musicman said:I want to answer this VERY carefully and VERY respectfully, mom4. The temptation to indulge in a double entendre is almost unbearable!
Not that hair MM!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
musicman said:I want to answer this VERY carefully and VERY respectfully, mom4. The temptation to indulge in a double entendre is almost unbearable!
Said1 said:She had cancer, now I feel like a heel. :
musicman said:I'm so bad... :dev1:
Bullypulpit said:Yeah, you should.
Bullypulpit said:Yeah, you should.
mom4 said:As opposed to indoctrinating them behind your back?
mom4 said:Do all lesbians have long straight hair parted in the middle?
-=d=- said:Uh...in the movies, they look like this:
Syntax_Divinity said:...I don't know really. I mean, I don't like pain, but I feel that maybe, years later, I know it's unlikely, but maybe they'll look back and remember what I said to them and maybe try to think for themselves.
Syntax_Divinity said:I don't see how me attempting to speak with one of the children of this group entitles him to strike me. I don't even know for sure whether the kid I was talking to was his kid, but regardless, I didn't "accost" him. I can't believe anyone would think that engaging in violence against someone that simply spoke to your children, in a non threatening manner, could be condoned by anyone. I mean, if a teacher in a classroom is teaching evolution and you believe in creation, and think that that teacher is threatening the soul of you kid, should a jury aquit you for beating the shit out of the teacher? Of course not, that's fucking retarded. Give me a break, I want to see this guy go down and serve some time, he sets two horrible example for the children of this religious group: You have God on your side when you preach hate and rage, and you can beat the shit out of people that threaten your views. Give me a break.
no1tovote4 said:No, as opposed to say, getting a sign and working within your rights across from those you wish to oppose. What I was attempting to show is that doing this in front of the parent invites the violence. If they did do it behind their back they would not have been directly attacked. One hopes that they would teach their children enough that they could withstand such indoctrination but insulting their belief in front of them is moving beyond normal societal limits. The Supreme Court talks about "fighting words" and allows that some things would make a person attack you if you said them, I think that this might be one of those cases. I also think the term zealotry was misapplied in this case, when you cross that societal barrier in order to attempt indocrination it smacks of zealotry in its own right.
It would be pretty much the same as the Christians that attempted to convert people at a Gay Pride rally and were arrested for their trouble because attempts at conversion are apparantly, "Hate Speech".
I understand why the Homosexuals were upset and think that those Christians crossed a line where they were clearly not wanted and put themselves in danger. When they were attacked and then arrested (charges were later dropped by the courts) it was only to be expected. To be shocked by the actions of others that believe they are protecting their children when you attempt to accost those children and teach them against their belief is simply disingenuous.