 Quote:
Originally Posted by paradoxymoron  Wow. That kid is a smarmy little.....who had fun with the thesaurus button. Sigh. When I read the blurb, I thought the school did right. Reading that tract, though, changed my mind. There were serious logical leaps made and the arbiter should have had the student flesh those out.
Another problem is the condescension DRIPPING from every word. "Don't hate the homosexuals. Just pat them on the head and then PITY them." Dehumanize them.
"Science implies that homosexual relationship are not meant to be" 'Science' doesn't imply anything. Science is a method, not a speakerbox that just says True Things. Appeal to authority. Slap. Besides that, every homoexual male CAN reproduce. They just have to have sex with a woman.
As for the nurture argument, it consists of "People raised badly do bad things" Then -immediately- to "we shouldn't shun homosexuals". Someone paid attention when Bush was saying "Iraq" everytime he said "9/11". So it's suddenly implied that homosexuals are that way because they were raised badly. Without ever, you know. showing that.
But at most, it was a good educational opportunity missed. (Although it's a funny joke to say that schools don't censor school papers).
I hope a student writes back a response. | It was a poorly written piece. But what do you expect? What response would there be though. There IS no reason/purpose/cause for homosexuality. I'd like to see a bit more than "science doesn't know what it's saying" crap. While a homosexual "can" reproduce, they can't do it with the person his reproductive instinct is telling him to do reproductive acts with. Homosexuality in fish would be a bunch of male fish squirting sperm at each other. Or female fish just dropping a big ole pile of eggs for no reason. Stupid if you think about it like that. How do justify homosexuality without making up some irrational BS like "scientists don't know what they are talking about"?  |