View homosexually tolerant film, or school faces lawsuit

".... I mean, homosexuality is a lifestyle choice? You gotta be kiddin' me...Better yet was the one about it being a medical condition that can be cured."

REPLY: As mentioned in the threads I provided, being gay was once considered a mental disorder, but was later changed in the books the head doctors publish; not because of any new medical evidence or scientific studies..... but by pressure from so-called "Gay rights" groups.
Ten years of looking and they gave up in the search for a "gay gene." It most definately is a choice; One is not "born" a homo.

I'm looking for the link, but new evidence suggests that being homo is actually a birth defect caused by a lack of some brain protein. I'll check on the link, but by all means read the links I provided, above, then tell me it has no effect on society.

The protein issue I mentioned....

Mothers' genetic skew linked to gay sons
www.newscientist.com...

Also:

Put simply, Wilson and Rahman suspect that some male foetuses absorb low amounts of testosterone in certain parts of the brain; full absorption is needed for full masculinisation. “In a foetus which has a genetic predisposition to be gay, these receptors are not as effective at soaking up testosterone. The result is that this slightly insensitive part of the brain follows the default development route, which is female.”

Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: As mentioned in the threads I provided, being gay was once considered a mental disorder, but was later changed in the books the head doctors publish; not because of any new medical evidence or scientific studies..... but by pressure from so-called "Gay rights" groups.
Ten years of looking and they gave up in the search for a "gay gene." It most definately is a choice; One is not "born" a homo.

I'm looking for the link, but new evidence suggests that being homo is actually a birth defect caused by a lack of some brain protein. I'll check on the link, but by all means read the links I provided, above, then tell me it has no effect on society.

This is just pathetic.

How many gay guys do you know? On actual first-name terms.

Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice.

Look, you can't even make up your mind. First you say people are not born homosexual and then you say it's a birth defect.

Well, which one is it?

edit: bold

[edit on 19-1-2006 by HowlrunnerIV]

Originally posted by zappafan1

One percent of GDP in 2001 equaled about $102 billion. Since gays account for somewhat over half of those suffering from AIDS, at least half of this total or $51 billion was the cost of sodomy-that-led-to-AIDS. So the ‘gay sodomy tax' for AIDS alone in 2001 was about $359 for every U.S. worker. In 2002, the sodomy tax was a little bit more.

Uh huh. and what about the cost to the national economy caused by sex-workers who contract HIV, intra-venous drug users who contract HIV, medical personnel who contract HIV?

At present, about 6,000 males-who-have-sex-with-males [MSM] a year die of AIDS and about 20,000 MSM per year are getting infected with HIV. Obviously, unless the costs of medical treatment and other AIDS-related expenses drop significantly, the prospects loom for AIDS to cost appreciably more GDP in the future.

How about quoting the figures for the other victims of HIV? Or would that interfere with your rant?

Children of Homosexual Parents Report Childhood Difficulities www.familyresearchinst.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.familyresearchinst.org...

Oh, well, take them away and give them to hetero parents, whose kids never have any kinds of difficulties...

Homosexual Rape and Murder of Children
www.familyresearchinst.org...

Oh my God. Rape! Murder! Get them, kill them. 'Cause heterosexual men never rape or murder children, do they?

Dirty Pop Star

This is one of those problems that cannot be solved in a fair way. Why? Both sides have a point. Statistics don't lie. Yes, I know hetersexuals molest to but the studies say that most of the molestations are performed by homosexuals. But, the percentage of homosexuals that molest are low...see what I mean?

Percentages are not relative. People always get that wrong. >

"How many gay guys do you know? On actual first-name terms."

REPLY: Irrelevant to the issue, but to answer, maybe 7.

".... Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice."

REPLY: What don't you understand? ..... other than the very small amount of those as mentioned in the article about the brain protein, there's NO evidence that support it being gene based." After ten years they stopped looking for the "gene" that causes it, although some still say it's the cause.

".... And what about the cost to the national economy caused by sex-workers who contract HIV....?

REPLY: With all of the precaitions, that doesn't happen often, but it only ADDS to the costs...

".... intra-venous drug users who contract HIV, medical personnel who contract HIV?"

REPLY: Again, minimal compared to the % of that caused by homo's, and again, it adds to the cocts provided in the links.

".... How about quoting the figures for the other victims of HIV? Or would that interfere with your rant?"

REPLY: Facts and figures equates to a "rant?" Again, those would increase the costs to society above that mentioned in the links.

".... Oh, well, take them away and give them to hetero parents, whose kids never have any kinds of difficulties... "

REPLY: Wrong, and irrelevant.

".... Oh my God. Rape! Murder! Get them, kill them. 'Cause heterosexual men never rape or murder children, do they?"

REPLY: Geez... talk about rants. I only provided information, and I never said heteros don't rape and murder.

Originally posted by zappafan1
".... How about quoting the figures for the other victims of HIV? Or would that interfere with your rant?"

REPLY: Facts and figures equates to a "rant?" Again, those would increase the costs to society above that mentioned in the links.

Used in isolation and subjectively, that's exactly what facts and figures are, especially when they are used in isolation to back up an argument that is entirely subjective.

example: the per captia percentage of money spent on "black" health in Australia and the percentage of the Australian population that is indigenous.

When used as a stand alone figure it's easy to argue that that much money should never be spent onsuch a small minority. But numbers alone ignore the truth of the situation. And people who rely solely on them to make their case are only demonstrating how shallow they are.

This is targeted at the thread creator. Are you implying that homosexuality should NOT be tolerated? How much harm would there be in having kids watch a homosexual tolerant film? Isn't that a good idea?

Originally posted by zappafan1
"How many gay guys do you know? On actual first-name terms."

REPLY: Irrelevant to the issue, but to answer, maybe 7.

".... Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice."

REPLY: What don't you understand? ..... other than the very small amount of those as mentioned in the article about the brain protein, there's NO evidence that support it being gene based." After ten years they stopped looking for the "gene" that causes it, although some still say it's the cause.

What don't you understand? It is not a choice. The reason I asked the first question was an attempt to see how big your disconnect to this is. You know maybe 7 gay guys and yet you still claim it's a choice.

".... And what about the cost to the national economy caused by sex-workers who contract HIV....?

REPLY: With all of the precaitions, that doesn't happen often, but it only ADDS to the costs...

Right. So without gays there would be no HIV/AIDS or its attendant costs to worry about...if that's what you're really saying then

".... intra-venous drug users who contract HIV, medical personnel who contract HIV?"

REPLY: Again, minimal compared to the % of that caused by homo's, and again, it adds to the cocts provided in the links.

Your continued use of that word is becoming increasingly tiresome and tiring. I wonder, will you be offended if I begin greeting you with the words "Hey there, redneck hick."?

It is a choice, why are gay men more pronounced in their flaunting of thier feminine features. They are purposely making an effort to show those behaviors. Women do not even have that many features, yet gay men take those and try their hardest to show them, clearly a lifestyle choice

Originally posted by IBM
It is a choice, why are gay men more pronounced in their flaunting of thier feminine features. They are purposely making an effort to show those behaviors. Women do not even have that many features, yet gay men take those and try their hardest to show them, clearly a lifestyle choice

Very good point.

I know Im going to get flammed but oh well.
Im sorry but it seems like being gay, all comes down to what you are f***ing.
If people do not want to see the movie,it should not be forced on them!

Oh and if being gay is not a lifestyle choice, and not about flaunting it all over.
Where are straight pride parades?
Im tiered of their holier than thou attitudes.
I sure as hell do not walk around making a point of my sex life!
My own case in point lesbians in a discussion session I have, with one of my classes.
Think Im a embarassment to women, because when I marry next year. I will take my fiances name.

I don't know what the training video contains, but I have no problem with a promoting tolerance. HOWEVER, this should be tolerance promotion for every area, not just sexuality.

Originally posted by b777pilot

Originally posted by IBM
It is a choice, why are gay men more pronounced in their flaunting of thier feminine features. They are purposely making an effort to show those behaviors. Women do not even have that many features, yet gay men take those and try their hardest to show them, clearly a lifestyle choice

Very good point.

Very stupid point, poorly put, by someone whose tone says he doesn't much like gays but is trying to appear reasonable. This is no better than Jerry's failing efforts to appear tolerant with "...not that there's anything wrong with that..."

To show it off is a choice. To be gay is not a choice.

You show your heterosexuality off all the time, what's the difference?

I know Im going to get flammed but oh well.
Im sorry but it seems like being gay, all comes down to what you are f***ing.

No, really?

The only flame here is for stating the bleeding obvious. I mean, if you didn't know by now what being gay was all about...

Originally posted by parrhesia:
".... That's true, of course; but it may not be as effective unless the children can see at least insight into what these children are feeling. Sensitivity training may be more effective if the children have insight into how a "fat kid" is feeling, or how someone feels when they've been discriminated against based on their race, or their religion., or their parents sexual orientation."

REPLY: There will always be bullies and those who make fun of others, for whatever reason. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. The time spent by schools in this crap reduces the time needed to teach kids what they NEED to know to survive and prosper. Insulating kids from admonishment or harassment does not prepare them for the real world.

This is the same thing that occurs when kids are taught Moral Relativity... we saw the result in Columbine.....


Used in isolation and subjectively, that's exactly what facts and figures are, especially when they are used in isolation to back up an argument that is entirely subjective.

example: the per captia percentage of money spent on "black" health in Australia and the percentage of the Australian population that is indigenous.

When used as a stand alone figure it's easy to argue that that much money should never be spent onsuch a small minority. But numbers alone ignore the truth of the situation. And people who rely solely on them to make their case are only demonstrating how shallow they are.

HowlrunnerIV:


".... Used in isolation and subjectively, that's exactly what facts and figures are, especially when they are used in isolation to back up an argument that is entirely subjective."
".... When used as a stand alone figure it's easy to argue that that much money should never be spent onsuch a small minority. But numbers alone ignore the truth of the situation. And people who rely solely on them to make their case are only demonstrating how shallow they are."


REPLY: Facts and figures relate directly to statistics.... what do you propose we make informed judgements upon... feelings? Using current proveable date and statisdtics is being shallow???

".... What don't you understand? It is not a choice. The reason I asked the first question was an attempt to see how big your disconnect to this is. You know maybe 7 gay guys and yet you still claim it's a choice."

REPLY: So, show me where it's been proven it IS choice.. after I've shown and linked to data proving otherwise.

".... So without gays there would be no HIV/AIDS or its attendant costs to worry about...if that's what you're really saying then..."

REPLY: I did not say or imply that.

".... Your continued use of that word is becoming increasingly tiresome and tiring. I wonder, will you be offended if I begin greeting you with the words "Hey there, redneck hick."

REPLY: So... I prefer to use the correct term.. the one used BEFORE changes made to the dictionary by maybe 3% of the population.
No, I wouldn't be offended.. you can use what terms you wish, preferrably based on insight and knowledge gained from a meaningful interaction to better know my values, thoughts and personality.

".... You show your heterosexuality off all the time, what's the difference?"

REPLY: heterosexuals don't "show off" what comes naturally... heterosexuals don't choose to be heterosexual.... that's the difference.
The main point being that 3% of the population is trying to force their preferences down the throats (no pun intended) of the majority of the population, and to make changes to the morality of our culture, through the use of our taxpayer dollars, and the media backs them up with T.V. shows and movies like Humpback Mountain..... I guess they used that title because "Blazing Saddles" was already used.....

As previously mentioned, homosexuality is already being referenced in pre-school, which is just plain wrong.

Actually being gay is MORE then what hole you stick it in. Gay men are attracted to men, they aren't attracted to women. Just like as I, a straight man, find a nice rack and bootylicous body to be attractive, a gay guy might find a 12pack and buns of steel on a guy attractive, or other features on a male. I don' find that attractive as I'm not gay, just as a gay guy won't find a woman with 36c and nice booty to be attractive, as being gay or lesbian is more then just what hole you stick it in.

Also, Gays are the New Black people!(Does gay hand thing you see in stereotype movies and shows) Insteads of putting on your bedsheets and hoods to go lynch blacks it's now Gays to hate! All you racists are soooo behind the times, hating blacks is soooo passe, hate the gays, at least your government agrees with you!

Gays shouldn't represent US

"One might have that lifestyle, but if one promotes it as acceptable behavior… I don’t think they should be a representative of this country." - Sen. Nickles, quoted in Jun 15, 98 Americans for Truth About Homosexuality press release.

"Robert Black, the [Texas] state [Republican] party spokesman, called them [Log Cabin] a 'hate group' and compared them to the Ku Klux Klan." [This occurred after Log cabin Republicans (a gay republican group) tried to attend the Texas Republican State convention.] - NY Daily News 6/24/98

Gays are "sickening" and "intellectually dishonest"

"These people are intellectually dishonest in just about everything they do or say,".... He added, "They start by pretending that it is just another form of love. It's sickening." - Tuesday June 30 7:49 AM EDT, Variety

Gays cause Nazism, communism

" 'Hitler and his supporters were Satanists and homosexuals. That's just a true statement.' He added, 'The notion that is involved in homosexuality, the unbridled sort of satisfaction of human passions' leads to 'totalitarianism,' 'Nazism,' and 'communism.' " - People for the American Way, "Hostile Climate," 1997, p.26.

What I like about this one is Hitler and the Nazis, HATE GAYS!!!! Along with Stalin and Mao and Castro, so this guy is completely wrong!!!!

This thread deteriorated into a discussion of whether homosexuality is right or wrong. It's not. It's about forcing kids to watch a video on homosexuality... Teaching them to tolerate it. I'll be the bigoted loud mouth redneck and say I don't want my kids learning this crap in school. I'll talk to my own kid about it if he asks or let him figure it out on his own. Just like its always been.

I'll ask again... How would you people that support this idea feel if your tax money went to promote religious toleration at school? Seeing how religion is just about the antithesis of homosexuality.

Standard policy in Oz...it's called RE, religious education. Your parents choose which RE class you are going to sit in. Once you hit high school it ends. Because you are regarded aas being able to make your own decisions (to an extent)

Except in church-owned schools (like mine), where no matter what your religion you have to attend RE and it will be according to the tenets of the church that owns your school.

The rationale is this: We don't care if you are Hindu, Jew, Muslim or Animist, your parents knew this was a (Catholic) Church (of England)-owned school when they chose to send you the this private institution. However, you don't have to believe a word that is said in that class, you just have to attend.

The same is true of Jewish and Islamic schools.

Originally posted by zappafan1
".... Your continued use of that word is becoming increasingly tiresome and tiring. I wonder, will you be offended if I begin greeting you with the words "Hey there, redneck hick."

REPLY: So... I prefer to use the correct term.. the one used BEFORE changes made to the dictionary by maybe 3% of the population.
No, I wouldn't be offended.. you can use what terms you wish, preferrably based on insight and knowledge gained from a meaningful interaction to better know my values, thoughts and personality.

The correct term is homosexual, with gay, bi and lesbian being acceptable slang. Homo has never been the correct term, it has always been an insult.

Ah, so African-American is not the correct term, ni@@er is?

How about Nips, Chinks, Slants, Wogs, Wops, Dagoes, Kikes, Yids...? I think the term for Native American Indians used to be "prairie ni@@ers".

Reading what you have posted and the opinions you have defended, rednick hick appears to be entirely appropriate. Perhaps not geographically, but certainly in personality.

Originally posted by Kacen
This is targeted at the thread creator. Are you implying that homosexuality should NOT be tolerated? How much harm would there be in having kids watch a homosexual tolerant film? Isn't that a good idea?

REPLY: As it is, Homosexuals are maybe 4% of the population, not counting those who have tried it and went back to being normal, both morally and sexually. The point is, is that "they" are trying to beat it into our childrens heads that males doing the bone dance with Mr. Sphincter, and oral sex with other males, is NORMAL. The homosexual agenda, backed by the liberals who run the public school system, foists this on our kids before they can make a rational decision about the matter. Isn't it enough that only 4% of the population has changed the definition of a word in the dictionary? Which, by the way, is why I use the word "homo", or "homosexual", which is the correct term.

No "gene" has been found to explain why the same gender is attracted to each other. Plain and simple. It's a personal lifestyle choice, and it's abherrant behaviour. Another issue is the one of cost to the public. If smoking is such a health concern, one should compare the cost to society of homosexual behaviour, which is MORE than the cost of smoking.

".... Also, Gays are the New Black people!

REPLY: Not the same thing at all. geez. Black people did not choose to be black. The whole "civil rights" thing started something which was and is crap-ola. They were denied their CONSTITUTIONAL rights. There is no such thing as "gay rights", or "illegal immigrant" rights.

Anyone born in America is a "native American. American Indian is the correct term; I know many American Indians who will bust your butt if you call them "native Americans."

".... Homo has never been the correct term, it has always been an insult." Well, I see no-where in The Constitution where someone has the right to not be insulted.... even over a lifestyle choice.

PS: You're correct, Lostsailor.

edited for syntax

[edit on 11-6-2006 by zappafan1]