The most hated book 2006-2010

http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/photoshop/1/8/6/191186_slide.jpg?v=1


2 male penguins adopt an abandoned baby penguin and raise it together. and this is what america tried to ban from libraries between 2006 and 2010 the most

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/photoshop/1/8/6/191186_slide.jpg?v=1


2 male penguins adopt an abandoned baby penguin and raise it together. and this is what america tried to ban from libraries between 2006 and 2010 the most

Have you told ---Penguin?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/photoshop/1/8/6/191186_slide.jpg?v=1


2 male penguins adopt an abandoned baby penguin and raise it together. and this is what america tried to ban from libraries between 2006 and 2010 the most

Tyson Gay also ran 9.79 seconds to win Diamond League in Lausanne

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Tyson Gay also ran 9.79 seconds to win Diamond League in Lausanne

people usually stop making fun of names when they turn 12 and start pursuing sex.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
people usually stop making fun of names when they turn 12 and start pursuing sex.

really, perhaps your gay book propaganda might influence children to refrain from it sooner.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/photoshop/1/8/6/191186_slide.jpg?v=1


2 male penguins adopt an abandoned baby penguin and raise it together. and this is what america tried to ban from libraries between 2006 and 2010 the most

I am also glad to hear that "Of Pandas and People" has not been banned from school libraries. The freedom of information was able to win out.

The instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am also glad to hear that "Of Pandas and People" has not been banned from school libraries. The freedom of information was able to win out.

The instructor

That is because there are no religious reasons for banning it. Books are only ever banned for religious, political or cultural reasons, never for scientific reasons.

this thread really doesn't let much for debate, unless we would like to revisit the same discussion between those who concern themselves with what other people do and judge them for it, and the rest.

what i found funny (in a very dark way) is how a children's book about 2 little birds caring for a third that would have no chance on its own, sparked so much hatred. i am not one for banning books, but i do believe if we look at other books that came out that year, we would find gruesome garbage, much more worthy of the ban axe.

and yes, what i find even funnier is that a book about love, a book meant for little children is seen by the robbie as gay propaganda.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
really, perhaps your gay book propaganda might influence children to refrain from it sooner.

Refrain? That's a joke. You don't 'refrain' from being gay. You are gay because of internal imperatives that drives them that way the exact same way those imperatives drives people to be straight.

You can't get past your own religious dogma on these issues. It dominates your thinking which is unfortunate because it effects real lives, the civil rights of those who gay. You also probably feel there should be no civil rights for gay people. Courts feel otherwise and I would venture 99% of all judges are straight so THEY got past their prejudice so why can't you?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Refrain? That's a joke. You don't 'refrain' from being gay. You are gay because of internal imperatives that drives them that way the exact same way those imperatives drives people to be straight.

You can't get past your own religious dogma on these issues. It dominates your thinking which is unfortunate because it effects real lives, the civil rights o ...[text shortened]... venture 99% of all judges are straight so THEY got past their prejudice so why can't you?

nonsense, their is no imperative for gays to procreate, they cannot pass the genetic code onto the next generation, you cannot get past pseudo scientific claims and get hold of the FACT! that there is NO genetic predisposition which causes someone to engage in a gay sexual act and frankly I am fed up having to point the fact out to you.

A simple and singular determinant for sexual orientation has not been conclusively demonstrated—various studies point to different, even conflicting positions - wikipedia

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nonsense, their is no imperative for gays to procreate, they cannot pass the genetic code onto the next generation, you cannot get past pseudo scientific claims and get hold of the FACT! that there is NO genetic predisposition which causes someone to engage in a gay sexual act and frankly I am fed up having to point the fact out to you.

This goes WAY beyond mere procreation. That is a dodge, a strawman. When people think of sex, 99% of the time it is for recreation not procreation.

That works for all the shades of gray of sex. The fundamentals of sexual attraction goes way deeper than the need to procreate. The need for simple companionship for instance whether straight or gay.

I am surprised you equate sex with JUST procreation when it is obviously a LOT more than that.

It looks like you think if we just can find the brain imbalance that creates homosexual behavior then we can find a way to correct that imbalance, as just one example of gay as a medical problem.

I have a feeling most gays would say bullox to that, we LIKE being gay and will not change it no matter how much society tries to force normalacy on them.

It's like the work being done on deaf people. There are cochlear implants that can at least partially restore hearing to the deaf. But now we find a large contingent of deaf folks who don't think of themselves as disabled in any significant way and will refuse the efforts of the medical community to restore or give first hearing to formerly deaf people.

The latest on that front is stem cell research that is building from scratch the entire inner ear and that with the subjects own cells so when they implant the entire thing inside an ear, it will not be rejected. That could make a LOT of now deaf people have normal hearing.

But there is a large number of the deaf that would still refuse such treatment saying we have nothing wrong. YOU are the problem not us.

I think you would find the same reaction in gay people also.

There HAS to be a genetic component to being gay, otherwise it would have been genetically wiped out a million years ago.

Gene's are not 100.000000000000% perfect. You should know that. There is a condition where an infant is born only with one ear, maybe one in a million kids like that but there is a LOT higher percentage of people being gay, at LEAST 1% maybe as much as 5% of ALL people, ALL races, ALL cultures who will INEVITABLY turn gay, some realizing it at the age of 3 and it is NOT due to mommy thinking she really wants a girl not this cute little boy and therefore dressing the kid in girl's clothes and such. Perhaps that happens now and again but that is not the case with most gay people.

Originally posted by sonhouse
This goes WAY beyond mere procreation. That is a dodge, a strawman. When people think of sex, 99% of the time it is for recreation not procreation.

That works for all the shades of gray of sex. The fundamentals of sexual attraction goes way deeper than the need to procreate. The need for simple companionship for instance whether straight or gay.

I a ...[text shortened]... and such. Perhaps that happens now and again but that is not the case with most gay people.

believe what you want, its pointless trying to reason with someone who ignores reality.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nonsense, their is no imperative for gays to procreate, they cannot pass the genetic code onto the next generation, you cannot get past pseudo scientific claims and get hold of the FACT! that there is NO genetic predisposition which causes someone to engage in a gay sexual act and frankly I am fed up having to point the fact out to you.

A simple a ...[text shortened]... lusively demonstrated—various studies point to different, even conflicting positions - wikipedia

why dont you think gays can pass genetic code on???????? and why dont gays have and imperative to procreate????????

Originally posted by stellspalfie
why dont you think gays can pass genetic code on???????? and why dont gays have and imperative to procreate????????

tell us how two lesbians can procreate except artificially.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
tell us how two lesbians can procreate except artificially.

what??? thats not the statement, why are you making a completely new point and with a different set of parameters? i was responding to the sentence.

"nonsense, their is no imperative for gays to procreate, they cannot pass the genetic code onto the next generation"

your statement is complete nonsense

1 - many gays have an imperative to procreate.
2 - nearly all gays can pass on genetic code.

two lesbians not being able to procreate except artificially doesnt change the either of the two points above. some gays want to procreate and nearly all gays can pass on genetic code.