Gay Book Flap Erupts Again At Lexington School

[Ibby]

Jordon... once again, you have ignored everything that speaks against what you are saying.

...and by targeting seven year olds for indoctrination into the gay agenda...

What the fuck is that even supposed to mean? Gay people are a new underground cult or something now, trying to subvert the nation's youth? The only "agenda" gay people have as a whole is to not be discriminated against, which is only set back by people like you.

Who's to say the person who put that book into the school's curriculum was even gay? You dont have to be gay to not be prejudiced and discriminatory against gay people, or to try to prevent people from being such.

And, for reasons ALREADY ESTABLISHED, there IS no 'indoctrination'. Telling people that there is a such thing as gay people is not 'indoctrination', it is a statement of FACT. We all know how great you are about responding to other people's posts, but IF you have any logical justification for your bigotry, please do explain.

[twentycentshift]

no really, i think we're being punk'd. i mean, how could anyone really mean the things this jordy person is saying?

this has GOT to be a joke.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by twentycentshift

this has GOT to be a joke.

Don't kid yourself.

Originally Posted by twentycentshift

no really, i think we're being punk'd. i mean, how could anyone really mean the things this jordy person is saying?

this has GOT to be a joke.

I grew-up and now, again, live in Central FL... you would not believe what many still accept as fact , both true fact and moral fact, in bumpkin-land.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Jordon

There's no point in even trying to debate when you openly lie. For the THIRD TIME, I never said that. Read the thread again.

You may be surprised to learn that I am the only poster here who might support your position. I have not debated nor challenged anything in your posts. There was no assumption; just questions perfectly worded so that you can better clarify your previous posts. Clarification by breaking down questions into three simple categories. But again, you will not answer those questions with some assumption they are to attack you.

I posted questions - specifically - so that you could clarify your position. But instead you take offense to it? Do you fear to answer those questions or do you not want to answer them? Those questions asked because I haven't a clue (due to insufficient detail and supporting jusitifications) what you are trying to say.

I read every word you posted - at least three times. Those three questions would be exactly what you want to answer. Those questions take no position other than to offer oppurtunity to clarify what you have stated - to specifically define where those questions are wrong - and why.

Originally, I thought those questions could be your perfect oppurtunity to demonstrate to others that you said completely different from what they read. But a paranoia is implied in your replies. Why do you fear to correct what was asked?

You said, for example, that seven year olds should not be exposed "to it". What specifically is "it"? How to perform homosexuality or just that people of same sex love one another and live together? We are talking about brotherly love when we talk of dear friends, homosexual relationships, or marriage. They are all different examples of brotherly love. But you tell me. What, in detail, are you saying? Do you now oppose many versions of brotherly love - or maybe you don't? From what was posted - intentionally vague - I don't know which type of love you fear.

Why not answer the questions honestly and not assume those questions are to attack? Questions attack no one. Questions make no assumptions. They simply beg you to clarify your response. I have no idea what you mean by brotherly love because every post is vague, too short, and defensive.

You did not answer three questions - and worse - don't justify why. Without 'why' only encourages others to attack you.

There is nothing difficult in answering questions you still do not answer - and apparently fear to answer:
First legal marriage requirements. Are you saying that laws should make no distinction between same sex and opposite sex marriages? And obviously why or why not?

Second, religion. You stated that sacraments should be denied to same sex marriages. Is that correct (of course, reasons why are included)?

Third, education. You insist that children should never even be told that homosexual couples exist? It is simple human decency to not lie. Therefore will can defined simple human decency quantitatively with numbers or examples.

Stormieweather answers questions in her very first post. She wants to be understood. So she defined fundamental differences between 'knowledge of' verses 'knowledge of how to'. Three questions provided you oppurtunity to clarify - to make you position clear - thereby defuse criticism. Maybe you don't want me to support your position? Maybe you are trolling for attacks? That would explain why you don't answer simple questions.

Originally Posted by Jordan

... but it's pretting damning that you immediately assume that I'm a Christian ...

which they must do when you don't even answer 'set up to be friendly to you' questions; and don't provide supporting justifications. Your response are too typical of what Christian extremists do - which is why others could only make assumptions.

Originally Posted by jaguar

Jordon is one of those people who while holding a good mixed bag of the usual prejudices deep down, knows they're not acceptable and so attempts to wrap them up in various ways to make them less ugly

which is what anyone would assume if you cannot even answer three simple questions. They are simplified questions without any assumptions - worded to clarify your position. Jaguar would have no choice but make his assumption because you do not answer even my so simple three questions - that make not one assumption and might be posted by one who supports your opinion.

Originally Posted by twentycentshift

is it just me, or is anyone else having a hard time following what jordon is saying?

which is why I asked three simple questions so that jordon could defuse his critics. If you need to assume anything, jordon, understand my very specific and now clearest stated objective. Instead, do you see enemies everywhere? I asked a perfect softball question so that you could clarify your position in three parts. Instead even I am the enemy?

[Jordon]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Already done mine. See?



http://www.pinkpistols.org

A perfect example of dykedom by virtue of the fact that no man would put his dick in that much fuglitude.:p

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by twentycentshift

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

Jordon is either trolling or profoundly stupid. Either way, not worth engaging after the Matthew Shepherd comment.

[Jordon]

Originally Posted by tw

First legal marriage requirements. Are you saying that laws should make no distinction between same sex and opposite sex marriages? And obviously why or why not?

I said that everyone should be able to have a Civil Union with the same legal rights.

Originally Posted by tw

Second, religion. You stated that sacraments should be denied to same sex marriages. Is that correct (of course, reasons why are included)?

I NEVER SAID THAT. Parroting a lie over and over does not add credibility. Nevertheless, I will quote myself as an answer:
" Among Pagans there are Covens composed entirely of Lesbians and others of Gay men. While some rituals are common to us all, they also have rituals specific to their sexual inclination. No gay man would insist on being allowed to participate in a Moon Lodge ritual for Lesbians. No Lesbian would insist on being included in a Gay coming of age ritual. Homosexuals should write their own rituals and sacraments, rather than simply imitating the heterosexual marriage rite."

Originally Posted by tw

You insist that children should never even be told that homosexual couples exist?

Another lie. I said, and say yet again, that seven year olds don't need to know about homosexuality. I think that at least waiting for the onset of puberty, if not further, would be sufficient; and informing children of their existance is not advocating it as a normal or acceptable practice, as the book in question seems to be doing.

[Jordon]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Already done mine. See?



http://www.pinkpistols.org

Oh, and someone please call the Office of Homleand Security. We seem to have a call to violence here. I just about died laughing just now.

[twentycentshift]

if only he would have........

jk jordon. you're fun to have around. no really.....

[twentycentshift]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Jordon is either trolling or profoundly stupid. Either way, not worth engaging after the Matthew Shepherd comment.

on monkey's note, i stand to engage in decent conversation with others, others who make better sense.

very good point monkey.

oh and i hear ya maggie and rkzen. i'm in texas right now, and you should hear some of the crap that flies around this state.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Jordon

I said that everyone should be able to have a Civil Union with the same legal rights.

Fine - everyone read that previously - which is why these simple questions exist. Are you saying that laws should make no distinction between same sex and opposite sex marriages? What you said and what the question asks are similar but different conditions. You still did not answer the question, so as Ted Koppel said, I will ask it again. Your answer only reiterated what you said previously AND does not answer the question. The question exists because your post does not answer the question. Are you "saying that laws should make no distinction between same sex and opposite sex marriages?"

I NEVER SAID THAT. Parroting a lie over and over does not add credibility.

Questions don't make accusations nor do they lie. Questions ask - and the questions are so softball that you should be welcoming them. You were asked to clarify a simple statement; that sacraments should be denied to same sex marriages. You were asked if that were your opinion. My god. Even a simple yes or no answer would at least attempted to answer the question. The question was asked because - obviously and again - your 'quote' does not answer that question.

Clearly no lesbian or gay would eat because only hetrosexuals eat. Your example is just as irrelevant - does not answer the question. Two out of two questions still not answered - complete with attack accusations of statement never made. So much fear. Do you just not want to answer the questions? Why quote what is not understood? If your quotes were understood, then questions would not be asked. Why requote the same incomprehensible replies? Why not just answer simple questions?

Another lie.

A lie about what? How does one lie when it is only a question? A question asking only what you said?

I said, and say yet again, that seven year olds don't need to know about homosexuality.

Does not need know about sex acts in homosexuality, OR not even know that same sex couples living together exist? But then, only asking the same question again. Same question that you reply to and never answer.

I think that at least waiting for the onset of puberty, if not further, would be sufficient; and informing children of their existance is not advocating it as a normal or acceptable practice, as the book in question seems to be doing.

Well at least this is a start. Asking the same questions four times and finally getting part of one answer. Continue. Homosexuality is so rare and unacceptable that not even 1% of Americans would practice it? And what should these kids be told? That homosexuals live together or that homosexuals have sex? Simply and again asking same unanswered questions.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Jordon

Blythe
Bonnie
Jocund
Merry

Nope, not even close.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Jordon

Oh, and someone please call the Office of Homleand Security. We seem to have a call to violence here. I just about died laughing just now.

You just keep on laughing, Scooter; that intended-to-initimidate "get beck in the closet" line was a real hoot.

Actually, it's a call to self-defense. DHS already knows all about me, since I'm licenced for concealed carry in 29 states. Apparently they don't have a problem.

Our chapter meets once a month for lunch and then adjourns to the range for practice. There's something in excess of 35 local chapters nationwide.

It's just not as safe as it used to be to pull a Matthew Shepard; bashers had best choose their victims very carefully--as my partner said during some local media coverage a few years ago "some of the sheep have teeth now".

So next time you think the "pendulum has swung", just remeber there's more than one pendulum in motion.

Oh, by the way...image credit for that last post: Oleg Volk

[Jordon]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

You just keep on laughing, Scooter; that intended-to-initimidate "get beck in the closet" line was a real hoot.

Actually, it's a call to self-defense. DHS already knows all about me, since I'm licenced for concealed carry in 29 states. Apparently they don't have a problem.

Our chapter meets once a month for lunch and then adjourns to the range for practice. There's something in excess of 35 local chapters nationwide.

It's just not as safe as it used to be to pull a Matthew Shepard; bashers had best choose their victims very carefully--as my partner said during some local media coverage a few years ago "some of the sheep have teeth now".

So next time you think the "pendulum has swung", just remeber there's more than one pendulum in motion.

Oh, by the way...image credit for that last post: Oleg Volk

Aim for the testicles girls.


The sheep have teeth. AND THEY VANT TO SUCK YOUR BLOOD! BLEH!