Gay Sex Kills

[vyo476]

Would a T shirt that reads "God hates black people" be protected as free speech as well?

Probably.

The Westboro Baptists get away with worse.

 

[vyo476]

What should be done in public school is that intolerance that has become abusive should just be punished. It is not the schools job to teach tolerance but it is the schools job to punish students that have misbehaved.

That just isn't enough, usually. The problem is discriminatory attacks aimed at homosexuals in schools, right? Well, the problem got to be so virulent that the standard punishments for fighting or beating up other students weren't working. At that stage, there were two options - increase the punishments or attack the problem at it's roots. Schools have chosen the latter, and frankly I agree.

Does someone misunderstand the topic enough that they will wear a T-shirt that says "homosexuality is sin" So be it, they have free speech rights that trump someone else getting their feelings hurt. Is someone going to push a gay person because of their lifestyle (even just the slightest shove). Then punish them.

Free speech in high school? The next time I see that will be the first, and that usually has nothing to do with homosexuality (as conventional cursing is not allowed but usage of the word "gay" as a synonym for "stupid" is).

 

[Dr.Who]

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_20058.shtml

"Can you imagine officials at a middle school, junior high or high school setting aside a day to promote “tolerance” for heavy smoking and drinking among children? How about a day where teachers encourage kids to “embrace who they are,” pick up that crack pipe and give it a stiff toke?

Neither can I. The public would go ballistic, and for good reason.

But that hasn’t stopped officials in thousands of schools across the country from promoting other politically correct and socially “in-vogue” behaviors that — both statistically and manifestly — are every bit as dangerous as the aforementioned frowned-upon behaviors.

That’s exactly what the homosexual activist “Day of Silence” is all about — advancing, through clever, feel-good propaganda, full acceptance among children of the homosexual lifestyle..."

Ha ha ha! That rules.

Everytime I see the title of this thread I expect to click on it and see a discussion of the hazards of homosexuality.

Then I do and see a discussion of the politics of schools.

So I went back to the article linked in the first post. And yes the article had a long section about the risks of the gay lifestyle.

I would point out that in theory there would be no more risks associated with gay sex than with straight sex. If we were to keep the discussion on a philosophical level none of this would reflect badly on gay sex or gay people or the gay lifestyle.

But the article is not about theory. It is about the risks of the gay lifestyle as practiced by men in general in our society. It probably says nothing about lesbians, it says nothing about gay people. It does indicate that gay men who are promiscuous have huge risks.

So why are schools promoting tolerance for the gay lifestyle when they should be promoting tolerance for people who identify as gay?

Why are some critics attacking the programs that do advocate respect for people who identify as gay instead of attacking programs that advocate the gay lifestyle?

I wonder if this debate would have been over a long time ago if people had separated being a person who identifies as gay with living a gay lifestyle.

And why did I say "people who identify themselves as gay" and not gay people? Because there is still a debate about whether or not people are born gay or made to be gay or choose to be gay or whatever. I don't really care why they identify themselves as they do. They deserve a certain minimal level of respect just because they are made in God's image regardless. I would make that minimal level of respect that all people deserve pretty high. Some other people might earn more respect but that would not be dependent on how they identify their sexuality but more on the content of their character (cliche).

I do care about how they act. When they are promiscuous they spread risk around. When they suggest that everyone could be promiscuous they are making a moral statement I disagree with and I would like to be able to speak freely my disagreement.

 

[PLC1]

So why are schools promoting tolerance for the gay lifestyle when they should be promoting tolerance for people who identify as gay?

I don't think it has been established that they are.

 

[vyo476]

So why are schools promoting tolerance for the gay lifestyle when they should be promoting tolerance for people who identify as gay?

Why are some critics attacking the programs that do advocate respect for people who identify as gay instead of attacking programs that advocate the gay lifestyle?

I'm with PLC, I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

 

[Dr.Who]

I don't think it has been established that they are.

These are the quips from the article that was cited in the first post:

"That’s exactly what the homosexual activist “Day of Silence” is all about — advancing, through clever, feel-good propaganda, full acceptance among children of the homosexual lifestyle.

But instead, the “gay” lifestyle is vigorously promoted in our public schools. Sexually confused children who suffer from gender identity disorder and same-sex attractions are told to “embrace who they are,” and are encouraged to entertain deviant and dangerous sexual temptations. “But always use a condom!” liberal educators bellow. (Forget that condoms have a perilously high failure rate and are incapable of preventing numerous STDs such as the HPV virus.)

To be sure, bullying and harassment should not be tolerated against anyone, anywhere for any reason, and those who engage in such activities should be firmly disciplined. However, DOS has very little to do with “bullying” and has everything to do with propaganda.

DOS is pure, unadulterated propaganda and, based on the medical science, amounts to nothing short of educational malpractice. With liberal school officials in tow, these militant homosexual activists are brazenly circumventing and abusing parental authority to further this dangerous political agenda. DOS is also a slap in the face to the many students with traditional moral values. "


I think there is no doubt that this is happening in many schools all across thec country. There is also no doubt that it is happening as a result of the actions of a group called GLSEN.

So is the article right? Is this political proganda promoting the gay lifestyle or is it just advocacy for treating people who identify as gay with respect? GLSEN says it is just about creating awareness of bullying.

According to this quote and link the aims of GLSEN are to promote the gay lifestyle by advocating safety:

"In the letter sent to Mr. Fritz, the AFA of PA referred to a March 5, 1995 quote from Kevin Jennings, Executive Director of GLSEN, where he admits to using the ‘safety’ issue as a way of convincing the Massachusetts legislature to adopt a pro-homosexual agenda for their schools. Two years ago the father of a kindergarten student was arrested for objecting to homosexuality being discussed in his son’s class. Is Pennsylvania far behind?"

http://americansfortruth.com/news/a...ipal-invited-to-glsen-diversity-workshop.html

 

[PLC1]

I think there is no doubt that this is happening in many schools all across thec country. There is also no doubt that it is happening as a result of the actions of a group called GLSEN.

There may be no doubt in your mind, based on what you've read in a blog, but, based on 38 years in the public schools, there is immense skepticism in mine.

 

[Dr.Who]

There may be no doubt in your mind, based on what you've read in a blog, but, based on 38 years in the public schools, there is immense skepticism in mine.

I may have been unclear or you may have figured out what I was saying anyway.

I meant that there is no doubt that DOS sponsored by GLSEN is happening in a lot of schools.

I tried to indicate that there is doubt about how much GLSEN is able to promote their other agenda at the same time. The quote from GLSEN should also erase any doubt that they do have another agenda.

 

[PLC1]

I may have been unclear or you may have figured out what I was saying anyway.

I meant that there is no doubt that DOS sponsored by GLSEN is happening in a lot of schools.

I tried to indicate that there is doubt about how much GLSEN is able to promote their other agenda at the same time. The quote from GLSEN should also erase any doubt that they do have another agenda.

Thirty eight years in public education, including sex education, and I'd never even heard of GLSEN until now. I don't doubt that they have an agenda, but I do doubt that they are getting very far with it in schools.

Other than perhaps a few isolated instances, I seriously doubt that the "gay lifestyle" is being promoted in schools. Not making another student's live miserable because they are gay, or because someone decided that they are gay, is on the agenda, however.

The frightening thing is that kids of 8 seem to understand the term "gay" and know what it means, along with a whole lot of other sexual knowledge that they simply aren't mature enough to handle. The more frightening thing is that they seem to have leaned through the TV that sexual promiscuity is the expected norm, whether it is hetero or not.

 

[Dr.Who]

Thirty eight years in public education, including sex education, and I'd never even heard of GLSEN until now. I don't doubt that they have an agenda, but I do doubt that they are getting very far with it in schools.

Other than perhaps a few isolated instances, I seriously doubt that the "gay lifestyle" is being promoted in schools. Not making another student's live miserable because they are gay, or because someone decided that they are gay, is on the agenda, however.

The frightening thing is that kids of 8 seem to understand the term "gay" and know what it means, along with a whole lot of other sexual knowledge that they simply aren't mature enough to handle. The more frightening thing is that they seem to have leaned through the TV that sexual promiscuity is the expected norm, whether it is hetero or not.

8,500 schools participated this last time. I guess it all depends on whether you think 8500 is large or small as to whether or not you think that qualifies as a lot of schools.

I agree that they have another agenda. (I think the first agenda is legit but I don't know how needed it is to send the message that kids should not be beat up because they are gay. They should not be beat up for any reason)

I do not know how well that agenda is being promoted in schools. Thoughts anyone?

If kids under the age of 8 know what gay means is that part of the agenda? Is that from TV or from agendas in schools or both? Is that frightening or does it just mean they are savvy?

 

[PLC1]

8,500 schools participated this last time. I guess it all depends on whether you think 8500 is large or small as to whether or not you think that qualifies as a lot of schools.

I agree that they have another agenda. (I think the first agenda is legit but I don't know how needed it is to send the message that kids should not be beat up because they are gay. They should not be beat up for any reason)

I do not know how well that agenda is being promoted in schools. Thoughts anyone?

If kids under the age of 8 know what gay means is that part of the agenda? Is that from TV or from agendas in schools or both? Is that frightening or does it just mean they are savvy?

It means that they are exposed to crap on a daily basis, mainly from the boob tube.

 

[Segep]

8,500 schools participated this last time. I guess it all depends on whether you think 8500 is large or small as to whether or not you think that qualifies as a lot of schools.

Let's see, out of at least 100,000 public schools in the U.S....

I don't even need my calculator for this one.


8.5%


Hardly a national emergency.

 

[bododie]

Maybe because organized religion is unfounded nonsense while homosexuality is an issue many people have to accept and deal with?

I bet there are religious people who would turn that quote around. Both sides could argue, citing "proofs" which are on paper, until they are blue in the face. Which one is absolutely unequivocably right?