TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/05/ ... girls.html

One of the nation’s largest public school systems is preparing to include gender identity to its classroom curriculum, including lessons on sexual fluidity and spectrum – the idea that there’s no such thing as 100 percent boys or 100 percent girls.

“Emphasis will be placed on an understanding that there is a broader, boundless, and fluid spectrum of sexuality that is developed throughout a lifetime,” the document states. “Sexual orientation and gender identity terms will be discussed with focus on appreciation for individual differences.”

I won't get into a discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity, but I will say this. Having kept animals and bred them generation to generation, it is clear that reproduction within the species requires a male acting as a male and a female acting as a female. Unfertilized eggs can certainly be eaten, but they will not produce chicks, and cows, nannies, and does with no access to bulls, billies and bucks will likewise not produce offspring. It seems the design is not sustainable in any way other than sexual reproduction, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity of the animals.

It's not about equality.

It's about making the next generation as nonfunctional, indoctrinated into marxism, and easy to control as possible.

Removing all the anchor points that allow people to enjoy life and be productive (God, family, and freedom) will do that ..... if we let them.

more evidence of the rapid decline of Western Civilization.....

I'm not sure who I despise more: those who are knowingly dismantling an entire civilization, or those who actually believe they are going to get some sort of "utopia" if/when this mess reaches its endpoint.

These idiots see boys as defective girls...

K.Mooneyham wrote:I'm not sure who I despise more: those who are knowingly dismantling an entire civilization, or those who actually believe they are going to get some sort of "utopia" if/when this mess reaches its endpoint.

Easy choice.... There's greater honesty in the former and greater danger in the latter.

Aldus Huxley's "Brave New World"...

Excaliber wrote:It's not about equality.

It's about making the next generation as nonfunctional, indoctrinated into marxism, and easy to control as possible.

Removing all the anchor points that allow people to enjoy life and be productive (God, family, and freedom) will do that ..... if we let them.

It's also—in my opinion—a sub-rosa agenda of encouraging people to behave in non-reproductive sexual ways. They know that they can't stop all fornication, nor, do they want to (since they obviously have created a culture that is obsessed with it). However, they think that mankind's numbers need to be cut by half or more in order to make their utopian ideals even remotely possible. Therefore, if they can encourage the useful idiots to stop breeding by entertaining them with sexual taboos, then eventually our species will experience a large die-off by means other than war (in theory), and the utopian idealist breeders can then step in and rule the world.

I say "(in theory)" of course because as soon as one nation voluntarily castrates/spays itself in that manner and begins to die off, its stronger neighbor will invade it and take all of their resources...... usually a stronger neighbor of breeders. Why do you think that Putin has made it a centerpiece of his governing to officially discourage anything homosexual? Why do you think that Obama refuses to defend the border against a nation of people who are culturally high capacity breeders, while encouraging the rest of us not to breed?

There may be some truth to all this. What would you call Bruce Jenner other than a freak?

mojo84 wrote:There may be some truth to all this. What would you call Bruce Jenner other than a freak?

I'll excuse him, although I agree it is weird, because he's already got 6 biological children of his own.

In my mind, and speaking at the macro level from the standpoint of the human being as a biological animal, the highest biological duty we have is exactly the same as for any other species, and that is to grow the species through reproduction, while trying to kill off as few of us as we can along the way. There is no higher biological imperative. All others are subservient to that.

In nature, the lemming die-offs are often mischaracterized as a mass suicide in reaction to population pressures, but that is actually not an accurate portrayal. What they are actually doing is mass-migration in search of food. They can swim, and lemming populations are found on islands. When those island populations increase to the size where local foraging cannot feed them, they attempt to swim to the next closest island. Most don't make it, but a few will, and the population will rebuild itself.

That is what will happen when America stops reproducing. The world's human lemmings, prodigious breeders all, will simply flood in to fill the vacuum. Mark Steyn has a couple of good books on the subject of population stability.

So, Bruce is a lemming?

mojo84 wrote:So, Bruce is a lemming?

Nope. Can't breed.