"I don't like seeing children at..."

Staff edit image violation The Dr

Disgusting!

You better pray the boomers are around for awhile...... to keep the young and dumb alive

You better pray the boomers are around for awhile...... to keep the young and dumb alive Originally Posted by chizzy

On the contrary, I can't wait for all the raisins who lead the country to die. This country needs to be lead by people in their 30s and 40s. Not by people in their 80s who thinks the internet is a fad and who need help from their grandchildren to use their phone.



But this thread is about the gays, not about boomers.

2022: There are gays in the Buzz Lightyear movie!!!


1950s: Male rabbit kisses male hunter without consent

Have you ever been to a gay parade? They’re much more sexual than church. That’s the main issue with having children there. But of course the left tries to spin it. Men dressed like George Washington is much different than the grown men in drag wearing thongs and lingerie. It’s bizarre that people are up in arms about not wanting drag queens around children.. it’s creepy.

The lesbian kiss scene was specifically put into the light year movie in response to the parental rights bill passed in Florida. It seems that the left is desperate to sexually indoctrinate children by all means necessary. Again.. creepy. And I’m not a boomer. Just my opinion.

Have you ever been to a gay parade? They’re much more sexual than church. That’s the main issue with having children there. But of course the left tries to spin it. Men dressed like George Washington is much different than the grown men in drag wearing thongs and lingerie. It’s bizarre that people are up in arms about not wanting drag queens around children.. it’s creepy. Originally Posted by Loretta77

Yes, gay parades are far too sexual for children. I personally, I'm straight as a rocket, but if people want to be gay, that's fine with me. But I wouldn't enjoy going to a gay march. But I still believe that they should be allowed to be gay.
This meme is about how they are saying 'they do not want to indoctrinate children in gayness' because it is an adult subject and they don't understand what it means, so they are just going along with it like their mommy or daddy is.


As such, it is spinning it around with religion and going to church, because it is an adult subject and they don't understand what it means, so they are just going along with it like their mommy or daddy is.
But religion, teaching children to believe in a magic man in the sky who will send them to hell for something they know you will already do if you do it because magic man, is totally fine?

Everyone is fine with Religion till the Baphomet statues come out.

Everyone is fine with Religion till the Baphomet statues come out. Originally Posted by DrivesAllDay

Yep. Since they passed laws allowing religious schools to get tax money, I can't wait for the Church of Satan to open up a public school in the south. And some Muslim schools to get funding too. Freedom of religion works both ways. America can't just be Christian while saying all religions are OK

That’s a pretty ignorant description of religion. The purpose of Christianity is to instill moral values in its followers and the teachings of Christ. Anyone who actually reads about Christ has to admit that the teachings are pure and good, regardless if you believe in his existence. Teaching kids about a grown man dressing like a woman in lingerie has zero benefit on society whatsoever. Again, I’m creeped out by you pushing this subject. And for the record I’m not religious

Also “church of Satan” schools DONT exist bub. It’s for private schools, mainly Catholic. Jewish and Muslim schools would be accepted.

That’s a pretty ignorant description of religion. The purpose of Christianity is to instill moral values in its followers and the teachings of Christ. Anyone who actually reads about Christ has to admit that the teachings are pure and good, regardless if you believe in his existence. Teaching kids about a grown man dressing like a woman in lingerie has zero benefit on society whatsoever. Again, I’m creeped out by you pushing this subject. And for the record I’m not religious Originally Posted by Loretta77

Yes alittle creepy indeed even for a young guy who doesn't know half.of what he thinks.... oh and yes off topic but since someone didn't have the balls to admit how wrong he was about employer drug testing.... again you were wrong and just decided to move on without being a man

Yep. Since they passed laws allowing religious schools to get tax money, I can't wait for the Church of Satan to open up a public school in the south. And some Muslim schools to get funding too. Freedom of religion works both ways. America can't just be Christian while saying all religions are OK



Originally Posted by onawbtngr546

You are mischaracterizing the decision in the Maine school case. The decision does not require governments to fund religious schools. It requires that religious schools not be excluded as options for parents who receive a voucher for education of their children. If no parents in the voucher program choose religious schools, then religious schools get no government funding. So go right ahead and open a Satanist school in Mississippi. Good luck getting any parents to send their kid there.

Now if the decisions required actual mandatory public funding of religious schools, I am with you. That would be a violation of the Establishment clause. Giving parents a voucher and allowing them to use it to pay for any school EXCEPT a religious one, OTOH, would seem to violate the Free Exercise clause.

The difference is coercion vs choice. The requirement to allow parents to choose religious schools is a choice on their part to fund that school. It would be no different than a law that states that welfare recipients cannot donate to a church. The money is given to the parents, who then choose where to spend it. Free exercise and that the choice to spend it on religious schooling should not be prohibited.

By contrast, a law that requires tax money to go to religious schools is coercion; tax payers are required to pay taxes to a religious organization. That is precisely what the term “established religion” historically meant. When a jurisdiction has an established church, all residents were required to pay taxes to support that church. Clearly such a requirement regarding forced funding of religious education would be unconstitutional.

Even if they did the recent decision does not require government funding of them. It only requires that parents be permitted to use a school voucher to pay for their child’s education in a “church of satan” school if the parent chooses to send his or her kid to one. That is as it should be — free exercise of religion.