On Nov 12, 10:45*am, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Nov 11, 8:51*pm, "John D99" wrote:





"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

....
On Nov 11, 6:20 pm, "John D99" wrote:

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

....
On Nov 11, 4:34 pm, "John D99" wrote:
...snip...

Are your kids going to search out books that promote homosexuality?

===
They might very well search them out.
==

Interesting response.

==
In what way? You asked if my kids were going to search them out and I
simply answered that they might. A pretty uninteresting response if
you ask me.
===
It was "interesting" becasue you said your kids "might very well search
them out", refering to books that promote homosexuality.

==
Yep, that's what I said and I still claim it's a pretty uninteresting
response.
==

Yeah, I see you *say* that.

I think most of us are concerned about what our kids are exposed to, and
taught or coached into thinking is normal.

Kids who grow up in alcoholic familes are much more at risk of beoming
alcoholics themselves. Same for drugs.

Many pedophiles were themselves victims of pedophilia.

It's best to keep kids aware that alcoholism, drug addicition, pedophilia
and homosexuality are not natural things, but nevertheless behavior that
people fall into.

Some catholic priest once said: "give me the boy when he is seven and I
will
give you the man".

The hitler youth and the soviet kommsomols recognized the same.

snip some routine rationalizations

==
I wonder...do you ever go back a read what you write? Do you ever
notice that most of the time you completely ignore the points being
made by the person you are responding to?
==
You don't make points. You just pretend that whatever kids exposed to is ok,
and mention stuff about homosexual ducks that you raise...

Thank you proving my point once again.

Please review this thread and find one single instance where *I* (me,
DerbyDad03) said anything about raising ducks or any other animal for
that matter.

This simply proves my point that you don't know who or what you are
responding to, you don't take the time to proofread what you write to
see if it is relevant, and you completely ignore items which disprove
the invalid points that you try to make.

My points are *plain and well founded and your problem is not that I'm
spinning things, but rather that you don't have any credible reply

Then please explain to me why you asked me if I was a homosexual when
I pointed out that same-sex couples are raising kids?

How is that a credible reply to a valid point? Not only isn't it a
credible reply, it wasn't even relevant to point that I made. This is
the third time I've brought this issue *and you have yet to respond.
Typically, silence will be taken as agreement, so your lack of a
response speaks volumes.

To quote Sir Thomas Mo

"The maxim is "Qui tacet consentiret": the maxim of the law is
"Silence gives consent". If therefore you wish to construe what my
silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I
denied."

As usual, all you did was try to spin the discussion off in another
direction because you had no credible response, nor can you admit when
you've made an error.

Feel free to spin this however you want, since you're just spinning
yourself deeper and deeper into a hole with every post.

It's so pathetic it's almost fun!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


This guy is an obvious homophobe. Let's examine one totally faulty
premise that he started with. That premise is that TV is being used
for propaganda to lead children into becoming homosexual. Now, I
don't know what channels John watches, but I have seen lots of shows
that show the discrimination, name calling, and physical violence that
continues to be directed at homosexuals. For example, there was an
A&E show on the Matt Shephard story, where the college kid was
kidnapped and murdered by homophobes in Wyoming. There are many
talk shows that have had gay people on discussing how they have been
abandoned, cut off or thrown out of the house when they came out to
their families. There have been shows showing people who took
their kids to therapy programs usually based on religious ideas and
tried to make them straight and it almost surely fails. Does any of
that sound like propaganda intended to promote homosexuality by making
it look attractive? And at what point exactly does someone DECIDE to
become straight or homosexual anyway? Did any of us think about it,
mull it over and decide on Sat, June 9, 1985 to become straight,
rather than gay? How silly.

Then there are some shows based on fiction that include some
homosexual characters because they are part of life today. Take
the Sopranos. What happened to Vince? When the mob found out he
was gay, they brutally sodomized him and killed him. Hmmm, does that
make someone want to be gay?

Sure there are also programs that show gay life in a more positive
fashion. But overall, I would not even say it's balanced, let alone
pro-gay propaganda. Most of the lame arguments John has made were
also made 50 years ago about blacks, from people who feared them.