Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

gawker.com/5951699/bigoted-christian-gr ... -lifestyle

The Christian Group, American Family Association Opposes Anti-Bullying Day, Says It Promotes ‘Homosexual Lifestyle’.

polsongrizz wrote:gawker.com/5951699/bigoted-christian-gr ... -lifestyle

The Christian Group, American Family Association Opposes Anti-Bullying Day, Says It Promotes ‘Homosexual Lifestyle’.

I would fix that but I am just too busy...

Well, what you'd have to do in order to judge the legitimacy of the claim is do your own independent research to trace to the origin of this "Mix it up at Lunch" event. I would not be at all surprised to find that the primary motivation for it is indeed to promote the homosexual lifestyle; especially since the Southern Poverty Law Center is involved.

Now, you can think that's a good thing or you can think that it's a bad thing. But the assertion that the event was designed in large measure to promote the homosexual lifestyle does not, to me, stretch credibility.

JohnStOnge wrote:
But the assertion that the event was designed in large measure to promote the homosexual lifestyle does not, to me, stretch credibility.

That's because you're a fucking whackjob.

JohnStOnge wrote:Well, what you'd have to do in order to judge the legitimacy of the claim is do your own independent research to trace to the origin of this "Mix it up at Lunch" event. I would not be at all surprised to find that the primary motivation for it is indeed to promote the homosexual lifestyle; especially since the Southern Poverty Law Center is involved.

Now, you can think that's a good thing or you can think that it's a bad thing. But the assertion that the event was designed in large measure to promote the homosexual lifestyle does not, to me, stretch credibility.

Well, that is because you are one of the blind fucking idiots, commonly called a Sheeple...

Well I read a little bit about it and, while I'd bet it wasn't established specifically to promote the homosexual lifestyle, I am opposed to it. The reason is that it is social engineering.

I do not think government...including government schools...should be involved in that kind of socialization. The purpose of schools should be to teach students to do math, write effectively, be aware of history, etc. Getting involved in egalitarian agendas such as making students "understand" each other should not be part of the agenda. If students misbehave take disciplinary action. But don't be trying to indoctrinate them like that.

If students want to stay in cliques as far as their social interaction goes that should be their business. Schools should not be trying to govern who they choose to associate with socially. Not even for one day.

Well, that is because you are one of the blind **** idiots, commonly called a Sheeple...

Now, the term "Sheeple" implies reference to someone who tends to go along with the crowd. You may disagree with me. No doubt you do. But at this point, having seen me post for years, I'm astounded that you think I'm somebody who goes along with the crowd.

In fact your starting this thread implies that you're closer to being in that category than I am. I say that because one of the "in" thing to do right now is to go with the "gay rights" thing. It's the "in" thing to do. It shows that you're in with the "in" crowd. Same with bashing Christian groups. Shows you're "hip" and in with the "in crowd."

And I think you know you're not going to see me doing that.

I don't see how you equate teaching kids to respect each other as being indoctrinated or are pushed into being Gay. I mean if that is the case then pretty much everything we teach kids is indoctrination into something.
Either that or you are very easily persuaded to do things you don't want to and right this minute are washing your pooper after a Don't Bully seminar...

JohnStOnge wrote:Well I read a little bit about it and, while I'd bet it wasn't established specifically to promote the homosexual lifestyle, I am opposed to it. The reason is that it is social engineering.

I do not think government...including government schools...should be involved in that kind of socialization. The purpose of schools should be to teach students to do math, write effectively, be aware of history, etc. Getting involved in egalitarian agendas such as making students "understand" each other should not be part of the agenda. If students misbehave take disciplinary action. But don't be trying to indoctrinate them like that.

If students want to stay in cliques as far as their social interaction goes that should be their business. Schools should not be trying to govern who they choose to associate with socially. Not even for one day.

I have very little problem with schools promoting kids to not be little assholes. After all, they are responsible for what happens to our kids for 8 hours/day.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Well, that is because you are one of the blind **** idiots, commonly called a Sheeple...

Now, the term "Sheeple" implies reference to someone who tends to go along with the crowd. You may disagree with me. No doubt you do. But at this point, having seen me post for years, I'm astounded that you think I'm somebody who goes along with the crowd.

In fact your starting this thread implies that you're closer to being in that category than I am. I say that because one of the "in" thing to do right now is to go with the "gay rights" thing. It's the "in" thing to do. It shows that you're in with the "in" crowd. Same with bashing Christian groups. Shows you're "hip" and in with the "in crowd."

And I think you know you're not going to see me doing that.

I see where you are going with this. But I disagree obviously. You see you are following the trend of the Right Wing Churcher sect to hate everything that doesn't fit into their screwy version of morality. Oh no look, someone tryiong to teach kids to get along. Bastards are obviously recruiting them into the "GAYS"
As for me, my Best Man was not only Black but Gay. And that was in "77" in the state of MT.
As for bashing Churchers, all they have to do is keep their moral bullshit to themselves and quite trying to legislate that I have to believe what they do.

I see where you are going with this. But I disagree obviously. You see you are following the trend of the Right Wing Churcher sect to hate everything that doesn't fit into their screwy version of morality. Oh no look, someone tryiong to teach kids to get along. Bastards are obviously recruiting them into the "GAYS"
As for me, my Best Man was not only Black but Gay. And that was in "77" in the state of MT.
As for bashing Churchers, all they have to do is keep their moral bullshit to themselves and quite trying to legislate that I have to believe what they do.

I think if you read the post before the one in which I responded to you you'll see that, after reading a little bit about it, I said I'd bet the event was not established to promote a homosexual lifestyle.

The point is that you, right now, are way more in line with the "group think" of popular culture than I am. That doesn't mean you are wrong. Just that you are more in line with the "acceptable" way to think. If either one of us is going to be tabbed as going along with the crowd...being a sheep...right now; it's you and not me.

For instance you obviously think it's good to have schools involved in this kind of socialization and I do not. I want schools to worry about teaching math, science (yes, even evolution), language, etc. and stay completely away from how children socialize when they're doing things like eating lunch unless they cross the line and actually attack other students in some way. They shouldn't be worrying about whether or not kids are racists or not, sexists or not, "homophobes" or not, and so on. That, to me, is not their role. Or at least it shouldn't be.

Care to guess as to who is more "going along with the crowd?"

JohnStOnge wrote:

I see where you are going with this. But I disagree obviously. You see you are following the trend of the Right Wing Churcher sect to hate everything that doesn't fit into their screwy version of morality. Oh no look, someone tryiong to teach kids to get along. Bastards are obviously recruiting them into the "GAYS"
As for me, my Best Man was not only Black but Gay. And that was in "77" in the state of MT.
As for bashing Churchers, all they have to do is keep their moral bullshit to themselves and quite trying to legislate that I have to believe what they do.

I think if you read the post before the one in which I responded to you you'll see that, after reading a little bit about it, I said I'd bet the event was not established to promote a homosexual lifestyle.

The point is that you, right now, are way more in line with the "group think" of popular culture than I am. That doesn't mean you are wrong. Just that you are more in line with the "acceptable" way to think. If either one of us is going to be tabbed as going along with the crowd...being a sheep...right now; it's you and not me.

For instance you obviously think it's good to have schools involved in this kind of socialization and I do not. I want schools to worry about teaching math, science (yes, even evolution), language, etc. and stay completely away from how children socialize when they're doing things like eating lunch unless they cross the line and actually attack other students in some way. They shouldn't be worrying about whether or not kids are racists or not, sexists or not, "homophobes" or not, and so on. That, to me, is not their role. Or at least it shouldn't be.

Care to guess as to who is more "going along with the crowd?"

Where is it alleged that is happening?

JohnStOnge wrote:

I see where you are going with this. But I disagree obviously. You see you are following the trend of the Right Wing Churcher sect to hate everything that doesn't fit into their screwy version of morality. Oh no look, someone tryiong to teach kids to get along. Bastards are obviously recruiting them into the "GAYS"
As for me, my Best Man was not only Black but Gay. And that was in "77" in the state of MT.
As for bashing Churchers, all they have to do is keep their moral bullshit to themselves and quite trying to legislate that I have to believe what they do.

I think if you read the post before the one in which I responded to you you'll see that, after reading a little bit about it, I said I'd bet the event was not established to promote a homosexual lifestyle.

The point is that you, right now, are way more in line with the "group think" of popular culture than I am. That doesn't mean you are wrong. Just that you are more in line with the "acceptable" way to think. If either one of us is going to be tabbed as going along with the crowd...being a sheep...right now; it's you and not me.

For instance you obviously think it's good to have schools involved in this kind of socialization and I do not. I want schools to worry about teaching math, science (yes, even evolution), language, etc. and stay completely away from how children socialize when they're doing things like eating lunch unless they cross the line and actually attack other students in some way. They shouldn't be worrying about whether or not kids are racists or not, sexists or not, "homophobes" or not, and so on. That, to me, is not their role. Or at least it shouldn't be.

Care to guess as to who is more "going along with the crowd?"

I guess you don't remember one single thing about school then. Teachers teach kids constantly about social skills, their kids, they are learning all of the time, even more so at those ages.
And yes kids do "attack" each other every day, whether verbally or physically. If yo don't remember that then you must be one of those Boarding school kids.
I do suppose those having a party for Columbus teaches them something...

JohnStOnge wrote:Well, what you'd have to do in order to judge the legitimacy of the claim is do your own independent research to trace to the origin of this "Mix it up at Lunch" event. I would not be at all surprised to find that the primary motivation for it is indeed to promote the homosexual lifestyle; especially since the Southern Poverty Law Center is involved.

Now, you can think that's a good thing or you can think that it's a bad thing. But the assertion that the event was designed in large measure to promote the homosexual lifestyle does not, to me, stretch credibility.

Good grief what a tedious weenie...your poor wife....

houndawg wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Well, what you'd have to do in order to judge the legitimacy of the claim is do your own independent research to trace to the origin of this "Mix it up at Lunch" event. I would not be at all surprised to find that the primary motivation for it is indeed to promote the homosexual lifestyle; especially since the Southern Poverty Law Center is involved.

Now, you can think that's a good thing or you can think that it's a bad thing. But the assertion that the event was designed in large measure to promote the homosexual lifestyle does not, to me, stretch credibility.

Good grief what a tedious weenie...your poor wife....

polsongrizz wrote: I guess you don't remember one single thing about school then. Teachers teach kids constantly about social skills, their kids, they are learning all of the time, even more so at those ages.

polsongrizz wrote: Well, that is because you are one of the blind fucking idiots, commonly called a Sheeple...

There's a bit of irony in those posts and one doesn't have to dig very far to find it.

I don't believe in teaching people to respect each other either...
In fact I think that's ridiculous

We should teach what ethics "is"
And where it comes from and why it's lasted over time ad infinitum...

Side Note:
Fundamentalists of all sorts demand respect fairly loudly and fairly regularly
Yet typically respect no one else and offer up little in the way of human cultural (developmental) growth
They (Fundamentalists) retard cultural growth and the forward progress of man

They are the reverse enlightenment squad here to remind the sane humans where we once were and provide a jockey for the race back to the dark ages

houndawg wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Well, what you'd have to do in order to judge the legitimacy of the claim is do your own independent research to trace to the origin of this "Mix it up at Lunch" event. I would not be at all surprised to find that the primary motivation for it is indeed to promote the homosexual lifestyle; especially since the Southern Poverty Law Center is involved.

Now, you can think that's a good thing or you can think that it's a bad thing. But the assertion that the event was designed in large measure to promote the homosexual lifestyle does not, to me, stretch credibility.

Good grief what a tedious weenie...your poor wife....

St. Wronge's wives

D1B wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Good grief what a tedious weenie...your poor wife....

St. Wronge's wives

Chizzang wrote:I don't believe in teaching people to respect each other either...
In fact I think that's ridiculous

We should teach what ethics "is"
And where it comes from and why it's lasted over time ad infinitum...

Side Note:
Fundamentalists of all sorts demand respect fairly loudly and fairly regularly
Yet typically respect no one else and offer up little in the way of human cultural (developmental) growth
They (Fundamentalists) retard cultural growth and the forward progress of man

They are the reverse enlightenment squad here to remind the sane humans where we once were and provide a jockey for the race back to the dark ages

Is bullying ethical? Is bullying "dark ages"?

(you may be a worse libertarian than you are a liberal)

polsongrizz wrote: Teachers teach kids constantly about social skills, their kids, they are learning all of the time, even more so at those ages.

Do they? Maybe to the point where they are not disruptive to the teachings, but you may be stretching that a bit regarding "social skills".

Also, poor sentence structure there.

Hate group in sheeps clothing!

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Well I read a little bit about it and, while I'd bet it wasn't established specifically to promote the homosexual lifestyle, I am opposed to it. The reason is that it is social engineering.

I do not think government...including government schools...should be involved in that kind of socialization. The purpose of schools should be to teach students to do math, write effectively, be aware of history, etc. Getting involved in egalitarian agendas such as making students "understand" each other should not be part of the agenda. If students misbehave take disciplinary action. But don't be trying to indoctrinate them like that.

If students want to stay in cliques as far as their social interaction goes that should be their business. Schools should not be trying to govern who they choose to associate with socially. Not even for one day.

I have very little problem with schools promoting kids to not be little assholes. After all, they are responsible for what happens to our kids for 8 hours/day.

Isn't it more like 6 hours per day (not counting bus time)?

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
I have very little problem with schools promoting kids to not be little assholes. After all, they are responsible for what happens to our kids for 8 hours/day.

Isn't it more like 6 hours per day (not counting bus time)?

The school district is still responsible for them on the bus. Mine get on it at 7:45 and get home at 3:30

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Isn't it more like 6 hours per day (not counting bus time)?

The school district is still responsible for them on the bus. Mine get on it at 7:45 and get home at 3:30

Wow, long bus ride? My kids don't get on until 8:30 and get home at the same time. You people out west are just too spread out!