What really scared me, was a message on another site. In a discussion of the h1n1 virus, one man said that he would have to pay for his son's dose himself, since the boy had no health insurance. He had another concern, too: The schools were not allowed to teach the child that homosexuality is wrong. This poor dupe really seemed to think that those issues were equally important in his life. That probably makes him a typical "values voter."

And your position on his concerns would be????

Somebody else should pay for his child's shot?

Homosexuality is a natural situation, although not a winning strategy for evolution and/or proliferation?

The only way the guy would have to pay for the h1n1 shot is if he is fairly well off, at least in most areas. Free clinics give low or NO cost shots to kids all the time.

And he doesn't want his kids indoctrinated with the gay agenda? That's a life view that may disagree with yours, but what's the big deal? Isn't this a free country? Or is it only "free" for people marching in lockstep with you?

I'd love to hear how a school not teaching kids that homosexuality is evil is somehow part of the "gay agenda." If you want your kids to grow up hating homosexuals/homosexuality you can indoctrinate them yourself. School isn't the place for that.

MarcusAurelius:

I'd love to hear how a school not teaching kids that homosexuality is evil is somehow part of the "gay agenda." If you want your kids to grow up hating homosexuals/homosexuality you can indoctrinate them yourself. School isn't the place for that.

You are the first person who said anything about homosexuality being *evil* and *hating*!

You are carrying your own heavy baggage, friend. Don't expect me to carry it for you. Just drop it and neither of us will have to carry it.

Well its a pretty short step from schools teaching that homosexuality is "wrong" to saying that it is "evil" both of which would tend towards hatred. Per Cassandra, the guy wasn't concerned that schools were promoting a pro-gay position, but that they weren't promoting an anti-gay position.

That's not how I read it Blue, she said:

The schools were not allowed to teach the child that homosexuality is wrong.

This could just as easily mean that he was OK with them saying it was normal, so long as they provided an opposite viewpoint as well, which they refused to do. Considering that "same sex attraction disorder" is still in the DSM, his is not an unreasonable POV, although it may not be in vogue with some vocal segments of the U.S. population.

oops, and a "short step" is STILL a step.

Wonder what Dick and Lynne Cheney want the schools to teach to Mary's kids????

Bondsman:

Considering that "same sex attraction disorder" is still in the DSM, his is not an unreasonable POV, although it may not be in vogue with some vocal segments of the U.S. population.

This is false. Here is a listing of disorders covered under DSM-IV:

Exhibitionism

Fetishism

Frotteurism

Pedophilia

Sexual Masochism

Sexual Sadism

Transvestic Fetishism

Voyeurism

Same sex attraction disorder has never been in any version of the DSM. Homosexuality was removed from the DSM in 1973.

Bondsman:

That's not how I read it Blue, she said:

The schools were not allowed to teach the child that homosexuality is wrong.

This could just as easily mean that he was OK with them saying it was normal, so long as they provided an opposite viewpoint as well, which they refused to do. Considering that "same sex attraction disorder" is still in the DSM, his is not an unreasonable POV, although it may not be in vogue with some vocal segments of the U.S. population.

Are you for real? The teacher says class, today we're going to talk about homosexuality which is either normal or wrong.

How does math work at that school? Class, 2 + 2 = 4. Or 2+2=5.

Incidentally, my memories of sex education are that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality were discussed as right, wrong, or at all. It was simply a matter of this thing fits into this hole, this substance travels up here and links up with these things, and voila, a baby is made. That's it.

The Mormon Cult pushed that message in Maine - that legal gay marriage meant that people's children would be 'propagandized with gay messages in the schools' or some such (the implication being that the state would try to turn them into little homos).

Hell, I'm surprised this guy wasn't anti-vaccine, too. A lot of these teabagger/flat earther/nutjob types believe that vaccines are the devil's work.

We live in Wacko World, let's face it...

Insurance should pay for his child's shot. Preferably a single-payer system like most of the CIVILIZED world has.

Sheesh...

Nice right-wing twist to that....trying to pretend that the previous poster was calling homosexuality "evil" and "hating" when in fact it was the guy who didn't want his precious son "indoctrinated" who was doing that.

Don't lie about what people are saying then call them "friend," just a word of advice.

This statement is untrue:

Considering that "same sex attraction disorder" is still in the DSM, his is not an unreasonable POV

It is not still in the DSM, it was I believe removed back in 1973.