(02-22-2012 12:58 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 12:52 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-20-2012 08:49 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 10:23 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Sounds fine to me. Banning opinions about sex or gay marriage is ok, so long as you ban opinions about straight sex and straight marriage too. Otherwise it's discrimination meant to ostracize.

So now it's discrimination to teach about the one and only way that mankind can perpetuate itself.

so what of people who can't have kids...guess they don't matter to you.

So you're trying to use infertility as a reason to teach homosexuality?

the idiot poster acts as though if you can't have kids, you're relationship is not valid

(02-22-2012 01:00 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 12:44 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 10:35 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 10:30 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Even if anti-homosexual laws are secular though, it still violates 14th Amendment substantive due process because there is no legitimate government interest in doing so.

You don't want that fight, you'll lose it.

I know your post-modern principles don't include facts, but if you go there, you won't like what you'll find.

don't tell that to the US 9th circuit court...

Yes, they'll try to persecute me. Nice freedom we've got going on.

ah, so when checks and balances favor you're opinion...it's great...but when they go against your opinion...you're suddenly being persecuted? NICE!

(02-22-2012 01:10 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 12:58 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 12:52 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-20-2012 08:49 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 10:23 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Sounds fine to me. Banning opinions about sex or gay marriage is ok, so long as you ban opinions about straight sex and straight marriage too. Otherwise it's discrimination meant to ostracize.

So now it's discrimination to teach about the one and only way that mankind can perpetuate itself.

so what of people who can't have kids...guess they don't matter to you.

So you're trying to use infertility as a reason to teach homosexuality?

the idiot poster acts as though if you can't have kids, you're relationship is not valid

I didn't read that.

In his defense it isn't discrimination to teach re-productivity from a biological standpoint. But teaching that does by virtue of "evolution" leave the homosexual story out.

(02-22-2012 01:37 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 01:10 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 12:58 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 12:52 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-20-2012 08:49 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  So now it's discrimination to teach about the one and only way that mankind can perpetuate itself.

so what of people who can't have kids...guess they don't matter to you.

So you're trying to use infertility as a reason to teach homosexuality?

the idiot poster acts as though if you can't have kids, you're relationship is not valid

I didn't read that.

In his defense it isn't discrimination to teach re-productivity from a biological standpoint. But teaching that does by virtue of "evolution" leave the homosexual story out.

i also believe the fact some figures in history are gay should be taught...Alexander the Great...Richard the Lionheart...Harvey Milk...Barney Frank...Oscar Wilde...Walt Whitman...Langston Hughes...Tennessee Williams...the list goes on and on.

Jane Lynch.... Neil Patrick Harris.... DrTorch....

(02-22-2012 02:04 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 01:37 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 01:10 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 12:58 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 12:52 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  so what of people who can't have kids...guess they don't matter to you.

So you're trying to use infertility as a reason to teach homosexuality?

the idiot poster acts as though if you can't have kids, you're relationship is not valid

I didn't read that.

In his defense it isn't discrimination to teach re-productivity from a biological standpoint. But teaching that does by virtue of "evolution" leave the homosexual story out.

i also believe the fact some figures in history are gay should be taught...Alexander the Great...Richard the Lionheart...Harvey Milk...Barney Frank...Oscar Wilde...Walt Whitman...Langston Hughes...Tennessee Williams...the list goes on and on.

Not all of those have been PROVEN to be homosexual. But, I'd agree their stories should be told. I disagree that their sexual orientation should be included. It belittles their accomplishments and comes off as indoctrination. Why can't we let children determine their own sexuality?

(02-22-2012 02:17 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Jane Lynch.... Neil Patrick Harris.... DrTorch....