January 26, 2010

“Teaching” Homosexuality when we are Young

Posted in Comic Editorial, Uncategorized tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , at 12:03 am by justinadayswork

Wowza! It’s been a while since my last post. I guess it’s because I’ve been frolicking on tropical islands. Sorry kids.

But here’s another Dear God it’s what Rachel Thinks!!!

I’ve been thinking about the idea of introducing the concept of homosexuality to kids, especially very young kids. Many argue that they are not ready to hear about homosexuality.

But there’s an important distinction that needs to be made, and that is between introducing the idea of homosexuality, and the idea of homosexual sex

The reality is that kids learn about about heterosexuality from day one. Mom and Dad. Adam and Sarah next door. They learn about the concept of men and women being partners, and they do so, until probably age 6 or so, without learning about heterosexual sex. So when they do learn about sex, it comes with a background of a lifetime of seeing societally-sanctioned relationships. The sex is coupled with the partnership.

Then kids learn about homosexuality. But what’s the first thing they learn? They don’t learn that Adam and Rob are partners, they learn that Adam and Rob as people who have sex. Think back to the first time you heard about homosexuality. Was it about a 20 year relationship, or was it about fucking?

Homosexuals are introduced to children not as people who are partners, but as people who have sex with each other. When it’s only about sex, and not about partnership and love, it can be contorted to be a sin, immoral, depraved, and wrong with much greater ease. After all, the bible only condemns homosexual sex (or it is argued that it does), not going out for coffee with some hot girl you like. And the concept is also contrary to what kids have grown up learning. New things are scary.

Now what if we did this.

What if instead of showing our kids how men and women can be partners, and later reveal that they have sex, we show them that men and women can be partners, men and men can be partners, and women and women can be partners, and later, when kids are ready to learn about any kind of sex, we reveal it across the board.

That way, when people first get their impressions of homosexuality, it’s not of some depraved sex act. It’s of a healthy partnership, just like the one they learned about seeing Mom and Dad. Then when sex gets introduced, homosexuals will perhaps not be seen solely as sexually deviants, but as just normal people, who, well, happen to have sex.

 

Grandma, is that moral deviance I see?

 

Advertisements

January 1, 2010

My Version of “Pro Life:” Get one.

Posted in Comic Editorial, Uncategorized tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , at 3:32 am by justinadayswork

For all of those concerned about the new healthcare bill supporting publicly, taxpayer funded abortions, I want you to ask yourself the following three questions:

1. How many abortions are actually performed each year and what is the actual total cost

2. How many of these abortions are actually paid for by the government, via medicaid / public option (I doubt there are many for the elderly on medicare)?

3. What is the actual total cost of these abortions to the government?

4. What percent of the entire cost of the Medicaid / Public option system is taken by abortions?

5. What percent of your tax dollars are actually even dispersed to Medicaid / a Public option, in a sea of pentagon, stimulus, education, and other spending.

6. So now tell me, after you’ve done some non-biblical reflection for a change, how much of your tax contribution is actually funding abortion, keeping in mind that healthcare is a fraction of the federal budget, that abortions are a fraction of the healthcare expenditures, and that publicly funded abortions are a fraction of that cost. So that would be 1 cent? 2?

Your fight is purely symbolic. Please do shut up.

How can you be pro-life if you really don’t have one? Dude. Come on.