat? How many people can look in the bible and read the same text from the same version and still come up with a different meaning? How many religions is there that don’t follow the Christian bible? Do you have any conclusive proof that the one you follow is the precise one god respects the most? What makes your particular faith closer to what god wishes than another religion? Do you have any better evidence for the existence of god than “I exist, so god must exist”?

If you cannot answer the questions above, you really need to look at the only reliable source for the question; was Katiekat born gay? The answer to that question must be Katiekat herself.

Ken Weaver

9:22 PM, April 19, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You are a confusing man.

Your questions are answered as follows.

Jesus said: "I Am"!

end of story.

7:14 PM, April 21, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“You are a confusing man.”

Maybe.

“Jesus said: "I Am"!”

That is about the lamest answer you’ve ever given. Circular logic doesn’t help you Scia; it only makes you look like an idiot.

Ken Weaver

9:32 PM, April 21, 2008  
Blogger KatieKat said...

Ken -
Thanks for the support in this thread, I really appreciate it.
Scia,
You said that 'God' would know better than I what kind of person I am supposed to be. Well, that's interesting, because I happen to agree with you. Except for the fact that I believe that if there is a 'God', (S)He made me - And therefore made me gay.
Since homosexuality is natural, I would have to assume that gayness exists to ensure that we (and all the animals that also have this trait) don't over-populate the planet.
Whether it was 'God', 'Nature', 'The Universe', biology, whatever - I came into this world queer, and I'll be leaving it the same way.

9:44 AM, April 22, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Whether it was 'God', 'Nature', 'The Universe', biology, whatever - I came into this world queer, and I'll be leaving it the same way.”

I just stood up clapping.

Ken Weaver

6:16 PM, April 22, 2008  
Blogger KatieKat said...

"I just stood up clapping."

*bows*

Thank you. :D

7:41 AM, April 23, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

Are you saying Jesus is an idiot for making the statement "I am"?

Do you know what he meant by this??

10:39 AM, April 25, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Katie,

You said:

"Since homosexuality is natural, I would have to assume that gayness exists to ensure that we (and all the animals that also have this trait) don't over-populate the planet."

Enough said!!

10:40 AM, April 25, 2008  
Blogger KatieKat said...

Wait -
Did Scia just agree with me?

*waits for the sky to fall*

LOL

1:46 PM, April 25, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Katie,

You are funny!!

I did not agree with you. Sorry, but please step off of the stadium and discontinue your bowing.

;)
Scia

2:39 PM, April 25, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Are you saying Jesus is an idiot for making the statement "I am"?”

No, I’m saying your lame for bringing up what he said. You’re using circular logic to back up things you say in the 1st place. You say Jesus said “I am”, that came from the bible. I don’t believe the bible in the 1st place. If I show you a study that says homosexuality is natural and you disagree, I can’t prove it’s true by pointing to that study because you don’t believe it anyway. Do you have any non-biblical evidence that Jesus said “I am”? Any evidence that Jesus walked on water? The bible has all sorts of crazy stories that makes me wonder how any sane person could believe the bible to be literally accurate.

If you tell me the sky is blue and I say that you’re wrong it’s actually green you must use something other than the sky to prove to me that it is blue.

“Do you know what he meant by this??”

Was he saying he was the flying spaghetti monster?

"Since homosexuality is natural, I would have to assume that gayness exists to ensure that we (and all the animals that also have this trait) don't over-populate the planet."

Scia said: Enough said!!

He wasn’t really agreeing with you Katiekat, he was reading a strict literal view of what you wrote instead of what you actually meant. Literally you said that gayness exists to prevent homosexuals from overpopulating the planet. I knew this wasn’t what you meant, and I think Scia does too; he was just poking a little fun at you.

Ken Weaver

7:10 PM, April 25, 2008  
Blogger KatieKat said...

"I knew this wasn’t what you meant, and I think Scia does too; he was just poking a little fun at you."
*blush*
Oops.
Okay, Scia, I'll be a little more clear:
Since homosexuality is natural, I would have to assume that gayness exists to ensure that humans (and all the other animals that also have this trait) don't over-populate the planet.

6:30 AM, April 28, 2008  
Blogger KatieKat said...

Oh, and I notice that you haven't explained why you would use a racist, anti-semitic 'doctor' as a 'reliable' source.

6:30 AM, April 28, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"The bible has all sorts of crazy stories that makes me wonder how any sane person could believe the bible to be literally accurate."

So, are you saying that all those people who do believe in what the Bible says are insane? Wow, that sure is a lot of people then Ken.

7:29 AM, April 30, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Katie,

You said:

"Oh, and I notice that you haven't explained why you would use a racist, anti-semitic 'doctor' as a 'reliable' source."

You are mixing Dr. Fields up with the other Dr. Fields. It is as simple as that.

7:31 AM, April 30, 2008  
Blogger KatieKat said...

"You are mixing Dr. Fields up with the other Dr. Fields. It is as simple as that."
No, it's as simple as the fact that there is no 'other Dr. Fields'. Unless you can show me where I can find information on this "non-racist Dr. Fields", I have to come to the conclusion that there is only one, and he's a completely unreliable source.

7:41 AM, April 30, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, are you saying that all those people who do believe in what the Bible says are insane?

Maybe not all, but if not, they’re on the edge of sanity clinging by their fingernails.

Wow, that sure is a lot of people then Ken.


Sure is, but think of it this way, Christianity used to be considered an insignificant cult and all the others believed in something different. How can it be possible that nearly the entire planet population be wrong?

Ken Weaver

8:59 PM, April 30, 2008  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Bravenet.com Get your Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com