It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

View homosexually tolerant film, or school faces lawsuit

page: 14
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 09:55 AM
link   
I'm 99.9 per cent sure that I was made this way, call it a genetic flaw, freak or just a naturally occuring variable within the population. Even the .1 percent doubt I have amounts to some subconscious influence or series of influences that were so subtle, powerful and deeply entrenched as to make the difference between nature and nurture almost acedemic. It certainly isn't the scenario of 'mm it's wednesday. I know, I'll turn gay!' that some people have an almost pathologically fervent wish to believe in. ( And I know that isn't what Jethro was trying to say but some people do.) Even if it's the latter I have absolutley no clue as what it was that caused it and would not apologise if were a fact anyway but from personal experience I just don't think it is that.

A better anology than the thieving one would be to find yourself strapped into a, wheelchair even though you're fully able bodied and then told that to get out and walk would be sinful and upsetting to those around you because they all need wheelchairs to get around and your 'difference' would be unacceptable to them. You can choose to stay sitting or you can choose to get up and walk, but you were born able bodied.




posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ubermunche
I'm 99.9 per cent sure that I was made this way, call it a genetic flaw, freak or just a naturally occurring variable within the population. Even the .1 percent doubt I have amounts to some subconscious influence or series of influences that were so subtle, powerful and deeply entrenched as to make the difference between nature and nurture almost academic. It certainly isn't the scenario of 'mm it's Wednesday. I know, I'll turn gay!' that some people have an almost pathologically fervent wish to believe in. ( And I know that isn't what Jethro was trying to say but some people do.) Even if it's the latter I have absolutely no clue as what it was that caused it and would not apologize if were a fact anyway but from personal experience I just don't think it is that.


Are you gay?

Honestly makes no difference to me. To be truthful, I used to be a bit un-nerved around "gay" people with the whole 1 person in my huge high school that actually SAID he was gay.

I liked him, he was a funny guy.

Me and some friends defended him against some (go figure) football players who seemed to have a problem with the "date" he had brought to homecoming.

That kind of Cro-Magnon behavior is unacceptable as far as I am concerned, while I do think homosexuality is wrong.

But we are all wrong and no one has the perfect code to make it through this life unscathed.

Don't get it twisted, tolerance is a GOOD thing. But in order to have the America it was meant to be, we must protect speech...

...even hate speech.

I think homosexuality is a combination of many factors, to include the way you were born. Alcoholism, they say, is passed down. Yet they are not alcoholics because they were "born that way". It's just too complicated to say that it is either a "choice" or a "born that way" thing.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep
Okay people, there is no reason to make this lesson in religion.
Your correct, but it's hard not to because most people that are against anything to do with homosexuality use religion as their excuse for it...that makes it hard not always have these discussions turn to religion. It's always brought into the threads as reason for hate or be against them



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 10:23 AM
link   
I love the ACLU . if it wasnt for such things , people like the teacher who just read some kids poem about not being able to preach the christian god in school would get away with what he did .he sort of did get away with it but parents called in very pissed with what he did .

its a shame christians cant learn that prayer is for them and not for the whole room to be forced into praying with them . to have it in the history books to educate children what these figures were is ok but to force it over the intercom on how they should all pray to the christian god is pathetic . my family is roman catholic , they keep to themselves cause religion is for the individual but most christians run around ''saving'' everyone cause they will it will give them points to heaven .

try and ask a christian if they will be ok if prayer was allowed but for ALL religions . most wont like that idea cause theres a hidden agenda .dont believe their o so victimized selves . they are not victims but even in the bible as ''martyred christians'' . read revalations -_-

if ACLU wasnt around bsa would go for federal funding which means ''why cant the kkk'' . bsa is known for pushing discrimination as ok . they have the right cause they are a private organization but be careful if they try federal funding . off topic but the brits created the scouts and dont discriminate . funny thing usa takes everything and uses it for their rotten agenda ...

ACLU would stick up for your rights if something goes wrong . dont be so quick to get rid of such groups that can help you someday . there are people around who love to see you hurting and opress you cause of some sick tradition they never really studied anyway etc.

this makes me wonder why you want to keep bigots and crazy people with no education to what they discriminate on with religion or whatever they choose as their excuse . you would be shocked what the bible really says . ive debated this with a christian and it ticks him off to no end how uneducated people are with the bible .

be careful what you wish for .. you may just get it .

[edit on 1-12-2004 by myformerself]

[edit on 1-12-2004 by myformerself]



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
Your correct, but it's hard not to because most people that are against anything to do with homosexuality use religion as their excuse for it...that makes it hard not always have these discussions turn to religion. It's always brought into the threads as reason for hate or be against them


You're right, and it DOES suck. But being "equally" disparaging is counter productive and you lose a great opportunity to gain the high ground. Maybe even shed some light on the topic for those who are learning.

When you sink to their level, you lose your point. Nothing wise is ever said in anger, whether it be by words or tone.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 10:40 AM
link   
hah .. people always use the bible as a scapegoat .

heres an educated christians take on this .

*this was concerning another topic on another political forum** it can be used for anything though .

you may not find these in your new pretty edited out bible but this was in the older ones .





''Gay Marriage, Chritianity and how it dictates politics.


Updates for the Politically and Religiously Insane, Issue 2 Gay Marriage, Chritianity and how it dictates politics.

This is something that people should be informed of because I've had this conversation with some many people that I get upset when I see the Christian public throw around the term "it says so in the Bible."

Keep in mind that this is where traditional Christians get their head strong opinions on homosexuality and how these opinions have dictated how some states have voted the way they have. It's true the Beeble does say that gay is bad, so what! Lookey what else it says (and keep in mind I am Christian) ---

1. No man shall marry a woman that has been previously married… Matthew 5:32 (Are any of you remarried?)


2. No widow shall marry (unless it’s her brother-in-law). All women whose husbands have passed away are to refrain from intimacy and pleasure for the remainder of their lives….1 Timothy 5:5-15. (Going to be a lot of lonely widows out there that will never be happy again)


3. People of different races are not allowed to marry….Deuteronomy 7:3; Numbers 25:6-8; 36:3-9; 1 Kings 11:2; Ezra 9:2; Nehemiah 13:25-27.


4. Christians and non-Christians can not marry…. 2 John 1:9-11; 2 Corinthians 6:14-17.


5. A minister is not allowed to marry to a woman other than a virgin…Leviticus 21:13-14


6. A rapist is required to marry his victim (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) unless the victim failed to cry out, in which case the rapist is relieved of this obligation (Deuteronomy 22:23-24).

''How you like those apples? It seems like it's the God-Given-Right of every Christian to pick the parts of the Bible they like and leave out the parts that they don't.'''''


[edit on 1-12-2004 by myformerself]



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep
Okay, here we go with the twisting of facts.

Escuse me, but I have not twisted any facts.

Gay students were not being prevented from attending school.

Yes, I am aware of this and its not what a said. I specifically noted that it was a gay student group


The school originally did not want to allow an extra-curricular organization, which for some reason had sexual orientation as its binding factor,

Its a group for gay students, its not exactly mystifying as to why it would exist. A abstinent student group would have 'sex' as its binding factor and probably would be allowed in.


They were sued and lost.

Rightly so, however I, and perhaps this was my misuderstanding, had thought that it was settled in arbitration/mediation.


but you cannot, by law suit settlement or any other means, force students to sit through it.

Since when? Students can be required to take courses.


You can not force students to sit through math class.

Perhaps the school infact does not have the authority to force students to attend any class, thats entirely possible. I am inclined to think that they do, especially since they have stated that they have that power (in agreeing to do so).




no way in hell will this state add sexual orientation tolerance training to that requirement..nor should it.

Why the heck shouldn't the students be given some tolerance training? I agree that 'tolerance' might not be something guaranteed by law, but why are you making it out to be some horrible thing? These students shouldn't be doing any kind of harm to another student, merely because they are gay, any more than gay students should be allowed to belittle straight students anyway.


Look, no one said these students could not congregate but what the hell does the school have to do with anal sex?

Who the heck said anything about anal sex? The school wasn't discriminating against students engaging in anal sex, it was discriminating against gay and lesbian students. Heck, unless these lesbians were walking around with strap-ons they at the very least aren't engaging in anal sex, and I'd be willing to be that there are more straight female students engaged in all sorts of sodomy at that school than lesbians engaged in it. Heck there's probably more straight students engaged in sodomy 'gomory' and all sorts of 'sexual perversions' than there are gay students in total at these schools.



Why should we and should we be encouraging highschool age kids to experiment with sex?

How is expecting students to be tolerant of one another irregardless of sexual orientation the same thing as encouraging sexual experimentation?


What the hell happened to desease prevention and the threat of aids.

What does that have to do with this? No one is talking about revoking sex ed classes. This is a human dignity and tolerance issue.


meet and have a support group for discussing sexual techniques they use?

Perhaps I have misunderstood something here. This class is not about tolerance of other people in relation to their sexuality, but instead about how to give a proper reach around and whether or not you're a catcher or a pitcher?

I don't think that they are teaching students how to be gay, they're teaching students that just because someone is gay doesn't mean that you can bash them.


krazyjethro
Oh, the government funded schools are now allowed to make judgements in lieu of the parents?

This is not new. 'In loco parentis' is not new.

And they have no say?

Apparently your problem is with a school that is overriding parents rights, not the ACLU which was defending the rights of some students. The School is the one saying that it can force students to attend any classes, not the ACLU. The school and the students being discriminated against agreed that if the school made a mandatory tolerance and diversity class (and I think that this is a one or two session class no, not an entire year or semester?) then the lawsuit would be dropped.

If the school overstepped its bounds, then you should be complain about and to the school.


the article
"It sounds like the training can't possibly be done," James Esseks, litigation director for the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project

Looks like the ACLU was lead to beleive that the school could, one way or another, get all their students to take this training. Apparently they were deceived.

Private Schooling

Look, if you want the vast majority of the country to be completely uneducated, illiterate and entirely ignorant, then eliminating public schools is a good way to go. As it is, anyone who disagrees with the public school system in general can take their kids out of school and do just that. Private and Home schooling is not a solution to any sort of educational problems for the entire country.

This would solve more problems than it would raise.

Thats a terribly horrible idea. If you eliminate public schools, you will eliminate education for entire swaths of the population. It'd put this country back well over a hundred years.

Since kids are required to go to school, and it is provided by the government (~shutters~), then they have no right to mandate social training in lieu of the parents.

If they can require sex ed, then they can require this course.

but I have the right to censure anything I deem inappropriate for my kids.

No you don't. Its been pointed out that the school system can have standards for graduation. You don't have the right to control the public schooling agenda. YOu do have the right to opt out of the public school system.

joedoaks
Parents, the two of OPPOSITE sex that hopefully enjoyed a union at some time in the past, should be the ones that teach morality.

Why? THey are not more moral than others.

edsinger
Oh God doesn't hate them, he hates the sin in which there really is no debate.

Right, and gayness is a sin that ranks just as bad as eating shellfish, which the bible also says is an abomination. Are students going to be required to keep kosher? If students that keep kosher are discriminated against by the faculty, administration, pta, and students, is the ACLU horrible and evil for advocating on behalf of kosher students? And they must be nazis or something if they agree that if the school can get all its students to watch at 'What is Kosher Anyway" video or if they learn why they shouldn't discriminate against people who keep kosher then there isn't a problem, even tho this won't necessarily stop the discrimination?

A Bisexual only has half the gay gene?

The genetics of human sexuality are not dictated by a single gene or anything like that. The studies that I have seen indicate that gay men have brain structures/patters that correlate (in the areas associated with sex) that are very similiar to that of a straight woman's. That means that whatever makes them gay is whatever makes women straight. Also, its been noted in other studies that the men who are most homophobic have the 'largest' arousal response to gay pornography, whereas those with little homophobia have less or no response. So gayness can't merely be dictated by a single gene or a simple genetic system, again, at least no more than straightness or anything else in humanity is.

Who has condemned anyone here?

jesus told everyone to love each other, forgive each other, and not even struggle aginst evil, to literally offer the other cheek to an abuser. Not to force gays out of school and fight aginst the ACLU like it was some sort of invasion.

I agree and pay dearly for it

You agree that homeschooling/private schooling can be efffective for individual students, or agree that the public school system should be eradicated and all students have to fend for themselves?

Joedoaks
is that is exactly what it is, propaganda.

Since when is propaganda inherently bad? Everyone uses propaganda, its merely a tool.

Schools take student safety seriously.

Hence them want to prevent anti-gay sentiment from turning into anti-gay violence

In this instance a group (happens to be gay) wants to form a club promoting a form of sexism and the school said no

No, an already formed national group wanted to be at the school. These gay-lesbian alliance groups are not sexist, they don't discriminate against sexual orientation, all students are allowed to join. And they don't promote gayness or recruit straights into being gay, they simple try to explain to students that ridicule, exlusion, violence and discrimination are not acceptable.

CM
were you taught to be a bigot?

No one claims that the BSA teaches bigotry, but it is a bigoted organization.

to force a special interest minority group agenda.

And that agenda is 'stop beating gays in the streets, stop discriminating because of sexual orientation and show humans humanity'.

until the gay community finds a way to "forgive" or somehow extend a branch of peace to the Scouts

Why in the world should gays forgive the national BSA for being bigoted and exlusionary? Should blacks forgive the KKK, merely because they have a riot to be bigots?

The Scouts have a long history of volunteerism, community service to ALL, and of helping young men grow into more responsible citizens

Yes, the BSA is generally a good group that is helpful to society in general. Why they insist on exluding gays is beyond me but I guess its just because they're a bunch of useful and helpful bigots.

Yet now soo many are being turned away from supporting them because they exercised their PROTECTED 1rst amendment RIGHTS to not be inflicted with members that do not expouse their core values.

So? The scouts don't deserve membership, they don't have a right to being promoted by everyone. Gays have a problem with being excluded from scouts, no one claims that in itself is illegal. The scouts, as a private group, not a public one, can do whatever they want. And what they want apparently is to exclude members based on sexual orientation.

Do you support persecuting someone for using their 1rst amendment rights of association?

I support persecuting people who have digusting and morally repugnant views, even tho I support their right to be disgusting and immoral.

Are you for removal of this right in order to support a special interest minority group agenda?

No, and no one is calling for this, least of all the ACLU.

Which other Special interest minority group agendas should adopt these same devious tactics?

There was nothing devious about requesting that the scouts be required to not discriminate or not be a publically funded group.

i want to sue a gay rights organization because they wont let edsinger become the head of their local organization, citing discrimination against him for being a str8 christian.
NO court in the land would support this because he does NOT expouse the gay groups values

Agreed, no court would expect a gay rights group to even be forced to accept non gay members, just like the boy scouts are not required to accept gay members. If, however, it was some sort of national organization that received public funding, then they couldn't discriminate against edsinger merely because he is a non-gay christian. They could discriminate against him because he is not in favour of constitutionally guarenteed gay rights or any other number of legitimate issues. If the KKK wanted to receive public funding, it could not be a racist organization. Similarly, if the Black Panthers wanted to receive federal funding, they could not be racist either. Obviously this means the KKK can't reject a member as president of the org merely because he is black, but they could reject a member as president if that member was overall opposed to the other legal aspects of the KKK (whatever those might be).

but damn man, how can you look from both experiance and objectivity and say the Scouts are bad and deserve to be DISCRIMINATED against for being who they are.

Uhm, no one is discriminating against the scouts. And yet, the scouts insist on being allowed to discriminate.

I hope the United Way dries up and wastes away, they will never get ANY money from me

Do you or do you not pay taxes? Are you saying that you have been illegally refusing to file your income tax returns and are also making your children/heirs and family do the same?

Hypocrits to the MAX.

its the 'anti-gay' groups that are the hypocrits. They batch and whine about 'reverse discrimination' and how they shouldn't be looked down on merely because they are bigoted hypocrits, but then are, literally, demanding the right to be intolerant of other people and even demanding that their kids not be forced to take a course on being sensitive and humane. They hid behind false views on constitutional protections and simulataneously seek to remove those protections for others. If the whole world was gay, then they'd run to the ACLU practically everytime they went out on the street. Just look at the nazis, they sought protection from the ACLU. Infact, since a few generations ago the sex acts that are seen as 'normal' today were considered perversions and psychological sicknesses, manias, and hysterias that needed to be cured. Think about what its going to be like a few generations from now eh? Stuff thats considered perverted by most people today will be common, then who are the 'morals and sexual purity people' going to turn to? They'll be the ones demanding that they be allowed into succesful 'tolerant' organizations, and they'll be the ones asking for protections. When their kids are the ones made fun of by other students, beaten by other people, had peer pressure put on them to do those perverted acts, and even been denied the right of assembly in public places like schools for their 'narrow minded sexual orientated groups' , they're the ones who will be using these so called 'devious' tactics of demanding to be treated with respect and human dignity.

Sorry to rant, but i had to clear my chest of the SLANDEROUS, and vicious attack against the Scouts

There is no libel or slander in saying that the boy scouts are bigoted and discrimintory, hell, they're insisting that they have a right to be so. And they do. Pointing that out isn't slander. If anyone is being a slanderer or libeler its you for calling these tactics devious and subversive or seeking to promote some conspiratorial agenda. And you're calling them hypocrits?


Yet they are the bad guys?

Ultimately yes. They're discriminatory intolerant bigots. If thats not being a bad guy then not too much else is. It doesn't matter that the national org of scouting does other good stuff. Any group can do good and bad stuff.

iaf101
What about the harassment to those who are forced to watch this?

it is not harrasment in any sense of the word.

After having supported a neo-nazi group what more can we expect from such a group?

You are saying nazis don't have a right to be nazis? 1st ammendment guarentees a right to freedom of speech. doesn't matter if its liberal or facist speech.

Next they will say "Tolerance training" on cannibals !

Ok, what exactly is so wrong with cannibals? Murdering people and eating them sure, but many religions feast on the corpses of the deceased. I think its gross, but that doesn't mean that they should be prevented from doing it, and that doesn't mean that people should be allowed to discriminate against them.

Such decisions should be put to vote in the local PTA meetings instead of dragging the school to court

Obviously the school in question didn't feel that the parents had any right to reject their demands.

astrocreep
I do, however , think this course should be expanded to train teachers to control violence coming from not only anti-gay sentiment but also racial,gender related and social class sentiments as well

So before everyone was arguing that they can't force people to be tolerant, and now its argued that they should force everyone to be tolerant on everything? Before it was a problem with having a gay tolerance class or session, now you want every teacher to allways teach and enforce tolerance in general?

So long as this doesn't force socialization and merely trains staff to control violence, I think its beneficial

Its not staff only. The school, according to world nut daily, is requiring all students to attend.

That kind of Cro-Magnon behavior is unacceptable as far as I am concerned, while I do think homosexuality is wrong.

And you don't think that it would make sense for those 'cro-mags' to have to take a lesson in why its wrong to be intolerant? Where do you get off being so sensationalistic by defending a person against all thats good and holy, football? Just trying to draw attention to yourself? And since when can you force someone to be tolerant of someone else?What are you somking of Atheist and Communist Liberal Unioner or something?

In defending this gay kid and his date against the football team you were doing exactly what the ACLU did, and with the threat of violence presumably, which the ACLU did not do.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Krazy Jethro,

all kudos to you that you can treat people well while disagreeing with their choices, more power to you.

An example from my own life is when I worked with a woman who was a strict Irish catholic, we got on very well but after a couple of weeks word got out about me and she obviously changed towards me. Still polite and friendly enough but definately not the buddy she had been. This went on for a few months but eventually we just got friendly again, she told me that her faith meant that she could never approve of my sexuality but it was my choice and I explained to her that the nature of my predisposition meant I could never live up to the requirements of her faith and felt no need to but I respected her right to her beliefs, then we left it at that and just got on fine. She'd ask after my partner, I'd ask after the people at church (we both have Irish Catholic heritage, I went to the same school as her kids and attended the same church when younger) I'd sometimes have a moan about aspects of the gay lifestyle which p***ed me off and she did the same about aspects of her religion and in short we got along fine because we liked each other and could acknowledge our differences without getting bent out of shape about it. It makes me wonder sometimes if all this head butting over differing veiws or idealogies is merely masking some basic personality clashes.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
I USED to have MORE tolorance for gays than i do now because of the tactics i see exhibited by pro gay supporters...not because they are gay.

[edit on 1-12-2004 by CazMedia]


I actually have to agree with you Caz about most of your post here, except this little tidbit. Why do you blame ALL gays for this (CA Marriage/Scouts). We are all not these millitant types who go out of their way to say "we're here, we're queer, get used to it". Most of us are just regular people.

As far as the CA marriage fiasco.....well, as soon as I saw 2 guys in leather jock straps getting married....I knew that it was over for us before we even had a chance.

That's another thing. I'm sick of the media always showing the most flamboyant gay or the butchest deisel dyke. Most of us are normal, and don't get me started on gay pride parades......the hetros look at all that fiasco and the stereotypes keep flying. My stance is...baby steps.....let the general public get used to us first before we declare our love to one another in freeking leather jock straps.

Oh, and by the way.....on topic.....I think the ACLU has gone overboard with this one. I agree with Jethro and actually Caz (ouch that hurt)....joking.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 01:18 PM
link   
1. A conference for teachers, middle and high school students at Tufts University in March 2000 erupted in a controversy that became known as “Fistgate.” Students at one of the workshops, billed for “youth only ages 14-21,” learned explicit details of high-risk homosexual practices, including the practice of “fisting” which involves the insertion of a fist into a rectum or vagina. The instructors were three professionals from the Massachusetts Departments of Education and Health. A workshop participant secretly taped the workshop and when tapes were released to the public, a firestorm of controversy erupted, but the liberals prevailed in Massachusetts, and the conference has returned to Tufts every year since, just without that particular workshop. GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, one of the conference sponsors, sued the person who taped the workshop and another pro-family activist who wrote about the workshop. It is estimated that these two could incur over $200,000 in legal defense costs. The three workshop instructors were meanwhile dismissed, but one was later re-hired.

*What the heck is this?

2. Middle school students were recruited in West Virginia schools to serve on “civil rights action” teams. Students as young as sixth grade were trained by local police to listen for and report statements of peers that were “hateful” regarding homosexuality. The project was funded by the U.S. Safe and Drug Free Schools program. The effort, which originated out of the state Attorney General’s office, came to a halt last year once pro-family groups exposed it through the media. In Maine, 2,000 students attended a Civil Rights Team conference in April 2003 as part of a similar effort in that state. Pro-family volunteers and pastors tried to hand out literature at the conference with a different viewpoint, including testimony of an ex-homosexual. Apparently organizers of this taxpayer-funded event had coached the students in advance, because many students refused to accept the brochures at this conference on “diversity,” where students heard one young woman speaker describe her testosterone hormone therapy to change her gender to male.

What Diversity?

3. The national 2003 Day of Silence (DOS) event, organized by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), was observed in April by a reported 200,000 students in 2,000 middle and high schools. Students and some teachers remained silent all day to protest “discrimination” against homosexuals. At Evansville High School in Wisconsin, Christian students who countered the DOS by praying and sharing Bible verses in the school commons were given unexcused absences. The Silence students, by contrast, were permitted to publicize the event through posters and over the intercom, as well as being given a “safe room” for use that day if they believed they were being harassed.

I know you'll call this a biased site because its religious based... but I thought it fit the thread...

P.S. I have nothing against homosexuality... Why do I feel I have to state this at the end of every post?

I just think that if religious organizations can't be in public schools...neither should this sort of stuff.

www.blessedcause.org...

[edit on 1-12-2004 by LostSailor]



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
neither should this sort of stuff

Why? What does one have here except an explicit sex ed class and some bible thumpers interupting tolerance meetings?


Apparently organizers of this taxpayer-funded event had coached the students in advance, because many students refused to accept the brochures at this conference on “diversity,”

Why does that mean that they were coached? And this conference was voluntary no? So what does it matter what they heard, they have a right to hear that stuff. What do you think would happen to a pro-gray group that went to a conservative christian mass and tried to hand out gay recruitment pamphlets amoung the pews?

Students and some teachers remained silent all day to protest “discrimination” against homosexuals

Are you saying that there is no discrimination against gays?

as well as being given a “safe room” for use that day if they believed they were being harassed.

gosh, how horrible. If there were students harrassing them for being gay or for standing in solidarity with harrased gays then they had a room they could run to.

, Christian students who countered the DOS by praying and sharing Bible verses in the school commons were given unexcused absences

Sounds like the school overstepped its bounds on that one. Doesn't matter what they were saying, if they weren't interfereing with the school's function then they shouldn't've been stopped or punished. But were they interfering?



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 02:01 PM
link   
I didn't say anything... they were quotes from the link provided at the bottom of the thread... did you read all 20 of them? I just thought the web site supported the originaly posted argument.

The kids being coached meant they were told in advance not to accept any pamphlets being handed out.

And yes I firmly believe that if the ACLU is going to ban all religion and religious groups from public schools and not tolerate it at all... Then why should religious people be tolerant of "tolerance" training?

Its a double edged sword in my opinion... keep it all out and make everyone happy... teach the basics... the kids will make up their own minds on the subject anyway.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor


The kids being coached meant they were told in advance not to accept any pamphlets being handed out.



I don't know where you live, but where I live if a religious nutjob is passing out pamphlets where I work, live or ride the metro etc., I don't take it......as do most of the people I observe. Could it be that the kids weren't coached to not take them and merely do what most of the people do and not take the pamphlet?



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan


astrocreep
I do, however , think this course should be expanded to train teachers to control violence coming from not only anti-gay sentiment but also racial,gender related and social class sentiments as well



So before everyone was arguing that they can't force people to be tolerant, and now its argued that they should force everyone to be tolerant on everything? Before it was a problem with having a gay tolerance class or session, now you want every teacher to allways teach and enforce tolerance in general?


No, I'm not for forcing tolerance. We don't have to be tolerant and kids should not be forced to be tolerant. What I agree with is the course which was stated to train faculty and staff to handle potential violence due to such intolerance. I merely suggested it also incorperate violence stemming from any and all aspects. Like it or not, teahcers should be trained to recognize and escalating situation and deter it from becoming violent.

That on no way means we have to teach our kids to be tolerant of every social group that comes down the pike. I noticed in your post that you have copied, pasted and arranged my quotes as well as the quotes of others and in many cases are arguing points that were infered and made up by you. Like in mine where you suppose that I meant training for tolerance when I belive it was very clear, I was writing about training to deal with violence.

The big difference between the being tolerant and commiting assault is what you all on the pro-gay side seem to be lumping together. You have every right to not accept me socially because I'm straight and you should and that also works the other way around. What neither of us have the right to do is take that unacceptance to the point of violence. If thats what this course is designed to deal with then I agree with it and think it should not be limited to recognizing escalating situtations based on one factor when we see a number of issues which might be precursors to violence. And for your information, its not always a case of straight people picking on gays. That works both ways but those cases don't go through a publicist. No matter what rule or laws you make concerning deviant groups, it will always be a double edged sword. What might protect them from violence serves to inhibit the same behavior from them to others.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Who ever said I had a problem with the ACLU? They are as free as the legal teams closing the doors of abortion clinics by use of the law, to do as they please within the legal confines.

But, eliminating public schooling would set us back 100 years?



Don't make me laugh. That's just silly. Mainly because anyone who would propose this would know that you can not just eliminate it with no changes otherwise.

I have said no such thing. It's the close-mindedness of some that maintain the monolith that the Federal Government has become, saying that it can't work, or that poor people would be trod upon.

Is it not that way now? I say so.

Public education is rotten. Even I, a product of one of the best public schools in the country, shutter to think what schools of "lesser quality" might be like.

Anything done right, is done on as small a scale as possible. This is not only a good model to keep in mind when dealing with humans in general, but is also a contributor to the historical success of the Marine Corps (something I also know about).

So when thinking of the great swaths of people teaming for more government handouts, you should think to set them free.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 03:50 PM
link   
i ache for the opressed opressor






posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM

By that reasoning then you aren't born straight. So, when did you choose to be straight Ed. Seriously, exactly when did you decide to be straight?

ANd none of that"when i noticed girls were hot"crud, either. I want to know when you decided to feel that girls were hot looking.


I guess at the same time I decided that I did not want to live in a sexually immoral lifestyle. You still havent anserwed how in the hell bisexuals are only born half gay? Oh on dominant and recessive gene that swap?



Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
GOD is calling you to repentance ED, please stop your blaspheming and return to HIM. I'd hate to see you burn in Hell for all eternity...



So how am I blaspheming God? I know I need repentance as I recognize sin and do not deny it as SOME do.

As for the translations, get the GREEK and read it....Need some help? I will be glad to post the Greek and then the translations of the words and then you can put 2 and 2 together.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 02:42 AM
link   
ed, sexuality is not a polar phenomenon. You are not either gay or straight. It is, in fact, a bell curve. VERY FEW people are entirely gay or straight. Most people fall somewhere in the middle. The mean is bisexuality.

[edit on 2-12-2004 by General Zapata]



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 02:45 AM
link   
No most people are not bisexual nor is it the mean. Bisexuals are nothing more than equal opportunity sluts.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 02:58 AM
link   
erm...actually, that isn't true.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join