If you ask me, the teachers sexual orientation in this matter is not an issue. What difference does it make if he's posing on a homosexual website instead of a heterosexual one? Absolutely none.
SinSpawnHarbinger of SufferingJoin Date: 2002-11-12Member: 8359Members
Well reading from the first post.
Its up to him what he does with his life. But the thing is how did you guys find out that site? wouldn't it be blocked, in my school yea XXX sites are blocked and games, etc...
If it isn't blocked I blame your school. If it is...well he can do what he likes.
But if it was a sexy female teacher, thats a different story <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-BigBull+Sep 2 2004, 05:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BigBull @ Sep 2 2004, 05:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> i agree with your last statement flay. But I do this your sexuality is a preference. Theres no way you are born homesexual and not homsexual. The way you grew up shortly after birth decides IMO.
You are born girl boy, black white, not **** or straight. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is the million dollar question. It seems obvious to me that it's nature, not nurture, as homosexuality occurs in animals of all kinds, and I find it hard to believe that THEIR 'upbringing' can affect that. Also, the 'homosexuality gene' has now been found in fruit flies.
SinSpawnHarbinger of SufferingJoin Date: 2002-11-12Member: 8359Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Flayra+Sep 3 2004, 01:28 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Flayra @ Sep 3 2004, 01:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-BigBull+Sep 2 2004, 05:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BigBull @ Sep 2 2004, 05:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> i agree with your last statement flay. But I do this your sexuality is a preference. Theres no way you are born homesexual and not homsexual. The way you grew up shortly after birth decides IMO.
You are born girl boy, black white, not **** or straight. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is the million dollar question. It seems obvious to me that it's nature, not nurture, as homosexuality occurs in animals of all kinds, and I find it hard to believe that THEIR 'upbringing' can affect that. Also, the 'homosexuality gene' has now been found in fruit flies.
I admit it will be awhile before we know for sure though. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Omg I thought you almost said **** fruits (the edible kind).
I remember watching a comedy show about animals then he discussed a book about homsexual animals....heres a alittle off topic ickyness, dolphins + blow holes...
"D.F. Swaab conducted the next noteworthy experiment in 1990. This experiment became the first to document a physiological difference in the anatomical structure of a **** man's brain. Swaab found in his post-mortem examination of homosexual males' brains that a portion of the hypothalamus of the brain was structurally different than a heterosexual brain. The hypothalamus is the portion of the human brain directly related to sexual drive and function. In the homosexual brains examined, a small portion of the hypothalamus, termed the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), was found to be twice the size of its heterosexual counterpart [2]."
"At the same time, another scientist, Laura S. Allen made a similar discovery in the hypothalamus as well. She found that the anterior commissure (AC) of the hypothalamus was also significantly larger in the homosexual subjects than that of the heterosexuals [2]. Both Swaab's and Allen's results became a standing ground for the biological argument on homosexuality. The very fact that the AC and the SCN are not involved in the regulation of sexual behavior makes it highly unlikely that the size differences results from differences in sexual behavior. Rather the size differences came prenatally during sexual differentiation. The size and shape of the human brain is determined biologically and is impacted minutely, if at all by behavior of any kind."
"Ernest Kallman conducted the earliest twin study. He found a 100% concordance between monozygotic (or identical) twins (MZ), and only a 12% concordance for dizygotic (or fraternal) twins (DZ). Although discredited with methodological problems, the early experiment paved the way for a much-publicized team to conduct their twin studies."
"D.F. Swaab conducted the next noteworthy experiment in 1990. This experiment became the first to document a physiological difference in the anatomical structure of a **** man's brain. Swaab found in his post-mortem examination of homosexual males' brains that a portion of the hypothalamus of the brain was structurally different than a heterosexual brain. The hypothalamus is the portion of the human brain directly related to sexual drive and function. In the homosexual brains examined, a small portion of the hypothalamus, termed the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), was found to be twice the size of its heterosexual counterpart [2]."
"At the same time, another scientist, Laura S. Allen made a similar discovery in the hypothalamus as well. She found that the anterior commissure (AC) of the hypothalamus was also significantly larger in the homosexual subjects than that of the heterosexuals [2]. Both Swaab's and Allen's results became a standing ground for the biological argument on homosexuality. The very fact that the AC and the SCN are not involved in the regulation of sexual behavior makes it highly unlikely that the size differences results from differences in sexual behavior. Rather the size differences came prenatally during sexual differentiation. The size and shape of the human brain is determined biologically and is impacted minutely, if at all by behavior of any kind."
"Ernest Kallman conducted the earliest twin study. He found a 100% concordance between monozygotic (or identical) twins (MZ), and only a 12% concordance for dizygotic (or fraternal) twins (DZ). Although discredited with methodological problems, the early experiment paved the way for a much-publicized team to conduct their twin studies." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm no neurologist, but wouldn't the increased size of the SCN and AC simply result in a larger ammount of chemicals that regulate sexuality and sexual drive admitted into the blood stream? If that's the case, would it not simply still be possible to regulate that drive by force of will?
I am currently writing a essay on this topic for psychology 1201. The studies finding a smaller hypothalamus in homosexuals are indeed correct. However the researchers were quick to point out that this in no way inferred causality. All the brains examined were those of homosexuals either dead or dying from the AIDs virus - they saw no reason why this could merely be another symptom of AIDs sufferers.
As with most things in the nature vs nurture debate, the answer lies somewhere in the middle. As I do in every debate that turns to homosexuality, I will bring up the case of the Anglican priest who wrote a book detailing his life. Throughout his life, before and after becoming a priest, he struggled with unwanted homosexual urges. This led him to conclude that homosexuality was influenced by nature, but it was still a choice to indugle those urges.
Heterosexual, homosexual - exposing yourself online is not on. Teachers do more than explain that 2 + 2 = 4, they are role models. If my beliefs condemn what they are doing, then how can I in good conscience allow my child to be around them and influenced by them?
<!--QuoteBegin-Flayra+Sep 2 2004, 07:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Flayra @ Sep 2 2004, 07:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-BigBull+Sep 2 2004, 05:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BigBull @ Sep 2 2004, 05:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> i agree with your last statement flay. But I do this your sexuality is a preference. Theres no way you are born homesexual and not homsexual. The way you grew up shortly after birth decides IMO.
You are born girl boy, black white, not **** or straight. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is the million dollar question. It seems obvious to me that it's nature, not nurture, as homosexuality occurs in animals of all kinds, and I find it hard to believe that THEIR 'upbringing' can affect that. Also, the 'homosexuality gene' has now been found in fruit flies.
I admit it will be awhile before we know for sure though. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course, while it does occur in animals almost genetically, there are a lot of ways animals are different from us. One of them being we can force ourselves to do things that aren't exactly natural. So the question remains if a homosexual is forcing himself to be, or really is?
However, I tend to agree with you Flay, I do believe that homosexuality is most likely a genetic trait.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Sep 2 2004, 08:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Sep 2 2004, 08:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm no neurologist, but wouldn't the increased size of the SCN and AC simply result in a larger ammount of chemicals that regulate sexuality and sexual drive admitted into the blood stream? If that's the case, would it not simply still be possible to regulate that drive by force of will? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Even if it were a proven fact... why would someone have to "force" themselves to be a certian sexual preference while living in the land of the free? Its like saying we should help all the black folks surpress their blackness by throwing white out on them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Its just that I feel like Ive lost the respect for him, hes supposed to be role model for me, and then I dont want to see pictures of him masturbating.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You to rethink how the events occured. feel free to think less of the man... but don't think that he should be somehow punished for a student actively going out and looking for this info and spreading it around the school. You want to blame someone? blame the kid spreading the crap, its HIS fault YOU saw it, not the teacher's.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A lot of my primary school teachers were (and Im sure they never realised it) very influential in my subscribing to the left wing, anti-american side of political belief earlier in life. Just comments they made offhand to other teachers shaped my beliefs and opininons. Kids are impressionable, I wouldnt want my kids to be influenced by a man under what I consider a fatal and critical flaw of character. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have issues with this man teaching the future leaders of the world? what? you afraid of the kids learning respect for those with different beliefs? you afraid of children growing up tolerant of other races, religions, and those of a different sexual preference? I don't mean to sound hostile... but i feel it is important for children to grow up with these qualities.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Even if it were a proven fact... why would someone have to "force" themselves to be a certian sexual preference while living in the land of the free? Its like saying we should help all the black folks surpress their blackness by throwing white out on them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Paedophiles claim we are unfairly forcing them to change their sexual preferences. The old "Why would I want to be like this, clearly I'd have to be born like this or else I'd be straight so its like picking on black people because they were born black" can apply to hundreds of situations. Some people are born with the urge to kill, and we cut them no slack. The above post does in no way insinuate that paedophiles and homosexuals are the same, nor does it claim similarities between them and murders.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You have issues with this man teaching the future leaders of the world? what? you afraid of the kids learning respect for those with different beliefs? you afraid of children growing up tolerant of other races, religions, and those of a different sexual preference? I don't mean to sound hostile... but i feel it is important for children to grow up with these qualities.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I'm sorry, but unfortunately respect for other peoples beliefs only extends to a point. If you consider someone elses belief evil (not just mistaken, but fundamentally bad) - then you get very intolerant very quickly. How respectful are you of vicious Islamic Fundamentalism? Of South African racism of apartheid days? You're not.
What you do is identical to what I do. I will accept/respect anything I see as non harmful, even if I think its incorrect - the same with you. I just see different things as harmful.
Men having sex with men and women having sex with women is dangerous and destructive to humanity? How? How does it change anyone that radically? It's as bad as saying Black people are destroying humanity for being Black. Ahem...sorry, for you political correct whiners, African-American.
EDIT: Ah, I see now. Having a picture of you nude on the internet is destructive and harmful to humanity and the children.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Sep 3 2004, 12:55 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 3 2004, 12:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Even if it were a proven fact... why would someone have to "force" themselves to be a certian sexual preference while living in the land of the free? Its like saying we should help all the black folks surpress their blackness by throwing white out on them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Paedophiles claim we are unfairly forcing them to change their sexual preferences. The old "Why would I want to be like this, clearly I'd have to be born like this or else I'd be straight so its like picking on black people because they were born black" can apply to hundreds of situations. Some people are born with the urge to kill, and we cut them no slack. The above post does in no way insinuate that paedophiles and homosexuals are the same, nor does it claim similarities between them and murders. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The question is who is hurt ? Clearly homosexuals aren't more violent or prey on the underaged anymore than heterosexuals. Quite unlike pedophiles or murderers. Not really a fitting analogy honestly.
The question of who is hurt is YOUR arbitarily decided criteria for what is right and wrong. Who said that someone else getting hurt was the ultimate base for morality? You did. For people who are so quick to accuse me of forcing my morality on someone, you are remarkably quick to take yours and jam me into it.
But there's a difference, right? What you believe is right, and what I believe is wrong? Whoa, middle ages catholic church flashbacks......
I do not trust people with deviant sexual desires, it taints every part of your existance. And that is not coming from a man with normal sexual desires. If I were a parent, and God willing I never will be, I would not trust my kind with the mind of a child. Teachers are role models, not sterile agents of passing along information.
This is one of those unwinnable battles people - my religion is not hazy on this area. It clearly and directly states that this sort of thing is not only wrong, but infectious and dangerous. All my personal experience and observation of other people have only confirmed this in my own mind.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You have issues with this man teaching the future leaders of the world? what? you afraid of the kids learning respect for those with different beliefs? you afraid of children growing up tolerant of other races, religions, and those of a different sexual preference? I don't mean to sound hostile... but i feel it is important for children to grow up with these qualities. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well I'm sorry, but unfortunately respect for other peoples beliefs only extends to a point. If you consider someone elses belief evil (not just mistaken, but fundamentally bad) - then you get very intolerant very quickly. How respectful are you of vicious Islamic Fundamentalism? Of South African racism of apartheid days? You're not.
What you do is identical to what I do. I will accept/respect anything I see as non harmful, even if I think its incorrect - the same with you. I just see different things as harmful.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Lets not forget the fact that this teacher wasn't "teaching" anything outside of what he was supposed to teach. It isn't that he was teaching the future leaders of the world how to be homosexual.
<!--QuoteBegin-Flayra+Sep 2 2004, 06:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Flayra @ Sep 2 2004, 06:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Wow, this thread is surprisingly civil and illuminating for its subject matter. Nice work.
I only have to wonder if we'd be having this discussion if the man posted to a heterosexual web site. All I can say is, being closeted is one of the worst things to force on anyone, though the suffering must be hard for a straight person to imagine or empathize with. So to anyone wishing to impose 'morality', please think of your goal as minimizing human suffering, not adherence to some strict principles that are completely out of your control and hurting no one.
Asking him to completely repress his life because it doesn't fit the status quo is infinitely worse then posting pictures that hurt no one (though really, pron is generally so banal and unimportant to even warrant a discussion of this length, let's talk about something interesting like politics instead). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> A good point to bring up, but I think we'd still be here talking about it regardless of his sexual persuasion.
A real problem isn't that he did it. The problem is people are only willing to correct it after a very long time, usually after the damage is done. Such as said math teacher I brought up. There's at least 3 children fathered by him by girls in MY class of 2003. Tenure however, allows this continue, and I remember him doing this for at least the past 5 years. Theres no hard evidence, but still, a simple DNA test...
On to the guy with nude pictures... If he can teach you properly without melding your personal life with your professional life, thats just the way he swings, and you can't, and should not do anything about it. It reminds me of president clinton. Our economy was booming yet he was impeached because of swayed public opinion. They blew (pun is very intended) his Monica situation way out of proportion. Sure adultery is very wrong but what does that have any effect on the way he runs our nation? I just think personal and professional should remain very seperate.
<!--QuoteBegin-Testament+Sep 3 2004, 01:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Testament @ Sep 3 2004, 01:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Men having sex with men and women having sex with women is dangerous and destructive to humanity? How? How does it change anyone that radically? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin- Legionnaired @ A score of threads ago+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ( Legionnaired @ A score of threads ago)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
In the emotional/personal happiness sense, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. It does not infringe on the happiness or well-being of others, and the health risks are purely as a result of the free choice of those who participate in it.
However, it is homosexual adoption that I have a serious problem with.
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.hoselton.net/religion/hwa/booklets/ptchild/part2.htm+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.hoselton.net/religion/hwa/booklets/ptchild/part2.htm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"These qualities, of course, are transmitted to the child only if they are exemplified and taught within the family circle. By way of contrast, homes broken by death, desertion, divorce, separation, neglect, or immorality stamp their imprint on the developing personality. The products of these homes, unguided and unsupervised children who seldom receive needed love and attention, develop distorted attitudes and may easily engage in antisocial behavior. These products of ADULT NEGLIGENCE have become easy recruits in an already vast army of youthful offenders."
What a remarkably accurate analysis. And what a clear picture of the cause of disobedient and delinquent children.
Bear in mind the delinquent is the youth who has actually run afoul of the law. Bear in mind, also, that the lack of government, the lack of love and respect, the misery in a home becomes evident to the public only when it is officially broken by divorce, then "counted" among broken homes.
Again, let us restate the vitally important fact that these general conditions, the underlying disrespect for authority, the lack of government, constitutes a broad picture of the majority of all homes today"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And,
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>Criteria for good parenting</b>
Couples who seek to adopt a child are put through a battery of physical and mental health and other checks to ensure as far as possible that they will both be around to offer good care and support to the child until he or she reaches maturity.
It is noteworthy that Australian couples are barred from adopting children if their relationship is likely to be unstable, or if health problems or their age would make them less likely to be present for the next 20 years while the child is growing up.
In Queensland, for example, the eligibility criteria for adoption applicants are specified in the Adoption of Children Regulation Act 1999. The criteria state that prospective adoptive parents must, among other things,
have been married for at least two years; not be suffering from a physical or mental condition, or have a physical or mental disability, to an extent that the person could not provide a high level of stable, long-term care for a child; be less than 36 years old (or less than 40 if they already have another child). How does the homosexual community rate on these adoption eligibility criteria?
<b>Stability</b>
Adoption agencies generally require applicants to be married for at least two years in an endeavour to place adopted children in a stable home environment. Studies of the impact of family breakdown on children show the effects are usually deleterious and prolonged.
Australian and overseas research shows that homosexual men are highly promiscuous and their relationships with other men are extremely unstable. For example, the Sydney **** Community Surveillance Report noted in 1998 that around 30% of the men had more than 10 casual partners in the previous six months and fewer than half had a regular relationship lasting over six months.
The 2000 report of HIV/AIDS-related behaviour in Australia noted that, at the time of the survey of the homosexual men, over 60% reported having one or more "regular partners", over 70% had casual partners; over 40% had both regular and casual partners. An earlier study of Australian homosexual men found that 23% reported a monogamous relationship, 35% a non-monogamous relationship, and 29% "casual sex only". The authors reported "there were almost as many men moving into monogamy as out of it, and out of casual-only partnerships as into them."
Long-term monogamous sexual partnerships are very rare for homosexual men. Some, like famous Australian author Patrick White, may live for many years with another homosexual man - but this type of long-term domestic arrangement often ceases to be sexual after some years, and usually involves an agreement to allow many casual sexual partners for both men. A 1994 study of homosexual men in Holland, where homosexual domestic partnerships are officially recognised, found that only 69% of such "long-term partners" actually lived together. The average number of "outside partners" per year of this type of arrangement was 2.5 in the first year, increasing to 11 in the sixth year.
US authors Bell and Weinberg, in their detailed study of homosexuality, classify the closest homosexual pairing as "close-coupled" where the numbers of casual sexual encounters outside the primary relationship are "low". Only 10% of the male and 28% of the female homosexual pairs fitted this "close-coupled" category. There was no "monogamous" category! For male and female homosexuals, whether in a "regular" relationship or not, promiscuity is the norm.
Lesbian relationships are also short-lived. Research by Johnson published in 1990 found that 50% of lesbian pairs break up within six years. In contrast, even though the divorce rate for married couples is increasing, it is approaching 50% over a lifetime (40 to 50 years), not six years. Cohabiting heterosexual couples break up faster than married ones, but not as fast as lesbians and male homosexuals. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Statistically, a homosexual union will not be as "close-coupled" and thus, more prone to becoming a, to use a somewhat cliche'd phrase, "broken home."
72% of all juvinile deliquents come from a broken home, and the money spent on feeding and sheltering them is staggering.
So, not only are we, by allowing homosexual union, taking steps to legalize homosexual adoption, which, logically, will increase the ammount of kids with mental and emotional disorders. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So meh. That's my case.
EDIT:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If he can teach you properly without melding your personal life with your professional life, thats just the way he swings, and you can't, and should not do anything about it. It reminds me of president clinton. Our economy was booming yet he was impeached because of swayed public opinion. They blew (pun is very intended) his Monica situation way out of proportion. Sure adultery is very wrong but what does that have any effect on the way he runs our nation? I just think personal and professional should remain very seperate. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So that teacher that fathered 3 children with students in his class did nothing wrong? If he didn't mark up their grades, would that mean that his actions were perfectly justified?
CWAG, you forgot two inportant things about Clinton's impeachment:
1.) He was impeached because he lied about it under oath. Had he said "I got a BJ" or "I had sex" there would have been no issue. Because he lied under oath, he opened a whole new can of worms.
2.) At the same time, Clinton was actually under investigation for sending China stripped down stealth bomber parts and some nuclear secrets. It was mentioned like once or twice on the news, and then never mentioned again; you know, Clinton lying > Clinton selling military secrets.
Anyways, Marine and Legion, if you honestly have a problem with this, then you'll need to:
A) Homeschool your children.
B) Get them into a private school.
On the subject of the guy impregnating 3 students, that is personal behavior tied directly to the school, and therefore the teacher should be fired, and if he can't be, should be disciplined as harshly as possible. In this case, right/wrong is not an issue, but breaking the student/teacher relationship in a sexual fashion is disruptive to the learning environment.
Here is another take on it that may help some of you understand "why" God abhors homosexuality.
God is trying to paint a picture all through the Bible. It is a picture of salvation, it is a picture of relationships, it is a picture of Him.
Part of that picture involves us humans. It involves laws to keep that picture looking as he wants it. Marriage is a part of that picture. It symbolizes the relationship between God and the Church. Just as a husband is supposed to love his wife, and care for her, provide for her - in the same way God provides for his people (Jews first in the OT, Christians in the NT). Preservation of this picture is why God gave all the laws to the Jews. Spoiling the picture had dire consequences.
(there could be a good discussion here about how christians dont follow all the laws - were hypocritical etc. but suffice it to say that the core picture hasn't changed)
Homosexuality is a perversion of that picture. As Christians attempting to preserve God's picture it is our duty to stand against such perversion.
<i>Yes, so everyone for a moment, please pretend you are christians so we can all agree with Pepe, that homosexuals are not in God's picture.</i>
Might I remind you that not everyone here is Christian, and that this is a discussion of how a teacher may or may not be dangerous to students if the students find out he is homosexual. It might offend christians, but it hardly proves that this is dangerous to students. Nothing personal Pepe, but your post doesn't contribute a valid argument to this particular discussion board.
So does that mean people who never get married are disgusting heathens who are blasphemous to the Church and will BURN BURN BURN BURNNNNNN IN THE ETERNAL RIGHTEOUS FLAMES OF HEEEEEEEEE-HELLL? Or is it just homosexual people who get that treatment?
And why are you believing the word of God when it was written by humans? :o
And if you Christians are supposed to stand against homosexuals...GRAB A PITCHFORK, GRAB A TORCH, GRAB YER SHOTGUN CLETUS, WE'RE GOIN' **** HUNTING!
<!--QuoteBegin-Testament+Sep 3 2004, 01:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Testament @ Sep 3 2004, 01:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And why are you believing the word of God when it was written by humans? :o <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm debating on whether or not I should update my sig with this.
I suppose I should elaborate. I'm not saying this word of God is true or not, I'm simply saying that HUMANS wrote this supposed word of God, and, being god, could they have misunderstood his cosmic and unending genius or twisted it to what they wanted all these followers of God to believe?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but breaking the student/teacher relationship in a sexual fashion is disruptive to the learning environment.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny, the impression I got from earlyer in this thread is that a teacher is a cold presenter of facts and information. The mere fact that you admit a student has a valuble relationship with his/her teacher seems to contradict this claim, and instead, puts the teacher on the level of a, god forbid, <b><i>role model.</b></i>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So does that mean people who never get married are disgusting heathens who are blasphemous to the Church and will BURN BURN BURN BURNNNNNN IN THE ETERNAL RIGHTEOUS FLAMES OF HEEEEEEEEE-HELLL? Or is it just homosexual people who get that treatment?
And why are you believing the word of God when it was written by humans? :o<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tell you what, take a few minutes, poke around on the in-tar-web, and catch up on the last 500 years of philisophical and theological debate. Then, read what you just said, realize that you're being condecending, posting things which could barely be called 'points,' then acting like you're all smug because you're the first one in two thousand years to try and think of an attack on Christianity.
It's when sin becomes not only accepted, but defended by the world that we fight against those beliefs. I have, in the passed, even done so on a secular basis, presenting my point of view in a rational light, while all you've done is ridicule and mock it. Either think up some intelligent points that aren't as outdated as the idea that the world is flat, or click the little 'x' in the top off your browser and save us all some trouble.
I'm not attacking Christianity. I'm not acting smug, and I'm not trying to make some huge, belief changing arguments. I'm asking questions with alot of my ****-ism injected in.
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
managed to miss this topic..
but the bottom line is, a man (or woman)'s night life is their business and their business alone. as long as it doesn't harm anybody (who doesn't go out asking for it, browsing pix of them nude) it's their business and they shouldn't receive any flak.
Here I go, trying to show you Christian perspective, and I get 3 posts in a row that totally avoid the issue, but instead branch off into either CAPS LOCK hysterics, or attempt to "shake my foundation" with the quote:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And why are you believing the word of God when it was written by humans? :o<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So here it goes - my abreviated rebuttle. If God is all powerful, if He is omnipotent (as he claims in the Bible) it is very easy for him to do this: Preserve his own word <i>even though</i> it was written with human hands.
So yes, there is faith involved - faith that God exists, that he cares to know us, that he wrote to us. However, if God can create a universe, he can sure get his message across if He wants to.
I love when people pretend to be superior than others by writing huge long posts, then flaming someone because they think there's a magical man floating in the sky, and that person dosen't agree.
Simply. Amazing.
Man its a shame we don't strictly follow the bible, there wouldn't be hardly any humans left alive at all. How many times in there does it say death by burning anyway.
Comments
Its up to him what he does with his life. But the thing is how did you guys find out that site? wouldn't it be blocked, in my school yea XXX sites are blocked and games, etc...
If it isn't blocked I blame your school. If it is...well he can do what he likes.
But if it was a sexy female teacher, thats a different story <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
You are born girl boy, black white, not **** or straight. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the million dollar question. It seems obvious to me that it's nature, not nurture, as homosexuality occurs in animals of all kinds, and I find it hard to believe that THEIR 'upbringing' can affect that. Also, the 'homosexuality gene' has now been found in fruit flies.
<a href='http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/' target='_blank'>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...sault/genetics/</a>
<a href='http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html' target='_blank'>http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html</a>
I admit it will be awhile before we know for sure though.
You are born girl boy, black white, not **** or straight. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the million dollar question. It seems obvious to me that it's nature, not nurture, as homosexuality occurs in animals of all kinds, and I find it hard to believe that THEIR 'upbringing' can affect that. Also, the 'homosexuality gene' has now been found in fruit flies.
<a href='http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/' target='_blank'>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...sault/genetics/</a>
<a href='http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html' target='_blank'>http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html</a>
I admit it will be awhile before we know for sure though. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Omg I thought you almost said **** fruits (the edible kind).
I remember watching a comedy show about animals then he discussed a book about homsexual animals....heres a alittle off topic ickyness, dolphins + blow holes...
"D.F. Swaab conducted the next noteworthy experiment in 1990. This experiment became the first to document a physiological difference in the anatomical structure of a **** man's brain. Swaab found in his post-mortem examination of homosexual males' brains that a portion of the hypothalamus of the brain was structurally different than a heterosexual brain. The hypothalamus is the portion of the human brain directly related to sexual drive and function. In the homosexual brains examined, a small portion of the hypothalamus, termed the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), was found to be twice the size of its heterosexual counterpart [2]."
"At the same time, another scientist, Laura S. Allen made a similar discovery in the hypothalamus as well. She found that the anterior commissure (AC) of the hypothalamus was also significantly larger in the homosexual subjects than that of the heterosexuals [2]. Both Swaab's and Allen's results became a standing ground for the biological argument on homosexuality. The very fact that the AC and the SCN are not involved in the regulation of sexual behavior makes it highly unlikely that the size differences results from differences in sexual behavior. Rather the size differences came prenatally during sexual differentiation. The size and shape of the human brain is determined biologically and is impacted minutely, if at all by behavior of any kind."
"Ernest Kallman conducted the earliest twin study. He found a 100% concordance between monozygotic (or identical) twins (MZ), and only a 12% concordance for dizygotic (or fraternal) twins (DZ). Although discredited with methodological problems, the early experiment paved the way for a much-publicized team to conduct their twin studies."
Maybe you are right, but beliefs are beliefs.
The topic of the teacher doing so, is your tolerance of any sexuality, and publicating of it.
"D.F. Swaab conducted the next noteworthy experiment in 1990. This experiment became the first to document a physiological difference in the anatomical structure of a **** man's brain. Swaab found in his post-mortem examination of homosexual males' brains that a portion of the hypothalamus of the brain was structurally different than a heterosexual brain. The hypothalamus is the portion of the human brain directly related to sexual drive and function. In the homosexual brains examined, a small portion of the hypothalamus, termed the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), was found to be twice the size of its heterosexual counterpart [2]."
"At the same time, another scientist, Laura S. Allen made a similar discovery in the hypothalamus as well. She found that the anterior commissure (AC) of the hypothalamus was also significantly larger in the homosexual subjects than that of the heterosexuals [2]. Both Swaab's and Allen's results became a standing ground for the biological argument on homosexuality. The very fact that the AC and the SCN are not involved in the regulation of sexual behavior makes it highly unlikely that the size differences results from differences in sexual behavior. Rather the size differences came prenatally during sexual differentiation. The size and shape of the human brain is determined biologically and is impacted minutely, if at all by behavior of any kind."
"Ernest Kallman conducted the earliest twin study. He found a 100% concordance between monozygotic (or identical) twins (MZ), and only a 12% concordance for dizygotic (or fraternal) twins (DZ). Although discredited with methodological problems, the early experiment paved the way for a much-publicized team to conduct their twin studies." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm no neurologist, but wouldn't the increased size of the SCN and AC simply result in a larger ammount of chemicals that regulate sexuality and sexual drive admitted into the blood stream? If that's the case, would it not simply still be possible to regulate that drive by force of will?
EDIT: /me summons Aegeri
As with most things in the nature vs nurture debate, the answer lies somewhere in the middle. As I do in every debate that turns to homosexuality, I will bring up the case of the Anglican priest who wrote a book detailing his life. Throughout his life, before and after becoming a priest, he struggled with unwanted homosexual urges. This led him to conclude that homosexuality was influenced by nature, but it was still a choice to indugle those urges.
Heterosexual, homosexual - exposing yourself online is not on. Teachers do more than explain that 2 + 2 = 4, they are role models. If my beliefs condemn what they are doing, then how can I in good conscience allow my child to be around them and influenced by them?
You are born girl boy, black white, not **** or straight. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the million dollar question. It seems obvious to me that it's nature, not nurture, as homosexuality occurs in animals of all kinds, and I find it hard to believe that THEIR 'upbringing' can affect that. Also, the 'homosexuality gene' has now been found in fruit flies.
<a href='http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/' target='_blank'>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...sault/genetics/</a>
<a href='http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html' target='_blank'>http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html</a>
I admit it will be awhile before we know for sure though. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course, while it does occur in animals almost genetically, there are a lot of ways animals are different from us. One of them being we can force ourselves to do things that aren't exactly natural. So the question remains if a homosexual is forcing himself to be, or really is?
However, I tend to agree with you Flay, I do believe that homosexuality is most likely a genetic trait.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even if it were a proven fact... why would someone have to "force" themselves to be a certian sexual preference while living in the land of the free? Its like saying we should help all the black folks surpress their blackness by throwing white out on them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Its just that I feel like Ive lost the respect for him, hes supposed to be role model for me, and then I dont want to see pictures of him masturbating.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You to rethink how the events occured. feel free to think less of the man... but don't think that he should be somehow punished for a student actively going out and looking for this info and spreading it around the school. You want to blame someone? blame the kid spreading the crap, its HIS fault YOU saw it, not the teacher's.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A lot of my primary school teachers were (and Im sure they never realised it) very influential in my subscribing to the left wing, anti-american side of political belief earlier in life. Just comments they made offhand to other teachers shaped my beliefs and opininons. Kids are impressionable, I wouldnt want my kids to be influenced by a man under what I consider a fatal and critical flaw of character. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have issues with this man teaching the future leaders of the world? what? you afraid of the kids learning respect for those with different beliefs? you afraid of children growing up tolerant of other races, religions, and those of a different sexual preference? I don't mean to sound hostile... but i feel it is important for children to grow up with these qualities.
Paedophiles claim we are unfairly forcing them to change their sexual preferences. The old "Why would I want to be like this, clearly I'd have to be born like this or else I'd be straight so its like picking on black people because they were born black" can apply to hundreds of situations. Some people are born with the urge to kill, and we cut them no slack. The above post does in no way insinuate that paedophiles and homosexuals are the same, nor does it claim similarities between them and murders.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You have issues with this man teaching the future leaders of the world? what? you afraid of the kids learning respect for those with different beliefs? you afraid of children growing up tolerant of other races, religions, and those of a different sexual preference? I don't mean to sound hostile... but i feel it is important for children to grow up with these qualities.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I'm sorry, but unfortunately respect for other peoples beliefs only extends to a point. If you consider someone elses belief evil (not just mistaken, but fundamentally bad) - then you get very intolerant very quickly. How respectful are you of vicious Islamic Fundamentalism? Of South African racism of apartheid days? You're not.
What you do is identical to what I do. I will accept/respect anything I see as non harmful, even if I think its incorrect - the same with you. I just see different things as harmful.
EDIT: Ah, I see now. Having a picture of you nude on the internet is destructive and harmful to humanity and the children.
....
What?
Paedophiles claim we are unfairly forcing them to change their sexual preferences. The old "Why would I want to be like this, clearly I'd have to be born like this or else I'd be straight so its like picking on black people because they were born black" can apply to hundreds of situations. Some people are born with the urge to kill, and we cut them no slack. The above post does in no way insinuate that paedophiles and homosexuals are the same, nor does it claim similarities between them and murders.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The question is who is hurt ? Clearly homosexuals aren't more violent or prey on the underaged anymore than heterosexuals. Quite unlike pedophiles or murderers. Not really a fitting analogy honestly.
But there's a difference, right? What you believe is right, and what I believe is wrong? Whoa, middle ages catholic church flashbacks......
I do not trust people with deviant sexual desires, it taints every part of your existance. And that is not coming from a man with normal sexual desires. If I were a parent, and God willing I never will be, I would not trust my kind with the mind of a child. Teachers are role models, not sterile agents of passing along information.
This is one of those unwinnable battles people - my religion is not hazy on this area. It clearly and directly states that this sort of thing is not only wrong, but infectious and dangerous. All my personal experience and observation of other people have only confirmed this in my own mind.
Well I'm sorry, but unfortunately respect for other peoples beliefs only extends to a point. If you consider someone elses belief evil (not just mistaken, but fundamentally bad) - then you get very intolerant very quickly. How respectful are you of vicious Islamic Fundamentalism? Of South African racism of apartheid days? You're not.
What you do is identical to what I do. I will accept/respect anything I see as non harmful, even if I think its incorrect - the same with you. I just see different things as harmful.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lets not forget the fact that this teacher wasn't "teaching" anything outside of what he was supposed to teach. It isn't that he was teaching the future leaders of the world how to be homosexual.
I only have to wonder if we'd be having this discussion if the man posted to a heterosexual web site. All I can say is, being closeted is one of the worst things to force on anyone, though the suffering must be hard for a straight person to imagine or empathize with. So to anyone wishing to impose 'morality', please think of your goal as minimizing human suffering, not adherence to some strict principles that are completely out of your control and hurting no one.
Asking him to completely repress his life because it doesn't fit the status quo is infinitely worse then posting pictures that hurt no one (though really, pron is generally so banal and unimportant to even warrant a discussion of this length, let's talk about something interesting like politics instead). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
A good point to bring up, but I think we'd still be here talking about it regardless of his sexual persuasion.
A real problem isn't that he did it. The problem is people are only willing to correct it after a very long time, usually after the damage is done. Such as said math teacher I brought up. There's at least 3 children fathered by him by girls in MY class of 2003. Tenure however, allows this continue, and I remember him doing this for at least the past 5 years. Theres no hard evidence, but still, a simple DNA test...
On to the guy with nude pictures... If he can teach you properly without melding your personal life with your professional life, thats just the way he swings, and you can't, and should not do anything about it. It reminds me of president clinton. Our economy was booming yet he was impeached because of swayed public opinion. They blew (pun is very intended) his Monica situation way out of proportion. Sure adultery is very wrong but what does that have any effect on the way he runs our nation? I just think personal and professional should remain very seperate.
<!--QuoteBegin- Legionnaired @ A score of threads ago+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ( Legionnaired @ A score of threads ago)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
In the emotional/personal happiness sense, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. It does not infringe on the happiness or well-being of others, and the health risks are purely as a result of the free choice of those who participate in it.
However, it is homosexual adoption that I have a serious problem with.
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.hoselton.net/religion/hwa/booklets/ptchild/part2.htm+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.hoselton.net/religion/hwa/booklets/ptchild/part2.htm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"These qualities, of course, are transmitted to the child only if they are exemplified and taught within the family circle. By way of contrast, homes broken by death, desertion, divorce, separation, neglect, or immorality stamp their imprint on the developing personality. The products of these homes, unguided and unsupervised children who seldom receive needed love and attention, develop distorted attitudes and may easily engage in antisocial behavior. These products of ADULT NEGLIGENCE have become easy recruits in an already vast army of youthful offenders."
What a remarkably accurate analysis. And what a clear picture of the cause of disobedient and delinquent children.
Bear in mind the delinquent is the youth who has actually run afoul of the law. Bear in mind, also, that the lack of government, the lack of love and respect, the misery in a home becomes evident to the public only when it is officially broken by divorce, then "counted" among broken homes.
Again, let us restate the vitally important fact that these general conditions, the underlying disrespect for authority, the lack of government, constitutes a broad picture of the majority of all homes today"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And,
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<b>Criteria for good parenting</b>
Couples who seek to adopt a child are put through a battery of physical and mental health and other checks to ensure as far as possible that they will both be around to offer good care and support to the child until he or she reaches maturity.
It is noteworthy that Australian couples are barred from adopting children if their relationship is likely to be unstable, or if health problems or their age would make them less likely to be present for the next 20 years while the child is growing up.
In Queensland, for example, the eligibility criteria for adoption applicants are specified in the Adoption of Children Regulation Act 1999. The criteria state that prospective adoptive parents must, among other things,
have been married for at least two years;
not be suffering from a physical or mental condition, or have a physical or mental disability, to an extent that the person could not provide a high level of stable, long-term care for a child;
be less than 36 years old (or less than 40 if they already have another child).
How does the homosexual community rate on these adoption eligibility criteria?
<b>Stability</b>
Adoption agencies generally require applicants to be married for at least two years in an endeavour to place adopted children in a stable home environment. Studies of the impact of family breakdown on children show the effects are usually deleterious and prolonged.
Australian and overseas research shows that homosexual men are highly promiscuous and their relationships with other men are extremely unstable. For example, the Sydney **** Community Surveillance Report noted in 1998 that around 30% of the men had more than 10 casual partners in the previous six months and fewer than half had a regular relationship lasting over six months.
The 2000 report of HIV/AIDS-related behaviour in Australia noted that, at the time of the survey of the homosexual men, over 60% reported having one or more "regular partners", over 70% had casual partners; over 40% had both regular and casual partners. An earlier study of Australian homosexual men found that 23% reported a monogamous relationship, 35% a non-monogamous relationship, and 29% "casual sex only". The authors reported "there were almost as many men moving into monogamy as out of it, and out of casual-only partnerships as into them."
Long-term monogamous sexual partnerships are very rare for homosexual men. Some, like famous Australian author Patrick White, may live for many years with another homosexual man - but this type of long-term domestic arrangement often ceases to be sexual after some years, and usually involves an agreement to allow many casual sexual partners for both men. A 1994 study of homosexual men in Holland, where homosexual domestic partnerships are officially recognised, found that only 69% of such "long-term partners" actually lived together. The average number of "outside partners" per year of this type of arrangement was 2.5 in the first year, increasing to 11 in the sixth year.
US authors Bell and Weinberg, in their detailed study of homosexuality, classify the closest homosexual pairing as "close-coupled" where the numbers of casual sexual encounters outside the primary relationship are "low". Only 10% of the male and 28% of the female homosexual pairs fitted this "close-coupled" category. There was no "monogamous" category! For male and female homosexuals, whether in a "regular" relationship or not, promiscuity is the norm.
Lesbian relationships are also short-lived. Research by Johnson published in 1990 found that 50% of lesbian pairs break up within six years. In contrast, even though the divorce rate for married couples is increasing, it is approaching 50% over a lifetime (40 to 50 years), not six years. Cohabiting heterosexual couples break up faster than married ones, but not as fast as lesbians and male homosexuals.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Statistically, a homosexual union will not be as "close-coupled" and thus, more prone to becoming a, to use a somewhat cliche'd phrase, "broken home."
72% of all juvinile deliquents come from a broken home, and the money spent on feeding and sheltering them is staggering.
So, not only are we, by allowing homosexual union, taking steps to legalize homosexual adoption, which, logically, will increase the ammount of kids with mental and emotional disorders.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So meh. That's my case.
EDIT:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If he can teach you properly without melding your personal life with your professional life, thats just the way he swings, and you can't, and should not do anything about it. It reminds me of president clinton. Our economy was booming yet he was impeached because of swayed public opinion. They blew (pun is very intended) his Monica situation way out of proportion. Sure adultery is very wrong but what does that have any effect on the way he runs our nation? I just think personal and professional should remain very seperate.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So that teacher that fathered 3 children with students in his class did nothing wrong? If he didn't mark up their grades, would that mean that his actions were perfectly justified?
<a href='http://www.cryptoclast.org/Opinion/religion/bible/good_book.htm' target='_blank'>Ouch.</a>
1.) He was impeached because he lied about it under oath. Had he said "I got a BJ" or "I had sex" there would have been no issue. Because he lied under oath, he opened a whole new can of worms.
2.) At the same time, Clinton was actually under investigation for sending China stripped down stealth bomber parts and some nuclear secrets. It was mentioned like once or twice on the news, and then never mentioned again; you know, Clinton lying > Clinton selling military secrets.
Anyways, Marine and Legion, if you honestly have a problem with this, then you'll need to:
A) Homeschool your children.
B) Get them into a private school.
On the subject of the guy impregnating 3 students, that is personal behavior tied directly to the school, and therefore the teacher should be fired, and if he can't be, should be disciplined as harshly as possible. In this case, right/wrong is not an issue, but breaking the student/teacher relationship in a sexual fashion is disruptive to the learning environment.
God is trying to paint a picture all through the Bible. It is a picture of salvation, it is a picture of relationships, it is a picture of Him.
Part of that picture involves us humans. It involves laws to keep that picture looking as he wants it. Marriage is a part of that picture. It symbolizes the relationship between God and the Church. Just as a husband is supposed to love his wife, and care for her, provide for her - in the same way God provides for his people (Jews first in the OT, Christians in the NT). Preservation of this picture is why God gave all the laws to the Jews. Spoiling the picture had dire consequences.
(there could be a good discussion here about how christians dont follow all the laws - were hypocritical etc. but suffice it to say that the core picture hasn't changed)
Homosexuality is a perversion of that picture. As Christians attempting to preserve God's picture it is our duty to stand against such perversion.
Might I remind you that not everyone here is Christian, and that this is a discussion of how a teacher may or may not be dangerous to students if the students find out he is homosexual. It might offend christians, but it hardly proves that this is dangerous to students. Nothing personal Pepe, but your post doesn't contribute a valid argument to this particular discussion board.
And why are you believing the word of God when it was written by humans? :o
And if you Christians are supposed to stand against homosexuals...GRAB A PITCHFORK, GRAB A TORCH, GRAB YER SHOTGUN CLETUS, WE'RE GOIN' **** HUNTING!
I'm debating on whether or not I should update my sig with this.
Funny, the impression I got from earlyer in this thread is that a teacher is a cold presenter of facts and information. The mere fact that you admit a student has a valuble relationship with his/her teacher seems to contradict this claim, and instead, puts the teacher on the level of a, god forbid, <b><i>role model.</b></i>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So does that mean people who never get married are disgusting heathens who are blasphemous to the Church and will BURN BURN BURN BURNNNNNN IN THE ETERNAL RIGHTEOUS FLAMES OF HEEEEEEEEE-HELLL? Or is it just homosexual people who get that treatment?
And why are you believing the word of God when it was written by humans? :o<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tell you what, take a few minutes, poke around on the in-tar-web, and catch up on the last 500 years of philisophical and theological debate. Then, read what you just said, realize that you're being condecending, posting things which could barely be called 'points,' then acting like you're all smug because you're the first one in two thousand years to try and think of an attack on Christianity.
It's when sin becomes not only accepted, but defended by the world that we fight against those beliefs. I have, in the passed, even done so on a secular basis, presenting my point of view in a rational light, while all you've done is ridicule and mock it. Either think up some intelligent points that aren't as outdated as the idea that the world is flat, or click the little 'x' in the top off your browser and save us all some trouble.
but the bottom line is, a man (or woman)'s night life is their business and their business alone. as long as it doesn't harm anybody (who doesn't go out asking for it, browsing pix of them nude) it's their business and they shouldn't receive any flak.
Here I go, trying to show you Christian perspective, and I get 3 posts in a row that totally avoid the issue, but instead branch off into either CAPS LOCK hysterics, or attempt to "shake my foundation" with the quote:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And why are you believing the word of God when it was written by humans? :o<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So here it goes - my abreviated rebuttle. If God is all powerful, if He is omnipotent (as he claims in the Bible) it is very easy for him to do this: Preserve his own word <i>even though</i> it was written with human hands.
So yes, there is faith involved - faith that God exists, that he cares to know us, that he wrote to us. However, if God can create a universe, he can sure get his message across if He wants to.
Simply. Amazing.
Man its a shame we don't strictly follow the bible, there wouldn't be hardly any humans left alive at all. How many times in there does it say death by burning anyway.