Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (426772)	10/15/2008 4:30:12 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574727

>You can explain away any sin as a "scientifically natural thing." >Why should teaching that homosexuality is OK be part of a public school curriculum? Because otherwise you end up with a bunch of homosexual kids entering their teens hating themselves and a bunch of heterosexual kids who hate them. Not to mention those in the mold of a Larry Craig who have to pretend to hate homosexuals even more to cover up for being one. I knew a kid who hung himself a few years ago because he was so ashamed to come out of the closet, and it happens all the time. Several of his (and my friends) spent a year or more in depression and some contemplated their own suicides because of it. I want no more of that. >If it's about increasing tolerance, there are other ways to do that besides pushing one point of view over another. Well, one point of view is tolerant and the other is intolerant... -Z

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (426772)	10/15/2008 7:44:39 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574727

Z, > How are they equivalent, other than that religion says they are? You can explain away any sin as a "scientifically natural thing." Why should teaching that homosexuality is OK be part of a public school curriculum? If it's about increasing tolerance, there are other ways to do that besides pushing one point of view over another. Why does it have to be pushing one's point of view on another? Why can't it be a simple discussion of human diversity without a POV? Who's pushing atheism? Hint... teaching science is not the same as teaching atheism. You have come out in favor of "religion-free zones," thinking that's perfectly acceptable, legal, and Constitutional. It is Constitutional.