Gay Book Flap Erupts Again At Lexington School - Page 10

04-25-2006, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jordon

All of this was thrown at me before I typed a single hostile word to anyone. You toss that at me, you get it shoved right back down your throats.

It's so telling that morons here still think I'm Christian when I've stated twice that I'm not. Eveyone is so eager to lynch Christians, and then turn around and claim the moral high ground. Just keep your fag garbage away from children and we'll all be fine. Keep pushing it, and we'll have incidents that will make it look like Mathew Shepherd got off easy, and you'll have no one to blame but yourselves.

Per my earlier post, what does being Christian have to do with disliking homosexuality?
Biblically it is not a sin. Again, abomination is no worse than eating shrimp, planting mixed crops, wearing a polyester/cotton blend shirt or many other innocuous things we all do now... no different in any way.
So, please... tell me where Christianity comes into this argument?
It seems a bit deviant to worry about who someone is sleeping with to begin with.

mrnoodle · 04-25-2006, 05:55 PM

Let me give this a shot...

I think there is a large group of people who don't "hate" gays but don't want to see homosexuality promoted to children. I don't know if it's just because of bad PR or what, but to many (otherwise bigotry-free) people, gayness is nothing more than a desire to perform unnatural sex acts in as disgusting a manner as possible. This opinion is reinforced when gay pride parades come to town -- what is it that they're proud of? Assless leather pants? Or just their ability to make breeders squirm by dry humping each other on Main Street?

If this isn't what being gay is all about, why is that all we see until a court case comes up? Suddenly, when confronted with a TV reporter, they ditch the leather pants in favor of suits and ties, and the issue becomes, "We just want to love who we choose. What's so wrong with that?"

Totally apart from issues of religion, public decency, marriage, etc. etc., there is a huge disconnect between the way gay people want to be defined and the way they allow their fringe element to define them. Which is it? Freedom to love who you choose, or freedom to blow truckers in rest stops?

jaguar · 04-25-2006, 05:57 PM

Quote:

by Jaguar
This can be summed up in something like 'I'm all for gay marriage, just don't like the fucking fags near my kids' or 'it's simple human decency to not expose 7 year olds to love between people of the same gender'.

Quote:

By Jordan
Just keep your fag garbage away from children

I'm the motherfucking prophet, bitches.

Classy threat of violence in there too. Nothing says I'm open and tollerant than threatening to make tieing a guy to a fence and beating him to death 'look easy'.

Trilby · 04-25-2006, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Which is it? Freedom to love who you choose, or freedom to blow truckers in rest stops?

Why can't it be both?

(so sorry. couldn't help myself. Carry on.)

jaguar · 04-25-2006, 05:59 PM

It's the freedom to do both noodle, just the same way hetro couples can get married and have kids in the burbs or blow truckers in stops, no more, no less.

twentycentshift · 04-25-2006, 06:04 PM

wow...interesting post, mr. noodle.....

i don't think it's right to put all homosexuals in the catagory of "rest stop trucker blowers", just like its not right to put all heterosexuals in the catagory of prostitues and johns. there will always be strange, odd and even "unnatural" behavior (if you choose to define it as that) in any group. but like any prejudice, it is wrong to judge an entire group by the worst or strangest of the group.

for example- not all white people are rednecks, and i don't want to be judged as a redneck, just because i'm white.

Ibby · 04-25-2006, 06:11 PM

Jordon, I wasn't throwing that at you, I was just getting it out there because nothing makes me more angry than inequality or discrimination. If that statement applies to anyone it is only because that person is a bigot or discriminatory. It wasn't directed at anyone until YOU started spouting anti-gay rhetoric (yes, I qualify what you said as anti-gay rhetoric), because things were civil then. And, Jordon, you have yet to explain any reasonable, non-personal reason why there is a problem with this.

04-25-2006, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Let me give this a shot...

I think there is a large group of people who don't "hate" gays but don't want to see homosexuality promoted to children. I don't know if it's just because of bad PR or what, but to many (otherwise bigotry-free) people, gayness is nothing more than a desire to perform unnatural sex acts in as disgusting a manner as possible. This opinion is reinforced when gay pride parades come to town -- what is it that they're proud of? Assless leather pants? Or just their ability to make breeders squirm by dry humping each other on Main Street?

If this isn't what being gay is all about, why is that all we see until a court case comes up? Suddenly, when confronted with a TV reporter, they ditch the leather pants in favor of suits and ties, and the issue becomes, "We just want to love who we choose. What's so wrong with that?"

Totally apart from issues of religion, public decency, marriage, etc. etc., there is a huge disconnect between the way gay people want to be defined and the way they allow their fringe element to define them. Which is it? Freedom to love who you choose, or freedom to blow truckers in rest stops?

Unnatural is not exactly an accurate descriptor... it is completely natural, common to many species across the board, not just mammals.
Promote, is not an accurate description of what is happening either. Education of something that is a fact of life, is.
Will someone please answer my question... I have been studying Christianity for over twenty years and was in Seminary prep for a year in college and have yet to get an answer that is logical... other than a Bishop who said "it is not a sin and it makes not sense to me... in the Middle ages we used to perform same sex marriages. A little known fact." He was a hip dude.

Flint · 04-25-2006, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

I think there is a large group of people who don't "hate" gays but don't want to see homosexuality promoted to children.

Semantics is very important here. When you refer to promotion you need to specify exactly what is being "promoted" - you cannot claim to promote the fact that Gay People exist, because this is an irrefutable fact. This is a matter of accepting reality.

Same situation here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

My point remains that I don't mind if the book is available in the library but I don't feel it should be read to a child that is forced to sit there and absorb it. This is indocrination defined.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint

Indoctrination of what? The "doctrine" that Gay People exist?

Semantics is everything when buzzwords like "indoctrination" and "promotion" are being smeared all over the popular media outlets. Are we, as rational people, going to actually debate whether certain people have the right to exist?

twentycentshift · 04-25-2006, 07:36 PM

agreed.

and it's not a matter of "tolerance." who wants to be tolerated? we all want to be accepted, and heaven forbid, appreciated.

so- homosexual couples exist, and must be accepted, hopefully even appreciated. it's what any person would want.

for those who claim to be christians- its the golden rule.

Flint · 04-25-2006, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twentycentshift

for those who claim to be christians- its the golden rule.

slam-fucking-dunk

jinx · 04-25-2006, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

And again, Maggie, you keep touting "go to private school". Well, that's great, I'd love to, but then give me an option to stop paying the educational portion of my taxes. If my kids aren't in the public school system, why should I have to pay for it?

You pay school taxes because you own a home, not because you have kids in public school.
If you choose to put your kids in public school, you pretty much have to accept that they are a captive audience to the curriculum. How could teachers possibly be expected to seek approval, from each child's parents, for each day's lessons? It would take hours to make those phone calls, every day, on the off chance that someone might object to something at some point and want to pull their kid out for the day.

If you want more control of your child's education there are other options for you, like public cyber charter schools. They are free, they usually supply the computer, and you can shop around for the curriculum you like best.

Jordon · 04-25-2006, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twentycentshift

"call to violence"

Don't get your petticoats in a bunch, sister. That's no more a "call to violence" than predicting that Iran is about to have their asses handed to them. There is a vast differance between tolerance and endorsement, and by targeting seven year olds for indoctrination into the gay agenda, gays are setting back their cause by light years. Gay marriage was shot down in state after state in the last election. The pendulum is swinging back in the other direction now, and the results will be seen across the nation, not just Wyoming. It may be time to think about redecorating your closets.

MaggieL · 04-25-2006, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jordon

...It may be time to think about redecorating your closets.

Already done mine. See?

http://www.pinkpistols.org

twentycentshift · 04-25-2006, 08:29 PM

is this guy for real? someone tell me- he's faking this stuff, right?

(the "indoctrination" thing has already been properly addressed here, as has "endorsement" and "tolerance")

no really, this is a prank right? are we being punk'd?

04-25-2006, 05:55 PM	#137
mrnoodle bent Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: under the weather Posts: 2,656	Let me give this a shot... I think there is a large group of people who don't "hate" gays but don't want to see homosexuality promoted to children. I don't know if it's just because of bad PR or what, but to many (otherwise bigotry-free) people, gayness is nothing more than a desire to perform unnatural sex acts in as disgusting a manner as possible. This opinion is reinforced when gay pride parades come to town -- what is it that they're proud of? Assless leather pants? Or just their ability to make breeders squirm by dry humping each other on Main Street? If this isn't what being gay is all about, why is that all we see until a court case comes up? Suddenly, when confronted with a TV reporter, they ditch the leather pants in favor of suits and ties, and the issue becomes, "We just want to love who we choose. What's so wrong with that?" Totally apart from issues of religion, public decency, marriage, etc. etc., there is a huge disconnect between the way gay people want to be defined and the way they allow their fringe element to define them. Which is it? Freedom to love who you choose, or freedom to blow truckers in rest stops? __________________ Sìn a nall na cuaranan sin. -- Cha mhór is fheairrde thu iad, tha iad coltach ri cat air a dhathadh

04-25-2006, 05:59 PM	#140
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	It's the freedom to do both noodle, just the same way hetro couples can get married and have kids in the burbs or blow truckers in stops, no more, no less. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

04-25-2006, 06:04 PM	#141
twentycentshift change three times Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: texas Posts: 214	wow...interesting post, mr. noodle..... i don't think it's right to put all homosexuals in the catagory of "rest stop trucker blowers", just like its not right to put all heterosexuals in the catagory of prostitues and johns. there will always be strange, odd and even "unnatural" behavior (if you choose to define it as that) in any group. but like any prejudice, it is wrong to judge an entire group by the worst or strangest of the group. for example- not all white people are rednecks, and i don't want to be judged as a redneck, just because i'm white. Last edited by twentycentshift; 04-25-2006 at 06:17 PM.

04-25-2006, 06:11 PM	#142
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	Jordon, I wasn't throwing that at you, I was just getting it out there because nothing makes me more angry than inequality or discrimination. If that statement applies to anyone it is only because that person is a bigot or discriminatory. It wasn't directed at anyone until YOU started spouting anti-gay rhetoric (yes, I qualify what you said as anti-gay rhetoric), because things were civil then. And, Jordon, you have yet to explain any reasonable, non-personal reason why there is a problem with this.

04-25-2006, 07:36 PM	#145
twentycentshift change three times Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: texas Posts: 214	agreed. and it's not a matter of "tolerance." who wants to be tolerated? we all want to be accepted, and heaven forbid, appreciated. so- homosexual couples exist, and must be accepted, hopefully even appreciated. it's what any person would want. for those who claim to be christians- its the golden rule.

04-25-2006, 08:29 PM	#150
twentycentshift change three times Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: texas Posts: 214	is this guy for real? someone tell me- he's faking this stuff, right? (the "indoctrination" thing has already been properly addressed here, as has "endorsement" and "tolerance") no really, this is a prank right? are we being punk'd?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)