It's so cool to watch them pack their shit before they leave the house for a trip.

Which one would depart first?

and they are right for pulling it.

its not the public schools job to endorse the gay agenda to make thier unnatural sex acts become normal.......

and of course a film on how 'cool' it is to love God and believe in jesus christ couldnt even be brought up or discussed.

so what about breast feeding?

bottle only....

and how in the hell can anyone talk about it being okay to not have a mother there to wipe your face or to spit into a handkerchief and rub the side of your face until its raw.....(isnt it something how much you HATE THAT when your mother does it and then when she is gone....you would give anything for her to do that just one more time....)

how can even a flaming homosexual come close the a mother's touch when you fall down and scrape your knee...........sorry but having one of your 'dads' really good at getting the right color of pants with the shirt or being good at decorating the house........just doesnt measure up.....

3rd grade? What is that, 9-10 years old? Seems like it might be a bit early to talk about this stuff. Though, the earlier kids are exposed to it, i suppose the less likely they are to grow up to be phobes like Sniper and the many other right wing minions.

It's way cooler to live in various foster homes and get to move around a lot and go to lots of different schools and not have to have anyone really caring about you. And hey, like in the state of Florida, it's real cool when you are a child born with HIV and the state would rather take you out of the only home you have ever known because the evil gay couple that has cared for you thinks they want to actually adopt you and give you a good life.
And hey, it's real cool for straight people who aren't taking care of these sick kids to make sick jokes about things they know nothing about.
Like I always say, any chance to express bigotry and hatred is a reason for right wing losers to celebrate.

third grade is usually eight year olds.

BL2---is a hetero parental structure ideal? Absolutely. But the alternative can and does produce normal, loving, caring, smart children who grow up to be normal adults. Just because something is different or out of the norm does not mean we should hide it, demonize it, chastize it, ignore it or belittle it.


And i'm not sure what you're talking about missing your mom wiping your face raw. Sounds like you have some issues. Methinks you were probably breast fed until your early teens.

"School district officials then sought to allay their concerns by providing a special screening for the parents of third graders, although only about a fifth of them attended."

I thought this was interesting. Only 20% of the parents cared enough to even show up and see what it was all about. The rest apparently made their decisions based on what they assumed it was about, or what someone else told them it was about.

Hmmm.

Like I always say, any chance to express bigotry and hatred is a reason for right wing losers to celebrate.

Posted by danni at 2007-09-14 10:29 AM | Reply

The point Danni is that it is not the schools RIGHT to teach our kids right and wrong and what to accept and what to denounce. That comes from the parents. I for one do not want my children growing up to think it is ok to be GAY. I don't agree with it or the lifestyle. However, I will raise my children to respect them as human beings.

We are allowed to disagree with lifestyles and people without RACE, BIGOTRY, HATRED coming into play. It falls under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Just because we disagree with it does not make us homophobic, bigoted, racist, etc...

I would suggest to keep that crap out of schools all together ., its something that should be taught at home like God, if ya cant teach God at school ya better not teach the Gay lifestyle, why? because why should I let my children be introduced to a life style that I see as immoral and un-healthy, its my right as a parent to raise my child, its not the governments job to teach my kid tolerance, its mine, just like religion. at least im not so far left like many of the idiot democrat scum of this country..

Like I always say, any chance to express bigotry and hatred is a reason for right wing losers to celebrate.

Posted by danni at 2007-09-14 10:29 AM

Yep, DanniDrivel(TM) anytime you get a chance to express hate and HOPE for the death of people (and quite painfully too) it's a great thing....yep to DanniDrivel(TM)!!!

Just because something is different or out of the norm does not mean we should hide it, demonize it, chastize it, ignore it or belittle it.

Posted by __b__ at 2007-09-14 10:32 AM | Reply

Just a question.. Would you show 3rd graders porn to teach about sexual intercourse.

Would you tell them thats its ok if Daddy loves his horse in a SPECIAL WAY?

There is a limit that has to be drawn by society or small groups will always try to see what they can get away with and claim it is their right. Society has the obligation to say NO. Is that line homosexuality, I am not the one to make that call for the country.

Apparently though a lot of states do not want gay marriage, that is the will of the people. There is no RIGHT to marriage, there is not RIGHT to drive a car, yet people yell their rights have been violated in such instances.

Armyof1---what woudl you do if your kid said he/she was gay?

"I for one do not want my children growing up to think it is ok to be GAY."

Then I pray that one of your kids doesn't turn out to be gay and have to face the fact that his/her Dad won't accept them and thinks there is something wrong with them, and because of that fear and other prejudice out there, decides that life isn't worth living.

Armyof1--to answer your question, look at my first post. I think 3rd grade is a little too early. Unless there was an incident where kids were making fun of a kid with gay parents, etc.--i see no reason to bring this up that early.


While you don't think there is a RIGHT to marriage, there IS a right to equal protection under the law.

"its not the governments job to teach my kid tolerance, its mine, just like religion. at least im not so far left like many of the idiot democrat scum of this country.. Posted by kc101"

Uhm, yeah, good luck with that. Actually, I should wish your kids luck - they'll need it.

B, I really do not know. Being how I was raised and my beliefs my kids, if they chose that lifestyle, would know that I do not condone it. They would still be my children and thus I would love them forever, yet I do not think I personally could be around them or their partner.

i just do not condone that lifestyle. I think it is wrong and not the natural order of things...

But to be honest I am not in that situation so i am only speaking hypothetically. i really do not know for sure How I would react...

Yeah Army, you've got the right to disagree and in the State of Florida the state has the right to tear families apart and send little kids off to live with strangers because some right wing tool thinks they know what is right and wrong. You have the right to be as hateful as you want. Those kids don't have to right to a family. Yay America!
You don't have to admit to homophobia or bigotry but by the same token if the results that effect the kids involved it doesn't really matter if you admit to it or not, does it???
And, at least here in Florida, the bigotry of the homophobic Republicans does break up families that have been created by caring gay couples willing to care for very ill children who weren't even expected to live beyond one or two years old.
If you can justify that then fine but I really think if you had to witness something like that you would change your tune.

So BLT misses his Mom.

Duh.

While you don't think there is a RIGHT to marriage, there IS a right to equal protection under the law.

Posted by __b__ at 2007-09-14 10:45 AM | Reply |

Agreed, but equal protecting is not the same as a right to marriage. Legally everyone has the right to the protections of the constitution. But nowhere in the constitution does it say marriage...

""Would you tell them thats its ok if Daddy loves his horse in a SPECIAL WAY?""

A better question would be what would you tell them about a father so hateful that he would compare a loving gay couple to someone who is into beastiality. How could you explain that type of mean sprited bigotry to a child?

What if the kid had 1 gay dad and 1 straight dad?

There is a right to marriage, just because a nation doesn't recognize that right doesn't prove the right doesn't exist.
Slaves had rights, our country just didn't recognize those rights at the time, that didn't prove the rights didn't exist.
All men are created equal, gay men and women too, whether the nation is ready to recognize that or not.

"Yeah Army, you've got the right to disagree and in the State of Florida the state has the right to tear families apart and send little kids off to live with strangers because some right wing tool thinks they know what is right and wrong."

In my experience it has been the "LEFT wing tools" who split up families more often than "right wing tools." You're not trying to tell us that the family services bureaus are filled with right wing workers, are you?

sorry that I do miss her sitdown.....

hopefully yours is still alive and if she is.

go and call her ....NOW.......


danni.....more scare tactics.........please.....

I think you forgot the drugged out molesters somewhere......you shouldnt since they are backbone of the liberal party....


B.........you may be correct.....but its NOT THE STATES FRIGGIN JOB to tell someones children that it is normal or cool...........

why cant they spend that time teaching them how to write and read better......or maybe even bring back that art or music class that the liberal education front has deemed as non essential....

you remember art and music.....those are the things that are done away with so children can learn how to read and write....
of course when music and art is gone....there will be nothing to read and write about.........



ah yes.......last post of the morning......what a kickass one...


good day everyone.......

Danni, the same things occur here in illinois every day. My mom works for Cathloic children services...

Let me add her boss is a staunch Democrat. The governor of Illinois is a democrat.

It is not just republicans that do not like the gay agenda. when 80 something % vote against gay marriage i think there are a lot of democrats in that as well.

Please don't place all the blame through your hatred of republicans.

"I for one do not want my children growing up to think it is ok to be GAY."

Later in the same post:

"Just because we disagree with it does not make us homophobic, bigoted, racist, etc..."

Yes...yes it does. That's exactly what it does.

it probably would be cool, until you accidentally walk in on them in the middle of the act. that would be uncool. at least there are always plenty of fudgecicles in the fridge.

How could you explain that type of mean sprited bigotry to a child?

Posted by danni at 2007-09-14 10:52 AM | Reply

For one don't twist my words.... My post was simply using an example of where we draw the line at what should be socially acceptable...

And no Danni, that is why we have laws, Marriage is a union before GOD for those who believe in religion, however, it is a legal matter designated by the government. If teh government of the people, for the people, by the people, don't want Gay marriage then that is what the RIGHTS are based on. Like it or not.

Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon. Deal with it.

""You're not trying to tell us that the family services bureaus are filled with right wing workers, are you?""

In the decision making positions...absofuckinglutely! I know people in many different parts of the Dept. of Children and Families.


""you remember art and music.....those are the things that are done away with so children can learn how to read and write....
of course when music and art is gone....there will be nothing to read and write about.........""

Disregarding most of your ridiculous post we do agree on this.

"Please don't place all the blame through your hatred of republicans."

I can only speak about Florida where Republicans do control the Legislature and sit in the Governor's mansion. Crist is better that Bush who really was a hate filled piece of crap but still we have a long way to go.

"it probably would be cool, until you accidentally walk in on them in the middle of the act."

Uh, who wants to walk in on their parents having sex ANYTIME? Gay, straight, single, whatever. Ewww!

It's way cooler to live in various foster homes and get to move around a lot and go to lots of different schools and not have to have anyone really caring about you. And hey, like in the state of Florida, it's real cool when you are a child born with HIV and the state would rather take you out of the only home you have ever known because the evil gay couple that has cared for you thinks they want to actually adopt you and give you a good life.

Exactly. I live in Florida, and the need for adoption is so high for older and non-white kids that they run pictures of adoptees in some of the malls. Especially at Christmastime. It's heartbreaking to think of all these children who might never know the security, well-being and love that comes from being wanted by parents.

Anyone who'd rather have a kid go without a home than be raised by loving gay parents is heartless.

They would still be my children and thus I would love them forever, yet I do not think I personally could be around them or their partner.

Self-retorting retort.

" If teh government of the people, for the people, by the people, don't want Gay marriage then that is what the RIGHTS are based on. Like it or not. "

Did you feel that way about equality for blacks, who never would have won a popular vote for equal rights?

I disagree with "ANGRYDAD" disagreement with that lifestyle does NOT make someone homophobic, bigoted , racist.. I'm sorry you lack the brain to understand the meaning but you want to label someone with hate so you can justify your hate of them and show how they lack tolerance, sorry, tolerance has become the new God of so many Gay's, and others that feel they can do what they want and its all ok, there is no right or wrong, no black or white, and not absolute truth.. nxt thing will happen is the fall of man, that way of thinking will only lead to evil, why, cause in your own definition, your not willing to accecpt my view point , means your a bigot and a phobic of the greatest level, a racist that is un-tolerant of me and my ideas.. ;) suck on that.

"My post was simply using an example of where we draw the line at what should be socially acceptable..."

60 years ago, negroes were not "socially acceptable".

Maybe someday you'll pull your head out of your ass and join the 21st century...but I doubt it.

Yes...yes it does. That's exactly what it does.

Posted by Angrydad at 2007-09-14 10:57 AM | Reply |

No it doesn't It simply means I do not agree with the lifestyle.

Do you like Islamic Fundamentalist hell bent on killing Americans.

If not are you an islamophobe, probably not, you simply do not agree with them. You will never see me degrading homosexuals, ever, but you will also never see me support their cause. You can very well disagree with something without being bigoted, homophobic, or filled with HATE...

Sorry you can not see that... This is one of the problems with the PC movement in this country, everyone cries racism when someone disagrees. Its called free will and having an opinion...

sounds like Angry's head is so far up his add he cant even see the truth . lol

" But nowhere in the constitution does it say marriage..."

You're right. Heteros have no right to marriage in the Constitution. But the SCOTUS codified it as a right, over a generation ago.

compare a loving gay couple to someone who is into beastiality.

Posted by danni at 2007-09-14 10:52 AM | Reply

Unnatural is unnatural, any way you cut it.
-----------

"There is a right to marriage"

NO, there is not a right to marriage. And even if there were such a 'right' it would not apply in this situation. Two people of the same gender cannot be married.

I think 3rd grade is a little too early. Unless there was an incident where kids were making fun of a kid with gay parents, etc.--i see no reason to bring this up that early.

The greater cultural acceptance of gay couples, and their greater prominence in the news and entertainment media, makes it more likely that kids will know classmates who have gay parents. If schools are teaching tolerance of interracial relationships, why wouldn't same-sex relationships be included in the same curriculum?

DANNI,

I have read the Dec of independence. Is it not technically a legal document...

Sorry you don't win this one.. Rights are governed by laws not the wind...

If we all had just free rights would that mean I could rape, murder, steal, etc..

No, the laws of society say that those things are wrong.

" your not willing to accecpt my view point , means your a bigot"


Riiiiiight...because you're unwilling to accept bigotry, you are therefore a bigot.

Circular il-logic.

why wouldn't same-sex relationships be included in the same curriculum?

Cause it's icky.

Sincerely,

John. Q. Homophobe.

"Unnatural is unnatural"

Vernon obviously got his dictionary from the same place he got his calculator.

Is it not technically a legal document...

Yeah, it's only the document that is the cornerstone of our entire civilization. Useless.

Unnatural is unnatural, any way you cut it.

I repeat: homosexuality is a natural phenomenon.

"NO, there is not a right to marriage"

The Supreme Court disagrees, and has for over a generation.

Two people of the same gender cannot be married.

They can in Massachusetts and Iowa and can enter civil unions in New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Vermont. Gay marriage is legal in The Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, South Africa and Spain. You may wish you lived in a world where they couldn't marry, but you don't. And like most social trends, this one's moving liberal and is unlikely to change direction. Ask a teen about gay people and they'll make clear to you it's no BFD to them.

Army you don't even have a basic understanding of the philosophy America is based on. Please don't continue to lecture on "rights" until you go read a history book. That isn't an opinion, that is the basic fact about the theory of rights that the founding fathers based our nation on.

Virtually every argument, such as Army's or Vernon's about the right of gay people to marry can be compared to a similar argument in an earlier era in regards to African Americans. I can personally remember hearing those arguments and the people who expressed them so positive that their opinion would prevail. Things change, the view of gay rights in regards to marriage will change too. I'm patient. I realize time is on my side of the argument.

"No it doesn't It simply means I do not agree with the lifestyle."

It's not a lifestyle, it's a life, you nitwit!

B, I really do not know. Being how I was raised and my beliefs my kids, if they chose that lifestyle, would know that I do not condone it. They would still be my children and thus I would love them forever, yet I do not think I personally could be around them or their partner.

-army

"if they chose that lifestyle"... thats the catch my man. its not a choice. why do people not understand this? there are scientific experiments that prove its a genetic occurance, that gay individuals are born gay (ie god made them that way if you believe god creates all individuals), and its NOT a lifestyle that they CHOOSE.

i'll post links if you can't find it. some simple googling should find these experiments. they aren't bogus. your belief that being gay is a choice has been SCIENTIFICALY proven false.

oh and having two gay parents can be just as much of a positive influence or negative influence on a child as having straight parents. it depends on the parent's maturity (emotionaly and intellectualy), not their sexual preference.

To an extent, Army has a point.

There is, however, a fine line between not supporting homosexuality (calling it a "lifestyle choice" is not accurate as far as I can tell, given the mounting evidence of genetic traits of homosexuality).

From what I've seen, Army does NOT cross the line into homophobia (or, if you prefer, homoderangement).

Disagreement with homosexuality, I have no problem with.

Disparagement, on the otherhand, DOES cross the line.

I can get behind someone who will, while disagreeing with it, not "attack" it.

Though I must admit, I am, and have always been, puzzled by people who don't cross the above mentioned line, yet still try to keep homosexuals wrom having equal rights under law.

What if the kid had 1 gay dad and 1 straight dad?

then straight daddy would be getting blow jobs nightly from start to finsih. How many of you guys can get that at home?

"There is a right to marriage, "

Danni, this is the only point you make (at least for me) that I would dispute.

Marriage comes in two formally recognized forms:

- By the Church (or synagogue, temple, etc.)
- By the State

Neither recognizes the other as valid.

That said, there is no right to marriage. It is a decision between two people to form a bond - freedom of association. No paper issued by the State or sacrament given by the Church will keep two people together if they choose to part.

Unless you live in a home with two moms.

And it could be expensive on father's day.

"From what I've seen, Army does NOT cross the line into homophobia"

I don't know Rev. Anyone who says they could no longer be around their child if he/she were gay is, at the minimum, straddling that line.

"One way to look at it is you save a ton of money on Mother's Day gifts.

Posted by OohRah"

With the double Father's Day gifts its a wash.

DANNI,

Sorry you feel that homosexuality and the slavery of 10's of thousands of people are the same. NOW thats a stretch...

But no, my views are my views... not homophobia.

The laws of the land dictate what is right and what is wrong. In a DEMOCRACY, which you seem to know little about, the people vote on those said laws. when 80%+ don't want gay marriage to be acceptable then well that is life.

In some countries they just kill gays... I think the US even in its intolerance is still much more tolerant than a lot of the world..

""Sorry you feel that homosexuality and the slavery of 10's of thousands of people are the same.""

I never said that did I??? So don't put words in my mouth. We were just discussing "rights" and the fact that they exist whether they are recognized or not. You seem to think (wrongly) that rights are granted by the state and thus subject to the will of the majority, I know the truth about it which is that rights exist whether the state or the majority recognizes those rights.
I "contend" that the right to marry the person of your choice is one of those rights not yet recognized by this nation.
Virtually every right we do recognize was not recognized in an earlier era so it leads me to believe that there are rights we have not yet recognized.

Virtually every argument, such as Army's or Vernon's about the right of gay people to marry can be compared to a similar argument in an earlier era in regards to African Americans.

Posted by danni at 2007-09-14 11:15 AM | Reply

Only in your imagination, Danni. A person is born black, and they are black all their lives. Being a homosexual is BEHAVIOR.

There is no valid genetic evidence for homosexuality. What does exist is politically motivated.

This story makes about as much sense as two men fucking.

-Pinche Mao.

the need for adoption is so high for older and non-white kids that they run pictures of adoptees in some of the malls

Yeah!

So let's allow Bruce and Lance to "adopt" a 14 year-old Laotian boy!

Now there's a kid that'll grow up well-adjusted!

Fabulous!

Food for thought: if homosexuality is genetic and can be discovered in a fetus during time in the womb... would the pro-choice crowd be alright with the mother aborting that child because she didn't want to raise a gay child?

Damn, Oorah! That's one hell of a question.

quickly broken down, the experiments tested individuals' preference to various hormones contained in test tubes. pretty much the results showed that gay individuals strongly tend to 'appreciate' or enjoy the hormone of their same sex, whereas a straight individual will enjoy the (sorry its pharamone) of the opposite sex. obviously the test subjects didn't know what pharamone they were smelling...

the study also concluded that men tend to be either gay or straight, that is, they prefer one pheramone over another. yet women, while they still tend to prefer one over the other, they are more likely to enjoy BOTH pheramones.... that is they appreciate the pharamone that belongs to the female sex, although will prefer the male over the female.

oddly, it doesn't seem to be true with my gf.... :(

In answer to the question, I'd have to, personally, say that I was okay with it. I would find it distasteful, but, to me, choice is choice.

Let me reflect it around, however:

How would a pro-lifer feel about it? They have the choice of raising a child they know would be gay, or aborting it.

There is no valid genetic evidence for homosexuality.

Wrong.

Hey pinche, name a serial killer that was raised by two gay dads.

Wait, they're all from heterosexual pairings? You don't say...

"Sorry you feel that homosexuality and the slavery of 10's of thousands of people are the same. NOW thats a stretch..."

Not that much...

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood,"

"Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination."

"I have worked too long and hard against segregated public accommodations to end up segregating my moral concern. Justice is indivisible." Like Martin, I don't believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others."

"We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny . . . I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be," she said, quoting her husband. "I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy,"

Quotes from Coretta Scott King

You may wish you lived in a world where they couldn't marry, but you don't.

Posted by rcade at 2007-09-14 11:15 AM | Reply

My wishes are irrelevant. I don't really care what two consenting adults do with the shades drawn.

But government sanction does not make a marriage. The word has a specific meaning, and any attempt at changing that meaning destroys the word, and the concept.

Two people can behave as though they are married, but it does not make it so.

Like it or not, Our school system is our childrens first real social education. We have to teach tolerance to the degree that for the next 13 years these kids are going to be forced to interact with each other.

The question then becomes, how pro-active can the schools be in trying to avoid future conflict. I don't think anyone is goign to deny a reactive policy (Boy 1 Taunts Boy 2 because his dads are gay, Boy 1 is reprimanded)... Question becomes, how much can the schools do to try and avoid that situation altogether?

Its a sticky situation, We say we don't want the government teaching our kids morals and values, then we expect the government to handle the little Satan's 8 hours of the day in a social situation where morals and values are tested daily.

Go GO School voucher system!

Definition of homophobia

homophobia (hm-fb-) KEY

NOUN:

Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
Behavior based on such a feeling.

Army, if you could not be around your own children due to their homosexuality it does appear that it is homophobia. What else would you call it???

So let's allow Bruce and Lance to "adopt" a 14 year-old Laotian boy!

Ah, here comes the moron that ties homosexuality with pedophilia.

San- Did a paper once on the connection you've raised, so I've seen the quotes before.

Now it's apparent why the FBI had to spy on CSK, eh?

The word has a specific meaning, and any attempt at changing that meaning destroys the word, and the concept.

Marriage has done nothing BUT change through history, vernon.

It was once acceptable for knights to marry their sisters. It was once unacceptable to divorce for damn near any reason. Now the divorce rate is 50%.

Keeping "the word" makes the situation resemble "separate but equal" and we all know how the SCOTUS felt about that.

"The laws of the land dictate what is right and what is wrong."

Using that "logic", slavery was right until about 1863.


Anyone who believes law separates right and wrong should read You Can't Eat Peanuts In Church, a collection of odd and zany laws.

Did you know it is (or was) against the law to mispronounce the name of the town: Joliet, Illinois?

""Yeah!

So let's allow Bruce and Lance to "adopt" a 14 year-old Laotian boy!

Now there's a kid that'll grow up well-adjusted!



Fabulous!""

But if a straight couple wants to adopt a little girl, and the husband is a pedophile it would be less horrific???
Pedophelia is a crime committed by heterosexuals just as often (or more so) as homosexuals.

Well, excpet for certain right wing radio pundits...but that's another story.

"Now it's apparent why the FBI had to spy on CSK, eh?"

Yep, not only did she think them negras outta have equal rights, but them queers too.

Yodar013 no links... typical .. hay i got proof, with no link, ,

Its a theory based upon a set of data that is skewed and not very objective, there still coming up with data that disproves your "born that way" theory, and like most of those research groups there not really fair, most of them are driven by greed and skew the data or leave out data so there theory looks better..

the word theory = educated guess.. hmmm , depends on the educated part and alot on the guess part... lol just like we evolved from monkeys.. ... its all a theory.. the find a monkey-man and date his bones back 10bil years and dont tell you they also found a tree and some other things right nxt to them, that dated only a few thousand years.. they just leave that out.. why.. cause it dont sell and wont get me the nxt grant... ;)

Pedophelia is a crime committed by heterosexuals just as often (or more so) as homosexuals.

Try More so. Well, we had to win at something, I guess. You're welcome, danni.

"The laws of the land dictate what is right and what is wrong. "

No. Laws are simply laws. Most have little to do with dictating what is right or wrong. Laws are no moral measures - morality cannot be dictated. Once you attempt to dictate morality, then you plunge into the battlefield as to whose morality is to be overriding.

The law states that one cannot murder another. But within the law, there are specific provisions that allow one to kill another: self defense, death penalty applications, or war.

Laws have everything to do with attempting to control people's behavior in the context of what is acceptable or unacceptable in the eyes of a society. That some laws may be interpreted as being moral is merely happenstance.

Example: there is nothing morally wrong with smoking pot, but yet the laws states that one cannot.

There is nothing inherently or morally wrong with two men or two women wishing to enter into a formal contract with the State as to their relationship. But it is society in general that has found this to be offensive and debase it by equating it to sexual perversion and intimating that it will open the door to people marrying and screwing their pets.

Yet weirdly enough, sexual perversion is openly peddled like so much exercise equipment and protected by the law.

But government sanction does not make a marriage.

Is that why people pay for a marriage license, vernon?

Danni, its simple I don't agree with it. Are you islamophibic or do you not have contempt for militants that kill americans..
Come on Danni WHEN Do we stop labeling people for simple disagreeing..

PC is the first true step towards censorship and it is championed by the left...

I would say though that most of you are completely against censorship so are you also against PC?

just curious...

And OORAH, that is a great question that seems to be getting avoided by most of the libs here...

There's a lot of queers that are pedophiles.

There's a lot that aren't.

I just find it sad that as soon as homosexuality comes up you start yelling "pedophiles!" like it's hardwired into that hamster-on-a-wheel that you call a brain.

There's a lot of queers that are pedophiles.

You can provide a link for evidence of that trend? Most pedophiles are heterosexual, their choice of which children to molest does not make them queer or non queer, btw. For priests it's mostly about easy access.

Most rapists are also heterosexual, Pinche. It has something to do with there being so many of us.

There is no valid genetic evidence for homosexuality. What does exist is politically motivated.


Well, Vernon cleared that up for us nicely.

Now we know.

the word theory = educated guess

No, that's a hypothesis.

Theories are supported by evidence.

Well, pinche? Got any peer reviewed literature, or ANY decent factual links proving that most queers are pedophiles, or is gay sex so "icky" that you make shit up to justify your prejudice?

Whatever Army, but you do seem to fit the definition. BTW, the definition didn't mention the word "hate" so I would assume you could be homophobic without being a hater. I would put you in that category because I honestly do not feel you are a hater. I think you are extremely uncomfortable about homosexuality which is probably because you haven't been around many gay people. I am pretty sure that if you were you wouldn't really care what they did in the privacy of their own bedroom. You might not want to hear the details but most of us don't want to hear the details of anyone's sexual encounters.

Then there are people like Pinche who make stupid comments about homosexual pedophiles as if there weren't millions of heterosexual pedophiles. As if there weren't millions of gay people who are not in any way pedophiles.

but most of us don't want to hear the details of anyone's sexual encounters.

You got that right, Danni.

But there's plenty of information out there correlating homosexuality with pedophilia.

Army you just proved his point for him. They are similar but not exactly the same. A theory is much more valid than a hypothesis alone.

"More or less verified" VS "conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena".

DANNI I AM A HATER...

You are so far off the deep end in the loony left that you can not even see the cliff that you fell from...

Why don't you try using rational logic to a thought instead of regurgitating what moveon.org and other organizations tell you to...

Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion.

Did you even read this?

Any 4th grader knows the difference between a theory and a hypothesis when used in a technical context.

From Oohrah, part I:

Food for thought: if homosexuality is genetic and can be discovered in a fetus during time in the womb... would the pro-choice crowd be alright with the mother aborting that child because she didn't want to raise a gay child?

Another twist on that question: if it becomes possible to genetically "tweak" a fetus, would you be OK with tweaking the fetus to alter the "homosexual" gene? Designer babies, I guess is the question. If we could discover specific genetic tendencies and "correct" it (based on the desire of the "customer - the mama") would that be permissible?

But there's plenty of information out there correlating homosexuality with pedophilia.

OK, Let's see it.

Labels and definitions are meaningless. Rights are paramount.

It is quite unfortunate that people still believe being gay is a choice. There are millions of people who look so obviously gay--do you think they ever had a chance to be straight? Then there are millions of people who spend their lives TRYING to be straight, but cannot. Do you honestly think people would voluntarily choose to live a life where your rights will be limited and a significant portion of the population will look down on you with contempt.

ALEX, can you read english, they mean the exact same thing.. thats what a synonym is. you can use one to replace the other...

So theory = educated guess=hypothesis is correct.

But government sanction does not make a marriage. The word has a specific meaning, and any attempt at changing that meaning destroys the word, and the concept.

Language does not stand still. The meaning of words changes to fit the needs of the culture that employs them. Your belief that you can freeze the definition of the word "marriage" to forever ever ever exclude gays is as quaint as my expectation that I can get older without losing any more hair.

Do you honestly think people would voluntarily choose to live a life where your rights will be limited and a significant portion of the population will look down on you with contempt.

Actually, while this is a compelling point that covers most cases, I do believe there are rare instances when someone WOULD do that to themselves out of self-loathing.

But, more or less, you're right, The vast majority of homosexuals I have met were that way for as long as they could recall.(first crush ect)

So theory = educated guess=hypothesis is correct.

Not when discussing TECHNICAL issues.

Read it slowly: TECHNICAL.

What don't you understand about that?

Army1- The definition stated they were synonyms in the non technical sense, then went on to explain the difference between them when used technically.

There's a reason it's not called the "hypothesis of evolution" or the "hypothesis of relativity"

Learn to comprehend what you've posted before you lecture anyone else.

Learn to comprehend what you've posted before you lecture anyone else.

Fat chance.

Is it OK to correct for illness, but not for sexuality or cosmetic things like hair or eye color?

Posted by OohRah at 2007-09-14 11:58 AM | Reply | Flag

Excellent question, oohrah. I think most people would take the "if it aint broke, don't fix it" position, and focus on the physical health of a fetus as opposed to aesthetic alterations.

I would imagine such medical procedures would be dangerous and expensive.

Language does not stand still.

RCADE- I believe you are wrong, asshat. : )

"OK, Let's see it."

You won't...it doesn't exist (at least not credibly).

As usual, pinch loaf is talking out of his ass.

I think most people would take the "if it aint broke, don't fix it" position

Screw that! I want a kid with 4 arms, 2 hearts, and an extra brain in its ass.

Oh, if they can figure out how to get people to shoot lasers from their eyes, I'd throw that in too.

Oh, RCADE--to respond to your earlier response to my initial post. I agree--that in a perfect world, kids would understand homosexual relationships are nothing unusual, improper, disgusting or taboo. And education to achieve that goal should be done as early as possible. My initial response that it might be too young is coming from a pragmatic viewpoint that this country isn't quite ready for this yet. It is rough enough to deal with ANY mention of gay relationships in public schools, let alone bring it up in 3rd grade.

To use your analogy--could you imagine, before all of the civil rights legislation, public schools started talking about and endorsing interracial marriages in 3rd grade? Back then, it would have caused massive outrage by some.

I am a firm believer in small steps to achieve the greater goal of acceptance.

its not the public schools job to endorse the gay agenda to make thier unnatural sex acts become normal....... -- BL2

Would you show 3rd graders porn to teach about sexual intercourse.

Would you tell them thats its ok if Daddy loves his horse in a SPECIAL WAY? --Armyof1

Wow, some of y'all are awfully fixated on sex! And sex that you think is deviant, at that.

The film wasn't about sex, or about gay men, for that matter. It was about kids who have non-traditional families. Got a problem with the kids?

Unless you as parents tell your 3rd graders about the sex part, it will never occur to them.

I'm quite sure of this because I was raised in a traditional Mom-stays-at-home household and was in my teens before I understood why my Mom cried all the time about my Dad's staying out all night with his secretary, and why she had fits when said sec'y sent presents home for us, etc. We thought she was so nice!

TG we were brought up by heterosexual parents, eh?

It sounds like the school district should have done some advance prep, but I think it's great that they're showing the movie. An ex whose mother abandoned him and his sisters when they were very young was re-traumatized by teachers' constantly telling him to take report cards home to Mom, get a note from Mom, etc. -- a steady message that everyone has a Mom. Regardless of what you think of the parents' lifestyle, kids shouldn't be made to feel like there's something wrong with them for living in a non-traditional family.

Oohrah, on your 1158 (and I will catch it if I get caught posting on working hours, so bear with me if I'm typoing left and right on this):

Now, that's an interesting idea... but, I still see too much potential for abuse.. hell, I could see a doctor actually tweaking to make a child ill (but that's only because I am pessimistic with the human spirit, I still don't trust anybody). Sure, the doc (if he was caught, and that's the problem) would get into all sorts of trouble, but the kid would still be completely shit out of luck.

So.... I still gotta say no genetic design work. Now... well, what about genetic work after birth (yes, considerably more difficult a concept, I know)? Provided controls existed... very strict controls to ensure that no one decided to make unauthorized changes (that's the overriding theme with my answers I suppose).

This is probably going to have to be the last I say on the subject until I get home... and it'll be longer still after that as I have to pack and do laundry and so forth (24 hours to Seattle, baby!).

if homosexuality is NORMAL, why do they insist on special rights?

why don't heteros have pride parades?

why do schools have to include this in elementary curriculum?

most children by the age of eight only want to know where babies come from, not how they got there and how then do you go about explaining that to them?

leave it to the parents.

let homosexual parent explain to their OWN children their debased lifestyle.

Oohrah- I'll be honest with you: I don't think there IS a "gay gene". To say there is one is to assume that sexuality is a rigid black or white situation, which is untrue.

There are many people that are bi-curious experimenters, bi-sexual. Sexuality is not straight or gay 100%, even straight men get longings they find distasteful. Some just have homosexual sex because it's easier to get. Larry craig doesn't think he's gay. And technically, he may not be. It's much simpler to get a blowjob from another man. Go to the wrong bar on saturday night and you'll be turning down head left and right. I've yet to be in a hetero bar that open about it. Also, Craig may be attracted to the taboo aspect of the whole situation, as well as the lack of commitment. Men just prefer to fuck, gay or straight. That IS genetic.br />

I sincerely doubt if homosexuality has an on/off switch.

PS- The idea of genetically tailoring your children to have a certain hair, skin, or eye color scares the hell out of me. The nazis tried that...

"...why do they insist on special rights?'

To what 'special rights' are you refering?

Another twist on that question: if it becomes possible to genetically "tweak" a fetus, would you be OK with tweaking the fetus to alter the "homosexual" gene? Designer babies, I guess is the question. If we could discover specific genetic tendencies and "correct" it (based on the desire of the "customer - the mama") would that be permissible?

Tough one. I would say that we probably don't even want to consider this until we have a more thourough understanding of genetics.

Even then, I'm not terribly cool with the idea od "designer babies", but, as with abortion, one can be against it, but still fell it's not their call to make for others. I would simply (were I a woman) not go the whole "designer" route, myself.

Or does that exceed a boundary beyond which you're not comfortable?

Posted by OohRah at 2007-09-14 12:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

For the sake of argument, let's say it is possible to "turn off" the gay gene.

I don't think ANY modification of a fetus needs to be done that doesn't address immediate life threatening diseases or handicapping of the future child. Does that answer your question?

""DANNI I AM A HATER...""

Have it your way. I don't really care what you are.

""leave it to the parents.

let homosexual parent explain to their OWN children their debased lifestyle.""

After raising three I found it much more difficult to explain irrational hatred than any sexual orientation issues. Kids really just don't get why some folks are so hateful.

Where's Pinche with the links proving that a lot of queers are pedophiles? Hello? Douche?

their rights to have a gay pride parade for one!

""their rights to have a gay pride parade for one!""

That's a "special" right???
Anyone can have a gay pride parade, so how is it special???

Keep trying Nanc, you're bound to have a thought pretty soon.

danni - i'd be willing to bet they get it even less when you'd have to 'splain to them the male/male aspect of sex. yes? and exactly why no children can arrive from that union.

their special right to marry.

their special rights to workplace benefits.

why do they scream so loudly if they're just normal everyday people?

Google "Homosexuality & Pedophilia", dipshit.

Start from the top, and work your way down.

You're welcome.

Posted by Pinche_Mao at 2007-09-14 12:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

I didn't think you had the guts to produce a link to prove your hate speech. Instead you make it the job of everyone else to debunk your prejudice, since you're unable or unwilling to do any work/thinking to prove it. Laziness is the likely culprit.

Pinche...you are just hate wrapped in skin. Have a nice day.

"why do they insist on special rights"

There's not a single right gays want that my wife and haven't been able to take for granted since the moment we said "I do". And there are over 1,000 rights, as counted by the government, gays either must jump through hoops to get, hire a lawyer to get, or, in the case of SS beneficiary rights, cannot get regardless.

But Nanc...you can have a gay pride parade, too!

danni - are you the sort of person who would have me arrested for smacking my child's hand to keep them from sticking a fork into a light socket?

And a google of "Homsexuality and pedophilia" has freerepublic as the second hit, and conservipedia, which talks about priests. The wikipedia link is gone if you check it since the article is under dispute. The rest of the next two pages say the opposite of your bigotry, pinche. I gave up.

Try again, sweetheart.

Go spell "homosexuality" correctly and try again.

Or reverse the order of the words, remove quotations, etc.

if homosexuality is NORMAL, why do they insist on special rights?


"Female Pedophiles are extremely rare; this disorder is considered an affliction of heterosexual males. "

I'm thinking you just can't read.

D'oh, I fucked up the cut and paste.

I was trying to reference Pinche's Furthermore, the information you reproduced does absolutely nothing to either advance any argument your making or debunk any argument I'm making.
comment.

"their rights to have a gay pride parade for one!"

"their special right to marry."

"their special rights to workplace benefits."

These are rights that almost everyone in this country enjoys. There is nothing special about them.

You are a bigot and a homophobe.

Furthermore, the information you reproduced does absolutely nothing to either advance any argument your making or debunk any argument I'm making.

Um, yes it does. It proves most pedophiles are heterosexual, and that their victims sex makes little difference.

I DID google those words just for fun, and you lost again, as I cataloged above.

Being a vulgar bully isn't going to win you any debates. PROVE WHAT YOU TYPE IS TRUE NEXT TIME. It's not my job, it's yours.

Or reverse the order of the words, remove quotations, etc.

Posted by Pinche_Mao at 2007-09-14 12:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Awww, now I'm getting suggestions by Mr. Lazy on how to do his work! How sweet.

"Furthermore, the information you reproduced does absolutely nothing to either advance any argument your making or debunk any argument I'm making."

Pinch loaf demonstrates that not only is he a bigot and a homophobe like nanc, he's illiterate as well.

No surprise here.

But this is fine?

www.dinplug.com

Hint, it's from Mardi Gras. -- Ness Gadol

:-). When I lived in Philly, the first person I asked about the Mummers' Parade was a gay neighbor. He and his partner had a great mock-rant about the cross-dressing breeders and the crowds that cheer them on.

""danni - are you the sort of person who would have me arrested for smacking my child's hand to keep them from sticking a fork into a light socket?""

No, I'm the kind of person who would smack your hand when I saw you stick your fingers in the light socket. I just couldn't stand by and let you harm yourself.

""their special rights to workplace benefits.""

Like what???

It proves most pedophiles are heterosexual

Except I never made the argument was that most pedophiles are homosexuals.

You kinda starting to see what you're doing, now?

You're building little straw men---and throwing handfuls of little rocks in hopes that one will hit.

There's plenty of information out there that deals with the the homosexual tendency towards pedophilia.

Google it.

""i wish to protect the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.""

What a huge bunch of nonsense in a nation where 50% of marriages end in divorce.
Sanctity if it exists at all is a religious concept which would come from your church not your government. Gay marriage is a matter of legality, no one is demanding that your church has to perform marriages or recognize marriages of gay people.

There's plenty of information out there that deals with the the heterosexual tendency towards pedophilia.

Google it.

There's plenty of information out there that deals with the the homosexual tendency towards pedophilia and I'm too chickenshit to actually post it.

-Pinche Maricon

heterosexual tendency towards pedophilia

That's because the vast, vast majority of people in the world are heterosexual.

So quantitatively, the number of people with a given condition taken from 90% of a population is going to be higher than the number of people with that condition taken from 10% of the population.

No shit.

Pity the "common law" doesn't exist in all States

"people keep asking me why me and Margaret don't get married, we've been together 13 years, we have two kids, let me tell you something, if you die and you don't have a funeral it doesn't mean you're not dead." (paraphrased)

Mil Millington (genius)

It would be so simple, pass a law that says anyone that co-habits (hetrosexual, homosexual whatever as a couple that is not roommates) for a certain period of time are deemed to be married for the purposes of property law, benefits, insurance, medical records access etc. I think I might put in a little fine print at the bottom to specify that both of the peoples have to be people ie., human however cause there is always some arsehole who wants to challenge the law by claiming he is "married" to his pet aardvark or some such nonsense.

I think a child would much rather be raised by two caring and loving parents (or even one, lets not forget the single parents out there) of whatever sexual orientation than passed from foster home to foster home. Personally I have no problem with it.

JMHO

Adoption of a homeless child by a gay couple is fine because it's sure better than a child being shuffled from foster home to foster home for his/her whole life.

I don't believe in gay marriage, though. I guess civil unions are alright but not gay marriage. That won't make me popular with some on here but that's my belief.

You really ought to read it yourself, Pinche.

He won't even bother to cut and paste something, and you think he'll take the time to actually READ?

civil unions are fine with me also.

3rd grade is way too young to have to deal with this stuff. Why can't we just let these kids have a normal childhood. They can learn about this stuff in high school. We push kids into growing up too fast.

Another twist on that question: if it becomes possible to genetically "tweak" a fetus, would you be OK with tweaking the fetus to alter the "political" gene? Designer babies, I guess is the question. If we could discover specific genetic tendencies and "correct" it (based on the desire of the "customer - the mama") would that be permissible?

Posted by OohRah


OohRah, I think it would be perfectly correct to do so.

""I guess civil unions are alright but not gay marriage.""

If the civil unions come with the same legal rights and priveleges as marriage then I don't care what you call it. Perhaps the government ought to only grant civil unions and allow churches to convey the Sacrement of Matrimony according to their own religious beliefs. Some churches would, though, perform marriages for gay couples.

""Another twist on that question: if it becomes possible to genetically "tweak" a fetus, would you be OK with tweaking the fetus to alter the "political" gene?""

You mean....no more Republicans....oh thank God!!!!
Tweak away!!!

the point is - i do not want the gay agenda forced on my children any more than i want any other non-academic agenda pushed on them in school! it is my job to teach my children morals that are commensurate with our lifestyle.

we have a 15 year old daughter and 16 year old son still at home and they have learned NO hatred of anybody, no matter their lifestyle. they do, however, ask us why we CAN'T qualify for free lunches!

that's another story...

p.s. one of them has two "gay" friends. i grew up with two "gay" cousins whom i love dearly.

"3rd grade is way too young to have to deal with this stuff."

Nonsense. If kids are old enough for this to become a taunt, they're old enough to learn about tolerance.

We push kids into growing up too fast.

I think the opposite is true. Far too many teens behave like they're 5 years old.

I tend to agree with Ness, we have extended childhood way farther than just a few generations ago.

DANNI

If the civil unions come with the same legal rights and priveleges as marriage then I don't care what you call it. Perhaps the government ought to only grant civil unions and allow churches to convey the Sacrament of Matrimony according to their own religious beliefs. Some churches would, though, perform marriages for gay couples.

I agree with this. Wasn't that far back I didn't even agree with civil unions but my mind has opened up some since coming on DR and reading all the various viewpoints so that's good.

curious -- what does marriage (other than a church ceremony/partaking of the Sacrament) allow that civil unions don't allow as far as rights and privileges?

The problem with kids now a days is that they have no respect for authority. This is learned from parents and society. Authority is attacked and "questioned" all the time. Parents side with their kids in all cases no matter what. Kids are never wrong. Police Officers, teachers, principals and so on are the enemies. Schools don't teach academics anymore, they teach tolerance. Nothing is wrong and we worry about their self esteem.

Well, i was just about to go off on you, NANC, until i got to the civil union post. Whatever bigoted views you or anyone else has regarding the subject is not of my concern--well unless you happen to say that crap near me in person (you'll probably get an earful)--but so long as you're ok with giving them the same legal rights, we're cool.


It is unfortunate that you only SEE the shirtless jackasses wearing leather leather carying a rainbow flag down the street once or twice a year. There are millions out there in the world that look like every other normal person--and you'd never know they were gay.

""curious -- what does marriage (other than a church ceremony/partaking of the Sacrament) allow that civil unions don't allow as far as rights and privileges?""

I'll be honest, I don't really know. Want to know something else, most gay people I know wouldn't get married anyway. A few might but I think they might also have some reservations if it really came down to it because most wouldn't want to have to go through a divorce if/when they split up.
I really think if the civil union option was all of a sudden available fewer gay couples than people expect would actually take advantage of it.

I think you're right, Danni

Danni--i think it would do the gay population a lot of good to have a union/marriage option. I think this would give some much needed stability for gay relationships. When there is a law/contract saying you two are bound together and responsible for one another--it gives both a little more incentive to try and work things out when the inevitable marital difficulties arise.

That's her option. Even If I sired the fetus (and thankfully the chances of this happening are precisely zero), not for me to decide.

Posted by LetUsReason at 2007-09-14 11:54 AM

See I have a problem with this logic. This seems like the PC answer run-amok.

I Ride the fence, but lean pro-choice, because it is the woman's body and the unborn child is still just a fetus that can't live outside the mother.

But once you get into discussions of deciding genetic code for what is to be the child of both parents, that should be a decision that both parents have to sign off on...
You're no longer talking about forcing a woman to do something to her body she doesnt want, your now talking about the future welfare of the child.

Slightly Off - topic, but that quote just caught me off guard.

""Danni--i think it would do the gay population a lot of good to have a union/marriage option.""

Oh I completely agree but I just think that in some partnerships, if the possibility for "marriage" or civil union suddenly arose that many partners would be surprised about the unwillingness of their significant others to sign the contract.

Agreed. Its much easier to say "I DO" when legally you can't.

I guess we need to give civil unions to anyone who wants it. First cousins, mother and son, father and son. What about polygamy, why should we stop at two. What is the definition of a civil union? Danni, B, and anyone else? All you tolerant people?

***** "its not the governments job to teach my kid tolerance, its mine, just like religion. at least im not so far left like many of the idiot democrat scum of this country.. Posted by kc101" *******

.......could have been spoken by any Jihadist......

With polygamy---so long as it is concentual (each extra wife or extra husband would need to sign off)--i have no problem with it. I think incest raises other issues concerning deformed children, etc.--so that kinda throws that into question.

As far as mother/son, father/son or any combination thereof---lets leave that silent for now--and deal with that IF it ever comes up.

........always maintainted that Christian zeolots and Muslim Jihadists have more in common than they have differences..........

.......different cut, same sack of shit........

the same could also be said for dhimmiwittedcrats and libs, eh skizziks?

......not really Nanc.......intolerance is the metier of the religious ( any religion ).........

why do gay people slur their S's and walk around with a broken wrist?

if homosexuality is genetic, wouldn't it be funny if they birthed out of the anus?

Just Curious.

No offense. I just lost my job. I get a little lattitude...

........speaking of gay dads..........what do you get when you cramm ten thousand homosexuals into an arena.??????......the Republican National Convention......

fanaticals?

or just your everyday bible believing christians?

RW&B--you only NOTICE the gay people who lisp and act flaming. Odds are you'd never know that the few gay friends i have are even gay.

Sorry to hear you lost your job. I hope you find another one in short order. Best of luck.

first sign of aids?

sharp, stabbing pain in the arse!

******why do gay people slur their S's and walk around with a broken wrist?

if homosexuality is genetic, wouldn't it be funny if they birthed out of the anus?

Just Curious.

No offense. I just lost my job. I get a little lattitude...

Posted by redwhiteandblue**********

.........I don't know, but go down to the closest Republican Party office, they will have all the answers about gay practices in your town and airport.....

Huh. Incorrect, unfunny and offensive--all that with just 10 words. Kudos!

******************************
*******
fanaticals?

or just your everyday bible believing christians?

Posted by nanc
******************************
**********

.........same thing Nanc......see what believing in fairy tales has done to the Muslims....its doing the same thing to Christians......to their credit, Christians are not as violent as Muslims....but just as intolerant,ignorant and backwards......

Hey ski, you sound kind of intolerant to Christians and Muslims. That goes against what you stand for, tolerance.

you are quite right......

........the Muslims kill homosexuals.......to some extent we are more civilized......we just keep them in the closet and force them to take out Republican Party membership..........

if homosexuality is genetic, wouldn't it be funny if they birthed out of the anus?


I take it you've never heard of a 4th degree perineal laceration.

proof please, skizziks.

that's very funny, but every homosexual i've ever known has been a liberal democrat.

******Hey ski, you sound kind of intolerant to Christians and Muslims. That goes against what you stand for, tolerance.

Posted by phinphan******

.......yes.......you have a point...........

.......but......not all beliefs should be tolerated.......

.......if a person feels that they should be able to kill or convert you to their religion, because their religion says so, then I will have no tolerance for that..........for their fairy tale is then impinging on the freedom to live of another......that is why Islam is not only wrong in the way that all religions are wrong, but is evil in equal measure as its' premise is to take everyones freedom away............

.......no tolerance should be showed to that kind of anti-human, ignorant belief, ........

........however, if my neighbor wants to marry a man, a woman, or a goat, I would tolerate that because it is none of my business...........

........not all tolerance is equal..........

Nanc

That's because liberal democrats stand for freedom for all people. Kind of an American point of view.

***** that's very funny, but every homosexual i've ever known has been a liberal democrat.

Posted by nanc*******

.........Foley, Craig, Log Cabin Republicans....do these names mean anything to you ??......

Huh--using fanatical muslims as the moral threshold.

Way to set the bar nice and high.

"........however, if my neighbor wants to marry a man, a woman, or a goat, I would tolerate that because it is none of my business..........."
--SKIZZIKS

First signs of the next great civil rights movement? Right to marry goats?

But Nanc........I'm kidding about the gay Republicans......I dont really care that they are gay...its their own business......its just fun to tease them because they are so obviously hypocrytical......

that's very funny, but every homosexual i've ever known has been a liberal democrat.

That's cos all the gay folks in the GOPher party are either out and shunned like the Lincoln Log Cabin Republicans or closeted self loathing gay bashing headcases like Foley, Craig, Allan et al.

Be Well.

********First signs of the next great civil rights movement? Right to marry goats?

Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE******

......yup......its gonna be baaaaaaaad......

There's plenty of information out there that deals with the the homosexual tendency towards pedophilia.

Google it.

Posted by Pinche_Mao at 2007-09-14 12:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Prove your assertions next time. Not my place to validate your opinions with research and links, it's yours.

First signs of the next great civil rights movement? Right to marry goats?

Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2007-09-14 03:33 PM


If millions of goat fuckers start marching for their rights---I can see that happening. Do you know a lot of goat fuckers? Is your name on the list? I think I can get you a good deal on a goat if you're interested.

First signs of the next great civil rights movement? Right to marry goats?

The slippery slope argument is lame and tired.

Got anything with any real substance?

I guess we need to give civil unions to anyone who wants it. First cousins, mother and son, father and son. What about polygamy, why should we stop at two. What is the definition of a civil union? Danni, B, and anyone else? All you tolerant people?

Incest and polygamy are wot ya find in extreme whack job religions not in liberal circles.

If yer interested in Polygamy you can always convert to Islam and move to the ME.

There are good reasons to not make polygamy and incest and bestiality based marriage legal.

There are no good reasons to keep gay marriage illegal.

None at all.

Wot part of that are you having a hard time wrapping yer wee intellect around?

Be Well.

"What about polygamy, why should we stop at two?"

Part of the legal ramifications of marriage is conferring exclusive rights to another person. Spouses can give unlilmited amounts of money to each other, as well as confer exclusive and favored rights to inheritance, pensions, offspring, property, etc. By definition, you cannot give exclusive rights to more than one person.

I guess we need to give civil unions to anyone who wants it. First cousins

Worked for Rudy.

There are good reasons to not make polygamy and incest and bestiality based marriage legal.Spud

What are they?

"I guess we need to give civil unions to anyone who wants it. First cousins, mother and son, father and son. What about polygamy, why should we stop at two. What is the definition of a civil union? Danni, B, and anyone else? All you tolerant people?"

Well look at that, and I thought it would take longer for some imbecile to come up with the Aardvark argument.

Phinpan - the point is that a civil union would give gays the same rights as hetrosexuals with regards to marriage. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence would understand that IF HETROSEXUALS CANNOT MARRY THEIR MOTHER THEN NEITHER CAN GAYS. Not a single person here is advocating changing the laws regarding marriage as they currently stand so sorry, first cousins, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers are out as is polygamy.

If millions of goat fuckers start marching for their rights---I can see that happening.
--BUFFALO_BOB

I don't think Americans are ready for goat banger parades just yet. Give it time and they'll come around. One sexual deviancy at a time...

"fanaticals? or just your everyday bible believing christians?"


Usually the cafeteria Christians. You know, the ones who cite Leviticus as a reason to bash gays, while wearing a poly-cotton shirt, sporting a fresh haircut, and in between bites of a shrimp cocktail.

"The slippery slope argument is lame and tired.

Got anything with any real substance?"
--NESS_GADOL

Hey dumbfuck, how's it going?

I just responded to a post saying it should be OK to marry goats. I didn't make the argument, and the original poster may have been joking for all I know.

Please read.

Not a single person here is advocating changing the laws regarding marriage as they currently stand so sorry, first cousins, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers are out as is polygamy. Litle

This is what everyone is trying to do. In CA, the law is marriage is between one man/one woman.

First signs of the next great civil rights movement? Right to marry goats?

Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2007-09-14 03:33 PM |

Goatman's already got a girlfriend. You'll have to find another goat to marry.

yes, bob - but they do not stand for my rights as a harmless, christian conservative, now, do they?

talk about hypocritical!

"Goatman's already got a girlfriend. You'll have to find another goat to marry."
--CALIFCHRIS

Darn...

I guess we need to give civil unions to anyone who wants it. First cousins

Worked for Rudy.

Posted by Alexandrite at 2007-09-14 03:40 PM | Reply

Rudy and current wife number 3 have a total of 6 marriages between them. More Republican family values we all can try to emulate.

Ha! Spud is just notice that the google-ad at the top of the page is fer some gay web-site called Real Jock.

How come sometimes the google-ads are pure text and othertimes include pictures?

Does Spud get the same ads up here in Canader that you Yankee folk do or wot?

Or is it like that SuperBowl commercial thingy where Canadian sports fans lose out cos of some crap ass CRTC regulation?.

Be Well.

is it cool to have two gay dads?

not as cool as it is to have a heterosexual set of parents.

it was bad enough that i had to admit that mine are libs...

Hey dumbfuck, how's it going?

Meeting a buddy for a beer tasting and BBQ dinner, so I'm kinda stoked.

Please read.

My bust, yo.

Ass.

the point is that a civil union would give gays the same rights as hetrosexuals with regards to marriage--Litle

Gays have the exact same rights I have now. They choose not to follow the rules.

yes, bob - but they do not stand for my rights as a harmless, christian conservative, now, do they?

talk about hypocritical!

Posted by nanc at 2007-09-14 03:46 PM


Of course they do---I certainly do and so does every other liberal democrat I know. Freedom of religion is embraced by liberal democrats--even the atheists like me support your right to worship any god you see fit. I fought for your right to worship any god you like, and I would do it again. You don't seem to understand the views of liberal democrats---the view is this---freedom for everyone who isn't hurting anyone else. That means freedom for gays, and freedom to worship any way you please. It is conservatives who don't grasp the concept of freedom. People like you.

"beer tasting"

"BBQ dinner"

"Ass."
--NESS_GADOL

Sounds like you're in for one hell of a weekend.

*sighs of jealousy*

Now, if you open the door to gays, then you have to open the door to all, even if it is only one who wants to marry more than one, a close relative, a family member and so on. It shouldn't need millions like Buffy said. Because, if you change to rules because you think it isn't fair to gays, then it isn't fair to others.

"Now, if you open the door to gays, then you have to open the door to all, even if it is only one who wants to marry more than one, a close relative, a family member and so on. It shouldn't need millions like Buffy said. Because, if you change to rules because you think it isn't fair to gays, then it isn't fair to others."

Posted by phinphan at 2007-09-14 03:58 PM

So if you open the door to straights getting married, then you should open the door for gays---and if you open the door for gays then you should open the door for multiple marriages.


I agree---we shouldn't open any doors. Eliminate marriage altogether.



I just thought Phin Phan would enjoy seeing another moronic post so he wouldn't feel all alone.

There are good reasons to not make polygamy and incest and bestiality based marriage legal.Spud

What are they?

If ya haff to ask...

Okay, Spud is take pity on yer limited understanding of the nature of things and will answer yer silly question.

Polygamy?

In the ME polygamy is legal.

That means that all the rich guys got four wives at any given time and that means there are a shit load of horny, unhappy virigin males in the general population which is where they find their suicide bomber volunteers. Why do you think they are always pitching the 72 Virgins angle to them? Why do you think it works so well?

Spud'll give you a sec to ingest all that info and mull it over fer a sec.

Ready? We're moving on...

Incest?

Other than the obvious negatives of allowing folk to swim continually in the shallow end of the gene pool? Cos allowing incest means allowing pedophilia cos that's the inevitable result there, same as with polygamy.

You do realise that pedophilia is wrong on some level don't ya?

Work with Spud here. Meet Spud half-way at least.

Bestiality?

Umm... Spud'll let you figure that one out.

Ask a five year old if yer having trouble there.

Be Well.

"Now, if you open the door to gays, then you have to open the door to all, even if it is only one who wants to marry more than one, a close relative, a family member and so on. It shouldn't need millions like Buffy said. Because, if you change to rules because you think it isn't fair to gays, then it isn't fair to others."

Posted by phinphan at 2007-09-14 03:58 PM



Why?

Sounds like you're in for one hell of a weekend.


Ok, that was good. FF.

"Gays have the exact same rights I have now."

Nothing could be further from the truth. There are over 1,000 rights, as enumerated by the government, which straights get that gays don't. Some are relatively benign and can be achieved thru filing papers, and some thru hiring a lawyer, but there are some very important ones which are completely denied to gays, rights my wife and I got the moment we said "I do".

Take Social Security. Gay couples pay in exactly the same as straights, but while my wife will get a bump up to my Social Security after I pass, if we were a gay couple, she would get nothing. Same with the rights to a "second-to-die" option for my pensions.

My father-in-law passed away a few years back. After the smoke cleared, I realized my mother-in-law got his SS, and he chose the second-to-die option for his pension. Fully 40% of my mother-in-law's income these days is due to one thing and one thing only: God chose to make her straight. If she had lived the exact same life, yet been gay, she would now be destitute.

Anyone who suggests gays currently have the same rights as us straights isn't paying attention, to put it kindly.

"This is what everyone is trying to do. In CA, the law is marriage is between one man/one woman."

WHO ARE NOT FATHER AND SON ETC., ARE NOT FIRST COUSINS, ARE NOT ALREADY MARRIED TO SOMEONE ELSE AND ARE AT LEAST HOMO SAPIENS

Obviously we are going to have to speak very slowly and very deliberately here. All it will do is confer the right of civil union to gays in exactly the same position. Your argument is simply specious.

PS) "if you open the door"

I bet that is precisely what the critics were saying about inter-racial marriages in the bad old days "next thing you know I'll be able to marry my dawg"

"she would now be destitute."

Point taken, but that's pretty much a non-sequitur.

Ask a five year old if yer having trouble there.

FF for the tater. I busted out laughing on that one, cuz it's what I always think when someone brings up bestiality in a gay marriage thread.

*********
skizziks - are you saying our homos are more enterprising than your homos?

www.actwin.com

www.actwin.com

wow! i guess we really are better than the dhimmicrats!

Posted by nanc ******

......yes.......your homos get more cock than anybody......

Point taken, but that's pretty much a non-sequitur.


Posted by happyending at 2007-09-14 04:25 PM


You are mistaken. Had she been straight, she would not have that 40% of her income. What part did you miss?

"Point taken, but that's pretty much a non-sequitur."

How? I was illustrating how gays and straights do NOT have the same rights, and putting in into a real-life situation, affecting someone in my own family.

I also do a bit of financial planning, and the approach for a gay couple is completely different than a straight couple. Again, anyone who believes gays have the same rights as straights is way off the mark.

.........allow others to live as free as they choose, as long they do no harm to any others who are unconsenting.....

.........that is tolerance.................and tolerance is a true conservative value: we mind our own business and keep the states involvement in our lives to a minimum.......

.......so if a man wants to marry a man, or three cousins who are all of age ........it is nobody's business except of the intolerant, who choose to make it their business, who choose to be unconservative interventionists.........

......for example....prostitution by adults is a victimless crime.....in Nevada, Canada & Holland, prostitution is not a crime.....yet in Washington DC, busibodies make it a crime........gambling is same......sometimes its a crime and sometimes its not.......

........yes.....homosexuals should have the same rights as all others.....that is a true conservative value....keep the government's involvement in our personal lives to a minimum......

........and the goat was a joke........

Again, anyone who believes gays have the same rights as straights is way off the mark.Dan

They do have the same exact choices I have on who to marry. They choose not to follow the laws.

We are allowed to disagree with lifestyles and people without RACE, BIGOTRY, HATRED coming into play. It falls under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Just because we disagree with it does not make us homophobic, bigoted, racist, etc...

Posted by armyof1 at 2007-09-14 10:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

She was responding to BL2's first post. Read it and you'll see why what she said was appropriate.

Agreed, but equal protecting is not the same as a right to marriage. Legally everyone has the right to the protections of the constitution. But nowhere in the constitution does it say marriage...

Posted by armyof1 at 2007-09-14 10:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

If the constitution doesn't include marriage, then why did Bush twice run on a platform of ammending it to ban those marriages?

They do have the same exact choices I have on who to marry. They choose not to follow the laws.

So, when did you choose to be heterosexual?

(I know, it's a trite question, but with people like this you have to start somewhere.)

They do have the same exact choices I have on who to marry. They choose not to follow the laws.

Posted by phinphan at 2007-09-14 04:40 PM | Reply


Can you marry who you love? Can they? You are mistaken.

Obviously we are going to have to speak very slowly and very deliberately here. All it will do is confer the right of civil union to gays in exactly the same position. Your argument is simply specious.

Exactly.

I like Buffalo Bob's "slippery slope" comment at 4:01 PM. Allowing anyone to marry started the downfall! {grin}

You are mistaken.

That's putting it mildly.

Wait a minute if we can all choose who we want to marry why the hell am I not married to Keanu Reeves? I demand my rights!

I think you forgot the drugged out molesters somewhere......you shouldnt since they are backbone of the liberal party....

Posted by bushlovertwo at 2007-09-14 10:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

...but Mark Foley has an R after his name.

"They do have the same exact choices I have on who to marry."

What a hateful statement.

I think you forgot the drugged out molesters somewhere......you shouldnt since they are backbone of the liberal party....

Posted by bushlovertwo at 2007-09-14 10:54 AM

OH RLY?






Republican city councilman John Bryan killed himself after police began investigating allegations that he had molested three girls, including two of his adopted daughters, ages 12 and 15.

Republican legislator Ted Klaudt was charged with raping girls under the age of 16.

Republican city councilman Joseph Monteleone Jr. was found guilty of fondling underage girls.

Republican congressional aide Jeffrey Nielsen was arrested for having sex with a 14-year old boy.

Republican County Commissioner Patrick Lee McGuire surrendered to police after allegedly molesting girls between the ages of 8 and 13.

Republican prosecutor Larry Corrigan was arrested for soliciting sex from 13-year old girls.

Republican Mayor Jeffrey Kyle Randall was sentenced to 275 days in jail for molesting two boys -- ages ten and 12 -- during a six-year period.

Republican County Board Candidate Brent Schepp was charged with molesting a 14-year old girl and killed himself three days later.

Republican Congressman Mark Foley abruptly resigned from Congress after "sexually explicit" emails surfaced showing him flirting with a 16-year old boy.

Republican executive Randall Casseday of the conservative Washington Times newspaper pleaded guilty to soliciting sex from a 13-year old girl on the internet.

Republican chairman of the Oregon Christian Coalition Lou Beres confessed to molesting a 13-year old girl.

Republican County Constable Larry Dale Floyd pleaded guilty to charges of soliciting sex from an 8-year old girl. Floyd has repeatedly won elections for Denton County, Texas, constable.

Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.

Republican Party leader Bobby Stumbo was arrested for having sex with a 5-year old boy.

Republican petition drive manager Tom Randall pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 14, one of them the daughter of an associate in the petition business.

Republican County Chairman Armando Tebano pleaded guilty to fondling a 14-year-old girl.

Republican teacher and former city councilman John Collins pleaded guilty to sexually molesting 13 and 14 year old girls.

Republican campaign worker Mark Seidensticker is a convicted child molester.

Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.

Republican Mayor Tom Adams was arrested for distributing child pornography over the internet.

Republican Mayor John Gosek was arrested on charges of soliciting sex from two 15-year old girls.

Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison

Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.

Republican Committeeman John R. Curtin was convicted of molesting an underage teenage boy and sentenced to serve six to 18 months in prison.

Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.

Republican zoning supervisor, Boy Scout leader and Lutheran church president Dennis L. Rader pleaded guilty to performing a sexual act on an 11-year old girl he murdered.

Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.

Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl.

Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.

Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.

...but Mark Foley has an R after his name.

Except on Fox News.

Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.

Republican advertising consultant Carey Lee Cramer was sentenced to six years in prison for molesting two 8-year old girls, one of whom appeared in an anti-Gore television commercial.

Republican fundraiser Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.

Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.

Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.

Republican campaign chairman Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child and was arrested again five years later on the same charge.

Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.

Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter.

Republican Judge Ronald C. Kline pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer.

Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.

Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.

Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. "Republican Marty"), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD.

Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.

Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.

Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced prison after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.

Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11 year old girl.

Republican anti-gay activist Earl "Butch" Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.

Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.

Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year old girl.

Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.

Republican legislator Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).

Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was found guilty of molesting a 15-year old girl.

Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a male child.

Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl.

Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters.

Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl.

Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.

Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison.

Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.

Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.

Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet.

Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a "good military man" and "church goer," was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter.

Republican campaign worker, police officer and self-proclaimed reverend Steve Aiken was convicted of having sex with two underage girls.

Republican director of the "Young Republican Federation" Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison.

Republican president of the New York City Housing Development Corp. Russell Harding pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer.

Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was found guilty of raping a 15-year old girl. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women.


Get the point BL2? You are mistaken.

I think you've made your point, BB

"provoking the threat of a lawsuit by gay rights activists who said the district's refusal to show the video was a violation of state antidiscrimination laws."

The day that activist groups can use the courts to dictate what is taught in public schools will be a tragic day for our educational system.

Whether or not you agree or disagree with these particular activists, I'm sure you can imagine any number of activist groups who have no business pushing their opinions on children.

If the school chose to show the video, I would care less. But now that they've decided not to show the video, I think these activists need to accept the decision and move on because succeeding in their legal efforts would set a horrific precedent.

(Jokingly) You know what's REALLY gay?
This story.

That being said.....at least homosexuals don't procreate/pollute the earth with unwanted children generally.
It seems, as though they are taking the responsibility that some heterosexuals will not, which makes this all the more pathetic, seeing that people should raise their children themselves, or take the precautions necessary to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

Sully

Dim as usual. Teaching freedom and tolerance for those different from ourselves is a noble cause and should be mebraced by all Americans everywhere. Too bad you see it as "activism".

Zat:

I always knew band directors were scum. Now I have proof.

I'm also glad I chose to play football instead of saxophone.

ZAT
Haven't seen you around lately. fyi --left you a couple of photos on the Nooner about 3-4 days ago of the "Pinwheel" (chair with propeller attached) helicopter my Dad flew as a test pilot if you're interested.

Who cares if a kid has two same sex parents? I am a conservitive guy by nature but really whats the problem. i would much rather see a kid grow up in a stable two parent household than with a single mother or father who has to work 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet and have the child run loose getting into trouble. Studies do show that children that live in two parent households fair much better in school over all and basically stay out of truble, most likely because their parents are on their back about every thing.

"I'm also glad I chose to play football instead of saxophone."

Posted by ness_gadol

"AUSTIN Tyrell Gatewood, a Texas backup defensive back and special teams player, has been arrested on charges misdemeanor drug charges.

Gatewood's arrest, the fifth of an active UT player since June 1, comes a day before the No. 6 Longhorns were to leave for Saturday's game at Central Florida. It appears unlikely Gatewood will make that trip.

It is unclear what disciplinary action coach Mack Brown"

(Base pay, $2.55 million.)

One time, at band camp. . .

...the former band director at Northside Christian School

"This one time, at band camp..."

Be Well.

SMC

...Studies do show that children that live in two parent households fair much better in school over all and basically stay out of truble, most likely because their parents are on their back about every thing.

Posted by savemycountry at 2007-09-14 05:29 PM

Heye Feyeve!

sorry,

"Good point" was suppose to be the response in my 5:35 p.m. post.
my computer blinks off sometimes.

One time, at band camp. . .

Posted by YAV

"This one time, at band camp..."

Posted by Spud one minute later

Yav!

Quit doing that!

Yer spooking Spud out there!

Be Well.

Heye Feyeve!

Back at ya!

Is this place cool or wot?

Woo Hoo!

Be Well.

Let's show them a video that says. "here is my mother and father", and later it says it is so cool to have a mother and father." Then another student can say, "here are my adopted father and mother. I am so glad they adopted me."

How would that fly? Do you think all those tolerant libs out there would have some problem with that. You don't see those stressed in videos anymore. OK Buffy, I will wait for your, how did you put it, "moronic comment"? You have plenty of them.

I just wanted to say that guys who go to Band Camp are scared to go swimming, rough it in the woods, and don't have any girl friends.

(That's you BLT)

Zat

fyi --left you a couple of photos on the Nooner about 3-4 days ago...

sorry, actually more like about a week or so ago -- lost track. I can't remember exactly when I left them.

Let's show them a video that says. "here is my mother and father", and later it says it is so cool to have a mother and father." Then another student can say, "here are my adopted father and mother. I am so glad they adopted me."

How would that fly?

Ummm ...Flim-Flam?

Are you seriously saying that gay couples who adopt are trying to make a case that traditional mom/dad/kid households AREN'T okay?

Reading yer posts Spud can never really tell how much is willfull ignorance and how much is actual ignorance. The possiblity that yer just a jaded lefty spoofing the right was briefly considered and then abandoned after re-reading a couple of yer posts.

The NJ schoolboard made a stOOpid, irrational, homophobia-based, immoral decision here and should rightfully be sued over it.

Wot part of that are you not getting here?

Be Well.

Phin Phan

"Let's show them a video that says. "here is my mother and father", and later it says it is so cool to have a mother and father." Then another student can say, "here are my adopted father and mother. I am so glad they adopted me."

How would that fly?"

See Spuds post. I don't see your point unless you are trying to say that liberals are against any type of family that isn't gay. If that is your point, it IS a moronic statement.

If it isn't your point---make your point clearer. State it.

"The laws of the land dictate what is right and what is wrong. In a DEMOCRACY, which you seem to know little about, the people vote on those said laws. when 80%+ don't want gay marriage to be acceptable then well that is life."

Hey, armyof1 (and I hope that's an accurate count):

Do you even begin to think that every law governing your behavior is voted upon, or even should be? Law is a distillation of votes, court rulings, and legislative action. Sometimes law gets made one way, sometimes another. And the more important and necessary the law, the less likely it is to be voted upon, because frankly, We The People are very narrow- minded and self-serving, and our better class of legislators (a dwindling species, true) know that. The Social Security Act was legislative action, so were all of our Constitutional amendments. You're probably too young to remember when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was in the works, but let me tell your juvenile ass that it would never have passed if it had been left up to any kind of a popular vote. People's feelings against it ran so strong that any number of murders were committed in an effort to silence individuals who were in favor of it. If people had gotten a chance to vote on it, Barack Obama would be mowing lawns for a living today and saying "yassuh" a lot.

Civil partnerships and marriage for same-sex partners are now the law of the land in many countries, none of which have had the ground open up and swallow anyone, and none of which have seen any uptick in applications for marriages to giraffes, horses, dogs, or cameleopards. The United States is coming under increasing, and well-deserved, fire from other nations for its sorry track record in this area of civil rights. There is no other group and no other area of the law where someone's rights can change so drastically from state to state as is possible for gays.

If you don't like gays, that's your right. I don't like fat people myself. But I don't have the right to control what other people eat, and you don't have the right to control who other people eat.

Get over it. This is the twenty-first century.

My point is that this nonsense should not be in the schools. Schools are a place to learn things such as math, English, science, art, history, music, PE, and the such, not to pass on agendas. Too many special interest groups are using the schools as a place to pass on their wants. Schools are not the place for that. Teachers need to be able to teach.

MTW, all those words and you don't say anything. Who cares what other countries do or say. And that hogwash line of this is the 21st century, what is that suppose to mean. Are you saying that people born in other centuries knew nothing? Our law of OUR land says something else, deal with it.

"or to spit into a handkerchief and rub the side of your face until its raw....

Posted by bushlovertwo at 2007-09-14 10:25 AM"

Okay, you are officially a freak. (But the above does explain a lot about how you ended up as you did.)

"Too many special interest groups are using the schools as a place to pass on their wants. Schools are not the place for that. Teachers need to be able to teach."

And that pretty much summarizes the position of those opposed to organized prayer in public schools.

I'm against so-called 'prayer in school' for the same reason I am against algebra in church: wrong venue.

When it comes time for sex education, it would be about as valuable as a Catholic priest.

...of whatever sexual orientation than passed from foster home to foster home. Personally I have no problem with it.

JMHO

Posted by Litlebritdifrnt at 2007-09-14 01:00 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


Adoption of a homeless child by a gay couple is fine because it's sure better than a child being shuffled from foster home to foster home for his/her whole life.

I don't believe in gay marriage, though. I guess civil unions are alright but not gay marriage. That won't make me popular with some on here but that's my belief.

Posted by CalifChris at 2007-09-14 01:02 PM | Repl

A meeting of the minds in simultaneous posts.

No offense. I just lost my job. I get a little lattitude...

Posted by redwhiteandblue at 2007-09-14 03:10 PM


I just lost my job. I get a little lattitude... and a lot more time to blog.

Look on the bright side, RWB :)

"Schools are a place to learn things such as math, English, science, art, history, music, PE, and the such, not to pass on agendas."

Equality and tolerance are not an agenda. They're enumerated in a little document we call The Declaration of Independence, something taught in schools every day.

Chris - spooky :)

PS) which is funny cause apparently I am not real, over at the nooner.

and a lot more time to blog.

DO YOU THINK PEOPLE WOULD PAY TO READ MY CYNICAL POINT OF VIEW?

THINK FALLING DOWN with Michael Douglas meets Jim Carrey...

:)

Phin Phan

Good thing you explained---how you got from there to here is weird.


"My point is that this nonsense should not be in the schools. Schools are a place to learn things such as math, English, science, art, history, music, PE, and the such, not to pass on agendas. Too many special interest groups are using the schools as a place to pass on their wants. Schools are not the place for that. Teachers need to be able to teach."

Posted by phinphan at 2007-09-14 06:26 PM



Schools are to prepare you for society--how to be a good citizen. Schools teach the History of our country---a country founded on freedom for all people--even those different from us. Too bad this was something you never learned.

But I don't have the right to control what other people eat, and you don't have the right to control who other people eat.

FF fer MTW!

Nice postage.

Be Well.

PS: Mary Tyler Whore and Ted Baxter both is bloggers here at the DR.

Spud now awaits a blogger who goes by the nom de blog of Lou Grant.

A Mrs. Pynchon would be cool too.

"MTW, all those words and you don't say anything. Who cares what other countries do or say. And that hogwash line of this is the 21st century, what is that suppose to mean. Are you saying that people born in other centuries knew nothing? Our law of OUR land says something else, deal with it."

phinphan dearie:

Fact is, there was a time when American law was a model for the entire world. We once led the planet in enlightened, progressive, egalitarian legislation designed to both protect existing rights and extend more rights. Now, people who were born day before yesterday don't have a clue how far this country has regressed in the area of civil rights, and having no clue what has come before them, they think they have a right to draw up our collective social contract any way they fucking please. In my lifetime, I've seen this country's leadership in civil rights become an embarrassing - even shameful - backslide into the nineteenth century, even as other nations build on the model this country invented.

Like most Americans, you seem to have it all figured out that you gotta right. But like most Americans, you don't seem to understand that the other guy's gotta right, too - even when his exercise of his rights conflicts with your personal vision of The Way Things 'Spozed Tuh Be. You actually believe that the rights of other groups besides the one you belong to are for you to decide upon.

The Neanderthals who want to decide who among us are good enough to have rights remind me of Chris Crocker's whine about Britney:

"How friggin' dare anyone out there want rights after all we straight white Protestant guys have been through.

We lost on segregation, we went through Women's Lib. DNA testing nails us now when we try to leave our two friggin' kids.

You people turned out to be liberal, and want to be equal, and now you're putting us through the horrors of examining our motives. All you people care about is ... .. your so-called rights and making us see things your way.

WE'RE HUMAN! What you don't realize is that us straight white Protestant guys invented this planet and all you do is ask for us to share some of it with you.

We haven't had a day of uncontested power in years. We refer to your agenda as "give me more" for a reason because all you people want is MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE.

LEAVE US ALONE! You are lucky we even created this planet for you BASTARDS!

LEEEAVE USSSSSSS ALLLLLONE! ... ..Please."

* snicker *

...remind me of Chris Crocker's whine about Britney:...

* snicker *

Wicked Funny!

That were some dead brill stuff.

Kudos to MTW & a FF.

MORE MORE MORE, indeed.

Be Well.

Army1.
"In a DEMOCRACY, which you seem to know little about"
Remember the pledge of allegance?
"To the REPUBLIC for which it stands"

The US is not a democracy. Its a republic.

"My point is that this nonsense should not be in the schools. Schools are a place to learn things such as math, English, science, art, history, music, PE, and the such, not to pass on agendas. Too many special interest groups are using the schools as a place to pass on their wants. Schools are not the place for that. Teachers need to be able to teach."

Posted by phinphan at 2007-09-14 06:26 PM


I agree. Ignore homosexuality, prevent your children from learning about human affairs until they get caught in a restrom.

And we here in the Garden State grab another headline!!

Until youre beat up in school for it I guess.

I agree. Ignore homosexuality, prevent your children from learning about human affairs until they get caught in a restrom.

Posted by sheepwayout at 2007-09-15 07:01 AM

There are a ton of social issues and aspects of life that we don't teach our 3rd graders. Having a 3rd grader come home and ask mommy and daddy "what does gay mean?" can throw any parent for a loop. Ultimately your introducing these kids to an aspect of sexuality thats going to breed more questions. Questions some parents feel should be their right to broach.

We're really bad at drawing lines between our education system and our parental roles. We're quick to stoop to the lowest common denominator because little jenny isn't getting appropriate education at home. It's just another example of the tight rope we expect our public education system to walk.

I agree. Ignore homosexuality, prevent your children from learning about human affairs until they get caught in a restrom.

Are elementary school kids being molested in the school's restrooms by gay third graders or what?

Having a 3rd grader come home and ask mommy and daddy "what does gay mean?" can throw any parent for a loop. Ultimately your introducing these kids to an aspect of sexuality... -- Gustogus

The film wasn't about sexuality -- gay sex is the obsession of its critics. Did any of you find it necessary to explain heterosexual sex to kids at an early age so they could understand why a lot of kids have one male and one female parent?

Schools are a place to learn things such as math ... not to pass on agendas...Teachers need to be able to teach. -- Phinphan

Exactly! That's why tolerance is so important. Me, I wouldn't want my kids exposed to the views of conservative christians who tell them that there's something wrong with my gay friends and family members. But I also understand that you can't run a classroom if my kids are taunting or beating the crap out of anyone who offends them. And as much as it pains me sometimes, I truly believe in your right to be ignorant.

I sincerely hope the people out there who use those wonderful inventions and listen to that awesome music and all the other things that gays invented over the years have a dictionary handy...you need to look up the word 'hypocrite'. Also, those people that want to hide in their own ignorance and think human young have no sexual urges or need for information about such things need to go get a grip and accept the simple facts about their own species.

(I just love how people get all riled up about how their schools are doing and how those same schools should teach this or that, yet when THIS topic comes up, suddenly all you hear is "I will teach them such things at home". Well, if you wish, that is your prerogative, but the rest of us don't need the lecturing and posturing...just go do it and shut up please)

"It's really cool to have two gay dads!"

Think of the termoil if only one was gay, hmmm?

Schools are to prepare you for society--how to be a good citizen. Schools teach the History of our country---a country founded on freedom for all people--even those different from us. Too bad this was something you never learned.--Buffy

So, then you believe the schools should teach this:

On the shore, dimly seen thro' the mist of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! O long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And this:

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner, in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And this:

O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our Trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

I left the first paragraph out because we all should know it.

Buffy, this is our History also.

And i'm not sure what you're talking about missing your mom wiping your face raw. Sounds like you have some issues. Methinks you were probably breast fed until your early teens.

Posted by __b__ at 2007-09-14 10:32 AM | Reply | Flag:


I think still....

2 gay dads would have been alot better than the straight man and straight woman I got stuck with...
not every hetro couple makes good parents...

"Sully

Dim as usual. Teaching freedom and tolerance for those different from ourselves is a noble cause and should be mebraced by all Americans everywhere. Too bad you see it as "activism"."

Bob - you clearly don't understand my post. My point has nothing to do with the content of this particular video and is not limited to causes you deem as "noble". I'm not going to restate the same point for the willfully stupid and half-crazy and it has proven to be a waste of time in the past. Sorry, you're out.

Did any of you find it necessary to explain heterosexual sex to kids at an early age so they could understand why a lot of kids have one male and one female parent?


Posted by Phoenix at 2007-09-15 11:04 AM |

No.. they weren't introduced as Johnny's Heterosexual parent's Frank and Mary.

Once again we're crossing a fine line of what is in the government schools purview to teach our kids. If the parents object to it, it shouldn't be taught or shuld have an opt out option.

I have to believe that we still value a parents right to raise their kids as they see fit, and not what society deems is best for them.

Sully

You don't have to repeat anything. You were quite clear. You think that it is a good thing that schools can choose to continue teaching bigotry to children, and that those who object are activists.

"The day that activist groups can use the courts to dictate what is taught in public schools will be a tragic day for our educational system.

Whether or not you agree or disagree with these particular activists, I'm sure you can imagine any number of activist groups who have no business pushing their opinions on children.

If the school chose to show the video, I would care less. But now that they've decided not to show the video, I think these activists need to accept the decision and move on because succeeding in their legal efforts would set a horrific precedent."




You were quitre clear---it is ok to promote bigotry in schools, and all protests should be ignored.

Gustogus

"Once again we're crossing a fine line of what is in the government schools purview to teach our kids. If the parents object to it, it shouldn't be taught or shuld have an opt out option.

I have to believe that we still value a parents right to raise their kids as they see fit, and not what society deems is best for them."

Posted by GustoGus at 2007-09-15 01:44 PM

Yeah right---parents do such a good job of telling their kids about sex---and race---and bigotry. But just out of curiousity---what would you tell your kids about sex that was different from what a school would teach about sex? Why does the source make a difference if the information is the same?


I've seen lots of kids who were raised as parents see fit. There are millions of them in prison, and lots more in gangs on the streets.

I'm not impressed with home schooling.

Phin Phan

Yes--I believe the poem you listed would be an excellent lesson. It could be used to teach that when you wrap a concept in the flag, that the concept is not necessarily correct, and can contradict the point it is trying to make---freedom.

In this case, your poem is trying to wrap--In God is Our Trust--as the Motto of our Nation, when such a motto would go against one of the basic concepts of our country--separation of church and state.

Your poem would make an excellent class discussion.

I've seen lots of kids who were raised as parents see fit. There are millions of them in prison, and lots more in gangs on the streets.

I'm not impressed with home schooling.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2007-09-15 03:10 PM


You do realize, the other side of that coin is to compare it to kids raised as how the State see's fit. I'll put Home Schooling criminal percentages up against the states public school's any day... :)
Or would you like to compare Private schools test scores to Public schools?

And perhaps parents don't want to discuss homosexuality with their 3rd grader.. perhaps theyde rather wait till 6th or 9th.

Perhaps parents want to teach their kids that homosexuality isn't "cool". Not a stand I agree with, but hey, they are not my kids. Like it or not, the term "cool" is a judgement call on a sexual lifestyle that some people may have problems with.

Maybe Parents want to teach their kids, that while drugs may be illegal, if they do decide to try weed it won't turn them into jabbering idiots that rape women and steal from granny's to feed their habit.

As for the personal question of what I'd tell my kids, well isn't that the rub? If I want to tell my kids its better to save themselves for marriage, or if I want walk them through step by step how to put on a condom, shouldn't that be my call?

Gustogus


"You do realize, the other side of that coin is to compare it to kids raised as how the State see's fit. I'll put Home Schooling criminal percentages up against the states public school's any day... :)"

Do it. Don't talk about it.


"Or would you like to compare Private schools test scores to Public schools?"

Which has WHAT to do with teaching bigotry on schools?



"And perhaps parents don't want to discuss homosexuality with their 3rd grader.. perhaps theyde rather wait till 6th or 9th."

Or until they are 45. The tape wasn't about teaching homosexuality. It was about a kid with two dads. I don't think penises and anuses were part of the discussion.



"Perhaps parents want to teach their kids that homosexuality isn't "cool". Not a stand I agree with, but hey, they are not my kids. Like it or not, the term "cool" is a judgement call on a sexual lifestyle that some people may have problems with."

Which is one of the reasons this video would be educational--it gives the kid an opposing view. I'm sure you think it is OK for parents to dress their kids up in white sheets and teach them bigotry and hate too, which many parects do---but I would like to see the schools give an opposing view there also.


"Maybe Parents want to teach their kids, that while drugs may be illegal, if they do decide to try weed it won't turn them into jabbering idiots that rape women and steal from granny's to feed their habit."

Again--nothing to do with the point. This isn't about what parents teach. Parents can teach their kids what they want---the schools should give them education and teach how to get along in society. Teaching understanding and compassion is part of learning how to get along in society.



"As for the personal question of what I'd tell my kids, well isn't that the rub? If I want to tell my kids its better to save themselves for marriage, or if I want walk them through step by step how to put on a condom, shouldn't that be my call?"

You are talking morality---the schools are talking facts. Unless you think facts should be suppressed, I don't see your point.

Or until they are 45. The tape wasn't about teaching homosexuality. It was about a kid with two dads. I don't think penises and anuses were part of the discussion.

You are talking morality---the schools are talking facts. Unless you think facts should be suppressed, I don't see your point.

The moment you put "Gay" in the title, Your discussing homosexuality. The moment you put "Cool" in the statement, you've made a value judgement, not stated a fact. I personally have no qualms with who people decide to be intimate, and will teach my kids the same. Theres no reason for the Public schools to teach it.

The drug statement was to show another area where schools have delved into social conditioning of their students, and failed miserably.

The white sheet remark was cute, and baseless, and a personal attack that shows the level your willign to stoop to avoid discussing the issue. Thanks for that.

Gustogus

"The moment you put "Gay" in the title, Your discussing homosexuality."

Not when you are in the third grade.



"The moment you put "Cool" in the statement, you've made a value judgement, not stated a fact."

Yes--the value judgement was that having two fathers was cool--good---nothing wrong with it. What's your problem with that?



"I personally have no qualms with who people decide to be intimate, and will teach my kids the same. Theres no reason for the Public schools to teach it."

Why not? Anything wrong with the message? Not everyone has parents who tell them that being gay is OK.




"The drug statement was to show another area where schools have delved into social conditioning of their students, and failed miserably."

So? Should they not have tried?




"The white sheet remark was cute, and baseless, and a personal attack that shows the level your willign to stoop to avoid discussing the issue. Thanks for that."

Your naivete is amusing. It was hardly a personal attack, and a statement of fact. I would say hundreds if not thousands of parents teach their children racial hatred on an active basis, and I have seen them parade their children dressed in white sheets and pointy hats in Parades and on TV. If you think parents should be the source of all morality---what's your problem? Don't you think it would be a good idea to give those students a good idea?

Your whining over a non existant attack and your personal attack on me shows your unwillingness to discuss the issue. Expected.

my 2 cents --

I don't think it's an issue of bigotry/intolerance against gays when people don't want third graders (and other children under 12) exposed to learning about gay lifestyles as much as it is an inherent desire to protect young children from what many people perceive as "too much, too soon" to learn at that young age.

""The moment you put "Gay" in the title, Your discussing homosexuality."

Not when you are in the third grade. "

'Aven't been eight years old for a long time, 'ave yer, mate?

I have an idea: why don't you ask the kids what they think?

"The moment you put "Gay" in the title, Your discussing homosexuality.

Not when you are in the third grade.

Of course it says you are talking about homosexuality when using the word "gay" (which, by the way, although that word was never used in my vocabulary in the old fashioned way meaning "happy/lively" that word has still been unfairly taken out of our vocabulary for use as meaning only homosexual).

How many 3rd graders today would associate the word "gay" with the original older meaning of the word as "joyful/happy" but now because the gays have taken it over no one uses or thinks of that word in its original meaning.

Look at the old movies when they use the word "gay" -- get real. Who can look at the title of, say, that old 1934 movie "The Gay Divorcee" and not see how use of that word by gays has changed the entire meaning forever.

"The word started to acquire sexual connotations in the late 17th century, being used with meaning "addicted to pleasures and dissipations". This was by extension from the primary meaning of "carefree": implying "uninhibited by moral constraints". By the late nineteenth century the term "gay life" was a well-established euphemism for prostitution and other forms of extramarital sexual behavior that were perceived as immoral."

Oh come on Chris, Why even make the statement then?

If they won't know what it means its superfluous. And we're all smart people here, we know it's an agenda to promote acceptance and tolerance.

On face value there's nothing wrong with that, my objection is that I still feel that introducing children to the sticky social situations such as sex, drugs, death, should be the parents job, not the schools.

Take this time and go back to teaching civics and my god please start teaching economics, You'de be amazed at how many socially tolerant people can't balance a checkbook.

Sorry Chris, That was meant for Bob.

Oh come on Chris, Why even make the statement then?

Posted by GustoGus at 2007-09-15 06:09 PM

errr, maybe you read it wrong. My post was in total agreement with you.

Bob,

The statement was "'It's Really Cool to Have Two Gay Dads'

Not its cool to have 2 Father. It is a value statement on Gay Dads, not just Dads.

If your going to try and manipulate the facts to suit your argument, try and choose one that isn't the headline of the entry.

Yeah Chris, Sorry bout that, I read Bob's post then read your's right before I started typing. Apologies for the mix up :)

Bob, That poem you are talking about is our National Anthem! I do hope you knew that.

Of course it says you are talking about homosexuality when using the word "gay" (which, by the way, although that word was never used in my vocabulary in the old fashioned way meaning "happy/lively" that word has still been unfairly taken out of our vocabulary for use as meaning only homosexual).


How many 3rd graders today would associate the word "gay" with the original older meaning of the word as "joyful/happy" but now because the gays have taken it over no one uses or thinks of that word in its original meaning.


Look at the old movies when they use the word "gay" -- get real. Who can look at the title of, say, that old 1934 movie "The Gay Divorcee" and not see how use of that word by gays has changed the entire meaning forever.

Posted by CalifChris at 2007-09-15 05:49 PM


Again, not in the third grade. You seem to think that third graders not only know all about sex, but also about homosexuality. I think third graders can understand the concept of two dads without having to consider the sexual meaning, or know of any sexual context.

Fact is, there was a time when American law was a model for the entire world.

Get over it. This is the twenty-first century.

MTW, don't you think you are contradicting yourself here. You made both comments on this thread. In the first sentence, this event would not even be an issue, but it is in the 21st Century. You are saying, I belive, that people in the 21st century are more open minded and wise, an I correct. But you were saying that we use to be the role model, and I would believe according to your sentence, that it was before the 21st century. Which is it? Were we a model or are we now a model?

Fact is, there was a time when American law was a model for the entire world.

Get over it. This is the twenty-first century.

MTW, don't you think you are contradicting yourself here. You made both comments on this thread. In the first sentence, this event would not even be an issue, but it is in the 21st Century. You are saying, I belive, that people in the 21st century are more open minded and wise, an I correct. But you were saying that we use to be the role model, and I would believe according to your sentence, that it was before the 21st century. Which is it? Were we a model or are we now a model?

Sorry for the double.

"If they won't know what it means its superfluous."

Like Califchris, you give them credit for too much knowledge. Third graders aren't interested in sex, and in fact if you were to ask most of the biggest whore hounds what they thought of girls when they were in the third grade they would have said they were yucky or goofy---they had no interest.




"And we're all smart people here, we know it's an agenda to promote acceptance and tolerance.On face value there's nothing wrong with that, my objection is that I still feel that introducing children to the sticky social situations such as sex, drugs, death, should be the parents job, not the schools.

You are diffusing the point---we are talking about gays and gay parents. Focus on the issue. Why is teaching tolerance for gays in school wrong if you are teaching the same thing at home?




"Take this time and go back to teaching civics and my god please start teaching economics, You'de be amazed at how many socially tolerant people can't balance a checkbook."

I think your imagination is running away with you, but I would rather people not balance a checkbook than tie a gay man to a fence and beat him to death.

Bob,

Do you think it is ok to teach this whole song. This is History.

1. My country,' tis of thee,
sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing;
land where my fathers died,
land of the pilgrims' pride,
from every mountainside let freedom ring!

2. My native country, thee,
land of the noble free, thy name I love;
I love thy rocks and rills,
thy woods and templed hills;
my heart with rapture thrills, like that above.

3. Let music swell the breeze,
and ring from all the trees sweet freedom's song;
let mortal tongues awake;
let all that breathe partake;
let rocks their silence break, the sound prolong.

4. Our fathers' God, to thee,
author of liberty, to thee we sing;
long may our land be bright
with freedom's holy light;
protect us by thy might, great God, our King.

What about this,

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword;
His truth is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! His truth is marching on.

I have seen Him in the watch fires of a hundred circling camps
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps;
His day is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! His day is marching on.

I have read a fiery Gospel writ in burnished rows of steel;
"As ye deal with My contemners, so with you My grace shall deal";
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with His heel,
Since God is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Since God is marching on.

He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet;
Our God is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Our God is marching on.

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us live to make men free;
[originally ... let us die to make men free]
While God is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! While God is marching on.

He is coming like the glory of the morning on the wave,
He is wisdom to the mighty, He is honor to the brave;
So the world shall be His footstool, and the soul of wrong His slave,
Our God is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Our God is marching on.

Gustogus

"The statement was "'It's Really Cool to Have Two Gay Dads'

Not its cool to have 2 Father. It is a value statement on Gay Dads, not just Dads.

If your going to try and manipulate the facts to suit your argument, try and choose one that isn't the headline of the entry."



You are correct. I should have said: Yes--the value judgement was that having two gay fathers was cool--good---nothing wrong with it. What's your problem with that?

I notice out of all the questions, you ignore them all and focus on a minor point.

Phin Phan

Of course I knew it was the National Anthem. Did you know it started out as a poem? In fact it is still a poem that has had music added. The fact that it our National Anthem doesn't make it any more right than having "In God We Trust " on the money. That is what the discussion would be about---I gave you credit for picking up on that---sorry.

The discussion would be about concepts that are wrapped in the flag that go against the basic concepts of the country.

Both the National Anthem and the inscription on the money came at later dates and were made part of our society by lesser men---men who didn't understand one of the concepts of America. Separation of church and state. God and Jesus aren't in the Constitution for a reason.

It should not be our National Anthem.

"In God We Trust" should not be on our money.

Bob, these songs can't even go near a school because the libs are destroying them. School is not a place to express oneself, but to get education. We used to have the best public schools in the world, but that was many years ago. Schools use to teach the three R's, but now we have to please all these people with an agenda. This wouldn't have even been an issue years and years ago at a school and it shouldn't. If kids are being bullies, then deal with them and discipline them. Teachers can't just teach anymore and that is the sad fact.

I think third graders can understand the concept of two dads without having to consider the sexual meaning, or know of any sexual context.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2007-09-15 06:51 PM | Reply

Until that 3rd grader looks up and says "how can two Daddys have a baby?"

THEN how do you answer, BB?

Phin Phan

I think all those songs should be discussed. However I think that many would object to the discussion. You most of all since the god mentioned in those songs would be shown to be evil and not worth worshipping, or non-existant.

I am in favor of the bible being discussed in schools also---it would be shown to be a falshood. After a few objective bible study classes, I'm sure those who want to force prayer in schools would be clamoring for no mention of religion by teachers very very soon after the first bible class.

Do you know that the tune of the National Anthem is an old English drinking song?

Why is teaching tolerance for gays in school wrong if you are teaching the same thing at home?

Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Because you are misconstruing the argument.

How someone decides to introduce their kids to the concept of "Being Gay" may not include the term "Cool", and it may not be at the age of 9.

Believe it or not, being "tolerant" and thinking somehting is "cool" are not the same thing. And believe it or not people do have a right to not want to promote "Gay" as an optimal lifestyle decision for their kids. (Lets not get into the born/made argument, Yes I think most Gay people are born that way)

Anyway you slice it, they used the term "Gay" and "Cool" willfully in an attempt to introduce the term early and instill a value judgement on it.

Leave it out of the elementary schools. Bring it up in Current Issues class in Secondary or Post-Secondary education, at that point it's less "State Sponsored Indoctrication" and more "Political Discourse"

Until that 3rd grader looks up and says "how can two Daddys have a baby?"

THEN how do you answer, BB? -- CalifChris

I'm REALLY sure you don't have to talk about anal sex to answer this one!

I am in favor of the bible being discussed in schools also---it would be shown to be a falshood. After a few objective bible study classes, I'm sure those who want to force prayer in schools would be clamoring for no mention of religion by teachers very very soon after the first bible class.--Bob.

If taught by the uneducated, sure. If I tried to teach chemistry, the kids would learn nothing and most things would probably be wrong. That is why I don't believe the Bible should be taught in schools either or even school lead prayer. I don't want my children having a teacher like you who doesn't know the truth about the Bible trying to teach it. I just don't think we should leave things out because God is mentioned and that is what is happening.

Show me where God is being evil in these songs.

Until that 3rd grader looks up and says "how can two Daddys have a baby?"

THEN how do you answer, BB?

Posted by CalifChris at 2007-09-15 07:20 PM |


Tell them the truth. I think the story is told from the perspective of a child, so adoption is one way. Again, third graders aren't interested in sex--no hormones yet. A simple explanation is all they need, or want to know.

Show me where God is being evil in these songs.

Posted by phinphan at 2007-09-15 07:36 PM


Nice strawman. Weak, but nice. I never said god was being evil in those songs--but if you discuss the songs, you discuss god, and if you discuss god, it is easily shown the biblical god is evil and petty---but fortunately, non-existent since the stories the bible is based on are from older religions. A discussion of the older stories quickly shows them to be more logical than the pale shadows that echo through the bible.

Gustogus

Thank you for your opinion. I am for universal teaching of tolerance at an early age--you aren't.

You most of all since the god mentioned in those songs would be shown to be evil and not worth worshipping, or non-existant. I guess I misunderstood your sentence. Like I said, if people like you taught the class, sure it would be taught incorrectly.

Time to move on, I am out of here.

Gustogus

Thank you for your opinion. I am for universal teaching of tolerance at an early age--you aren't.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Lets try that, with a different phrasing.

You are for state sponsored moral indoctrination as young as possible, I am not.


It's all in the wording ain't it?

Hey BuffaloBobShit(TM) tell us who those living people are that gave Bush and Cheney their orders to not tell about what really happened on 911...you pissant liberal little weenie.........

It's all pretty simple to me: What's the best that can happen? What's the worst?

The best: Understanding of a facet of the human condition. Intolerance is born from ignorance. People who fear things such as homosexuality do so because they don't understand it and it's been drilled into their heads from early on that "it's a sin." Kids who might otherwise bully and beat up kids who they suspect are gay might actually not be so threatened by the idea. Kids who might be gay might actually develop a sense of self-worth and self acceptanct.

The worst: Kids will...turn gay? Umm, no. That only happens in the dark recesses of the fundy brain.

You are for state sponsored moral indoctrination as young as possible, I am not.


It's all in the wording ain't it?

Posted by GustoGus at 2007-09-15 08:02 PM


Moral indoctrination is different from teaching tolerance--apples and oranges. Your moral indoctrination could mean teaching the hatred of gays. Teaching tolerance is something quite different. To put it your way.

I am for state sponsored teaching of tolerance at an early age, you are not.

PhinPhan

I am sure yu don't know anything about the history of the bible, and if you did, you wouldn't tell the truth to the children.