Dr. James Dobson: "Shame On Schools" For Teaching Homosexuality Is OK

Aug 31, 2013 | Posted by: Sei | Full story: lezgetreal.com

James Dobson is upset- schools and churches are not teaching that homosexuality is wrong, so please send him a donation so that he can continue to say that

Comments (Page 29)

Showing posts 561 - 580 of3,016
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Betty M

Colorado Springs, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#745
Oct 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
First you lie.
Gays are the ones asserting that children are not 'required' for marriage. Yet social scientists say marriage would not exist were it not for children.
You have disqualified yourself from a reasoned discussion by such idiotic comments.
Yeah, marriage was invented to make sure that the legitimate spawn of a lord or king or simple landowner got the goods when the parents passed on. It also made sure that the kids made on the servants and such got nothing. Which brings up the reverse argument:

Marriage is not required to get children. Just ask all the teen moms & guys *not* paying child support on the 4 kids they sired on 4 different women.

Are you all for the polygamist sister-wives situation? Okay with you because they're in a het-relationship? Did you know that as early as 1874, those s-wives frequently suggested new wives for their "lord and master" to marry because they wanted new partners for themselves? Chew on that...

As I said before, you are really not equipped for an intelligent discussion and should therefore depart this arena. Further, your increasingly rambling arguments have begun to bore. You have no concrete evidence to reference in your statements, you prefer to simply insult everyone -- obviously you've forgotten your medication...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#746
Oct 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Betty M wrote:
<quoted text>
The Earth is overpopulated. Same sex couples -- who do not plop out a kid every year 'cause their religion or whatever says they should "begat" -- are helping that issue, most usually by adopting the kids that so-called Straight People like yourself (who seemingly never heard of condoms) see as surplus (or 'coupling waste') and dump on the system to take care of.
As for same sex marriage being an oxymoron -- Well, at least our relationships have better track records. For hetero's it's all "marry, divorce, repeat". Same sex partners are more willing to stay together through adversity -- the good and the bad, i.e. we don't just Say the words, we Live them. I seriously doubt your hinky, mythical, free-love 'marriage' could last even if it did exist.
With all due respect, you are blonde, aren't you?

The earth has never been over populated. GLBT has been a consistent mutation in the population at about 4% throughout discernible history. Wars and famine have addressed any semblance of overpopulation long before evolution has a chance to react.

By all accounts, ss couples have an extremely poor track record. Lesbian relationships are renown for violence. Gay couples are so unstable, long term studies of gay households with children have been impossible to find and measure.

However, none of this addresses the fact that at it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#747
Oct 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Betty M wrote:
<quoted text>
"As this summary will show, the results of existing research comparing lesbian and gay parents to heterosexual parents and children of lesbian and gay parents to children of heterosexual parents are quite clear: Common stereotypes are not supported by the data."
from the following (pretty legitimate!) source:
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parentin...
Please give me ONE specific study of lesbian households with children, AND the study methods used.

I won't ask you for a gay household study, because there are none.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#748
Oct 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Betty M wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, marriage was invented to make sure that the legitimate spawn of a lord or king or simple landowner got the goods when the parents passed on. It also made sure that the kids made on the servants and such got nothing. Which brings up the reverse argument:
Marriage is not required to get children. Just ask all the teen moms & guys *not* paying child support on the 4 kids they sired on 4 different women.
Are you all for the polygamist sister-wives situation? Okay with you because they're in a het-relationship? Did you know that as early as 1874, those s-wives frequently suggested new wives for their "lord and master" to marry because they wanted new partners for themselves? Chew on that...
As I said before, you are really not equipped for an intelligent discussion and should therefore depart this arena. Further, your increasingly rambling arguments have begun to bore. You have no concrete evidence to reference in your statements, you prefer to simply insult everyone -- obviously you've forgotten your medication...
You are seriously blonde...

1. So marriage is dictated by kings and nobles? What about the peasants, why did they get married??? Oh, and when did love come into play? Or children?

Did you know that social scientists say marriage would not exist were it not for children?

Mating behavior dictates mating as often as possible. Marriage constrains that.

You need to quit reading gay twirl sites, and get educated in reality.

2. Why would there be a 'requirement' for children when protection is needed NOT to have children??? Even you make that point! On the other hand, ss couples NEVER need protection to procreate! In fact, gay couples NEED protection just to abusively imitate mating sex!!!

3. You assume wrongly. Marriage is between one man and one woman. That has been the vast practice of every single culture in human history. In fact evolutionists say marriage has existed for 10 million years. I would suggest that jealousy infects every single polygamist situation.

If excommunication is the standard on here, Blondie, you've just been excommunicated...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#749
Oct 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KiMare wrote:
You are seriously blonde...
Do you really want to start making such accusations, particularly given the insane assertions you so often put forth?
KiMare wrote:
1. So marriage is dictated by kings and nobles?
No, only a moron would make such a claim.
KiMare wrote:
What about the peasants, why did they get married??? Oh, and when did love come into play? Or children?
They are included. Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but we declared our independence and live in a representative republic.
KiMare wrote:
Did you know that social scientists say marriage would not exist were it not for children?
Mating behavior dictates mating as often as possible. Marriage constrains that.
You need to quit reading gay twirl sites, and get educated in reality.
Did you know that is irrelevant in a legal marriage, or are you an idiot? Can infertile couples legally marry?
The question is legal marriage, not religious marriage. Do try to understand the difference. That said, even the church makes exceptions for infertile couples, so your example it a bit off the rails.
KiMare wrote:
2. Why would there be a 'requirement' for children when protection is needed NOT to have children??? Even you make that point! On the other hand, ss couples NEVER need protection to procreate! In fact, gay couples NEED protection just to abusively imitate mating sex!!!
Becuase having children and civil marriage are not intrinsically linked, which you would understand if you didn't have the mentality of a child.
KiMare wrote:
3. You assume wrongly.
I assume, not at all.
KiMare wrote:
Marriage is between one man and one woman. That has been the vast practice of every single culture in human history. In fact evolutionists say marriage has existed for 10 million years. I would suggest that jealousy infects every single polygamist situation.
If excommunication is the standard on here, Blondie, you've just been excommunicated...
You've yet to articulate a compelling governmental interest served by such a restriction, which would render it constitutional.

You seem to have a childlike view of the world that your religious moral beliefs should carry the weight of law. That do not, nor can they under our system of government. The constitution forbids congress (and the Supreme Court has extended this provision to states and municipal governments) from respecting an establishment of religion. You should laud this, because just as it restricts you insane notions regarding marriage, it also prevents enactment of sharia law (which is equally loony).

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#750
Oct 11, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You are seriously blonde...
Are you a misogynist pig?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#751
Oct 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really want to start making such accusations, particularly given the insane assertions you so often put forth?
<quoted text>
No, only a moron would make such a claim.
<quoted text>
They are included. Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but we declared our independence and live in a representative republic.
<quoted text>
Did you know that is irrelevant in a legal marriage, or are you an idiot? Can infertile couples legally marry?
The question is legal marriage, not religious marriage. Do try to understand the difference. That said, even the church makes exceptions for infertile couples, so your example it a bit off the rails.
<quoted text>
Becuase having children and civil marriage are not intrinsically linked, which you would understand if you didn't have the mentality of a child.
<quoted text>
I assume, not at all.
<quoted text>
You've yet to articulate a compelling governmental interest served by such a restriction, which would render it constitutional.
You seem to have a childlike view of the world that your religious moral beliefs should carry the weight of law. That do not, nor can they under our system of government. The constitution forbids congress (and the Supreme Court has extended this provision to states and municipal governments) from respecting an establishment of religion. You should laud this, because just as it restricts you insane notions regarding marriage, it also prevents enactment of sharia law (which is equally loony).
Nothing in your post relates to the context of what I said.

I have no interest in arguing the legalities if a manipulated law. I simply and profoundly point out the numerous incongruities with reality.

Smirk.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Feb 13

Is A Reality

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#752
Oct 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>

...I simply and profoundly...
It's comical that you imagine you've said anything profound. Your opinions are hardly profound. Like your blog, they are weak, antiquated, misogynistic, hateful and denigrating.

You're a phony Christian.

DNF

“A seat at the family table”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#753
Oct 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I didn't say they removed divorce from the marriage equation. I said they removed children from consideration to justify no-fault divorce and abortion.
2. Equating any relationship to birth parents denigrates the honored and natural place of parents.
Nazi Germany elevated the state relationship with children over parents. Your parents are no different than Tom & Dick?
Not my 'wild imaginations', but the diabolically evil and foolish attempt to desperately make your denial work. A imposter marriage with a fake family.
SCOTUS ruled on abortion because of the children in heterosexual and SS marriages? When did that happen?

You keep coming up with such crazy crap.

It's amusing.

I'm not in denial. And gays and lesbians are NOT trying to remove children from the marriage equation. In fact one of the main reasons for the push for Marriage equality is so that those children have the same rights as the children of heterosexual marriages.

You claim your concern is for the children yet you want to punish the children of SSC's.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#754
Oct 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I didn't say they removed divorce from the marriage equation. I said they removed children from consideration to justify no-fault divorce and abortion.
2. Equating any relationship to birth parents denigrates the honored and natural place of parents.
Nazi Germany elevated the state relationship with children over parents. Your parents are no different than Tom & Dick?
Not my 'wild imaginations', but the diabolically evil and foolish attempt to desperately make your denial work. A imposter marriage with a fake family.
Did Not Finish School wrote:
<quoted text>SCOTUS ruled on abortion because of the children in heterosexual and SS marriages? When did that happen?
You keep coming up with such crazy crap.
It's amusing.
I'm not in denial. And gays and lesbians are NOT trying to remove children from the marriage equation. In fact one of the main reasons for the push for Marriage equality is so that those children have the same rights as the children of heterosexual marriages.
You claim your concern is for the children yet you want to punish the children of SSC's.
Where exactly did I say that?

Smile.

Since: Jan 10

Westerville, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#755
Oct 13, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I didn't say they removed divorce from the marriage equation. I said they removed children from consideration to justify no-fault divorce and abortion.
2. Equating any relationship to birth parents denigrates the honored and natural place of parents.
Nazi Germany elevated the state relationship with children over parents. Your parents are no different than Tom & Dick?
Not my 'wild imaginations', but the diabolically evil and foolish attempt to desperately make your denial work. A imposter marriage with a fake family.
<quoted text>
Where exactly did I say that?
Smile.
1) When are you going to get it through your think head that children donít have anything to do with marriage (or divorce for that matter)?
2) When are you going to get it through your think head that the ability to procreate does not make you special or qualified to be a parent?
You are simply an arrogant, self-important elitist. And youíre not that bright.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#756
Oct 13, 2013
 
fr KiMare:

>...Here is the reality;

You threw your real marriage away for a fake half....<

100% WRONG.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#757
Oct 14, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I didn't say they removed divorce from the marriage equation. I said they removed children from consideration to justify no-fault divorce and abortion.
2. Equating any relationship to birth parents denigrates the honored and natural place of parents.
Nazi Germany elevated the state relationship with children over parents. Your parents are no different than Tom & Dick?
Not my 'wild imaginations', but the diabolically evil and foolish attempt to desperately make your denial work. A imposter marriage with a fake family.
<quoted text>
Where exactly did I say that?
Smile.
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
1) When are you going to get it through your think head that children donít have anything to do with marriage (or divorce for that matter)?
2) When are you going to get it through your think head that the ability to procreate does not make you special or qualified to be a parent?
You are simply an arrogant, self-important elitist. And youíre not that bright.
1. Do you read what you write??? They don't have anything to do with abortion either, do they?

2. Have you told that to your mother and father?

Naw, I'm just a near senile old jack ass with simple common sense.

And you just got your a// kicked.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#758
Oct 14, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
Nothing in your post relates to the context of what I said.
Actually, each of your points was addressed in turn. I'm sorry you can't offer better talking points.
KiMare wrote:
I have no interest in arguing the legalities if a manipulated law. I simply and profoundly point out the numerous incongruities with reality.
Smirk.
When we are talking about public schools, you don't have a choice. "Dr." Dobson is pushing a religious agenda in public schools, and the reality remains that the Constitution forbids congress from making a law respecting an establishment of religion. The court has held that this provision also applies to state and municipal governments, ergo it applies to schools.

The reality remains that you should welcome such separation, because without it, schools could teach other lessons of religious dogma that you might not find as palatable. The reality remains that separation of church and state is a basic concept necessary to the very core of religious freedom.
The Worlds Biggest Lie

Cummington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#759
Oct 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Is aipac part of a religion Lides? Is Israel the 51st state of the union? Don't they receive more money than any other state in the union? Do you support the separation of synagogue and state? And isn't the adl, jdl, and splc out to INFRINGE upon the 1st amendment more than prevent so called hatred, you admitted communist bas***d.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#760
Oct 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, each of your points was addressed in turn. I'm sorry you can't offer better talking points.
<quoted text>
When we are talking about public schools, you don't have a choice. "Dr." Dobson is pushing a religious agenda in public schools, and the reality remains that the Constitution forbids congress from making a law respecting an establishment of religion. The court has held that this provision also applies to state and municipal governments, ergo it applies to schools.
The reality remains that you should welcome such separation, because without it, schools could teach other lessons of religious dogma that you might not find as palatable. The reality remains that separation of church and state is a basic concept necessary to the very core of religious freedom.
Dr. Dobson accurately shames educators who deny the inherent harm, unhealthiness and demeaning nature of gay sex. Moreover, at this point homosexuality gives every sign of being an evolutionary sexual defect. All if this confirms SS marriage as an oxymoron.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Feb 13

Is A Reality

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#761
Oct 14, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Dr. Dobson accurately shames educators who deny
This is a BS argument. Who are these educators who are "teaching" homosexuality.

The rest of your post is opinion, and not worth repeating.
The Worlds Biggest Lie

Holyoke, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#762
Oct 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a BS argument. Who are these educators who are "teaching" homosexuality.
The rest of your post is opinion, and not worth repeating.
Massachusetts has been doing so in some schools for years. Former "safe school CZAR" and admitted practicer of ss acts Kevin Jennings once gave a speech many years ago here discussing the 'content' to be taught. Pretty nasty. Type it into your browser or just go to massresistence.com

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#763
Oct 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a BS argument. Who are these educators who are "teaching" homosexuality.
The rest of your post is opinion, and not worth repeating.
What argument, you edited my post. Why?

We know, it is shameful to even write it.

Dr. Dobson accurately shames educators who deny the inherent harm, unhealthiness and demeaning nature of gay sex. Moreover, at this point homosexuality gives every sign of being an evolutionary sexual defect. All if this confirms SS marriage as an oxymoron.

Embarrassing isn't it.

Indefensible.

Forget the closet, crawl back in your hole you pervert.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Feb 13

Is A Reality

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#764
Oct 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
What argument, you edited my post. Why?
We know, it is shameful to even write it.
Dr. Dobson.
Blow it out your a$$ Greg Kirschmann. Dobson is a douche and you are his bag.
What have either of you don't to negate the legal status of my marriage?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 561 - 580 of3,016
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••