View homosexually tolerant film, or school faces lawsuit

Zappafan1 Homosexuals are not in to Beastuality YOU have your Facts wrong!!
And the Percentage of GAYS in the USA is not 3%.
It is a known fact it is 10% not just a small few as you say!
I am gay and ill let you know right now, your remarks are insulting to me,and every one eles that is gay!
Infact the only people I ever heard that where in Beastuality were straight!
You really need help

Originally posted by cashlink
Zappafan1 Homosexuals are not in to Beastuality YOU have your Facts wrong!!
And the Percentage of GAYS in the USA is not 3%.
It is a known fact it is 10% not just a small few as you say!
I am gay and ill let you know right now, your remarks are insulting to me,and every one eles that is gay!
Infact the only people I ever heard that where in Beastuality were straight!
You really need help

REPLY: You're ignoring the point of the thread

Read what I said again. I didn't say that homosexuals were the ones engaging in beastiality. I worded it carefully to make sure it wouldn't be construed that way.

Whatever YOUR proclivities, that's not to say that some of your persuasion do not engage in that activity.

Would you provide links as to where you got the 10% figure? 4% was the result of the latest estimates in America, and includes those who changed from homosexual to straight (normal).

I see nowhere in our Constitution where it says you have the right to not be insulted or offended. It's your choice to be offended or insulted.

This is a link you need to read, this one was done in 1993. So I guess theres more than 10% by now!
www.fumento.com...

The same low percentage believe in beastiality. Do you want the schools to teach your kids about beastuality in elementary school?


First of all "you" say the word ( The same low percentage belive in beastiality.)
You mean gay people who eles are you refering to.


I am glad their teaching about gay people in their schools nothing wrong in learning the truth about gay people, and this will reduce the hate againce gays.
The teaching about gays should be in all schools by now.
The only reson its not, is because certain politician in this Counrty who are "homophobic" keep it out of the schools.
Yes, even if some of these good politician wanted to get laws pass for schools to learn about homosexuals, they won't. Its because they are afraid when they run for re-election they will lose.

Originally posted by zappafan1
"....I'll ask again... How would you people that support this idea feel if your tax money went to promote religious toleration at school?

I'd have no problem with that. I firmly believe in religious toleration.

It is happening already. many schools have classes on Islam; but have a class on Cristianity, and there's hell to pay.

Most people in this country know about Christianity, and tolerance of Christians is seldom an issue. (I know, some Christians like to pretend it is, but they're confusing tolerance with subordination. Tolerance = not hurting/killing/refusing to hire or rent to Christians. Subordination = letting Christians control the government.)

If Christians were being treated the way Muslims are, and was a foreign religion with a lot of people suffering from misconceptions about it, then classes on the subject would be a good idea. I think there ought to be classes on Christianity taught in schools in Iran and Saudi Arabia. But I see no need for that in America.

Originally posted by zappafan1
Would you provide links as to where you got the 10% figure?

The 10% figure comes from the Kinsey Report. Kinsey included in that figure anyone who has had sex with their own gender ever. So it includes experimenters and bisexuals. The percentage of people who are exclusively gay is probably a good deal lower.

4% was the result of the latest estimates in America, and includes those who changed from homosexual to straight (normal).

Nobody has ever changed from homosexual to heterosexual, so if the estimate you're referring to included that nonsensical concept, it is highly suspect.

However, 4% may be pretty close to right anyway. A stopped clock . . .

Originally posted by cashlink
The same low percentage believe in beastiality. Do you want the schools to teach your kids about beastuality in elementary school?

First of all "you" say the word ( The same low percentage belive in beastiality.)
You mean gay people who eles are you refering to.

Both of you are failing the logic test here.

Cashlink: Zappafan was not saying that gay people are into bestiality. He was saying that there are about as many of one as the other, and making a comparison on that basis. You need to refute what he said (easily done, see below), not its third cousin twice removed.

Zappafan: how many gay people there are in the U.S. is not relevant here. I suspect there are fewer Zoroastrians than there are homosexuals in the U.S. and yet we have laws prohibiting discrimination against Zoroastrians.

There is a fundamental difference between bestiality and homosexuality, in that the latter involves participation only by consenting adults. (The exceptions to that can be condemned on the same basis as heterosexual pederasty, and should be.) In many cases, bestiality amounts to animal cruelty. The comparison, therefore, isn't valid, and if there are about equal numbers of both (a statement subject to question), that has nothing to do with the price of beer.

[edit on 26-6-2006 by Two Steps Forward]

Originally posted by cashlink

First of all "you" say the word ( The same low percentage belive in beastiality.)
You mean gay people who eles are you refering to.

REPLY: Read this again: "About 3% percent of people in America are homosexual, or think they are. The same low percentage believe in beastiality." Notice I said "Amricans", not homosexuals.

I am glad their teaching about gay people in their schools nothing wrong in learning the truth about gay people, and this will reduce the hate againce gays.
The teaching about gays should be in all schools by now.

REPLY: It shouldn't be introduced until high school, when kids have some sort of semblance to knowledge, and can (hopefully) make rational decisions for themselves.
As of yet we don't know a "truth" about homosexuals ( the true term).

The only reson its not, is because certain politician in this Counrty who are "homophobic" keep it out of the schools.
Yes, even if some of these good politician wanted to get laws pass for schools to learn about homosexuals, they won't.

REPLY: Adding anything to in front of the word "phobic" is a phony argument to try to make it look like some group is being denied their civil rights. There are no homosexual civil rights. It is merely a way for groups to have things go there way through the courts when they would never succeed through voting.

It shouldn't be up to politicians at all, it should be up to the parents who have kids in the schools.

Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: Read this again: "About 3% percent of people in America are homosexual, or think they are. The same low percentage believe in beastiality." Notice I said "Amricans", not homosexuals.

I already corrected him on that, Zappafan. I notice you didn't try to respond to my own reply to this nonsense.

It shouldn't be introduced until high school

Off the top of my head, I'd say middle school/jr. high. But -- maybe not. Elementary school kids can do that "you're a homo" crap, too. Treating each other with respect can't be learned too early, IMO. On the other hand, providing any details about homosexual sex, yeah, that should wait until puberty at least.

As of yet we don't know a "truth" about homosexuals ( the true term).

At least you've stopped using "homos."

We know quite a few truths about it. That you're in denial on half of them is not anyone's fault but your own.

There are no homosexual civil rights.

In many states, there are. Here in California, for example, it's illegal to deny people employment or housing based on sexual orientation.

It is merely a way for groups to have things go there way through the courts when they would never succeed through voting.

The laws protecting gay people in California were passed by elected pols, not in court. Actually, I don't think there is a basis for a Supreme Court decision protecting civil rights based on sexual orientation, nor do I know of any such decision.

And "homophobic," while overused, isn't completely off-base as a term. But maybe what needs to be made clear is that homophobes aren't afraid of homosexuals. Rather, they're afraid of their own homosexual tendencies.

It shouldn't be up to politicians at all, it should be up to the parents who have kids in the schools.

Considering what some parents are like, I must disagree.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward


The 10% figure comes from the Kinsey Report. Kinsey included in that figure anyone who has had sex with their own gender ever. So it includes experimenters and bisexuals. The percentage of people who are exclusively gay is probably a good deal lower.

"Alfred C. Kinsey had a secret. The Indiana University zoologist and "father of the sexual revolution" almost single-handedly redefined the sexual mores of everyday Americans. The problem was, he had to lie to do it. The weight of this point must not be underestimated. The science that launched the sexual revolution has been used for the past 50 years to sway court decisions, pass legislation, introduce sex education into our schools, and even push for a redefinition of marriage. Kinseyism was the very foundation of this effort. If his science was flawed — or worse yet, an outright deception — then our culture's attitudes about sex are not just wrong morally but scientifically as well.

Kinsey claimed, for instance, that 10 percent of men between the ages of 16 and 55 were homosexual. Yet in one of the most thorough nationwide surveys on male sexual behavior ever conducted, scientists at Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers in Seattle found that men who considered themselves exclusively homosexual accounted for only 1 percent of the population. In 1993, Time magazine reported, "Recent surveys from France, Britain, Canada, Norway and Denmark all point to numbers lower than 10 percent and tend to come out in the 1 to 4 percent range." The incidence of homosexuality among adults is actually "between 1 and 3 percent;" says University of Delaware sociology and criminal justice professor Joel Best, author of Damned Lies and Statistics. Best observes, however, that gay and lesbian activists prefer to use Kinsey's long-discredited one-in-ten figure "because it suggests that homosexuals are a substantial minority group, roughly equal in number to African Americans — too large to be ignored."

[link] www.catholicculture.org... [/link]
[link] www.crisismagazine.com... [/link]
You might not think the links a reliable source, but are just two of many with the same information.

Nobody has ever changed from homosexual to heterosexual, so if the estimate you're referring to included that nonsensical concept, it is highly suspect.

REPLY: I see no reason why straights can become homosexuals why it couldn't happen the other way. Homosexuality can be a learned trait, as happens often in prison, but many of those return to being straight (or bisexual) upon release.

[link] www.pfoxs.org... [/link]

"My literature review contradicts the policies of major mental health organizations because it suggests that sexual orientation, once thought to be an unchanging sexual trait, is actually quite flexible for many people, changing as a result of therapy for some, ministry for others and spontaneously for still others."
From the following link:
[link] www.narth.com... [/link]

all of this is still off topic, but I'm just responding and adding to the debate.



[edit on 26-6-2006 by zappafan1]

[edit on 26-6-2006 by zappafan1]

"There is a fundamental difference between bestiality and homosexuality, in that the latter involves participation only by consenting adults. (The exceptions to that can be condemned on the same basis as heterosexual pederasty, and should be.) In many cases, bestiality amounts to animal cruelty."

REPLY: It IS relevant in the context that schools on the left coast, as mentioned earlier, have books on homosexuals in American history. If one abnormality can be used for a book, why not others? If Peter Singer had his way, I'm sure there would be books on that, too.

Although I don't agree with beastiality, who's to say it's cruelty?

I don't agree with "hate speech" in any area, as it amounts to "hate thought"; read as "1984". It also adds a third tier to our legal system.

I also don't agree with the laws pertaining to who someone hires, as it is nothing more than over-arching government control of private enterprise. It also places possible great cost upon the employer. I've linked to the cost to society/taxpayers (health care) either here or in another thread, and it far exceeds that of smoking. I can re-link if you'd like.

I can't reply to two posts at once; Sorry.

Originally posted by zappafan1
You might not think the links a reliable source

I don't, but that doesn't matter in this context.

Kinsey claimed, for instance, that 10 percent of men between the ages of 16 and 55 were homosexual. Yet in one of the most thorough nationwide surveys on male sexual behavior ever conducted, scientists at Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers in Seattle found that men who considered themselves exclusively homosexual accounted for only 1 percent of the population.

As I already explained, Kinsey wasn't talking about men who considered themselves EXCLUSIVELY homosexual. He was talking about men who had EVER had sex with their own gender. In essence, what he was saying was that about 10% of the male population is either gay or bisexual.

The fact that the report you quoted misleads people into thinking there is any disagreement between Kinsey's figures and the ones they referred to (since the two sets of figures aren't referring to the same thing and therefore don't directly disagree), does indict the source, however.

I see no reason why straights can become homosexuals why it couldn't happen the other way. Homosexuality can be a learned trait, as happens often in prison, but many of those return to being straight (or bisexual) upon release.

No. People in prison do not "become homosexual" while they're locked up and then "become straight again" after release. Once again: sexual orientation is about what you FEEL, not what you DO. A gay man is not a man who has sex with other men; he is a man who feels sexual attraction for other men.

A man who rapes another man while in prison and generally does it with women on the outside may be bisexual, or he may just be on a power trip. Either way, his sexual orientation remains constant. Only his behavior changes with the circumstances, and behavior does NOT define sexual orientation -- feelings do.

A heterosexual person cannot become homosexual. What can happen, though, is that a bisexual person who has been BEHAVING as a heterosexual can decide to BEHAVE as a gay person. But the very fact that they are able to make a choice about it means that what they ARE, in terms of sexual orientation, is bi.

Originally posted by zappafan1
It IS relevant in the context that schools on the left coast, as mentioned earlier, have books on homosexuals in American history. If one abnormality can be used for a book, why not others?

"Normality/abnormality" is your yardstick exclusively, and is not one I give a damn about. Nor do any gay rights advocates. Bestiality is rejected not because it is "abnormal" (an essentially meaningless term), but because it is non-consensual on the part of the animal.

I don't care one bit if a type of sexuality is "normal," but I very much care if it amounts to rape. If someone is being victimized, it is bad; if not, if everyone involved is a consenting adult human being, no harm, no foul.

I also don't agree with the laws pertaining to who someone hires

Well, you're entitled to that opinion, but let me ask you this. May I assume that you DO object to employment discrimination based on race?

Assuming you do -- do you also have a problem with laws prohibiting such discrimination based on race?

What I'm asking here is if your objection to those laws when they are based on sexual orientation is because your economic philosophy rejects all such laws, including those prohibiting a type of discrimination you think is wrong, such as when it's based on race. If so, we can simply table that fact, as it is not really relevant to this discussion.

I've linked to the cost to society/taxpayers (health care) either here or in another thread, and it far exceeds that of smoking. I can re-link if you'd like.

Before you bother relinking, please answer the following questions.

The "cost to society/taxpayers (health care)" of what? Government regulation of business? Homosexuality? Not clear from your words above.

If you mean homosexuality, are you talking about AIDS?

Your answers to these questions will tell us whether any facts you might link are worthy of bothering with. Simply put, if you are talking about homosexuality and you are talking about AIDS, your entire argument fails on the fact that AIDS is not a "gay disease" but a sexually-transmitted disease which, worldwide, afflicts far more heterosexuals than homosexuals.

If you mean something else, though, then it might be worth looking into.

[edit on 26-6-2006 by Two Steps Forward]

Capitalism is the un-equal distribution of wealth according to cunning, ruthlessness, and luck;
Communism is the equal distribution of moonshine by imagination."

"Liberalism is the art of standing outside a prison and telling the inmates to open the door."

Fixed.

T ow Step forword The percentage of people who are exclusively gay is probably a good deal lower.


quote: "that is your opinion"

Cashlink:

Kinsey found that 10% of the male population was either gay or bi. That means 10% minus however many of those were bi, were gay.

What do you think, are there more men who are exclusively gay than bisexual, or the other way around? I would say the other way around, most likely. Either way, though, the number that are exclusively gay is less than 10%. If more men are bi than gay, then the number that are exclusively gay is less than 5%.

That's not my opinion. It's fact.

Originally posted by zappafan1

Originally posted by cashlink
I find this thred discusting and the post who posted this should be band from here.
Another way of exspessing HATRED againce GAYS!!!! SHAME ON YOU!!!

So....... no free speech for you, because you don't agree with it? Should we start burning books, too, if you don't agree with them?

It's not hatred at all, merely being discriminating which, even considering all the PC crap out there, is still a good thing. And, sorry, there is no "right" to not be offended.

About 3% percent of people in America are homosexual, or think they are. The same low percentage believe in beastiality. Do you want the schools to teach your kids about beastuality in elementary school?

thread
banned
expressing

[edit on 24-6-2006 by zappafan1]

You are so misinformed it is scary. Heterosexuals are the ones into beastuality - just look on YOUR straight porn sites. Is America (in your opinion) more gay than other countries or less? It really doesn't matter because man is man and at least 10% of men are HOMOSEXUAL and you cannot change that! We don't think we're gay, we know we are. Perhaps you have questions about your own sexuality.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Cashlink:

Kinsey found that 10% of the male population was either gay or bi. That means 10% minus however many of those were bi, were gay.

What do you think, are there more men who are exclusively gay than bisexual, or the other way around? I would say the other way around, most likely. Either way, though, the number that are exclusively gay is less than 10%. If more men are bi than gay, then the number that are exclusively gay is less than 5%.

That's not my opinion. It's fact.

No Two step forward , That is Kinsey report and his opinion and thats a FACT!!!! and been bisexual is also being homosexual a man have sex with a man IS doing a homosexual act! call it what you want.

Originally posted by cashlink
No Two step forward , That is Kinsey report and his opinion and thats a FACT!!!!

Kinsey's report was based on thorough, exhaustive study, and what's more it's your only source for the 10% figure you quoted earlier. So if you want to say it's "just his opinion," you're undermining yourself.

and been bisexual is also being homosexual

Words mean whatever you want them to mean, but we all have to agree on definitions. Zappafan was challenging the 10% figure by quoting other studies showing smaller percentages. But those other studies used "homosexual" in a different way than Kinsey did. There was really no disagreement, and that's all I was saying.

I do think that using "homosexual" to mean that one is exclusively attracted to one's own gender is more useful, as it leaves "bisexual" having an actual meaning. The only reason I can see for defining it the other way is that it lets you say that 10% of the population is gay, which seems to make you feel better.

Also, I did say, didn't I, that the population of exclusively homosexual men was considerably smaller than 10%? And that really isn't ambiguous, and redefining "homosexual" to include bisexuality doesn't answer it.

[edit on 26-6-2006 by Two Steps Forward]

Originally posted by cashlink
Heterosexuals are the ones into beastuality

Cashlink, why is Zappafan's point here so hard for you to understand? You keep coming back with stuff like this as an answer, and it ISN'T an answer, because he's NOT saying that gay people are into bestiality! Never once has he said that!

I don't agree with him either, but come on, you have to answer what he's saying, not something else that bears a vague resemblance.