Judge to Christian mom: No 'homophobic' teaching
In custody case orders child's religious upbringing must not expose her to idea
homosexuality wrong
Posted: October 31, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
2003 WorldNetDaily.com
A Colorado mother is appealing a child custody decision in which a court barred
her from teaching homosexuality is wrong.
Cheryl Clark, who says she is a Christian, has been ordered by Denver County
Circuit Judge John W. Coughlin to "make sure that there is nothing in the
religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be
considered homophobic."
The directive arose from the decision to award joint parenting responsibilities
for her daughter to a practicing homosexual.
"Forbidding the raising of children in the parent's Christian beliefs is an
anathema to parental rights and religious freedom," said Mathew D. Staver,
president and general counsel of Florida-based Liberty Counsel. "Must the
mother rip out pages of the Bible that say homosexuality is against nature, or
must she cover her child's ears if her pastor preaches about sexual purity?"
Staver explained to WorldNetDaily Clark and Elsey McLeod were in a lesbian
relationship that broke up after Clark became a Christian and concluded
homosexual behavior was wrong.
The Denver court gave McLeod join custody of Clark's adopted daughter, Emma,
even though McLeod had no legal relationship to the girl. It also, in
conjunction with the ruling in favor of McLeod, said Clark cannot raise her
child with any religious teaching or upbringing that is "homophobic."
Staver said courts cannot "give parents a no-win decision of either abandoning
their Christian beliefs or abandoning their children."
The definition of "homophobic," Staver noted, is "all across the board," from
being fearful of homosexuals to disagreeing with their lifestyle.
"It takes no stretch of the imagination to envision a judge finding the mother
in contempt of court for merely teaching her daughter about the Biblical truths
on homosexuality," he said.
Liberty Counsel filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the mother in
her case before the Colorado Court of Appeals.
Staver notes the U.S. Supreme Court has long held that the Constitution
guarantees the freedom to "worship God according to the dictates of his own
conscience." Similarly, he said, the high court has acknowledged "the values of
parental direction of the religious upbringing and education of our children in
their early and formative years have a high place in our society."
Another troubling aspect of this case, he said, is the award of visitation and
joint parenting responsibilities to a third-party who has no legal relationship
to the daughter or the mother.
The decision, according to Staver, stands in direct conflict with precedent
throughout the country that denies visitation to a third party based solely on
that person's prior sexual relationship with the legal parent.
Staver told WND he is not aware of any similar cases in the U.S., although
there have been some in which a judge has told a parent not to say anything
degrading about the other parent's lifestyle.
None, to his knowledge, however, have gone to the extent of Coughlin, issuing a
directive that restricts a parent's religious practice.
.
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Big Brother at work |
31 Oct 2003 06:00:10 AM |
|
|
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031031045227.18482.00000005@mb-m03.aol.com...
Judge to Christian mom: No 'homophobic' teaching
In custody case orders child's religious upbringing must not expose her to
idea
homosexuality wrong
So, in your opinion Tony, the rules of religion should have priority over
the rule of law? So what about a radical islamic cleric who preaches
conversion by the sword and death to the unbeliever? I take it you have no
problem with that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ex." |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Big Brother at work |
31 Oct 2003 03:30:43 PM |
|
|
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:bntirs$9pl$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031031045227.18482.00000005@mb-m03.aol.com...
Judge to Christian mom: No 'homophobic' teaching
In custody case orders child's religious upbringing must not expose her
to
idea
homosexuality wrong
So, in your opinion Tony, the rules of religion should have priority over
the rule of law? So what about a radical islamic cleric who preaches
conversion by the sword and death to the unbeliever? I take it you have no
problem with that?
There is only one religion. And that Religion is Christianity, in Tonys
world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sasha s Elektronmasha" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Big Brother at work |
31 Oct 2003 09:08:12 PM |
|
|
There is only one religion. And that Religion is Christianity, in Tonys
world.
Of course there are many other religions, only they are wrong, because
there could be only one Truth.
Homosexuality is against the nature and any religion, so children must
be taught to abhor it. Unfortunately the fact that civil laws are
perverted now, like many people here, will also have it's destructive
effect on the next generations.
I know that there is nothing to do about it. Liberals always are
coffin makers for civilization. So long for western christianity and
civilization...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "christisdore" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Big Brother at work |
31 Oct 2003 03:32:46 PM |
|
|
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:<bntirs$9pl$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031031045227.18482.00000005@mb-m03.aol.com...
Judge to Christian mom: No 'homophobic' teaching
In custody case orders child's religious upbringing must not expose her to
idea
homosexuality wrong
So, in your opinion Tony, the rules of religion should have priority over
the rule of law? So what about a radical islamic cleric who preaches
conversion by the sword and death to the unbeliever? I take it you have no
problem with that?
Drug prevention speeches from Rush Limbaugh are needed.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Big Brother at work |
31 Oct 2003 09:08:06 PM |
|
|
In article <20031031045227.18482.00000005@mb-m03.aol.com>, (TonyZ2001) wrote:
Judge to Christian mom: No 'homophobic' teaching
In custody case orders child's religious upbringing must not expose her to idea
homosexuality wrong
Sounds like the poor kid has a fruitcake for an adoptive mother - why heap on
even more (mental) problems with her dealings with her other 50% custodial
guardian? I think it's pretty obvious that the relationship soured and the one
adoptive mother is using anything she can to discredit her former partner - a
sick woman who is obviously not nearly as concerned about her adoptive child
having a positive experience with her other caregiver as she is in having a
"competition" as to who is the "better" person.
Sick, sick, sick.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Big Brother at work |
02 Nov 2003 05:13:54 AM |
|
|
Amazing now the Liberals in thsi group think it is "sick" for a mother to teach
her son that Homosexuality is wrong.
I guess they would rather that she teach him how to bend over?
Tony
"About the time of the end, a body of men will be raised up, who will turn
their attention to the prophecies, in the midst of much clamor and opposition."
Sir Isaac Newton
.
|
|
|
| User: "WH" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Big Brother at work |
02 Nov 2003 05:51:55 AM |
|
|
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:20031102061354.18396.00000112@mb-m14.aol.com...
Amazing now the Liberals in thsi group think it is "sick" for a mother to
teach
her son that Homosexuality is wrong.
It might be better if she taught him that people are people and different.
That different people have different ways...you know different strokes and
all that. It's called TOLERANCE as opposed to the INTOLERANCE she wants to
teach him.
I guess they would rather that she teach him how to bend over?
Homosexuality is not WRONG yellabelly.
Now come on...get out of that closet and admit that you're a "raving
homosexual", just like uncle Quentin!!!
WH
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Big Brother at work |
02 Nov 2003 10:11:46 AM |
|
|
In article <bo2r7g$77r$1@green.tninet.se>, "WH" <bollogs@hotmail.com> wrote:
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:20031102061354.18396.00000112@mb-m14.aol.com...
Amazing now the Liberals in thsi group think it is "sick" for a mother to
teach
her son that Homosexuality is wrong.
It might be better if she taught him that people are people and different.
That different people have different ways...you know different strokes and
all that. It's called TOLERANCE as opposed to the INTOLERANCE she wants to
teach him.
I'd like to know how she would explain her own previous behavior, if it's so
wrong? Perhaps, if she was such a horrible person before, she's probably still
not fit to raise a child and should give him up to social services? Just
stopping a single behavior doesn't mean that you're suddenly a holy person.
Of course, this is not about her sudden religious beliefs - it's about custody
and what one selfish person does to their previous partner in an attempt to
poison the child's mind against the former partner so they can eventually have
complete access to the child. This happens often enough in divorce cases, as
I'm sure everyone here is aware.
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Big Brother at work |
02 Nov 2003 10:08:03 AM |
|
|
In article <20031102061354.18396.00000112@mb-m14.aol.com>, (TonyZ2001) wrote:
Amazing now the Liberals in thsi group think it is "sick" for a mother to teach
her son that Homosexuality is wrong.
What's "sick" is for a woman who's broken off a long-term relationship to decide
to use religion to cast dispersions upon her former lover after the courts have
ruled that she cannot have sole custody of the adoptive child. This is strictly
a bitter custody issue, and the woman is clearly only using religion to put a
wedge between the child and the other custodial parent.
I guess they would rather that she teach him how to bend over?
I guess it's not entirely appropriate for a mother to insist on getting into
graphic discussions about sex with a young boy who is not old enough to
have a say in his own custodian (less than 12 years old or thereabouts)?
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dani" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Big Brother at work |
03 Nov 2003 12:03:43 AM |
|
|
On 02 Nov 2003 11:13:54 GMT, (TonyZ2001) wrote:
Amazing now the Liberals in thsi group think it is "sick" for a mother to teach
her son that Homosexuality is wrong.
I guess they would rather that she teach him how to bend over?
What's "sick" is what you say above. No *sane* parent would "teach"
their kid to be gay.
You have one pretty disturbing thought process Tony.
Dani
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Big Brother at work |
03 Nov 2003 06:38:43 AM |
|
|
Dani
wrote:
tonyz2001@aol.com (TonyZ2001) wrote:
Amazing now the Liberals in thsi group think it is "sick" for a mother to
teach
her son that Homosexuality is wrong.
I guess they would rather that she teach him how to bend over?
What's "sick" is what you say above. No >*sane* parent would "teach"
their kid to be gay.
Uh Dani, if as your ilk say "there is nothing wrong with it" then why would it
not be ok to teach it?
You have a bit of a contradiction in your stand.
Tony
"About the time of the end, a body of men will be raised up, who will turn
their attention to the prophecies, in the midst of much clamor and opposition."
Sir Isaac Newton
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Big Brother at work |
04 Nov 2003 06:41:46 AM |
|
|
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031103073843.23335.00000080@mb-m13.aol.com...
Dani
wrote:
tonyz2001@aol.com (TonyZ2001) wrote:
Amazing now the Liberals in thsi group think it is "sick" for a mother
to
teach
her son that Homosexuality is wrong.
I guess they would rather that she teach him how to bend over?
What's "sick" is what you say above. No >*sane* parent would "teach"
their kid to be gay.
Uh Dani, if as your ilk say "there is nothing wrong with it" then why
would it
not be ok to teach it?
You have a bit of a contradiction in your stand.
Tony, you seem to think religious "law" should trump criminal law - i.e. it
is OK for this woman to defy hate laws in the name of freedom of religion.
Howvere, you get insanely hot under the collar whenever you hear of a
fundamentalist Islamic preaching hate.. perhaps you should get teh beam out
of your own eye before complaining about the mote in someone else's?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Big Brother at work |
04 Nov 2003 04:33:03 PM |
|
|
In article <20031103073843.23335.00000080@mb-m13.aol.com>, (TonyZ2001) wrote:
Dani
wrote:
(TonyZ2001) wrote:
Amazing now the Liberals in thsi group think it is "sick" for a mother to
teach
her son that Homosexuality is wrong.
I guess they would rather that she teach him how to bend over?
What's "sick" is what you say above. No >*sane* parent would "teach"
their kid to be gay.
Uh Dani, if as your ilk say "there is nothing wrong with it" then why would it
not be ok to teach it?
Do you and your wife give your kids demos and/or detailed instructions on how to
have heterosexual sex? Same thing.
You have a bit of a contradiction in your stand.
Not at all.
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dani" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Big Brother at work |
05 Nov 2003 08:56:11 AM |
|
|
On 03 Nov 2003 12:38:43 GMT, (TonyZ2001) wrote:
Dani
wrote:
(TonyZ2001) wrote:
Amazing now the Liberals in thsi group think it is "sick" for a mother to
teach
her son that Homosexuality is wrong.
I guess they would rather that she teach him how to bend over?
What's "sick" is what you say above. No *sane* parent would "teach"
their kid to be gay.
Uh Dani, if as your ilk say "there is nothing wrong with it" then why would it
not be ok to teach it?
You do not sit down with a kid and say: "Honey, we need to talk...I
think it's time you learned about homosexuality. I think this is a
good thing, and I hope one day you aspire to become gay. Let's pop in
a video-tape and see how it's done."
Sick! That would be child-abuse in my eyes. Like Woods said - do you
show/teach your daughters how to be heterosexual?
I don't think any parent *wants* their child to grow-up and be gay..
But I hope they have enough love for him/her to come to accept
it and not cast them out if they are.
More and more studies (that I thoroughly agree with) are coming out
that homosexuals are genetically predisposed to becoming gay--normally
when they reach adolescence.. they find themselves attracted to the
same sex and don't know *why* - they don't like it; they try to hide
it.. etc.. we have been over this before, Tony. One does not *choose*
to be gay. So "teaching" is not only an absurd notion - it's
basically impossible. Either you're gay or you're not.
You have a bit of a contradiction in your stand.
Nope.
Dani
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anon Ymous" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Big Brother at work |
05 Nov 2003 03:24:28 PM |
|
|
Dani <> wrote in message news:<943iqvkap39ejhrbhhd5rjj4i8dgav2r37@4ax.com>...
On 03 Nov 2003 12:38:43 GMT, (TonyZ2001) wrote:
Dani
wrote:
(TonyZ2001) wrote:
Amazing now the Liberals in thsi group think it is "sick" for a mother to
teach
her son that Homosexuality is wrong.
I guess they would rather that she teach him how to bend over?
What's "sick" is what you say above. No *sane* parent would "teach"
their kid to be gay.
Uh Dani, if as your ilk say "there is nothing wrong with it" then why would it
not be ok to teach it?
You do not sit down with a kid and say: "Honey, we need to talk...I
think it's time you learned about homosexuality. I think this is a
good thing, and I hope one day you aspire to become gay. Let's pop in
a video-tape and see how it's done."
That's not true! Look at South Park. Stan had a dog. His dog was a
gay homosexual. His dog would go to the mall and shop for leather
pants. So what did Stan do? He tried training his dog.
Stan would say, "Sit. Roll over. Don't be gay."
Of course, the last one didnt work. The dog was still gay. And don't
forget big gay Al. He trained an entire animal shelter to be gay.
Think of that poor gay lion. =(
In all seriousness, I had a friend in the service who tells a
different story. He "came out of the closet" while in the service
(quietly, and not publicly). His deal was: his dad left when he was
really young. He only had his mother and older sisters as role
models. They always made comments about cute guys etc. so that's all
he knew. He claimed they (unintentionally) trained him to be gay.
My guess is it's some combination of tendency and environment. I
mean, if the determining factor was strictly genetic, it seems like
there would be a lot fewer homosexuals.
S~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Big Brother at work |
06 Nov 2003 06:02:32 PM |
|
|
In article <5c2e70b2.0311051324.3f2c1315@posting.google.com>, (Anon Ymous) wrote:
Dani < > wrote in message
news:<943iqvkap39ejhrbhhd5rjj4i8dgav2r37@4ax.com>...
On 03 Nov 2003 12:38:43 GMT, (TonyZ2001) wrote:
Dani
wrote:
(TonyZ2001) wrote:
Amazing now the Liberals in thsi group think it is "sick" for a mother to
teach
her son that Homosexuality is wrong.
I guess they would rather that she teach him how to bend over?
What's "sick" is what you say above. No *sane* parent would "teach"
their kid to be gay.
Uh Dani, if as your ilk say "there is nothing wrong with it" then why would
it
not be ok to teach it?
You do not sit down with a kid and say: "Honey, we need to talk...I
think it's time you learned about homosexuality. I think this is a
good thing, and I hope one day you aspire to become gay. Let's pop in
a video-tape and see how it's done."
That's not true! Look at South Park. Stan had a dog. His dog was a
gay homosexual. His dog would go to the mall and shop for leather
pants. So what did Stan do? He tried training his dog.
Stan would say, "Sit. Roll over. Don't be gay."
Of course, the last one didnt work. The dog was still gay. And don't
forget big gay Al. He trained an entire animal shelter to be gay.
Think of that poor gay lion. =(
In all seriousness, I had a friend in the service who tells a
different story. He "came out of the closet" while in the service
(quietly, and not publicly). His deal was: his dad left when he was
really young. He only had his mother and older sisters as role
models. They always made comments about cute guys etc. so that's all
he knew. He claimed they (unintentionally) trained him to be gay.
Seems pretty flimsy, to me. Nobody talked about cute guys around me, and I was
always "one of the guys" when I was a kid. I didn't choose heterosexuality, but
that's just the way I turned out. My best friend in high school had nothing but
brothers, had a stable home environment, yet he turned out to be gay while both
brothers were completely straight. None of them made any choices on the matter,
either.
My guess is it's some combination of tendency and environment. I
mean, if the determining factor was strictly genetic, it seems like
there would be a lot fewer homosexuals.
I think you're likely to hide your sexual orientation if it's going to cost you
plenty.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anon Ymous" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Big Brother at work |
07 Nov 2003 03:51:28 AM |
|
|
(Woodswun) wrote in message news:<siBqb.62661$ZC4.32294@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
In article <5c2e70b2.0311051324.3f2c1315@posting.google.com>, (Anon Ymous) wrote:
Dani < > wrote in message
news:<943iqvkap39ejhrbhhd5rjj4i8dgav2r37@4ax.com>...
On 03 Nov 2003 12:38:43 GMT, (TonyZ2001) wrote:
Dani
wrote:
(TonyZ2001) wrote:
In all seriousness, I had a friend in the service who tells a
different story. He "came out of the closet" while in the service
(quietly, and not publicly). His deal was: his dad left when he was
really young. He only had his mother and older sisters as role
models. They always made comments about cute guys etc. so that's all
he knew. He claimed they (unintentionally) trained him to be gay.
Seems pretty flimsy, to me. Nobody talked about cute guys around me, and I was
always "one of the guys" when I was a kid. I didn't choose heterosexuality, but
that's just the way I turned out. My best friend in high school had nothing but
brothers, had a stable home environment, yet he turned out to be gay while both
brothers were completely straight. None of them made any choices on the matter,
either.
Could be, Woodsie and Dani. I certainly havent studied it. I've
known a few homosexuals, but he was the only one I was ever friendly
enough to talk about it with, and that was his claim--he just behaved
like Mom and the girls. Even with this guy, my question was
basically, "why?" I wasnt doing research, just curious how a male
could give up women!
My guess is it's some combination of tendency and environment. I
mean, if the determining factor was strictly genetic, it seems like
there would be a lot fewer homosexuals.
I think you're likely to hide your sexual orientation if it's going to cost you
plenty.
What I meant was, if the trait is purely genetic, then very few would
reproduce because...well...they wouldnt have sex with the appropriate
gender for reproducing! Sooner or later, the trait would simply
disappear. If you're right though, it's interesting that the survival
instinct of fitting in seems to replace the drive to procreate.
One thing seems pretty clear, and that is that the individual doesnt
choose
sexual orientation.
S~
.
|
|
|
| User: "sUSAn" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Big Brother at work |
07 Nov 2003 07:30:42 AM |
|
|
I have asked this question once before and I don't think anyone
answered.
What the heck did Cher do to her two children?
Chastity Bono, masculine looking lesbian.
Elijah Blue Allman, T-totally flaming homo.
If anyone has an answer, let me know because I want to make sure that I
don't do that, whatever *that* is!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wally Anglesea™" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Big Brother at work |
07 Nov 2003 03:49:07 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 08:30:42 -0500 (EST),
(sUSAn) wrote:
I have asked this question once before and I don't think anyone
answered.
What the heck did Cher do to her two children?
Chastity Bono, masculine looking lesbian.
Elijah Blue Allman, T-totally flaming homo.
If anyone has an answer, let me know because I want to make sure that I
don't do that, whatever *that* is!
Ignoring for the moment, their sexual orientations, it must be
extraordinarily difficult to grow up overshadowed by such extroverted,
outspoken and "newsworthy" people. To make your own mark in the world
without a well formed and strong sense "self worth", must have been
awful, because the media and the hangers on would always expect you to
be a clone of your famous parents, and you would always be compared to
your famous parents/siblings.
You either strike out on your own, or whatever. Very complex, and
sad.
--
"FOR I HAVE BECOME VENGEANCE AND YOU WILL FEEL THE WRATH"
"YOUR DOOM IS WRITTEN IN THE STARS...."
"THE DREADED NAME HAS BEEN REVEALED...YOUR DOOM IS NEAR..."
DM in meltdown mode, February 2003
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Big Brother at work |
07 Nov 2003 07:57:38 PM |
|
|
In article <5j4oqvs02qjujg9neaureterig7t7rva9g@4ax.com>, Wally Anglesea™ <wanglese@spbigpondammersareparasites.net.au> wrote:
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 08:30:42 -0500 (EST),
(sUSAn) wrote:
I have asked this question once before and I don't think anyone
answered.
What the heck did Cher do to her two children?
Chastity Bono, masculine looking lesbian.
Elijah Blue Allman, T-totally flaming homo.
If anyone has an answer, let me know because I want to make sure that I
don't do that, whatever *that* is!
Ignoring for the moment, their sexual orientations, it must be
extraordinarily difficult to grow up overshadowed by such extroverted,
outspoken and "newsworthy" people. To make your own mark in the world
without a well formed and strong sense "self worth", must have been
awful, because the media and the hangers on would always expect you to
be a clone of your famous parents, and you would always be compared to
your famous parents/siblings.
You either strike out on your own, or whatever. Very complex, and
sad.
I'm not so sure that I would agree that it's necessarily "sad". Wouldn't that
depend on how the individuals feel about it? If they are happy and
self-confident, there's nothing to be sad about (although, I have no idea if
that is/isn't the case).
It must be difficult to "share" your parents with the planet, though, instead of
having Mom and Dad be just yours and your siblings'.
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dani" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal Big Brother at work |
06 Nov 2003 08:48:33 AM |
|
|
On 5 Nov 2003 13:24:28 -0800, (Anon Ymous)
wrote:
Dani < > wrote in message news:<943iqvkap39ejhrbhhd5rjj4i8dgav2r37@4ax.com>...
On 03 Nov 2003 12:38:43 GMT, (TonyZ2001) wrote:
Dani
wrote:
(TonyZ2001) wrote:
Amazing now the Liberals in thsi group think it is "sick" for a mother to
teach
her son that Homosexuality is wrong.
I guess they would rather that she teach him how to bend over?
What's "sick" is what you say above. No *sane* parent would "teach"
their kid to be gay.
Uh Dani, if as your ilk say "there is nothing wrong with it" then why would it
not be ok to teach it?
You do not sit down with a kid and say: "Honey, we need to talk...I
think it's time you learned about homosexuality. I think this is a
good thing, and I hope one day you aspire to become gay. Let's pop in
a video-tape and see how it's done."
That's not true! Look at South Park. Stan had a dog. His dog was a
gay homosexual. His dog would go to the mall and shop for leather
pants. So what did Stan do? He tried training his dog.
Stan would say, "Sit. Roll over. Don't be gay."
Of course, the last one didnt work. The dog was still gay. And don't
forget big gay Al. He trained an entire animal shelter to be gay.
Think of that poor gay lion. =(
In all seriousness, I had a friend in the service who tells a
different story. He "came out of the closet" while in the service
(quietly, and not publicly). His deal was: his dad left when he was
really young. He only had his mother and older sisters as role
models. They always made comments about cute guys etc. so that's all
he knew. He claimed they (unintentionally) trained him to be gay.
My guess is it's some combination of tendency and environment. I
mean, if the determining factor was strictly genetic, it seems like
there would be a lot fewer homosexuals.
I have to disagree with you, Shasta. I've talked to homosexuals, and
I've studied it. In some it probably is a mixture of nature *and*
nurture; but the men I've talked to all had similar stories (reached
adolescense, found themselves attracted to the same sex - didn't
understand why, was afraid, confused, ashamed etc..) It was never
a "choice" for them.
I wish I had more time right now, but here's just one article that
talks about it. (it's long)
http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm
Dani
S~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
