Activists and their agenda

[RetiredGySgt]

The lady and the school have it right. She is being moved up for her abilities in regards the position. Her credentials and her abilities as an Educator.

The activists can and do cause all kind of problems. This is no milestone, except that she is considered as a PERSON and an educator to meet the needs of the University.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080530/ap_on_re_us/openly_gay_chancellor

Shit like this is why the military is right in requiring no openly gay people serve in the military. The position and her appointment have NOTHING to do with her sexual orientation.

 

[midcan5]

Shit like this is why the military is right in requiring no openly gay people serve in the military. The position and her appointment have NOTHING to do with her sexual orientation.

Shit?

 

[jillian]

Or maybe the answer is to punish the people who discriminate instead of telling the people who are discriminated against "well, if you just didn't tell anyone, it would be ok....."

 

[manifold]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6S2cX046xlU&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6S2cX046xlU&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

 

[Gunny]

Or maybe the answer is to punish the people who discriminate instead of telling the people who are discriminated against "well, if you just didn't tell anyone, it would be ok....."

Or maybe the answer is since sexual orientation is completely irrelevant to being an educator she should keep it to herself?

There's no need to "punish" anyone. Don't throw your trash in the street needlessly and people won't be digging through it and judging you for it.

One of the base arguments the left makes on behalf of homosexuals is that it's nobody's business what goes on between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home. I agree. So keep it THERE. THAT is where it belongs.

How many heterosexuals do you see or hear walking around proclaiming their sexual preferences? Of the ones that do, how many of them do you NOT judge as classless? The guys are dogs and women are sluts. That's default judgement.

But it's okay for homosexuals to flaunt their sexual orientation? I think not. I don't give a damned who or WHAT anyone has sex with. It's none of my business. But if you stick your weird-ass behavior in my face -- just like I would someone picking their nose in public -- I'm going to judge you on your behavior.

Just the usual double standard going on here.

 

[Annie]

Or maybe the answer is since sexual orientation is completely irrelevant to being an educator she should keep it to herself?

There's no need to "punish" anyone. Don't throw your trash in the street needlessly and people won't be digging through it and judging you for it.

One of the base arguments the left makes on behalf of homosexuals is that it's nobody's business what goes on between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home. I agree. So keep it THERE. THAT is where it belongs.

How many heterosexuals do you see or hear walking around proclaiming their sexual preferences? Of the ones that do, how many of them do you NOT judge as classless? The guys are dogs and women are sluts. That's default judgement.

But it's okay for homosexuals to flaunt their sexual orientation? I think not. I don't give a damned who or WHAT anyone has sex with. It's none of my business. But if you stick your weird-ass behavior in my face -- just like I would someone picking their nose in public -- I'm going to judge you on your behavior.

Just the usual double standard going on here.

I agree. What is often overlooked is that if a heterosexual teacher or most professionals were talking about their sex lives, they wouldn't be respected and in fact would probably be counseled to 'knock it off.' Too many details is just not good work practice.

 

[SingingMongoose]

She is being moved up for her abilities in regards the position. Her credentials and her abilities as an Educator.

What an incredible spin you put on things. No gay rights activist would disagree that she's being promoted for her abilities; some homophobes, on the other hand, just might. The only "agenda" is to make sure that people don't discriminate based on sexual orientation; to make sure that gay people aren't refused jobs (or benefits) simply for being gay.

Naturally, Michiganders voted for Proposal 2, then turned around and said "Wait, we didn't mean for their benefits to be taken away! Gee whillickers, that isn't fair!" Those activist judges are at it again, I guess.

Shit like this is why the military is right in requiring no openly gay people serve in the military.

That makes no sense at all. Here you're saying that an openly gay person is being hired based on credentials, and somehow that means the military's homophobia is okay? You're saying that the military is right to not allow openly gay people, and also saying "The lady and the school have it right?"

How many heterosexuals do you see or hear walking around proclaiming their sexual preferences?

You're definitely rationalizing bigotry. Just because someone is openly gay doesn't mean they "walk around proclaiming their sexual 'preferences.'" (I like the incorrect use of "preferences," very subtle.) I'll grant that it would be annoying, but none of the gay people I know get in my face about it.

What happens if a coworker simply asks, "are you gay?" What happens if someone is with their partner and a coworker sees them? They don't have to say "This is my partner," that's true, but how are they supposed to respond if someone asks "Is that your brother?" By suggesting that gay people shouldn't be open about their sexual orientation, you're saying that they should actively hide it. This shouldn't need to be explained.

Just the usual double standard going on here.

If only you knew.

You people not only deny the oppression that's in plain sight, you try to claim that it's working in reverse. Incredible.

 

[Ravi]

Manuel is gay?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Manuel is gay?

Well, if manifold is gay it's apparent he's only been "totally gay since Y2K"... or 2000... as per his byline.... which is only part of his life...or else he's only 8 yrs. old....

...of course that goes to show ya being gay is a CHOICE...I mean, is there some point where hets become "totally heterosexual"?

...oh, and when one CHOOSES the homo way....he gets a gaily colored flag to wave in everybodys face...anybody ever seen a het flag?

 

[jillian]

Or maybe the answer is since sexual orientation is completely irrelevant to being an educator she should keep it to herself?

BS ... you don't bring your wife to events? People don't know you're married? You're rationalizing your own prejudice, IMO.

There's no need to "punish" anyone. Don't throw your trash in the street needlessly and people won't be digging through it and judging you for it.

The fact that you call someone's family trash speaks volumes.

One of the base arguments the left makes on behalf of homosexuals is that it's nobody's business what goes on between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home. I agree. So keep it THERE. THAT is where it belongs.

How many heterosexuals do you see or hear walking around proclaiming their sexual preferences? Of the ones that do, how many of them do you NOT judge as classless? The guys are dogs and women are sluts. That's default judgement.

But it's okay for homosexuals to flaunt their sexual orientation? I think not. I don't give a damned who or WHAT anyone has sex with. It's none of my business. But if you stick your weird-ass behavior in my face -- just like I would someone picking their nose in public -- I'm going to judge you on your behavior.

Just the usual double standard going on here.

So ifyou say you're going away with your wife. And someone gay says they're going away with their wife, they're "flaunting"?

Yah... ok. Sure... I think the double standard is yours.

 

[Ravi]

Well, if manifold is gay it's apparent he's only been "totally gay since Y2K"... or 2000... as per his byline.... which is only part of his life...or else he's only 8 yrs. old....

...of course that goes to show ya being gay is a CHOICE...I mean, is there some point where hets become "totally heterosexual"?

...oh, and when one CHOOSES the homo way....he gets a gaily colored flag to wave in everybodys face...anybody ever seen a het flag?

I don't think it's a choice. Some people may struggle against it, like that foot-tapping republican, but it isn't a choice any more than it's a choice to be straight.

What I don't get is why you care so much.

 

[AllieBaba]

He didn't call anybody trash. He said it was stupid to throw your trash out there and expect it to go unnoticed.

 

[Abelian Sea]

There is a reasonable middle ground between flaunting and hiding one's sexuality, one that most people occupy, and one in which an observant coworker could, at least over time, easily tell one's orientation.

It is generally reasonable to expect people in a professional environment to not tell ribald tales of their weekend conquests, wear emblems of explicit sexuality, or otherwise frequently or pointedly turn their coworkers' minds to sexual matters.

It is not generally reasonable to expect people to behave in such a manner that their coworkers could never guess whether they prefered the intimate company of men or women. A certain amount of discussion about one's personal life is inevitable and, in moderation, healthy in the workplace. Even done entirely in good taste, though, such talk is sure to eventually reveal which kind of tail you'd rather tap.

So being "openly gay" does not necessarily mean that you're wearing a rainbow flagpin and exaggerating your lisp; it could just mean that when you talk about the vacation you took with your boyfriend, you don't bother to tiptoe around the term "boyfriend."

I can't tell from the arctile whether Ms. Martin is a flaunter or simply uncloseted. Both would be "open" but only the former obnoxious.

The lady and the school have it right. She is being moved up for her abilities in regards the position. Her credentials and her abilities as an Educator.

Yep.

The activists can and do cause all kind of problems. This is no milestone, except that she is considered as a PERSON and an educator to meet the needs of the University.

Well, it does highlight the fact that her known homosexuality didn't prevent the school from considering her strictly as a person and educator; that wouldn't always have been the case.

I do agree, though, that "gay rights advocates" are overexcited to claim this as a "milestone for their movement."

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I don't think it's a choice. Some people may struggle against it, like that foot-tapping republican, but it isn't a choice any more than it's a choice to be straight.

What I don't get is why you care so much.

How do you know it isn't a choice? It hasn't been proven that one is born gay. It could very well be the result of environmental experiences. Or some mixture&#8230;.who knows? Besides, whether or not you are born with and/or environmentally develop certain urges does not mean you automatically get "rights". A born/developed killer does not get a free pass. A born-blind person does not have a "right" to a drivers license.

In the beginning gays asked for tolerance and they got it. But now they want to change the whole traditional concept of marriage&#8230;.just for them of course, selfishly ignoring the other perverts waiting in that particular legal line. Now gays not only want society to TOLERATE them but also ACCEPT them as being as normal as heterosexuals. They want society to condone the choice of raising of motherless or fatherless children as well. In essence, they want abnormal to be accepted as normal.

We the People have the right to regulate marriage within our respective States&#8230;not the federal govt. We have the right to make or change law. Millions of Californians voted to make marriage solely between a man and a woman. However, 4 out of 7 pinhead liberal activist judges thought there was some gay marriage "right" written somewhere between the lines of the constitution&#8230;.they totally ignored the Peoples Initiative&#8230;this is gay activism gone beserk.

However, that's why the Far Left supports and pushes the thorny gay agenda and activist judges&#8230;.they wish to destroy our society by causing all sorts of mayhem and break down the democratic process within our country in order to institute their leftist (not gay) agenda. That's what the poltical activism and flag waving is really all about...

 

[Ravi]

Funny, it was actually a conservative court that decided, correctly, that the people don't get to vote on the issue of civil rights.

As for if it's a choice or something you are born to, I don't think it matters. It's probably a combination of the two. As long as no one is being harmed, there is no reason they shouldn't get the same opportunities as the rest of us. YOU don't have a right to not be offended, and really, that is the only valid excuse I've ever heard.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Funny, it was actually a conservative court that decided, correctly, that the people don't get to vote on the issue of civil rights.

As for if it's a choice or something you are born to, I don't think it matters. It's probably a combination of the two. As long as no one is being harmed, there is no reason they shouldn't get the same opportunities as the rest of us. YOU don't have a right to not be offended, and really, that is the only valid excuse I've ever heard.

Funny how some conservative-appointed judges change their stripes when they are finally secure in their appointments&#8230;especially under the so-called "conservative" governorship of Callyfornia.

You say "no one is harmed" by gay marriage - I disagree. First, children are harmed. Children of gay parents are raised without the benefit of living with either their mother or father. To arbitrarily void one's biological parent and heritage is a travesty. Second, society is harmed. Gay marriage unravels all the traditional smooth workings of marriage and society as well as unleashing destructive ramifications.

Sure I have every right to "not be offended". I have the right to "not be offended" by thieves. To "not be offended" by slander. To "not be offended" by naked people on the streets. And to "not be offended" by gay marriage. This right to "not be offended" is a form of free speech and opinion to be expressed through the making of laws which address those issues&#8230;as was done by the millions of California voters.

 

[Ravi]

Funny how some conservative-appointed judges change their stripes when they are finally secure in their appointments…especially under the so-called "conservative" governorship of Callyfornia.

You say "no one is harmed" by gay marriage - I disagree. First, children are harmed. Children of gay parents are raised without the benefit of living with either their mother or father. To arbitrarily void one's biological parent and heritage is a travesty. Second, society is harmed. Gay marriage unravels all the traditional smooth workings of marriage and society as well as unleashing destructive ramifications.

Sure I have every right to "not be offended". I have the right to "not be offended" by thieves. To "not be offended" by slander. To "not be offended" by naked people on the streets. And to "not be offended" by gay marriage. This right to "not be offended" is a form of free speech and opinion to be expressed through the making of laws which address those issues…as was done by the millions of California voters.

No, you really don't have a right to not be offended. And you should be thankful that you don't, otherwise we could be offended by you and outlaw you.

As for it harming the children, Larkin seems to have turned out okay except he can't admit to being wrong and he's a bit whacked over the meaning of what unity means. Society is flexible. The real harm is caused by busybodies that are afraid they'll suddenly turn gay.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No, you really don't have a right to not be offended. And you should be thankful that you don't, otherwise we could be offended by you and outlaw you.

Sorry, but yes, I really do have the right to not be offended&#8230;if I can put my opinion into law. You seem to be missing that critical point. I have the right to not be offended by naked people walking down the street....because that opinion was put into law.

As for it harming the children, Larkin seems to have turned out okay except he can't admit to being wrong and he's a bit whacked over the meaning of what unity means. Society is flexible. The real harm is caused by busybodies that are afraid they'll suddenly turn gay.

So you are going to judge all of society by Larky boy? Haha, you set your standards kinda low doncha...given he's probably a first class momma's boy&#8230;.given he thinks he's never wrong&#8230;growing up with two mommies and all. Sure, society is flexible to a degree but society can also be radically changed and morph into something that is not at all desirable. Are you willing to step into the realm of polyamory, polygamy, and incestous marriage next? Are you willing to see even more children raised in risky environments where they are not even secure in the knowledge of who their real parents are? How about the emotional development of a child who has to share a father with 29 other children? And how about those two "just wonderful" gay men who want to adopt 6 kids...all boys. The destruction of the core family unit is destructive to society. And it's ALWAYS the children who suffer when society experiments.

The real harm is caused by political busybodies who think they are open-minded and "progressive" .... instead of being simply pawns in the Far Left's endgame of destroying the family unit and replacing it with the State.