Judge outlaws prison group's Bible program

I accept your apology. It's quite understandable you would mistake my points as my belief gays shouldn't get married. Now you know I never said any such thing.

I think this is actually not factual - i think actualy anal sex is more risky than oral or vaginal sex.

Whether its Homosexual or Heterosexual in nature.

It might be possible that gay men have anal sex more often than Hetero sexual men and heterosexual and gay women. but thats would be secondary to whether the actual sex acts are more dangerous.

So ya mean --like with abortion? Parents get to decide?

Are you talking about religious bigots? You know, the ones who are bigoted towards religion, especially any Christian religion?

As long as they don't purposely kill their child in the process.

Great. So the parents get to decide if it's a child yet. Glad you cleared that up.

Not exactly, imagine Ms. Smith, who killed her children, in court insisting they weren't really children.

You can have strong feelings against something and still not be a bigot. I would fight for a christian's rights just as hard as I would fight for my own. You don't have to agree with someone's religion to understand that person't right to believe it.

Take me for example. I don't have anything against christians. It's christianity I take issue with. Would I try to poink it off the face of the world? Of course not. But I would do anything it takes to prevent christianity from eroding my rights, or the rights of others.

Now reverse that to read... "I don't have anything against homosexuals. It's homosexuality I take issue with. Would I try to poink it off the face of the world? Of course not. But I would do anything it takes to prevent homosexuals from eroding my rights, or the rights of others."

See how that works. Does it sound bigoted in that case?

If you applied it in that case, no. It wouldn't. So you don't take issue with gay marriage since it doesn't effect you, correct? And you don't take issue with gay people in the military, or being parents, or teaching your children in school, right?

I have never said I have an issue with gays.

But gay issues most certainly do affect others who aren't gay. Military men deserve a say, if they must live and shower with gays. Parents have the right to decide if they want gay men teaching sex ed. to their preteen, who is confused about sexuality as it is, without having to deal with an openly gay sex ed. teacher.

That's not to say I'm against gays in the military or gay teachers. Just to be clear.

Well, homosexuality being an aspect of nature makes it a tad different from a religiuos belief system, but on the whole, the statement isn't bigoted. Homosexuals aren't eroding anyone's rights or the rights of others, so technically it would seem you were fighting an enemy that wasn't there.

Read my post before this one.

Your statements indicate that being gay is somehow any less natural than being straight. It's not, therefore military showers would be best served as unisex, and parents should teach their kids about sexuality in a way that they realize gender has little to do with sexuality.

"Gays" is bigoted in and of itself. "homosexuals", or "being gay" is fine, but in the plural noun form it's akin to "Fa**ots" and "Ni**ers".

Well, then you get into the whole "gay is a choice" and "gay is a learned behavior" (by making it sound like a homosexual teacher could "influence" a child to "choose to be gay".

Plus .. it isn't like a "gay sex ed teacher" would stand up in front of class and inform students that you should never put penises in vaginas ... and line the same-sex students up and make them fondle each other.


Of course ... not like we ever hear any news stories about HETEROSEXUAL teachers don't anything wrong with children. (Sarcasm intended ... just look at all the "teacher molests student" or "teacher confesses undying heterosexual love for student" type stuff.)


... and personally ... if your child is "confused" sexually .. what gives a PARENT the right to dictate what sexual preference the child wishes to live their life as?

Sooner or later ... your child should be able to make life-decisions on their own.

Is homosexuality such a crime?

If the children weren't parented by homophobes, the gay sex-ed teacher thing would not be an issue. Military men are property of the United States Government, and do not have a say in anything. I bet those same guys wouldn't mind showering naked with a woman, so what's the issue if the person is gay? Are they afraid of being raped?

You say you have no issue with gay people, and yet you make anti-gay statements.

Ms. Smith didn't have an abortion.

No they don't. They are Government Issue.




Why would an openly gay sex ed teacher teach sex ed any differently?



yeah right.

No they don't. They are Government Issue.




Why would an openly gay sex ed teacher teach sex ed any differently?



yeah right.

Why should anyone read your posts any more, Kevn? You make outrageous, non-factual assertions, try to back them up with quote-mined cites, and then when someone like me calls you on it, you simply disengage and move on to the next outrageous claim.

Your posts read like a circus act except you're not very entertaining, you know that? Lest you think I didn't notice how quickly you disengaged when I brought up Yocker, I just wanted you to understand that I did. And I'm calling you out on it. When I accused you of not knowing what you were talking about, it wasn't a personal attack - it was an observation based on the nonsense you're posting here. I then offered abundant evidence that contradicted you assertions. Your response? "Thanks for playing".

<crickets chirping>

Time for new dancing shoes.

But she did kill her children.

Better is subjective. There are others.

Then they should have no say in religious matters either? I mean, if the Army decides it best for the majority of men to have a Chaplin, why should the personal concerns of non-religious soldiers matter? They are "Government Issue" and have no say.

On the other hand, homosexuals have a far smaller chance of getting pregnant unexpectedly, forcing them to drop out of college, get a crappy job, and basicly ruin their life to take care of a kid they didn't want, or (by some ways of thinking) murder an innocent child, or put yet another kid into the world who will never know its biological parents.

Now you're striking on why I think the concept of enlisted soldiers being labelled as "government property" is a bad idea. It's like voluntary slavery, where the slavery is disguised as "serving your country" with some sort of honor.

Warriors are, indeed, honorable. So making them into something less than a citizen is a bad way to go.


You're doing that thing you do, Kevn. That thing where you skim an entire post so you can take a single excerpt from it that stands out to you because it's the only part you can argue.

It's the same thing that most of Christianity does with the Bible and teachings of Christ, so I guess we can't blame you too much for that way of thinking. Of course, that also means that by the rules of your own religion, you're probably going to burn in hell. Sucks to be you.