No 1st amendment in Tenn, pubs bully gays

[Obamanation]

There really is no such thing as protected sex... maybe low risk sex... but even still, there is more risk for homosexuals even with low risk sex.

...and this isn't even considering long term effects of homosexuals on a society - or risk involved in regards to their salvation.

but like I said earlier, only a small percentage of Americans, left or right really care about this social issue when our gov't is facing REAL problems like the economy, terrorism, and the debt/defecit crisis.

We can address the problem of homosexuality when we get those more important issues handled --- or better yet, get the fed gov't out of those kind of social issues all together --- let states decide how they want to handle the problem of homosexuality.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes, well, you can discuss those important topics in a thread about those important topics.

This thread is all about how homosexuals are lying about what is contained in the Tennessee bill that attempts to make schools adhere to mandatory reporting laws.

 

[tooAlive]

Being gay isn't endangering them.

Yes as a matter of fact it does. I posted a link to that fact in this thread, go read it.

No it isn't. Being gay isn't an endangerment, but unprotected sex is...for any sexual orientation. (Except for us lesbians, we're at the lowest risk for STDs...we must be god's chosen people )

That's because two lesbians can't have real sex.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes as a matter of fact it does. I posted a link to that fact in this thread, go read it.

No it isn't. Being gay isn't an endangerment, but unprotected sex is...for any sexual orientation. (Except for us lesbians, we're at the lowest risk for STDs...we must be god's chosen people )

That's because two lesbians can't have real sex.

So you've had lesbian sex and can judge? (More likely just fantasized about lesbian sex and...)

 

[Dubya]

You know progressives are anti-science....look at how they howl over the thought of making abortions safer through the use of sonograms.

Let me ask you a simple question. I personally do not approve of homosexuality, but why would I want to make another person's life more miserable than life can be, just because they are homosexual.

I used to go to a VFW with a guy I worked with and he had lifelong friends there. These people took pride in themselves for being rednecks and they were there hanging out with their families at a bar and a guy they grew up with who was gay. They grew up with that guy too and accepted him for being gay. The guy was good at painting cars and detailing and I even took a car to be painted at the large shop he worked in. One weekend, one of the friends of my friend needed to dismantle an above ground swimming pool he was given, so I offered my help. There were both the brothers who my friend grew up with, the guy who was gay, my friend and I, when it came time to do the job. It was a big swimming pool, but we knocked it out quickly, loaded it up and were on our way. Much later I remember my friend and I dropping by the house of the guy who had the pool and was having a pool party cook out and all those guys were there.

I was around those people often and occasionally they would kid the guy about being gay. I don't know how many times I was around them, maybe in the 50 to 100 range, but they all acted like gentlemen and their wives were cool people, too. We had a lot of fun together and no one was hurt. It wasn't my style to kid somebody for being gay, but I didn't insist close friends have to live according to my standards. I think life requires a lot of give and take to be sociable to others, who aren't the same as yourself and face it who truly is. Every person is unique. It's better than hanging out with others who are different, than just being around people similar to yourself. I fail to see the logic of requiring others to apply the same standard I apply for myself. Why shouldn't I grant the next person the same freedom that I insist being granted for myself? That's how I apply the Golden Rule.

 

[Gadawg73]

You know progressives are anti-science....look at how they howl over the thought of making abortions safer through the use of sonograms.

Let me ask you a simple question. I personally do not approve of homosexuality, but why would I want to make another person's life more miserable than life can be, just because they are homosexual.

I used to go to a VFW with a guy I worked with and he had lifelong friends there. These people took pride in themselves for being rednecks and they were there hanging out with their families at a bar and a guy they grew up with who was gay. They grew up with that guy too and accepted him for being gay. The guy was good at painting cars and detailing and I even took a car to be painted at the large shop he worked in. One weekend, one of the friends of my friend needed to dismantle an above ground swimming pool he was given, so I offered my help. There were both the brothers who my friend grew up with, the guy who was gay, my friend and I, when it came time to do the job. It was a big swimming pool, but we knocked it out quickly, loaded it up and were on our way. Much later I remember my friend and I dropping by the house of the guy who had the pool and was having a pool party cook out and all those guys were there.

I was around those people often and occasionally they would kid the guy about being gay. I don't know how many times I was around them, maybe in the 50 to 100 range, but they all acted like gentlemen and their wives were cool people, too. We had a lot of fun together and no one was hurt. It wasn't my style to kid somebody for being gay, but I didn't insist close friends have to live according to my standards. I think life requires a lot of give and take to be sociable to others, who aren't the same as yourself and face it who truly is. Every person is unique. It's better than hanging out with others who are different, than just being around people similar to yourself. I fail to see the logic of requiring others to apply the same standard I apply for myself. Why shouldn't I grant the next person the same freedom that I insist being granted for myself? That's how I apply the Golden Rule.

Great history there and similar to mine.
I grew up in the deep south and played a lot of ball and gays just were not to be accepted no matter what, period. I told as many gay jokes as anyone and also racial jokes. I played on the first integrated team as a sophomore in high school and no way a gay would ever be accepted in the locker room.
What changed me was my work. I have seen doctors, lawyers, cops, health care pros and folks from all walks of life in my 33 years on the road. I have interviewed over 20,000 witnesses easy and have seen it all.
I used to believe 100% that homosexuality was a choice until I went to a commitment ceremony years ago in Piedmont Park in Atlanta between 2 women as one of them was an attorney I worked for.
That changed me as that was about LOVE, not sex.
And I was fortunate to be raised right as my parents taught me that even though we may despise folks we should fight for equal rights for them also.
I let that concrete neck bracelet go years ago and started treating everyone the same and it works great for me. My wife has 7 brothers and sisters and I have 4. We have a very large family and at gatherings there will be almost 100.
We have 3 openly gay young adults in the large family of probably 140 people and it is not easy at times as many in the family do not accept them but we all get along.
What amazes me is the work ethic and how smart my gay relatives are. All 3 of them are in their 20s, early 30s and have professional jobs, none of them ever went through a wild stage as a youth and all 3 made almost straight As in college.
It is all about equal rights, nothing more. True patriots seek to protect the rights of those that they may despise the most.
And I do not despise them, I love them because they are my family and I respect them because they are my neighbors.

 

[koshergrl]

When the hell did the discussion be about allowing gays to be gay?

This thread is about school employees reporting suspected sexual activity to parents. The end.

 

[Gadawg73]

When the hell did the discussion be about allowing gays to be gay?

This thread is about school employees reporting suspected sexual activity to parents. The end.

That is what you twisted it to to cover for your support of Campfield's bill.
The thread was about his bill.
His bill is not about allowing gays to be gay or reporting suspected sexual activity to parents.
The bill is about reporting if a kid IS gay to their parents.
Twist, distort, slant and side step all you want. That may have worked for you in your household, as a youth to your parents, to your spouse now and to everyone you know.
Does not work here.

 

[Seawytch]

When the hell did the discussion be about allowing gays to be gay?

This thread is about school employees reporting suspected sexual activity to parents. The end.

No, that is your misinterpretation of the bill.

 

[koshergrl]

When the hell did the discussion be about allowing gays to be gay?

This thread is about school employees reporting suspected sexual activity to parents. The end.

That is what you twisted it to to cover for your support of Campfield's bill.
The thread was about his bill.
His bill is not about allowing gays to be gay or reporting suspected sexual activity to parents.
The bill is about reporting if a kid IS gay to their parents.
Twist, distort, slant and side step all you want. That may have worked for you in your household, as a youth to your parents, to your spouse now and to everyone you know.
Does not work here.

I have requested you lying sacks of shit repeatedly to quote where in the bill the word *gay* is used.

The text of the bill states that schools be required to report SUSPECTED SEXUAL ACTIVITY. You are fighting to allow the schools to hide sexual abuse from parents.

 

[koshergrl]

When the hell did the discussion be about allowing gays to be gay?

This thread is about school employees reporting suspected sexual activity to parents. The end.

No, that is your misinterpretation of the bill.

That is exactly what the bill says. No interpretation required.

You are lying about the contents of the bill in order to facilitate illegal, underage sex.

 

[Gadawg73]

When the hell did the discussion be about allowing gays to be gay?

This thread is about school employees reporting suspected sexual activity to parents. The end.

That is what you twisted it to to cover for your support of Campfield's bill.
The thread was about his bill.
His bill is not about allowing gays to be gay or reporting suspected sexual activity to parents.
The bill is about reporting if a kid IS gay to their parents.
Twist, distort, slant and side step all you want. That may have worked for you in your household, as a youth to your parents, to your spouse now and to everyone you know.
Does not work here.

I have requested you lying sacks of shit repeatedly to quote where in the bill the word *gay* is used.

The text of the bill states that schools be required to report SUSPECTED SEXUAL ACTIVITY. You are fighting to allow the schools to hide sexual abuse from parents.

"SUSPECTED" allows teachers to inform parents that their kid is gay.
And that is none of the schools or the teachers business and no TEACHER should BE FUCKING REQUIRED to do that.
As of RIGHT FUCKING NOW teachers are REQUIRED TO REPORT SUSPECTED CRIMES WHICH INVOLVE SEX to police.
And that is a good law that exists NOW.
Amazing you are so naive and gullible not to know that Campfield is a publicity whore only interested in stirring up trouble.

 

[koshergrl]

SUSPECTED SEXUAL ACTIVITY.

Not SUSPECTED HOMOSEXUALITY.

Moron.

 

[Gadawg73]

SUSPECTED SEXUAL ACTIVITY.

Not SUSPECTED HOMOSEXUALITY.

Moron.

"other informational resources inconsistent with natural reproduction shall be classified as inappropriate for the intended student audience and therefore prohibited"

Uh, hello, that is speaking of homosexuals be it sex or not.

Where does the bill clarify what is their definition of "suspected sexual activity" and what is not?
Is kissing another student sexual? Where is the definition and who makes that.
Government?
As hard as you keep trying you can not polish a TURD.
But keep trying, you can put perfume on a hog but it is still a hog.

 

[Wicked Jester]

SUSPECTED SEXUAL ACTIVITY.

Not SUSPECTED HOMOSEXUALITY.

Moron.

Forget it, KG.....they've been asked several times to show where it specifically states suspected homosexual behavior, and they can't do it. Hence, the emotion and hyperbole, that all libprogs and rinos engage in.

Fact of the matter is, if school employees suspect or know that a minor child is engaging in risky sexual behavior, behavior that may be detrimental to their health, that may lead to them to being bullied, or is causing them to be bullied, the parent/s damn sure have the right to be informed about it.....The school is not the parent/s, the parent/s is/are....The school is a custodian of the child while the child is attending. They damn sure have a duty to report those instances to the parent/s......And anybody who thinks otherwise, is a fucking idiot.....Lets just hope that people who think that way are not parents themselves....Because, well, THEY'RE FUCKING IDIOTS!

 

[Wicked Jester]

SUSPECTED SEXUAL ACTIVITY.

Not SUSPECTED HOMOSEXUALITY.

Moron.

"other informational resources inconsistent with natural reproduction shall be classified as inappropriate for the intended student audience and therefore prohibited"

Uh, hello, that is speaking of homosexuals be it sex or not.

Where does the bill clarify what is their definition of "suspected sexual activity" and what is not?
Is kissing another student sexual? Where is the definition and who makes that.
Government?
As hard as you keep trying you can not polish a TURD.
But keep trying, you can put perfume on a hog but it is still a hog.

"other informational resources inconsistent with natural reproduction"

Obviously meaning blowjobs, handjobs and taking it up the ass, which both hetero's and homo's can engage in.

Christ.

 

[koshergrl]

It's the teachers and the school admin who think that way.

Which is fucking scary.

 

[Gadawg73]

SUSPECTED SEXUAL ACTIVITY.

Not SUSPECTED HOMOSEXUALITY.

Moron.

"other informational resources inconsistent with natural reproduction shall be classified as inappropriate for the intended student audience and therefore prohibited"

Uh, hello, that is speaking of homosexuals be it sex or not.

Where does the bill clarify what is their definition of "suspected sexual activity" and what is not?
Is kissing another student sexual? Where is the definition and who makes that.
Government?
As hard as you keep trying you can not polish a TURD.
But keep trying, you can put perfume on a hog but it is still a hog.

"other informational resources inconsistent with natural reproduction"

Obviously meaning blowjobs, handjobs and taking it up the ass, which both hetero's and homo's can engage in.

Christ.

Never seen any school informational resources like that when my 3 kids went to school.
But if that is what you learned in school WJ we will take your word for it.

 

[koshergrl]

You went to school before they started programming homos there.

 

[Seawytch]

You went to school before they started programming homos there.

So did I and still turned out "homo".