[wang_himself]

What is with backwood schools?

This must be one of a hundred stupid things I have seen US schools do this month and it is only the second day of December.

Linky:
http://www.shortnews.com/shownews.cf...&u_id=8242

[AutoJC]

At the Ernest Gaullet Elementary School in Lafayette, Louisiana, a seven year old boy was forced to write "I will never use the word 'gay' in school again." This is because he told a classmate that he had two mothers and that his mom was gay

What about his other mom? Or his she-dad?

Some things are better left unsaid- or left in private.

The appropriate punishment for this little brat is to have a stock stuffed in his mouth.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by AutoJC:
The appropriate punishment for this little brat is to have a stock stuffed in his mouth.

Unfortunately, it doesn't stop you typing.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Unfortunately, it doesn't stop you typing.

Even more unfortunately, he's one of yours (conservatives). My heart goes out to you on that.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Even more unfortunately, he's one of yours (conservatives). My heart goes out to you on that.

No, I had a worse one last night. I'd been exchanging e-mails with a law professor with a fairly well known blog about the gay marriage issue. It started off all very technical and lagalistic but started becoming more and more policy-oriented. Over the course of a couple of e-mails he started bringing in evidence that is just bizarre. Apparently, he thinks gays recruit boys into homosexuality, that lewd displays in Pride Parades are central to what it is to be gay, that his "research" on a sexually-oriented BBS (Soc-motss, or something) leads him to conclude that gays are out to destroy marriage, and that a case from the 1940s shows that if gays are in the military gay officers will force enlisted men to have sex with them.

After this, I was too stunned to go any further. I expect that kind of ignorance from a Fred Phelps type, or a kid, but not an educated law professor. What also really scared me was how he was able to project a reasonable exterior for a good 5 e-mails before his guard came down.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, I had a worse one last night. I'd been exchanging e-mails with a law professor with a fairly well known blog about the gay marriage issue.

Please tell me that this isn't a certain pundit that made this insta-switch to idiocy.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Please tell me that this isn't a certain pundit that made this insta-switch to idiocy.

No, not him. I may have found the link from him or Volokh, but it wasn't him and not someone that well known.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, not him. I may have found the link from him or Volokh, but it wasn't him and not someone that well known.

OK...makes me feel a bit better, even though the guy sounds like a total a$$.

[thunderous_funker]

Generational baggage. Don't forget that an entire generation of Americans were taught that homosexuality was a degenerative mental disorder where you slowly but surely digressed into pedophilia or turned into Liberace.

Some of them just can't seem to escape that primitive view of the issue, despite being otherwise rational and educated people.

[christ]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Unfortunately, it doesn't stop you typing.

Whoa - I agree with Simey twice in one day! I think it must be since Simey declared me 'sane' - I must have seen the light!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Generational baggage. Don't forget that an entire generation of Americans were taught that homosexuality was a degenerative mental disorder where you slowly but surely digressed into pedophilia or turned into Liberace.

Some of them just can't seem to escape that primitive view of the issue, despite being otherwise rational and educated people.

He's not that old. Maybe 40s, to judge by his picture. However, I just checked and he isn't a law professor, he's a Constitutional History professor at a minor state university in the midwest (not that my opinion of him should reflect on the school). He has an MA, but no JD. I was confused because he specifically asked for comments from law students.

I was wondering how a law professor could make such terrible legal arguments. He twice tried to tell me that discriminating against gays is OK because we discriminate against felons by taking their right to vote away. I couldn't get it though his thick skull that conviction follows due process and nobody gave me due process before my rights were taken away. They teach you how to make analogies in law school, but they also teach you how to differentiate completely different situations. No good law professor would fail to see how those two situations are different regardless of his personal opinion.

Oh well, I feel better now.

[wang_himself]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
despite being otherwise rational and educated people.

One has to remeber that these are the same people who will riot, destroy and kill for their beliefs.

They just need better IDEAS.

[Y3a]

I'd guess that you are AN EXPERT SLIMEY???
MAybe you were not smart enough to get it?

Same for thunderous...

I guess gays are harmless? Ask the Catholic church, or Disney. I guess they are 'different' gays somehow?

Just keep telling yourselves that it's natural for two of the same sex to engage in the activities. Without medicines, most would be dead because of the activity, thru natural selection.

You sick loosers on the left just HATE TO BE JUDGED. Especially when you are judged to be a sick-o like Jackson.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Even more unfortunately, he's one of yours (conservatives). My heart goes out to you on that.

Auto a conservative? HAHhaha

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Y3a:
I'd guess that you are AN EXPERT SLIMEY???
MAybe you were not smart enough to get it?

Same for thunderous...

I guess gays are harmless? Ask the Catholic church, or Disney. I guess they are 'different' gays somehow?

Just keep telling yourselves that it's natural for two of the same sex to engage in the activities. Without medicines, most would be dead because of the activity, thru natural selection.

You sick loosers on the left just HATE TO BE JUDGED. Especially when you are judged to be a sick-o like Jackson.

Calling Simey a lefty is pretty humorous. Maybe you should actually read posts of people before you guess where they stand.

Thunderous isn't exactly consistantly left either.

And I don't think either are sick loosers. Even though I don't know what a looser is. Perhaps you meant loser.

And the only people who spell through "t-h-r-u" are fast food restaurants.

I won't even go into your ignorant rant about homosexuality and linking it to Catholic priests and Michael Jackson...

[christ]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Calling Simey a lefty is pretty humorous...

Not at all - I agreed with him, I'm a (reputed) lefty, therefore Simey is a lefty. QED.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Y3a:
I guess gays are harmless? Ask the Catholic church, or Disney. I guess they are 'different' gays somehow?

Just keep telling yourselves that it's natural for two of the same sex to engage in the activities. Without medicines, most would be dead because of the activity, thru natural selection.

You sick loosers on the left just HATE TO BE JUDGED. Especially when you are judged to be a sick-o like Jackson.

Ew, who forgot to wash up and got santorum all over the thread?

[Y3a]

<< Calling Simey a lefty is pretty humorous. Maybe you should actually read posts of people before you guess where they stand.

Thunderous isn't exactly consistantly left either.

And I don't think either are sick loosers. Even though I don't know what a looser is. Perhaps you meant loser.

And the only people who spell through "t-h-r-u" are fast food restaurants.

I won't even go into your ignorant rant about homosexuality and linking it to Catholic priests and Michael Jackson... >>


OK, so tell us more of your "pop science" about gays being 'normal'. Find some actual scientific study with raw data available to support your position. Do NOT include any non-scientific surveys, or opinion pieces.


The assumptions from lefty and thunderous are just that.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Y3a:
OK, so tell us more of your "pop science" about gays being 'normal'. Find some actual scientific study with raw data available to support your position. Do NOT include any non-scientific surveys, or opinion pieces.


The assumptions from lefty and thunderous are just that.

Please do all of us a huge favor and use the little "search" field to find one of the dozens of threads in the lounge where people have repeatedly done just that, and they were discussed - partly in more civil fashion than what you're trying to pull off here - ad infinitum et absurdum.

-s*

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Y3a:
<< Calling Simey a lefty is pretty humorous. Maybe you should actually read posts of people before you guess where they stand.

Thunderous isn't exactly consistantly left either.

And I don't think either are sick loosers. Even though I don't know what a looser is. Perhaps you meant loser.

And the only people who spell through "t-h-r-u" are fast food restaurants.

I won't even go into your ignorant rant about homosexuality and linking it to Catholic priests and Michael Jackson... >>


OK, so tell us more of your "pop science" about gays being 'normal'. Find some actual scientific study with raw data available to support your position. Do NOT include any non-scientific surveys, or opinion pieces.


The assumptions from lefty and thunderous are just that.

Alright, who let Jerry Falwell in here?

[voodoo]

Bah.

[gadster]

Originally posted by Y3a:
<snip>.Just keep telling yourselves that it's natural for two of the same sex to engage in the activityi<snip>

Well. OK, I'll bite. What do you mean by natural?

If humans were anything like other primates (highly probable), then there would have been an Alpha male thing going on. Hence a shortage of women for the non-alpha males.

Do I need to draw you a diagram?

Survival of the fittest is a misnomer. Survival of the community is probably more apt. So what are these left over males to do? The Alpha male has his Harem, these others have, what?

You should be able to work out the rest from there. I'm done doing your thinking for you.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Y3a:
OK, so tell us more of your "pop science" about gays being 'normal'. Find some actual scientific study with raw data available to support your position. Do NOT include any non-scientific surveys, or opinion pieces.


The assumptions from lefty and thunderous are just that.

Wow, keep posting like this and you may be given the honor of being the first to make my ignore list.

BTW, are there scientific studies that show that anything is "normal behavior?" Even straight sex? Or is it just assumed?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by gadster:
Well. OK, I'll bite. What do you mean by natural?

If humans were anything like other primates (highly probable), then there would have been an Alpha male thing going on. Hence a shortage of women for the non-alpha males.

Do I need to draw you a diagram?

Survival of the fittest is a misnomer. Survival of the community is probably more apt. So what are these left over males to do? The Alpha male has his Harem, these others have, what?

You should be able to work out the rest from there. I'm done doing your thinking for you.

Having no females in the area doesn't make all the males homosexual.

You're acting as if homosexuality is a choice that somebody makes because of a scarcity of members of the opposite sex.

[Y3a]

<< Survival of the fittest is a misnomer. Survival of the community is probably more apt. So what are these left over males to do? The Alpha male has his Harem, these others have, what?
>>

The others have only the females they grab/steal from other tribes, or packs.

"Survival of the fittest" is a generality.

"Probably" (As in 'not sure'???)

Lions chuck the other young males out of the pride, and they become loners, get their own prides, or starve and die.

Would it be too far fetched to assume that the priorities were different for hunters in a wild environment? I think you would be MORE concerned about shelter, and food first.

Would it be too far fetched to assume that the more 'civilized' we became, the more we reacted in that context instead of as a pure animal?

Guilt seems to be a product of civilization.
(seems to be - as in not sure either)

Chimps kill each other, commit homosexual acts, and kidnap others young. Most of the apes demonstrate this behavior, but not to the extent that humans do.

The fact is, there are no scientific studies that prove one way or the other in respect of sexual orientation. For each one, their is another that shows different results or conclusions.

It's been fun jerking y'all's chains on this.

NEXT:

Does Santa use a flying saucer?

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Y3a:
It's been fun jerking y'all's chains on this.

Fantastic. Go jerk on your own chain for awhile. That's natural.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
Fantastic. Go jerk on your own chain for awhile. That's natural.

[BlackGriffen]

Example of "natural" species that practices homosexual intercourse: Bonobo chimps.

About the only taboo these horny little primates seem to have is parent child intercourse after the child has matured to offspring bearing age.

"Reality is stranger than fiction." --Ripley

BlackGriffen

[Y3a]

<< Fantastic. Go jerk on your own chain for awhile. That's natural.>>


LOL Maybe you need to calm down a bit? Don't take yourselves so seriously.

[Sven G]

... "Alpha Male"?!?

What's that B$?

Personally, I'm perfectly happy to be a perennial "Beta Male", who indeed does love women, but at the same time doesn't fear "gay" men (or "gay" women - very cute, BTW, - for that matter).

Oh - and a lot of sexuality "problems" (not sure what they are...) could be solved if we lived in a more (... amore?) free and human-values-based society (instead of all this crappy "money for the sake of money", a.k.a. "business for the sake of business", repeated ad nauseam, bullshìt ideology!)!

[gadster]

Spliff, Sven, Y3a, I just made that up. But it is entirely possible that there is a 'natural' form of gayness. Just trying to get you thinking. What is 'natural' anyway?

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Unfortunately, it doesn't stop you typing.

Badampam.
(Ditto.)

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
... No good law professor would fail to see how those two situations are different regardless of his personal opinion.

Oh well, I feel better now.

Unless he doesn't want to

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Y3a:
I'd guess that you are AN EXPERT SLIMEY???
MAybe you were not smart enough to get it?

Same for thunderous...

I guess gays are harmless? Ask the Catholic church, or Disney. I guess they are 'different' gays somehow?

Just keep telling yourselves that it's natural for two of the same sex to engage in the activities. Without medicines, most would be dead because of the activity, thru natural selection.

You sick loosers on the left just HATE TO BE JUDGED. Especially when you are judged to be a sick-o like Jackson.

Yup, there's been the gay medicine around for centuries and I have never heard of it. Damn. Hopefully I haven't accidently taken any. God knows what could happen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Yup, there's been the gay medicine around for centuries and I have never heard of it. Damn. Hopefully I haven't accidently taken any. God knows what could happen

I'm sure you have. Haven't you heard of "the Pink Stuff."

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm sure you have. Haven't you heard of "the Pink Stuff."

oh, I thought it was going to be Gay-o-Pectate.

[Y3a]

Without the many expensive medications used to prolong the life of AIDS contractees, they would be dead already.

Gays and the damage they have done to the Catholic church is documented. (Or are the Catholic priests somehow different, and don't count?) Disney had a similar problem 3 years ago. Many family oriented groups bailed on trips to Disneyland & world. This costs big bucks to pay off those victims, and Disney had a few lean years.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Y3a:
Without the many expensive medications used to prolong the life of AIDS contractees, they would be dead already.

Gays and the damage they have done to the Catholic church is documented. (Or are the Catholic priests somehow different, and don't count?)

Come back when your command of the language is sufficient to distinguish between "gay" and "pedophile".

Next up, you might learn that AIDS doesn't distinguish between "gay" and "hetero" (might have to look that word up).

-s*

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Y3a:
Without the many expensive medications used to prolong the life of AIDS contractees, they would be dead already.

Gays and the damage they have done to the Catholic church is documented. (Or are the Catholic priests somehow different, and don't count?) Disney had a similar problem 3 years ago. Many family oriented groups bailed on trips to Disneyland & world. This costs big bucks to pay off those victims, and Disney had a few lean years.

not sure why I'm bothering to reply, but here goes...

1. Gay does not equal pedophile.
2. Not everyone who is gay has AIDs
3. Not everyone who has AIDs is gay
4. Gays have not damaged the catholic church. If anything damaged it, it was catholic leadership stonewalling on admitting pedophile priests and properly dealing with them. yet still it continues to function.
5. Not all priests are pedophiles.
6. Not all pedophiles are catholic.
7. Disney does not have pedophile priests.
8. Disney, as far as I know, has not sheltered pedophile empoyees, even if they had any.
9. No family groups bailed on Disney, there was a scare tactic boycott called by the Baptists, which no one followed through with.
10. Disney does not have pedophile Baptist preachers.
11. Disney paid off no victims (victims of what? one wonders...do you mean victims of gays, gay victims, victims of the Baptist boycot, victims of pedophiles, victims of pedophile catholic priests, victims people who went to see "its a small world after all?").
12. Disney had no lean years related to nonexistant payoffs to nonexistant victims. Their business success is cyclical, same as any other corporation.


HOWEVER:
1. yes, there are gay people in the world.
2. yes, there are homophobic people in the world
3. yes, those two groups frequently overlap.
4. yes, the most adamant homophobes are often secretly curious and fascinated.
5. yes, many adamant homophobes come out of the closet later in life.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
HOWEVER:
1. yes, there are gay people in the world.
2. yes, there are homophobic people in the world
3. yes, those two groups frequently overlap.
4. yes, the most adamant homophobes are often secretly curious and fascinated.
5. yes, many adamant homophobes come out of the closet later in life.
6. tes, just because you don't see homosexual sex as being normal, or see it as being decadent behavior, doesn't mean you are homophobic, or in the closet.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
6. tes, just because you don't see homosexual sex as being normal, or see it as being decadent behavior, doesn't mean you are homophobic, or in the closet.

No, but spewing such ignorant tripe in public and then calling it "yanking yer all's chains" while disregarding any points made addressing his posts is not by any stretch of the imagination "well-adjusted behavior".

-s*

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
No, but spewing such ignorant tripe in public and then calling it "yanking yer all's chains" while disregarding any points made addressing his posts is not by any stretch of the imagination "well-adjusted behavior".

-s*

I wasn't speaking in behalf of said poster.

But I agree with the HATE part. Read my sig.

People who hate, usually hate because of something that is apart of them.

There is a difference between HATING, and just not agreeing.

Some people like to blur the lines.

For example, I know people who want others to believe if you think homosexual sex is decadent, you are a hater.

That is dishonest. And by saying/believing that, they are no better than the people that they label haters.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

this must be a glitch, because it appears you just quoted me without comment...but I would call attention to your sig, which is very appropriate:

If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us.

[christ]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
this must be a glitch, because it appears you just quoted me without comment...but I would call attention to your sig, which is very appropriate:

I think that he did comment (added '6') but did it inside the quote. Unless you originally had a '6' and removed it.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
this must be a glitch, because it appears you just quoted me without comment...but I would call attention to your sig, which is very appropriate:

I called attention to my sig as well.

What people have problems with, is telling the difference between not agreeing (What I did) and hating (Not what I did)

As I pointed out.

I added to your quote BTW. And no I wasn't trying to fool people into thinking you posted that.

Again, there is a difference between disagree with a lifestyle, and HATING the people that practice it.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
not sure why I'm bothering to reply, but here goes...

1. Gay does not equal pedophile.
2. Not everyone who is gay has AIDs
3. Not everyone who has AIDs is gay
4. Gays have not damaged the catholic church. If anything damaged it, it was catholic leadership stonewalling on admitting pedophile priests and properly dealing with them. yet still it continues to function.
5. Not all priests are pedophiles.
6. Not all pedophiles are catholic.
7. Disney does not have pedophile priests.
8. Disney, as far as I know, has not sheltered pedophile empoyees, even if they had any.
9. No family groups bailed on Disney, there was a scare tactic boycott called by the Baptists, which no one followed through with.
10. Disney does not have pedophile Baptist preachers.
11. Disney paid off no victims (victims of what? one wonders...do you mean victims of gays, gay victims, victims of the Baptist boycot, victims of pedophiles, victims of pedophile catholic priests, victims people who went to see "its a small world after all?").
12. Disney had no lean years related to nonexistant payoffs to nonexistant victims. Their business success is cyclical, same as any other corporation.


HOWEVER:
1. yes, there are gay people in the world.
2. yes, there are homophobic people in the world
3. yes, those two groups frequently overlap.
4. yes, the most adamant homophobes are often secretly curious and fascinated.
5. yes, many adamant homophobes come out of the closet later in life.

The man speaketh the truth. Especially the stuff in #5.

[christ]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
There is a difference between HATING, and just not agreeing.

... and you can diagree with Israel's stance on something without being anti-semitic.

... and you can disagree with GWB and not be anti-American.

I'm not sure that you can find homosexuality unnatural without being a homophobe, but that really depends on your definition of 'phobe'. (I think that in context 'phobe' doesn't mean 'hate' or 'fear', any more than the 'phile' in 'paedophile' means 'love', it more nearly means 'against', and so anyone that is against homosexuality is more or less by definition a 'homophobe')

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by christ:
... and you can diagree with Israel's stance on something without being anti-semitic.

... and you can disagree with GWB and not be anti-American.

Right, but you can also do those thing AND be anti-semitic and hate America.

I'm not sure that you can find homosexuality unnatural without being a homophobe, but that really depends on your definition of 'phobe'. (I think that in context 'phobe' doesn't mean 'hate' or 'fear', any more than the 'phile' in 'paedophile' means 'love', it more nearly means 'against', and so anyone that is against homosexuality is more or less by definition a 'homophobe')

If indeed the def of Homophobia has distorted into "Just being against homosexual sex" then they need to come up with a new word.

A phobia has to do with fear. If it's not about fear, it's not a phobia.

ho·mo·pho·bi·a __ _P___Pronunciation Key__(hm-fb-)
n.
Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.

Behavior based on such a feeling.

People like calling other people names of the like to belittle to "opposition".

"If your against homosexual sex, you are a hater that is gay"

What nonsense.

It's no better than saying all gays are pedophiles.

[petehammer]

How many different ways can a person rationalize their homophobia?

Zim, let's not gloss over the following:
Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.

There is a saying that is quite applicable to homophobes who "hate the sin, not the sinner":

"If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck."

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by petehammer:
How many different ways can a person rationalize their homophobia?

Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gays.

There is a saying that is quite applicable to homophobes who "hate the sin, not the sinner":

"If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck."

Good job. You just did what I just described above.

No one is rationalizing anything.

Some people don't want people differentiating Hate monger with people who just don't agree.

They want them to see them as one as the same.

Just like some homophobes want people to see gays and pedophiles as being one in the same.

Both are dead wrong. Both are acting on their own insecurities.

You can believe homosexual sex is wrong, and NOT have fear or contempt towards homosexuals. This is a fact. Like it or not.

I could then call you a hate monger for not agreeing with what I believe in under your logic.