Gay Book Flap Erupts Again At Lexington School

[tw]

Originally Posted by Jordon

Nope. Never said that. However your assumption is quite telling.

I made no assumptions and can perceive your posts in multiple interpretations. Three questions were asked. You posted by answering none. Is it your intent to be vague? Three questions. The only assuming was by you. If you don't want to answer three questions, then just say so.

[Ibby]

Jordon, please explain to me one valid justification as to why you think seven-year-olds should not be exposed to the existance of homosexuality? I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm not confronting you, I am genuinely curious. Why do you think that?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Jordon

You're so full of shit you're developing buck teeth. My objection to 7 year olds being exposed to homosexuality is based on simple human decency.

So your position is "based on decency" and therefor those who disagree must be espousing "indecency". Kinda lame, don'cha think?

Either admit it's religious, or offer support for the contrary view--a simple unsupported assertion isn't going to cut it. Your "simple human decency" looks awfully close to "intelligent design"; as in "what we call the religion when it's tactically inconveniant to call it religion".

You're equating "admiting that men can love men and women can love women" to "exposing children to homosexuality", as if we were building bleachers in somebody's bedroom for them to sit and watch.

There's a difference between admiting that *relationships*--same sex *or* hetero--exist and trotting out pornos--of either stripe-- for kids to watch. If you haven't the intellectual honesty to acknowlege that, if your entire argment hangs on conflating the two, then there's little point in debating with you, you'll just keep marching around in the same tight little circle.

Jordan is playing a little game with us, pretending to be open minded when he is anything but. Living in Boulder has given him a chance to pick up politically correct double speak, but he gives himself away with the following statement:

My objection to 7 year olds being exposed to homosexuality is based on simple human decency.

What is indecent about a person being attracted to members of the same sex? Why is it "decent" to be attracted to members of the opposite sex? Why should a seven year old be concerned about being sexually attracted to ANYONE?

Please define "decency," Jordan.

Please define what it is to be moral.

Please define the difference between "agape" and "eros" and please explain the differences between the way gays experience these feelings versus the way straights do.

Please explain to us how your posts have shown evidence of "agape" on your part.

I'm sure you'll explain all these things any moment now. Any time... Yup, in just another minute, you'll enlighten us all.

[Jordon]

Originally Posted by tw

You stated that sacraments (I take that to mean Catholic Church) should be denied to same sex marriages. Is that correct?

For the second time, this is not true. Feel free to quote me to the contrary.

[Jordon]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Jordon, please explain to me one valid justification as to why you think seven-year-olds should not be exposed to the existance of homosexuality? I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm not confronting you, I am genuinely curious. Why do you think that?

Simple. Human. Decency.

[Jordon]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

admit it's religious, or offer support for the contrary view--a simple unsupported assertion isn't going to cut it. Your "simple human decency" looks awfully close to "intelligent design"; as in "what we call the religion when it's tactically inconveniant to call it religion".

Are you waiting for me to reveal myself to be a Fundamentalist Christian? Ain't gonna happen, pal. I'm not a Christian. You certainly have a fetish for cubbyholing anyone who disagrees with you into convenient stereotypes. People can actually hold moral views that have nothing to do with religion. Seven year olds shouldn't be exposed to homosexual propaganda. It's really that simple.

[Jordon]

Originally Posted by marichiko

Jordan is playing a little game with us, pretending to be open minded when he is anything but. Living in Boulder has given him a chance to pick up politically correct double speak, but he gives himself away with the following statement:



What is indecent about a person being attracted to members of the same sex? Why is it "decent" to be attracted to members of the opposite sex? Why should a seven year old be concerned about being sexually attracted to ANYONE?

Please define "decency," Jordan.

Please define what it is to be moral.

Please define the difference between "agape" and "eros" and please explain the differences between the way gays experience these feelings versus the way straights do.

Please explain to us how your posts have shown evidence of "agape" on your part.

I'm sure you'll explain all these things any moment now. Any time... Yup, in just another minute, you'll enlighten us all.

It's "should have been a cowgirl," genius. The only thing agape in your life is your cavernous anus, and the detritus is soiling your posts.

[Undertoad]

What is considered decent or indecent is largely fashion. Early part of last century, "indecent" would include racial intermarriage, skirts above the knee, the word "swell", women in the workplace, etc.

A great deal has changed and much for the better. So as long as what is specifically considered "indecent" is not encoded into law, I'm in agreement here.

We shall not teach the children "indecent" things.

We shall decide on what is "indecent" by vote of representative school boards, elected in free and open elections.

I'm down with that. Done and done.

Originally Posted by Jordon

It's "should have been a cowgirl," genius. The only thing agape in your life is your cavernous anus, and the detritus is soiling your posts.

I rest my case. You're not worth the time of day and you obviously don't listen to C/W. Everybody loves to correct me on that "of" and its already been discussed here at length on other threads.

You didn't answer a single one of my points because you CAN'T.

Should of known what you're talking about.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Jordon

Simple. Human. Decency.

Sounds like "I think it's yucky" to me.

Please explain why the two princes are indecent, while Rapunzel isn't.

[Jordon]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

What is considered decent or indecent is largely fashion. Early part of last century, "indecent" would include racial intermarriage, skirts above the knee, the word "swell", women in the workplace, etc.

You want to teach seven year olds about "racial" marriage:p? Fine. Skirts above the knee? Swell. Women in the workplace? Well, ok. Homosexuality? I don't think so. Again, it's interesting how you all think you know what's better for a child than their own parents.

What is c/w, cunt wailing? I'll pass.

Originally Posted by Jordan

I'm right because I say so and I use 4 letter words

Any time now. Any minute. Just you wait and see. Jordan will brilliantly explain what he's talking about. Any second...

[Torrere]

You still haven't responded to Happy Monkey's request to

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

explain why the two princes are indecent, while Rapunzel isn't.

[Ibby]

I agree with Happy Monkey and Torrere, please explain how showing and telling about love between two men are indecent and despicable, but showing and telling about love between a man and a woman is fine and dandy.

For that matter, explain how showing love between two men is worse than showing hatred between anybody.