*Promote - Kudos for taking a stand and sticking up for the kids and people that will never see that Bill before they try to slip it past. Completely makes you shake your head at the people who wrote that Bill in the first place.

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Friday, November 4th, 2011 4:54am PDT - promote requested by Sagemind.

Upvote, because for once.. we have a Senator that obviously gives a shit a the constituents, rather than corporations. She's a rare one.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by NetRunner.

Thank you! This is the only way I, and probably many others, will have come to know the content of this bill. That the religious right would try to slip something like this by in what is supposed to be anti-bullying legislation is disgusting yet sadly predictable.

edit: thank you @NetRunner for the quality!

>> ^Sagemind:

Promote - Kudos for taking a stand and sticking up for the kids and people that will never see that Bill before they try to slip it past. Completely makes you shake your head at the people who wrote that Bill in the first place.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Friday, November 4th, 2011 11:13am PDT - promote requested by lavoll.

It sounds like a victory for the "god hates fags" crowd. I can't wait to watch future cases of "my religious beliefs trump your basic human rights" in the news. What better way to protect the young ignorant zealots they're raising to do battle against the heathens.

Beyond disgusting.

Does anyone have the actual text of the bill?

Here's the text that was added at the last minute:

“This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian.”

So, apparently even teachers are free to inform their kids that god hates whatever minority they might belong to. As long as they do so with sincerity, and aren't just faking religious bigotry.

And here's the full bill

>> ^rebuilder:

Does anyone have the actual text of the bill?

>> ^entr0py:

Here's the text that was added at the last minute:
“This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian.”
So, apparently even teachers are free to inform their kids that god hates whatever minority they might belong to. As long as they do so with sincerity, and aren't just faking religious bigotry.
And here's the full bill
>> ^rebuilder:
Does anyone have the actual text of the bill?



Which religious bigots committee gets to decide if they are faking it or not?

But wait! Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids.

When will this trendy save-gays-from-bullying business fall out of favor with the left for a new cause?

Wouldn't it be so much easier if America just banned free speech like the canucks did?

It would be easier than getting rid of government schools.

>> ^quantumushroom:

But wait! Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids.
When will this trendy save-gays-from-bullying business fall out of favor with the left for a new cause?
Wouldn't it be so much easier if America just banned free speech like the canucks did?
It would be easier than getting rid of government schools.


I think the left is concerned with Bullying in all forms. This bill however doesn't say "You can bully asians kids if you're bad at math" it's giving an out for people who want to beat up gay kids.

Bullying is wrong, as you pointed out. How could you disagree with bullying is wrong unless you've got a REALLY GOOD (Religious) Reason?

EDIT: Also you're actually wrong, anyone who's taking a statistics class can see that those numbers are incorrect. So not only were you wrong in principle, you're wrong on the facts. Thanks again for proving how stupid you are.

Is being gay the same as being part of an ethnic group?

I am pretty sure hate speech is not free speech. As a canuck and all.

Let's face it, some of these politicians are just pure Evil! You can't reason with them.

Some religious beliefs extend hate towards pretty much everyone alive today so basically this law makes all forms of bullying OK! As long as you hate people sincerely then it is OK to beat them and verbally abuse them.

>> ^quantumushroom:

But wait! Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids.


Where does that article state that "Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids", or anything even remotely like that?

Aside from your ludicrous implication that because one group is getting it worse then another group should shut up, the bases for this implication seems to be built on absolutely nothing.

How about not bullying anyone?

I don't condone bullying of any kind.

However, as Dan Savage has said repeatedly, the difference with gay kids is that they often go home to bullying, they go to church and are bullied. They are often thrown out onto the streets by their parents because they are gay.

Asian kids don't face that. They go home to a place where it is safe to be Asian.

I think I am going to have to take a break from you, Q. I know you think you are "right", but lately it has gotten to be too much for me.

Catch you on the rebound.


>> ^quantumushroom:

But wait! Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids.
When will this trendy save-gays-from-bullying business fall out of favor with the left for a new cause?
Wouldn't it be so much easier if America just banned free speech like the canucks did?
It would be easier than getting rid of government schools.

The data comes from a 2009 survey supported by the US Justice Department and Education Department which interviewed some 6,500 students from ages 12 to 18. Asian Americans are generally defined as tracing ancestry to East Asia, the Indian subcontinent or the South Pacific.

Argue that these guys are 'stupid'. And while you're at it, where's your statistical counter-proof that you know what the fuck YOU'RE talking about?


>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
But wait! Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids.
When will this trendy save-gays-from-bullying business fall out of favor with the left for a new cause?
Wouldn't it be so much easier if America just banned free speech like the canucks did?
It would be easier than getting rid of government schools.

I think the left is concerned with Bullying in all forms. This bill however doesn't say "You can bully asians kids if you're bad at math" it's giving an out for people who want to beat up gay kids.
Bullying is wrong, as you pointed out. How could you disagree with bullying is wrong unless you've got a REALLY GOOD (Religious) Reason?
EDIT: Also you're actually wrong, anyone who's taking a statistics class can see that those numbers are incorrect. So not only were you wrong in principle, you're wrong on the facts. Thanks again for proving how stupid you are.

Good catch, @Quboid. If Asian kids are the "most" bullied than that means more so than any other group.

Aside from your ludicrous implication that because one group is getting it worse then another group should shut up, the bases for this implication seems to be built on absolutely nothing.

How about not bullying anyone?

You make the point for me. If this is an anti-bullying measure, then it has no bearing on whether or not the victim is gay, Asian, etc. Presumably it increases punishment of the bullies.

One third of the population are fuckups and will be no matter what you do. It's called The Bell Curve. The incapability of dealing with children bullying is a small scale example of the grand failure that is liberalism, and the dearth of common fucking sense and lack of personal empowerment that liberalism promotes amplify these evils.

The Bowing Kenyawaiian tries to placate dictators and the hopelessly swamped and time-wasting state government and government school bureaucracy tries to make a network of laws and rules that only end up strangling freedoms in the name of safety.

Do gay kids deserve equal protection? Yup. Do they deserve special protection that infringes on others' freedom? Nope.

At this stage of the game, if a gay kid is self-aware he should already be learning how to to fight, because just as 9-1-1 is government-sponsored dial-a-prayer for those who don't own guns, no teacher or camera is always going to be there to protect every bullied child.








>> ^Quboid:

>> ^quantumushroom:
But wait! Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids.

Where does that article state that "Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids", or anything even remotely like that?
Aside from your ludicrous implication that because one group is getting it worse then another group should shut up, the bases for this implication seems to be built on absolutely nothing.
How about not bullying anyone?

I don't condone bullying of any kind.

Nor do I, but you know what? Bullying still exists and must be dealt with, and this bullshit trendy law ain't doing it.

However, as Dan Savage has said repeatedly, the difference with gay kids is that they often go home to bullying, they go to church and are bullied. They are often thrown out onto the streets by their parents because they are gay.

It's sad and it's true, but an anti-bullying law at a government school isn't going to change it.

Asian kids don't face that. They go home to a place where it is safe to be Asian.

Safe to be Asian but maybe not to be a 'failure' with bad grades? And again, what law is supposed to measure suffering?


I think I am going to have to take a break from you, Q. I know you think you are "right", but lately it has gotten to be too much for me.

I am right. Everyone here believes they are right. I am just more right more of the time.

Catch you on the rebound.

Oh, I answered your other post. It'll be waiting for you when you get back.











>> ^bareboards2:

I don't condone bullying of any kind.
However, as Dan Savage has said repeatedly, the difference with gay kids is that they often go home to bullying, they go to church and are bullied. They are often thrown out onto the streets by their parents because they are gay.
Asian kids don't face that. They go home to a place where it is safe to be Asian.
I think I am going to have to take a break from you, Q. I know you think you are "right", but lately it has gotten to be too much for me.
Catch you on the rebound.

>> ^quantumushroom:
But wait! Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids.
When will this trendy save-gays-from-bullying business fall out of favor with the left for a new cause?
Wouldn't it be so much easier if America just banned free speech like the canucks did?
It would be easier than getting rid of government schools.

Did you read beyond the headline? "Asian Americans endure far more bullying at US schools than members of other ethnic group". "Gay" isn't an ethnic group.

The problem is that it is the LGBTs are the group most affected by this clause, "statement[s] of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction". No religion gets away with overt racism so abuse against Asian Americans doesn't have this escape clause. I very much doubt you can get away with claiming white supremacy as a religious belief or a moral conviction and you should not be able to get away with homophobia as a moral conviction either.

I don't think any other minority is as affected but if there is, then they shouldn't have abuse against them legitimised like this.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Good catch, @Quboid. If Asian kids are the "most" bullied than that means more so than any other group.
Aside from your ludicrous implication that because one group is getting it worse then another group should shut up, the bases for this implication seems to be built on absolutely nothing.
How about not bullying anyone?
You make the point for me. If this is an anti-bullying measure, then it has no bearing on whether or not the victim is gay, Asian, etc. Presumably it increases punishment of the bullies.
One third of the population are fuckups and will be no matter what you do. It's called The Bell Curve. The incapability of dealing with children bullying is a small scale example of the grand failure that is liberalism, and the dearth of common fucking sense and lack of personal empowerment that liberalism promotes amplify these evils.
The Bowing Kenyawaiian tries to placate dictators and the hopelessly swamped and time-wasting state government and government school bureaucracy tries to make a network of laws and rules that only end up strangling freedoms in the name of safety.
Do gay kids deserve equal protection? Yup. Do they deserve special protection that infringes on others' freedom? Nope.
At this stage of the game, if a gay kid is self-aware he should already be learning how to to fight, because just as 9-1-1 is government-sponsored dial-a-prayer for those who don't own guns, no teacher or camera is always going to be there to protect every bullied child.




>> ^Quboid:
>> ^quantumushroom:
But wait! Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids.

Where does that article state that "Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids", or anything even remotely like that?
Aside from your ludicrous implication that because one group is getting it worse then another group should shut up, the bases for this implication seems to be built on absolutely nothing.
How about not bullying anyone?

Let me point out that if my school had 250 asian kids and 25 gay kids the statistics of # of bullied kids coming forward with reports of being bullied would be skewed completely.

The march is on for the normalization of sin in our daily life. This is what the bill says:

(b) "Bullying" means any written, verbal, or physical act, or any electronic communication, by a pupil directed at 1 or more other pupils that is intended or that a reasonable person would know is likely to harm 1 or more pupils either directly or indirectly by doing any of the following:(i) Substantially interfering with educational opportunities, benefits, or programs of 1 or more pupils.(ii) Substantially and adversely affecting the ability of a pupil to participate in or benefit from the school district's or public school's educational programs or activities by placing the pupil in reasonable fear of physical harm.(iii) Having an actual and substantial detrimental effect on a pupil's physical or mental health or causing substantial emotional distress.

Meaning anyone who said to a gay student that they think that being gay is a sin would be indicted under the law as a bully. This is the ultimate goal of the gay movement, not just for the toleration of the lifestyle, or even the integration of the lifestyle, but the stifling of any dissent. They want anyone who says being gay is a sin to be labeled a bigot and to have it be declared hatespeech.

My question is, if gays are born that way, what about pedophiles? Aren't they just victims of their genetics and the behavior is irreversable? If a man can marry another man, why not his horse? Why not his car? Once you open these doors, you can never close them.

God has blessed this country greatly, and gave us much favor among the nations. Yet, from those who are given much, much more will be required. We have failed to do what is required in every respect. Judgement is upon us for breaking His law, it is at our peril to allow these things. If He didn't spare israel for them, He certainly won't spare the United States.

>> ^shinyblurry:

My question is, if gays are born that way, what about pedophiles? Aren't they just victims of their genetics and the behavior is irreversable? If a man can marry another man, why not his horse? Why not his car? Once you open these doors, you can never close them.


Ok I'll answer your completely offensive questions. If Pedophiles are born that way does it make it ok? No it doesn't because when you're fucking children you're hurting them, some would argue destroying them. Two consenting gay adults is not the same as that, logically not just morally.

Second, the proposal is two individuals can marry eachother and share custody of children or have an economic relationship. So what is wrong with saying two consenting adults? A horse is not a person a car is not a person.

There I have been respectful and logical...Now let me pass on some advice from someone who fights for this country and your freedom.

"If I find you I will kill you and take much pleasure in it you sick mother fucker."

Just passing that along.

>> ^shinyblurry:

The march is on for the normalization of sin in our daily life. This is what the bill says:
(b) "Bullying" means any written, verbal, or physical act, or any electronic communication, by a pupil directed at 1 or more other pupils that is intended or that a reasonable person would know is likely to harm 1 or more pupils either directly or indirectly by doing any of the following:(i) Substantially interfering with educational opportunities, benefits, or programs of 1 or more pupils.(ii) Substantially and adversely affecting the ability of a pupil to participate in or benefit from the school district's or public school's educational programs or activities by placing the pupil in reasonable fear of physical harm.(iii) Having an actual and substantial detrimental effect on a pupil's physical or mental health or causing substantial emotional distress.
Meaning anyone who said to a gay student that they think that being gay is a sin would be indicted under the law as a bully. This is the ultimate goal of the gay movement, not just for the toleration of the lifestyle, or even the integration of the lifestyle, but the stifling of any dissent. They want anyone who says being gay is a sin to be labeled a bigot and to have it be declared hatespeech.
My question is, if gays are born that way, what about pedophiles? Aren't they just victims of their genetics and the behavior is irreversable? If a man can marry another man, why not his horse? Why not his car? Once you open these doors, you can never close them.
God has blessed this country greatly, and gave us much favor among the nations. Yet, from those who are given much, much more will be required. We have failed to do what is required in every respect. Judgement is upon us for breaking His law, it is at our peril to allow these things. If He didn't spare israel for them, He certainly won't spare the United States.


Luckily, this law allows me to state that I have a moral conviction that you're a moron. And I religiously believe morons should be punched at every available opportunity. The FSM told me to. Also...

>> ^shinyblurry:

Meaning anyone who said to a religious student that they think that being religious is retarded would be indicted under the law as a bully. This is the ultimate goal of the religious movement, not just for the toleration of the lifestyle, or even the integration of the lifestyle, but the stifling of any dissent. They want anyone who says being religious is retarded to be labeled a bigot and to have it be declared hatespeech.

FTFY

Hurry up and pass this bill! This will end bullying tomorrow...


No, actually all that it leads to is this:

3-Year-Olds Branded “Racist,” “Homophobic” Put In Government Database

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Luckily, this law allows me to state that I have a moral conviction that you're a moron. And I religiously believe morons should be punched at every available opportunity. The FSM told me to.

Luckily, we're working on a bill to crack down on internet bullies. (link
)
Enjoy your time on the internet while it lasts, calling someone a moron will not be tolerated. This is your final warning.

Aaaaand the crazies come out of the woodwork. 'Twas only a matter of time.

Way to go comparing apples with pedophiles @shinyblurry.


@quantumushroom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
not only the canucks, my dear troll.
>> ^quantumushroom:

But wait! Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids.
When will this trendy save-gays-from-bullying business fall out of favor with the left for a new cause?
Wouldn't it be so much easier if America just banned free speech like the canucks did?
It would be easier than getting rid of government schools.

Really? you fight for this country? Your nothing but a little educated fool. "if I find you, I will kill you"...?
Can someone help this man to the door??
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Now let me pass on some advice from someone who fights for this country and your freedom.
"If I find you I will kill you and take much pleasure in it you sick mother fucker."
Just passing that along.

Excellent point, luxury_pie.

In a broader sense, I was thinking that rather than poking fun at Canucks for indicting people or groups for advocating genocide or inciting hatred, it is a sign of inevitable progress as evidenced by the numerous developed and developing countries listed on the wiki. This shift towards a humanist coexistence rather than one divided by religious, gender and racial intolerance seems only logical. Unfortunately, we have a long way to go as a species.

>> ^luxury_pie:

Way to go comparing apples with pedophiles @shinyblurry.

@quantumushroom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
not only the canucks, my dear troll.

What a revolting law, and what a beautiful, passionate and articulate argument against it. Too many laws in too many countries are being passed with 'special considerations' for religious beliefs. "Special considerations" that make a tragic, ironic mockery of the legislation they are trying to put in place, and all because of the ridiculous amount of "respect" we are supposed to show for those who believe some preposterous lies sacred myths.

This culture of respect and tolerance for religious beliefs is bullying all of us into kowtowing to the absurd demands of religiots who hold our morality to ransom.

This is the second time you have voiced death threats against me, which is nothing other than proof that you have a heart filled with poison. Whatever you wish to say about this issue, it is all empty rhetoric in light of your obvious moral bankruptcy. You need to repent and get right with God.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
My question is, if gays are born that way, what about pedophiles? Aren't they just victims of their genetics and the behavior is irreversable? If a man can marry another man, why not his horse? Why not his car? Once you open these doors, you can never close them.

Ok I'll answer your completely offensive questions. If Pedophiles are born that way does it make it ok? No it doesn't because when you're fucking children you're hurting them, some would argue destroying them. Two consenting gay adults is not the same as that, logically not just morally.
Second, the proposal is two individuals can marry eachother and share custody of children or have an economic relationship. So what is wrong with saying two consenting adults? A horse is not a person a car is not a person.
There I have been respectful and logical...Now let me pass on some advice from someone who fights for this country and your freedom.
"If I find you I will kill you and take much pleasure in it you sick mother fucker."
Just passing that along.

You don't think there is any connection? It's a historically proven fact:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosociality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece

>> ^luxury_pie:
Way to go comparing apples with pedophiles @shinyblurry.
@quantumushroom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
not only the canucks, my dear troll.
>> ^quantumushroom:
But wait! Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids.
When will this trendy save-gays-from-bullying business fall out of favor with the left for a new cause?
Wouldn't it be so much easier if America just banned free speech like the canucks did?
It would be easier than getting rid of government schools.

Christianity doesn't make distinction between people, or races. We're all equal before God. It does make a distinction between male and female, however, as well it should. It is abnormal to want to eliminate that distinction. Look at the abnormal behavior this is breeding:

http://mommyish.com/childrearing/parents-treat-newborn-child-as-massive-social-experiment-on-sex-and-gender/

That child is going to be screwed up for life, guaranteed. Homosexuality isn't natural. If you were to put 20 homosexuals on an island, what would happen? Within a generation, they would die out.

Homosexuality is a sin and at odds with Gods plan. The humanist position of eliminating all distinctions is what is abnormal and is sign of a sinful culture that is in rebellion against God. It didn't go well for Sodom and Gemorrah, and it certainly won't go well for us either.

>> ^alcom:
Excellent point, luxury_pie.
In a broader sense, I was thinking that rather than poking fun at Canucks for indicting people or groups for advocating genocide or inciting hatred, it is a sign of inevitable progress as evidenced by the numerous developed and developing countries listed on the wiki. This shift towards a humanist coexistence rather than one divided by religious, gender and racial intolerance seems only logical. Unfortunately, we have a long way to go as a species.
>> ^luxury_pie:
Way to go comparing apples with pedophiles @shinyblurry.
@quantumushroom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
not only the canucks, my dear troll.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You don't think there is any connection? It's a historically proven fact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosociality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece
>> ^luxury_pie:
Way to go comparing apples with pedophiles @shinyblurry.
@quantumushroom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
not only the canucks, my dear troll.
>> ^quantumushroom:
But wait! Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids.
When will this trendy save-gays-from-bullying business fall out of favor with the left for a new cause?
Wouldn't it be so much easier if America just banned free speech like the canucks did?
It would be easier than getting rid of government schools.




"In Classical times there appears a note of concern that the institution of pederasty might give rise to a "morbid condition", adult homosexuality, that today's eromenos may become tomorrow's kinaidos, defined as the passive or "penetrated" partner."

Are you referring to this? Would you mind reading BOTH of these articles about the topic?
Would you please mind explaning where - by the power of the everlasting dragon hunting, snake exploding jeesus - you think there is any FACT of the correlation you were implying?

Let me help you with the reading part: "Homosociality, by definition, implies neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality."

Please help me with this?

How hypocritical of @shinyblurry to accuse someone else of having a "heart filled with poison". The ridiculous, hateful and archaic dogma of sin and judgement that you subscribe to is an immoral poison to the modern world, giving rise to absurd and damaging situations like the religious exception to this law.

Equating homosexuals with paedophiles is a cowardly trick of misdirection and a false analogy. They are not the same, and you know it - a consenting homosexual couple harms no-one at all, whereas a paedophile who molests a child causing emotional damage that ripples out into the child's later life and relationships. Your argument is empty.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

How hypocritical of @shinyblurry to accuse someone else of having a "heart filled with poison". The ridiculous, hateful and archaic dogma of sin and judgement that you subscribe to is an immoral poison to the modern world, giving rise to absurd and damaging situations like the religious exception to this law.
Equating homosexuals with paedophiles is a cowardly trick of misdirection and a false analogy. They are not the same, and you know it - a consenting homosexual couple harms no-one at all, whereas a paedophile who molests a child causing emotional damage that ripples out into the child's later life and relationships. Your argument is empty.


Maaan. I wanted to do that

You might want to read it more carefully:

"Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick identifies a continuum between homosociality and homosexuality, going as far as correlating feminism and lesbian desire: 'it is precisely this broad spectrum of women's homosocial loyalties that Adrienne Rich has referred to and celebrated as the "lesbian continuum"

and the connection from the other article:

7th century BC as an aspect of Greek homosocial culture,[5] which was characterized also by athletic and artistic nudity, delayed marriage for aristocrats, symposia, and the social seclusion of women.[6] The influence of pederasty was so pervasive that it has been called "the principal cultural model for free relationships between citizens."[7]"

There is a casaul relationship between the two, and the normalization of these kinds of behaviors led to the pederast society documented in greece





>> ^luxury_pie:
>> ^shinyblurry:
You don't think there is any connection? It's a historically proven fact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosociality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece
>> ^luxury_pie:
Way to go comparing apples with pedophiles @shinyblurry.
@quantumushroom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
not only the canucks, my dear troll.
>> ^quantumushroom:
But wait! Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids.
When will this trendy save-gays-from-bullying business fall out of favor with the left for a new cause?
Wouldn't it be so much easier if America just banned free speech like the canucks did?
It would be easier than getting rid of government schools.



"In Classical times there appears a note of concern that the institution of pederasty might give rise to a "morbid condition", adult homosexuality, that today's eromenos may become tomorrow's kinaidos, defined as the passive or "penetrated" partner."
Are you referring to this? Would you mind reading BOTH of these articles about the topic?
Would you please mind explaning where - by the power of the everlasting dragon hunting, snake exploding jeesus - you think there is any FACT of the correlation you were implying?
Let me help you with the reading part: "Homosociality, by definition, implies neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality."
Please help me with this?

I'm not saying that homosexuals are the same as paedophiles. I am saying that the normalization of homosexuality into a culture is a logical pathway to the normalization of pederasty in a culture, which we have a historical example of in the greeks. I am also saying that it is deviant sexual behavior which opens the door to other kinds of deviant sexual behavior, and that in itself is eroding the moral fabric of this country.

It is exactly because I care about homosexuals that I will openly say it is immoral, and against Gods law. It would in fact be a sin if I didn't say it. Any law which restricts my, or anyone elses ability to say it is unconstitutional. The absurdity is inherent in the ultra politically correct environments this kind of thing always leads to, as marbles posted about.

There is nothing hateful in stating the truth. There are admittedly hateful ways to state the truth, and it is not something I am going out of my way to confront people about. However, that doesn't preclude me from speaking up about it. If homosexuals have the right to trumpet their way of thinking and push it on the American culture, I have the equal right to say it is wrong and something that should be avoided at all costs. It's always interesting that a moral relativist always allows for every kind of moral position except for the kind that takes an absolute position.




>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
How hypocritical of @shinyblurry to accuse someone else of having a "heart filled with poison". The ridiculous, hateful and archaic dogma of sin and judgement that you subscribe to is an immoral poison to the modern world, giving rise to absurd and damaging situations like the religious exception to this law.
Equating homosexuals with paedophiles is a cowardly trick of misdirection and a false analogy. They are not the same, and you know it - a consenting homosexual couple harms no-one at all, whereas a paedophile who molests a child causing emotional damage that ripples out into the child's later life and relationships. Your argument is empty.

Gay people are not asking to push their way of thinking on the American culture. They just want equal rights and freedom from oppression, just like everyone else does. Besides, they are a part of American culture (and part of all other cultures, too).

Your slippery-slope argument about homosexuality leading to "other kinds of deviant sexuality" is entirely unfounded and logically fallacious. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean things like fetishes and BDSM, then that's patently false, as plenty of kinky sex goes on in heterosexual relationships too, and if it were true, it would mean that all or most gays and lesbians would be into whips and chains, which they aren't. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean "child abuse", then you are conflating homosexuality with paedophilia, and you need to stop doing that now, because you know there is no causal relationship there.

You claim you care about homosexuals. Well, I don't see it. Condemnation masquerading as love isn't caring, it's just the usual passive-aggressive Christian bullshit. Someone who cares about homosexuals would want to allow them to marry, to adopt children, and to live their lives without being bullied and persecuted. Christians do not have a monopoly on morality; in fact, the Christian adherence to the bronze-age concept of sin and their preoccupation with what other people do in bed is positively immoral. Who cares if something is against the "law" of some god or other? I don't believe in your god, and it probably doesn't even exist, so why should I care what people say it likes and dislikes? And why should religious people get special dispensation for their acts of hatred and bullying because you claim it is mandated by a magic invisible man who lives in the sky?

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm not saying that homosexuals are the same as paedophiles. I am saying that the normalization of homosexuality into a culture is a logical pathway to the normalization of pederasty in a culture, which we have a historical example of in the greeks. I am also saying that it is deviant sexual behavior which opens the door to other kinds of deviant sexual behavior, and that in itself is eroding the moral fabric of this country.
It is exactly because I care about homosexuals that I will openly say it is immoral, and against Gods law. It would in fact be a sin if I didn't say it. Any law which restricts my, or anyone elses ability to say it is unconstitutional. The absurdity is inherent in the ultra politically correct environments this kind of thing always leads to, as marbles posted about.
There is nothing hateful in stating the truth. If homosexuals have the right to trumpet their way of thinking and push it on the American culture, I have the equal right to say it is wrong and something that should be avoided at all costs. It's always interesting that a moral relativist always allows for every kind of moral position except for the kind that takes an absolute position.


>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
How hypocritical of @shinyblurry to accuse someone else of having a "heart filled with poison". The ridiculous, hateful and archaic dogma of sin and judgement that you subscribe to is an immoral poison to the modern world, giving rise to absurd and damaging situations like the religious exception to this law.
Equating homosexuals with paedophiles is a cowardly trick of misdirection and a false analogy. They are not the same, and you know it - a consenting homosexual couple harms no-one at all, whereas a paedophile who molests a child causing emotional damage that ripples out into the child's later life and relationships. Your argument is empty.

There Shiny, I fixed it for yuh.

One question tho. Is it okay to have buttsecks with a GIRL?

I mean, after we're married of course but ..it's not gay if it's with a woman right? ...RIGHT?!


>> ^shinyblurry:

I am saying that the normalization of homosexuality Christian Religious Organization into a culture is a logical pathway to the normalization of pederasty in a culture, which we have a historical example of in the greeks Christian church.

Gay people are not asking to push their way of thinking on the American culture. They just want equal rights and freedom from oppression, just like everyone else does. Besides, they are a part of American culture (and part of all other cultures, too).

They most certainly are pushing their way of thinking on America, and that in every aspect of life. In California young children must now learn about gay history:

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/22/138504488/california-brings-gay-history-into-the-classroom

The normalization of homosexuality is also leading to the normalization of transgenders. There is now a law in California which states that transgenders have a protected right of gender expression which means they have to be allowed to cross dress at work:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/10/california-transgender-laws_n_1004109.html

Which leads to this:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=348033

Before you say it has nothing to do with gay rights, these were the sponsors:

The bill was authored by Assemblymember Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) and sponsored by Equality California, Transgender Law Center and Gay-Straight Alliance Network.

Here is the bill California vetoed but it shows the agenda:

Brown vetoed the Survey Data Inclusion Act, which required the state to include questions about LGBT identities, including sexual orientation and domestic partnership status among others, on state surveys.

The truth is, gays are pushing their lifestyle on this culture, and trying to gain a protected minority status. They won't stop until they are fully integrated into every aspect of our culture, including indoctrinating our children.

Your slippery-slope argument about homosexuality leading to "other kinds of deviant sexuality" is entirely unfounded and logically fallacious. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean things like fetishes and BDSM, then that's patently false, as plenty of kinky sex goes on in heterosexual relationships too, and if it were true, it would mean that all or most gays and lesbians would be into whips and chains, which they aren't. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean "child abuse", then you are conflating homosexuality with paedophilia, and you need to stop doing that now, because you know there is no causal relationship there.

I just demonstrated the causal relationship by my example. There are also many studies which state there is a connection:

From the Archives of Sexual Behavior:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archives_of_Sexual_Behavior

A study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 'eighty-six percent of [sexual] offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.'

The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2.4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles

"Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically infrequent phenomena. The first of these is homosexuality ... Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30-40%."

A study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that '... the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men ... the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality

You claim you care about homosexuals. Well, I don't see it. Condemnation masquerading as love isn't caring, it's just the usual passive-aggressive Christian bullshit. Someone who cares about homosexuals would want to allow them to marry, to adopt children, and to live their lives without being bullied and persecuted.

To advocate for that would be to encourage homosexuals to continue breaking Gods law and end up in hell. I don't want homosexuals to go to hell, therefore I will continue to tell them it is immoral and that they need to repent.

Christians do not have a monopoly on morality; in fact, the Christian adherence to the bronze-age concept of sin and their preoccupation with what other people do in bed is positively immoral.

God decides what is moral, and it is the preoccuption of Christians to obey God and warn those who are perishing.

Who cares if something is against the "law" of some god or other? I don't believe in your god, and it probably doesn't even exist, so why should I care what people say it likes and dislikes? And why should religious people get special dispensation for their acts of hatred and bullying because you claim it is mandated by a magic invisible man who lives in the sky?

Regardless of whether you believe in God or not, you are still accountable to Him. And even if I wasn't Christian, I still have a right to say homosexuality is immoral. That is my right and is guaranteed by the constitution, just as it is your right to say what you like about my religion. You would like to have it one way and stifle my right to free speech, which is ironic considering the position you're taking about equal rights.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Gay people are not asking to push their way of thinking on the American culture. They just want equal rights and freedom from oppression, just like everyone else does. Besides, they are a part of American culture (and part of all other cultures, too).
Your slippery-slope argument about homosexuality leading to "other kinds of deviant sexuality" is entirely unfounded and logically fallacious. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean things like fetishes and BDSM, then that's patently false, as plenty of kinky sex goes on in heterosexual relationships too, and if it were true, it would mean that all or most gays and lesbians would be into whips and chains, which they aren't. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean "child abuse", then you are conflating homosexuality with paedophilia, and you need to stop doing that now, because you know there is no causal relationship there.
You claim you care about homosexuals. Well, I don't see it. Condemnation masquerading as love isn't caring, it's just the usual passive-aggressive Christian bullshit. Someone who cares about homosexuals would want to allow them to marry, to adopt children, and to live their lives without being bullied and persecuted. Christians do not have a monopoly on morality; in fact, the Christian adherence to the bronze-age concept of sin and their preoccupation with what other people do in bed is positively immoral. Who cares if something is against the "law" of some god or other? I don't believe in your god, and it probably doesn't even exist, so why should I care what people say it likes and dislikes? And why should religious people get special dispensation for their acts of hatred and bullying because you claim it is mandated by a magic invisible man who lives in the sky?
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm not saying that homosexuals are the same as paedophiles. I am saying that the normalization of homosexuality into a culture is a logical pathway to the normalization of pederasty in a culture, which we have a historical example of in the greeks. I am also saying that it is deviant sexual behavior which opens the door to other kinds of deviant sexual behavior, and that in itself is eroding the moral fabric of this country.
It is exactly because I care about homosexuals that I will openly say it is immoral, and against Gods law. It would in fact be a sin if I didn't say it. Any law which restricts my, or anyone elses ability to say it is unconstitutional. The absurdity is inherent in the ultra politically correct environments this kind of thing always leads to, as marbles posted about.
There is nothing hateful in stating the truth. If homosexuals have the right to trumpet their way of thinking and push it on the American culture, I have the equal right to say it is wrong and something that should be avoided at all costs. It's always interesting that a moral relativist always allows for every kind of moral position except for the kind that takes an absolute position.
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
How hypocritical of @shinyblurry to accuse someone else of having a "heart filled with poison". The ridiculous, hateful and archaic dogma of sin and judgement that you subscribe to is an immoral poison to the modern world, giving rise to absurd and damaging situations like the religious exception to this law.
Equating homosexuals with paedophiles is a cowardly trick of misdirection and a false analogy. They are not the same, and you know it - a consenting homosexual couple harms no-one at all, whereas a paedophile who molests a child causing emotional damage that ripples out into the child's later life and relationships. Your argument is empty.

Did you read beyond the headline? "Asian Americans endure far more bullying at US schools than members of other ethnic group". "Gay" isn't an ethnic group.

This study wasn't done before the trendy gay anti-bullying campaign. As for "ethnic group" rubbish, only the left cares about such distinctions, for the purpose of divide and conquer, vote-buying and tribalism. And "Gay" is now officially a victimized group, political movement AND voting block.

The problem is that it is the LGBTs are the group most affected by this clause, "statement[s] of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction". No religion gets away with overt racism so abuse against Asian Americans doesn't have this escape clause. I very much doubt you can get away with claiming white supremacy as a religious belief or a moral conviction and you should not be able to get away with homophobia as a moral conviction either.

"Homophobia" is one of this delightful thoughtcrime control words terms made up by those suffering from homophilia. There's a world of difference between scum who violently attack others for being gay and stern but non-violent Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong for religious reasons. "Homophobia" is a word meant to lump both together. When I call anyone on the left a 'communist' I am closer to the truth than a liberal calling everyone on the right a 'homophobe'.

I don't think any other minority is as affected but if there is, then they shouldn't have abuse against them legitimised like this.

Leftists are the only ones making these ridiculous generalizations about the purpose of the religious clause. Would you see Christians go to jail for simply stating, "Homosexuality is wrong"? That's what they're doing up in Canada (or damned close to it).


>> ^Quboid:

Did you read beyond the headline? "Asian Americans endure far more bullying at US schools than members of other ethnic group". "Gay" isn't an ethnic group.
The problem is that it is the LGBTs are the group most affected by this clause, "statement[s] of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction". No religion gets away with overt racism so abuse against Asian Americans doesn't have this escape clause. I very much doubt you can get away with claiming white supremacy as a religious belief or a moral conviction and you should not be able to get away with homophobia as a moral conviction either.
I don't think any other minority is as affected but if there is, then they shouldn't have abuse against them legitimised like this.

@quantumushroom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
not only the canucks, my dear troll.

@luxury_pie

I'm ashamed that the ACLU made up 'hate crime' laws out of thin air; more so that it was Jews (in this case, liberal Jews) behind it. I don't know if they got their cue from more repressive regimes or we gave them the 'bright' idea.

I don't have as much respect for a country that still stops BOOKS at the border (no 1st Amendment). If Canada can't handle unpopular speech, just wait until the muslims start arriving en masse.

Oh, and you lefters are getting slack. Only -2 for these comments? It should be -4, minimum!

Oh, and a general reminder to all: death threats and invitations to violence are not welcome here at the sift.

If you cite a study that refers to ethnic groups and apply it to a non-ethnic group, then that distinction means that you are talking absolute rubbish. That's not my distinction, that's the English language's distinction. Sadly, there isn't a world of difference between those who violently attacked homosexuals and those who preach against it. Of course the former is worse than the later, but they are 2 points on the same horrible scale.

I don't believe that bigotry is a right. If you have a religious objection to homosexuality, then don't engage in homosexual acts, but leave other people alone.

I am talking about tolerance for all things that people don't choose, be it race, sexuality, ability or even belief. Dismissing tolerance as "trendy" is meaningless, petty nonsense. Calling tolerance "communist" is meaningless petty nonsense, and claiming that I am calling everyone on the right a homophobe is a straw man argument because I'm not and I never have.

Hypothetically, @quantumushroom, what if there were a religion that stated that white people are the true master race? Would you support their right to preach this? Their right to tell black people that they should try to be white and to try to get Asian people to go to a correction school to bleach their skin? I don't see the push for gay rights as any different to that trendy Martin Luther King and his communist buddies.

The issue of free speech is an awkward one. I think you make a powerful argument against free speech but I do believe in free speech despite your worst efforts. I suppose the thing is that you can say what you like, but that doesn't mean you should. Maybe you can legally preach bigotry - and that's what you are doing - but you should think about what you're doing and stop doing it.