Posted on 08/17/2007 12:15:16 PM PDT by ZGuy
Yes. I was taught about homosexuality in health class, but I lived in a communist school district.
No problem. Just teach about the problems with the alternatives of evolution theory. These things work both ways you know.
My own personal opinion - and since it's my own, it doesn't belong in the school at all (lol) - is that I believe in evolution, but that there was a little help along the line. For instance, some of the things that made man so successful and evolved were opposable thumbs, color vison, etc. Sure, they helped us evolve, but how did we get them to start with? And how have we gotten to where we are after only 10's of thousands of generation, when other species are more-or-less the same after 10's of millions of generations?
These are the things that I ponder when I can't sleep at night.
You don't understand Leftists very well, then -
In their mindset, they HAVE to force it on people, because they, the leftists, KNOW BETTER, and others won't choose their better way voluntarily.
A lot more of this is coming. I will not let the government schools teach my children immorality. Period.
My uncle grew up in the backwoods of Maine. During WWII, he joined the navy and was based at Mare Island (in San Francisco). He said that the more "streetwise" guys in the barracks had to explain to him what a homosexual was.
My point is, that homosexuality wasn't "taught" in schools for generations, and largely, people back then turned out OK, I think. Like I said before, there are plenty of libs that would disagree with me.
A very frightening line in the article:
“In 2002, social workers in Aylmer removed seven children from a Mennonite family because the family used spanking as a form of discipline.”
Coming soon -
Children removed from homeschooling families because they refuse to teach homosexuality and “modern morals” of tolerance, ie, “they’re teaching HATE”.
There is also no basis for evolution to be taught either - in fact origins are outside of the classical scientific method. Only operational science (i.e. observable - repeatable - verifiable) is truly science most everything else that calls itself science is secular religion looking for legitimacy and legal protection - not to mention government grants.
Funny even the governments now associate the two subjects...
Unless it's to educate the young 'uns about the various health problems - physical, mental, and moral - associated with it.
I like to think of it as creation through evolution. What - is God (Most Holy Sun Absolute Uni-Being Common Father) not intelligent enough to conceive the processes and functions whereby that can take place? Everything that lives grows - people don't spring out fully formed - why should we believe the world sprang out fully formed?
I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking this. At least, I hope not...
So, are transexuals used as an example of both subjects?
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
If you think of science as the study of particles and creationism as the study of waveforms, and the study of the two together (science and creationism) as the study of the two together (particles and waveforms), it may be possible.
The one can be thought of as working from the individual (or the particulate) up to the whole whereas the other works (influences) from the whole down to the individual (or the particulate) - both occurring simultaneously while mutually supporting one another, the one necessary for the other.
It can be thought of as the study of the world and reality from both directions - the small to the large and the large to the small, if you will.
Also, the one can be thought of as the study of fact while the other as the study of value.
See, that is the problem. Current politically correct thought on evolution does not allow for the presentation of any other theories.
Well evolution itself is pretty much at the level of gravity-it’s scientific understanding of its existance is universally accepted (Michael Behe is one of the only scientists who disagreed, but in his new book, he pretty much gave up.) The fact that we still have new parts of evolutionary process being discovered (just a couple days ago there was something new) does not discredit the basic ideas of evolution taught to children in science that have yet to be disproven for almost 100 years.
The origin of WHY evolution occurs and HOW WE came into existance can be debated in phylosophy class or religion class.
There is basis for teaching the process of evolution, there is no basis for teaching why evolution occurs in a science class. We still don’t know why gravity occurs (or have yet to find the “graviton”-the gravity particle). Gravity is taught in science class because we accept that it exists.
The communist liberals have tried to use evolution among other things as a way to take away religion out of public life, and that is certainly unacceptable.
“What - is God (Most Holy Sun Absolute Uni-Being Common Father) not intelligent enough to conceive the processes and functions whereby that can take place? Everything that lives grows - people don’t spring out fully formed - why should we believe the world sprang out fully formed?”
Because the Bible says He created it in six days. Read Genesis 1. Not compatible with evolutionary theory.
Oh Canada, a kinder, gentler, Communist Country...
BTW, I’m from Canada... but the Maple flavor Kool-Aid give me heart burn and flatulence...
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.