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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (66330)	6/5/2009 3:34:18 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224757

Here's the thing, I strongly believe that appointing someone to an education position who has an agenda that has anything to do with promoting ANY sexuality in schools is bad. I am against Obama's latest appointment. What i have issue with is how we choose to fight it. If we fight it on a "Homosexuality is a conditioned behavior that is a threat to our children and AIDS is a homosexual disease so keep them away from my kids" front, it is a losing battle. AIDS is clearly not a "homosexual disease" Homosexuality is clearly not a conditioned behavior. The fact that most homosexuals grow up in an environment that is unfriendly toward homosexuality is pretty much common sense and directly refutes that claim. The fact that in Africa, the majority of those afflicted by AIDS are heterosexual women directly refutes the claim that AIDS is a homosexual disease. There are more heterosexual women in africa who have AIDS than ALL of the AIDS sufferers in the rest of the world...gay and straight, male and female. It's a losing argument to take this approach to the issue of appointing a gay activist to an national education position. The right approach is that he has an agenda that isn't about academics.