That statistics that back up what? I'm very confused here. :confused:

 

Statistics that show the amount of gays in society but yet the statistics of abused children in the elementary schools that are male on male! Im sorry but no matter how you cut it, it is a gay crime if it is male on male!

Nope. I'm opposed, resistant to their life style, not the person. God tell us to love everyone, but that doesn't mean we have to accept or love their way of life. I don't anyone living that lifestyle teaching or having any influence on my children.

Opposed and resistant to the life style is being opposed to the group which is prejudice. Religion may be the comfort blanket that allows you to mask the prejudice as it seems to work for many prejudiced groups. But the fact is being against a homosexual teaching your children is being prejudiced. Just like in the early 1900's when many would have been against a black person teaching their children. Sorry, but I have to call a spade a spade.

 

To the bold part, I have a question. With no gay influence would you deem it impossible for one of your children to be homosexual? To me this seems to be the underlying concern behind not allowing a homosexual person to teach your children.

Statistics that show the amount of gays in society but yet the statistics of abused children in the elementary schools that are male on male! Im sorry but no matter how you cut it, it is a gay crime if it is male on male!

:rolleyes:

 

Male children are abused by females as well. Maybe we should get robots to teach the children. Or my dog, I'm sure Rockmom would attest that there is no possible way Simba would abuse anyone.

In your mind is "nude" potentially different than "racy?"

 

That's a great question. And the answer is absolutely. If you want proof, go compare a Playboy with a Hustler. And, amazingly, Hustler isn't the raciest. But it's plenty racy to make the distinction between "nude" & "racy". Or so I've heard.

 

No, not really. The goal is the same thing IMO. I wouldn't want my daughter posing for either.

 

At some point, children will live their own lives. This soccer coach is old enough to make her decisions. I'd argue it's her right to pose in the magazine.

 

I wonder what her primary occupation was? Surely she's not just a soccer coach.

 

Although I wouldn't want my daughter to pose either, the fact is that once she becomes an adult, there is nothing I can do about it. It is her person, her right, to do so if she chooses. We do not have to agree with everything that others do, but we should accept the fact that they have the right to do such things. And for us to condemn them by taking away their livelyhood is wrong, IMHO.

 

:thumb:

 

Not sure what you're getting at here. There are plenty of swimsuits for young ladies to wear that don't reveal everything that needs to be covered.

 

And plenty who reveal plenty.

 

I've never been to Keenland, and that was the point of my post. I have no desire to watch horse racing.

 

I think what we've all learned today is that LRCW needs to go to Keeneland this weekend. Seriously. 80's and beautiful. Please, for your own good, go to Keeneland. You may even see John Calipari & a Henry family.

The parents got their 15 minutes of fame, the daughter will continue to get the spotlight. Here is where it goes, they will claim that they can no longer live there or go to that school because of the hate mail. News organizations will pick up the story and it will be circus time all over again because this one little girl was picked on for exposing her cheer coach to be the hussy everyone thought she was.

 

Who found the pictures? Another teacher with a subscription? How about one of the schools adminsistrators with a PB Subscription? Better yet, this girls dad was leafing through the pages of the PB stash in the back corner of his garage, and saw them. Yea!?

 

It is a moral issue, period. From a secular standpoint, there is nothing wrong with it. As we are no longer a Christian Nation, where is the problem?

 

LRWC - You are right, (wow that hurt), in saying that you will never change peoples minds on here. Likewise, no one change chage yours. My thoughts about different things have changed once I had more information or was given factual information, but NEVER have I changed my thought process because someone told me to.

The fact is that the girls cannot post racy photos on the internet so why should the coach be exempt from this standard? Regardless of your feelings on whether this is morally acceptable to take nude photos, to me the fact remains that she should not be exempt for the same rules her girls have to abide by. I do think that the fact that the girl was removed from the squad then complained looks like a payback situation. I have no doubt that this is the only reason that this was turned over to the school. However, it doesn't take away from the fact that these photos were taken and posted.

 

On the other side, I have a 14 year old daughter and would not want her cheering or playing a sport for someone who has recent nude pictures posted on Playboy or any other internet site. It is not the role model I would want her looking up to. And agree with it or not, a coach is a role model for our kids.

It is my understanding that the cheerleading coach was not a school employee other than as a cheerleading coach and the school had the option to fire her for basically any reason. They fired her because they didn't feel like she was a good representative of the message the school was trying to get across. I don't see why its controversial.

I agree^^^, she made a bad decision and should be fired.

 

Whats Homosexuals got to do with this topic? Start a new thread on them I have some scriptures I want to share.

Wow, smokin' hot!