ACLU hard at work.

For the last fucking time, a court upheld that the little brainwashed shit had a right to present a report on the gay man Harvey Milk, no matter what the school or parents wanted.

That is indoctrination.

You already informed us that you don't like reality much, or historical reality at least. Old news. :eusa_hand:

PURE FLAME! This post serves NO PURPOSE BEYOND THE DESIRE TO ENFLAME THE ARGUMENT... The assertion is patently FALSE, this member knows that, yet she comes to this thread and asserts an abject falsehood as FACT.

TROLL!
 
For the last fucking time, a court upheld that the little brainwashed shit had a right to present a report on the gay man Harvey Milk, no matter what the school or parents wanted.

That is indoctrination.

How? If this whole fight was over a report on the inquisition would she then be an indoctrinated Catholic shit?

On a separate note I always find it amusing how in these situations how people chant "if it were about some right wing figure X Y or Z the ACLU/the left wing wouldn't care" this being said without any solid evidence or psychic powers.

It's called deduction... a form or reasoning wherein conclusions are deduced from the available facts, as to the probable outcome or results of those things which are otherwise unknown...

A Court which would determine that it is unlawful censorship by a school, where that school prevents the advocacy of sexual deviancy, would have a HELLUVA time maintaining the principles on which THAT decision is founded and finding that the school is serving the public interests by prohibiting the wearing of Gang Colors or T-shirts which display a message from say the NRA... "Guns don't kill people anymore than a SPOON made Rosie O'Donnel FAT" for instance...
 
Last edited:
For the last fucking time, a court upheld that the little brainwashed shit had a right to present a report on the gay man Harvey Milk, no matter what the school or parents wanted.

That is indoctrination.

How? If this whole fight was over a report on the inquisition would she then be an indoctrinated Catholic shit?

On a separate note I always find it amusing how in these situations how people chant "if it were about some right wing figure X Y or Z the ACLU/the left wing wouldn't care" this being said without any solid evidence or psychic powers.

It's called deduction... a form or reasoning wherein conclusions are deduced from the available facts, as to the probable outcome or results of those things which are otherwise unknown...

A Court which would determine that it is unlawful censorship by a school, where that school prevents the advocacy of sexual deviancy, would have a HELLUVA time maintaining the principles on which THAT decision is founded and finding that the school is serving the public interests by prohibiting the wearing of Gang Colors or T-shirts which display a message from say the NRA... "Guns don't kill people anymore than a SPOON made Rosie O'Donnel FAT" for instance...

Yeah but there is no available facts to support their psychic predictions all they have is guessing and bitching.

And when have the courts refused to let someone wear an NRA shirt?
 
Last edited:
the same way you would give a report on any other person without discussing what they did in the privacy of their own homes

She might have somewhat of a point in that homosexual rights activists are necessarily defined by their sexual orientation ("heterosexual rights" activists are none too common), but since I won't accept the premise that children and youth should be shielded from sexual topics without evidence that they're harmed, her argument is dead in the water nonetheless.

It's called robbing them of their childhood, for no other justification than to assuage the self-esteem of homosexuals.


If this wasn't so pathetic, it would be funny. Do you imagine there are homosexuals hiding under your bed ready to pounce on your kids and teach them how to have homosexual sex? How do you function on a daily basis under such paranoia???
 
She might have somewhat of a point in that homosexual rights activists are necessarily defined by their sexual orientation ("heterosexual rights" activists are none too common), but since I won't accept the premise that children and youth should be shielded from sexual topics without evidence that they're harmed, her argument is dead in the water nonetheless.

It's called robbing them of their childhood, for no other justification than to assuage the self-esteem of homosexuals.


If this wasn't so pathetic, it would be funny. Do you imagine there are homosexuals hiding under your bed ready to pounce on your kids and teach them how to have homosexual sex? How do you function on a daily basis under such paranoia???


No... I simply noting the real and present FACT that all over this country and throughout the western cultre, there are advocates of normalizing the abnormal who are standing at the head of classrooms FULL OF CHILDREN; MIS-informing those CHILDREN that the abnormal is the same thing as the normal; and that should they realize a moment of confusion; wherein the emotion of endearment, for a person of the same gender who has perhaps gone the extra mile in friendship or otherwise provided for a singular momentary inter-personal bonding; in a way which produces a momentary feeling of sexual arousal for that person of the same gender, that they should pursue that arousal... that they should act upon that arousal, and not simply understand that such is a temporal confusion presented through the emotional bonding and the associated hormonal stimulation, which is similar but distinct from normal sexual arousal... and that being abnormal is just FINE...
 
How? If this whole fight was over a report on the inquisition would she then be an indoctrinated Catholic shit?

On a separate note I always find it amusing how in these situations how people chant "if it were about some right wing figure X Y or Z the ACLU/the left wing wouldn't care" this being said without any solid evidence or psychic powers.

It's called deduction... a form or reasoning wherein conclusions are deduced from the available facts, as to the probable outcome or results of those things which are otherwise unknown...

A Court which would determine that it is unlawful censorship by a school, where that school prevents the advocacy of sexual deviancy, would have a HELLUVA time maintaining the principles on which THAT decision is founded and finding that the school is serving the public interests by prohibiting the wearing of Gang Colors or T-shirts which display a message from say the NRA... "Guns don't kill people anymore than a SPOON made Rosie O'Donnel FAT" for instance...

Yeah but there is no available facts to support their psychic predictions all they have is guessing and bitching.

And when have the courts refused to let someone wear an NRA shirt?


You can't be serious... there is no end to the facts which serve such deduction...

Nor to the schools that prohibit Shirts with writing that advocates for Gun Rights...

The following is the first example which came from a simple google search...

NEWSOM v. ALBEMARLE COUNTY SCHOOL BD.

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031125.P.pdf
 
It's called robbing them of their childhood, for no other justification than to assuage the self-esteem of homosexuals.


If this wasn't so pathetic, it would be funny. Do you imagine there are homosexuals hiding under your bed ready to pounce on your kids and teach them how to have homosexual sex? How do you function on a daily basis under such paranoia???


No... I simply noting the real and present FACT that all over this country and throughout the western cultre, there are advocates of normalizing the abnormal who are standing at the head of classrooms FULL OF CHILDREN; MIS-informing those CHILDREN that the abnormal is the same thing as the normal; and that should they realize a moment of confusion; wherein the emotion of endearment, for a person of the same gender who has perhaps gone the extra mile in friendship or otherwise provided for a singular momentary inter-personal bonding; in a way which produces a momentary feeling of sexual arousal for that person of the same gender, that they should pursue that arousal... that they should act upon that arousal, and not simply understand that such is a temporal confusion presented through the emotional bonding and the associated hormonal stimulation, which is similar but distinct from normal sexual arousal... and that being abnormal is just FINE...

I'll bet there have been homosexuals teaching children for years and you just didn't know enough to hate them until they identified themselves as such. Your ignorance is really astounding and at times quite comical.
 
Because Columbus is not sexual in nature, nor Homosexual. He is a LEGITIMATE Historical figure, that has been discussed for YEARS in our schools.

Harvey Milk is not a "legitimate historical figure" - what makes one legitimate? :eusa_eh:

And by the way? 6th Graders do NOT have 1st Amendment rights in school like adults have in every day life. Don't like that? Take it up with the Supreme Court.

That's pretty debatable - they seem to have some constitutional rights. For example, such rights were cited in a case that the ACLU took where a teacher attempted to ban the kids from bringing a bible to school with them. Obviously the courts seem to feel kids have some of those rights.

Further in real life if Susie showed up at work and wanted time to read her "report" it to would be subject to the rules of the work place and what the topic was. Ohh and the ADULTS would have the right to walk out if they found her piece offensive. 6th Graders do not have the right to walk out of class if they find something offensive. Thus Teachers must act in the best interest of the ENTIRE class, including the PARENTS of the children in that classroom.

The Teacher read the report and found it questionable so she took it to the Principle who read it and agreed that parents MUST be informed. ALL part of the authority, responsibility and DUTY under law of the Principle and the teacher.

What's offensive about an historical figure who also happens to be gay? Does that mean that if a teacher had issues with an historical figure that is black, found the report "offensive" they could suppress it? What was the actual rule invoked? Should parents thus be informed?

After the parents were informed, time was allowed to read the report to those that chose to listen or had their parents permission to listen. She was not censored in ANY manner regardless of the baseless claims by you, the ACLU and others on this Board. Had she BEEN censored, it would have been with in the power of the school to MAKE that call.

Baseless in what way? If the report included references or descriptions of actual sexuality you would have a point. However, it certainly didn't appear to and in fact the student chose the topic because she was influenced by the movie.

So, then students should not be taught about family either, since that's sexual.

Wrong as usual. Ohh and remind me when children are taught about FAMILIES anyway? I do not recall that class when I went nor when my children went.

No classes on any type of family. Social Studies gets into societies and how they operate, rather then pure history. But not about families.

It's not uncommon with historical figures to talk about their family or descendants, for example, George Washington and Martha Washington. I am guessing that you will agree with me we shouldn't do that because then we'd naturally have to explain what George and Martha do together and how they are (shudder) heterosexual and...we'd better inform the parents.

There are no classes on married versus divorced or separated families. No classes on who can and can not marry. No discussions at all in Elementary school about that at all, well except the new classes dealing with Homosexual couples and sex education in Elementary school.

As far as the article goes - none of the above (in a homosexual way) was discussed was it?

School books have specifically been changed to ADDRESS homosexual couples and families. To teach our children that being gay is normal and perfectly fine. Now where is my class on teaching those same children that CHRISTIAN Religion is NORMAL and fine? Or to teach them that Heterosexual couples are actually the NORMAL couples?

That's another issue unrelated to free speech and a student giving a report on an historical figure.

Less then 5 percent of the population is gay. They are NOT normal. It is also an at risk relationship, with increased risk of disease for both men and women. The reality is gays tend to be promiscuous, especially men. They CHOSE to engage in unhealthy sexual practices and situations.

That's not the issue being discussed.

Just like it is not the schools place to discuss NORMAL sex or relationships with elementary school children. It is NOT their place to go out of their way to discuss the Homosexual community, couples or sex.

You are misrepresenting the issue. Sex - whether normal or "deviant" was not discussed. As far as discussing the "homosexual community" or the issue of "couples" - the existence of homosexuals in the community is no secret and is part of the historical record.


The report was no more or less then a report on an activist - Harvey Milk, who was the first openly gay man elected to office. It's not a report either condoning or condemning the "gay lifestyle" nor is it about sexuality other than identifying him as homosexual and as an activist fighting against discrimmination towards homosexuals in law, employment and public treatment. Gay marriage did not even enter into it.

Whether or not schools at any level are the appropriate forum to discuss or learn about sex is a very controversial issue but utterly irrelevant since that was not what was being discussed. Sexual orientation is a matter of common knowledge by 6th grades even if the details aren't.
 
If this wasn't so pathetic, it would be funny. Do you imagine there are homosexuals hiding under your bed ready to pounce on your kids and teach them how to have homosexual sex? How do you function on a daily basis under such paranoia???


No... I am simply noting the real and present FACT that all over this country and throughout the western cultre, there are advocates of normalizing the abnormal who are standing at the head of classrooms FULL OF CHILDREN; MIS-informing those CHILDREN that the abnormal is the same thing as the normal; and that should they realize a moment of confusion; wherein the emotion of endearment, for a person of the same gender who has perhaps gone the extra mile in friendship or otherwise provided for a singular momentary inter-personal bonding; in a way which produces a momentary feeling of sexual arousal for that person of the same gender, that they should pursue that arousal... that they should act upon that arousal, and not simply understand that such is a temporal confusion presented through the emotional bonding and the associated hormonal stimulation, which is similar but distinct from normal sexual arousal... and that being abnormal is just FINE...

I'll bet there have been homosexuals teaching children for years and you just didn't know enough to hate them until they identified themselves as such. Your ignorance is really astounding and at times quite comical.

LOL...

What should we do if we were to come across a leftist who actually speaks to the argument and doesn't run to disemble, obfuscate or otherwise cloud the issue?

Clearly, my position did not make ANY reference to HOMOSEXUAL TEACHERS... None...

Yet here is the left DEMANDING by implication that homo's are ever present and harmless... and anyone that fears a fag is just a paranoid closeted redneck.

Let's review...

If this wasn't so pathetic, it would be funny. Do you imagine there are homosexuals hiding under your bed ready to pounce on your kids and teach them how to have homosexual sex? How do you function on a daily basis under such paranoia???


No... I am simply noting the real and present FACT that all over this country and throughout the western culture, that there are advocates of normalizing the abnormal who are standing at the head of classrooms FULL OF CHILDREN; MIS-informing those CHILDREN that the abnormal is the same thing as the normal;

and that should they (the CHILDREN) realize a moment of confusion; wherein the emotion of endearment for a person of the same gender who has perhaps gone the extra mile in friendship or otherwise provided for a singular momentary inter-personal bonding, in a way which produces a momentary feeling of sexual arousal for that person of the same gender, that they (THE CHILDREN) should pursue that arousal... that they should act upon that arousal, and not simply understand that such is a temporal confusion presented through the emotional bonding and the associated hormonal stimulation, which is similar to but distinct from normal sexual arousal, (thus is NOT TO BE PURSUED); and that being abnormal is just FINE...

Note the distinction in what I said and what this imbecile misrepresented... that I said...

Ya see kids, the left HAS TO PROJECT ANY CONTEST as HATE... There's nothing different in what this generation of leftists are doing with the advocacy to normalize sexual deviancy and what their comrade predecessors did in Nazi Germany in the 1930s...

Anyone who contests their sacred cows is a HATE-MONGER AKA:Dirty Jew.

Now keep in mind that this discussion began over the bill which firms up the HATE CRIME LAWS... establishing civil protections for SEXUAL DEVIANTS; which include the loathesome PEDOPHILES...

Feel better? Well ya SHOULD... it's all spawned from the AUDACITY TO HOPE... for CHANGE. And these intellectual dullards are HOPING TO CHANGE THIS CULTURE FROM ONE WHICH ESTABLISHES AND MAINTAINS HIGH CULTURE STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOR TO A CULTURE WITH NO STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOR; where every form of debauchery is recognized as 'perfectly normal'...

You're presently witnessing the fall of the American culture... and whose providing it for you? Your tolerant and compassionate... Ideological Left.
 
Last edited:
Sexual orientation is a matter of common knowledge by 6th grades even if the details aren't.

Which IS the issue... and a travesty of REASON... That a 11 year old has ANY notion of sexuality is absurd.

And who do we have to THANK for 6th graders being sexualized?

Your local force for tolerance and compassion... The ideological LEFT!

AKA: THE PROBLEM!
 
No... I am simply noting the real and present FACT that all over this country and throughout the western cultre, there are advocates of normalizing the abnormal who are standing at the head of classrooms FULL OF CHILDREN; MIS-informing those CHILDREN that the abnormal is the same thing as the normal; and that should they realize a moment of confusion; wherein the emotion of endearment, for a person of the same gender who has perhaps gone the extra mile in friendship or otherwise provided for a singular momentary inter-personal bonding; in a way which produces a momentary feeling of sexual arousal for that person of the same gender, that they should pursue that arousal... that they should act upon that arousal, and not simply understand that such is a temporal confusion presented through the emotional bonding and the associated hormonal stimulation, which is similar but distinct from normal sexual arousal... and that being abnormal is just FINE...

I'll bet there have been homosexuals teaching children for years and you just didn't know enough to hate them until they identified themselves as such. Your ignorance is really astounding and at times quite comical.

LOL...

What should we do if we were to come across a leftist who actually speaks to the argument and doesn't run to disemble, obfuscate or otherwise cloud the issue?

Clearly, my position did not make ANY reference to HOMOSEXUAL TEACHERS... None...


I didn't say you did, fuckwad. I mentioned homosexual teachers to make a point.
That whooshing noise you hear is that point sailing over your little head.
 

Forum List

Back
Top