Louisiana boy punished for talking about gay mom

I'll have to do some digging into that one. LaRouche is a hoot. I used to watch his 30 minute infomercials for laughs. I still remember the time he claimed Walter Mondale was a robot developed by the KGB, LOL.

Both camps have "him" (Buchanan/Robertson) and I too get a "kick" out of reading/listening to them when they go on their ravings.

There are often some grains of truth hidden among the chaff but they are usually pretty hard to spot.

no, it's an answer/reply to Josh, his claim that "gay" isn't a derogotary term is IMO wrong, and, if someone were to call me or you "gay" i'm sure as hell certain that it would NOT be a compliment...

Context is always important. I'm certain I would not lower myself to use the language suggest.

Dan

Why should anyone waste their time coming in the back door when they can come in the front?

And IF somebody prefers to enter thru the backdoor, is that wrong?

Since the male gay is the most prolific spreader of HIV in the world today, maybe now surpassed by needle using drug addicts, it's not surprising the most concern would be with them. Concepts about rape probably enter into it too, since lesbians or women in general are not given to rape others to any great extent. If speaking entirely on moral grounds then the perversion of sex by both male gays and lesbians is equally wrong.

.

instead of backrooms in bars, gay bathhouses, late night at public parks, just about anywhere they want to "get off".

Does that go for heterosexuals too in your opinion?

But neither does natural coitus justify the unnatural coitus, the perversion of true coitus.

What's natural and unnatural and what's perversion? Who decides this? You? Ashcroft? Bush? What's natural (although I prefer to use the word normal/usual) to one person may be seen as pervert by another.

#What's natural (although I prefer to use the word normal/usual) to one person may be seen as pervert by another#

gay men see heterosexuals as perverts...

No, I think gay people in general (and obviously with a few exceptions) are more tolerant and open minded than many of the members here who find homosexuality to be perverted or unnormal.

Apart from that I said "may be seen" as pervert by another. Not that it "is seen" as pervert.

Now back to what I actually asked and what I asked James, but since you decided to reply to my post, I'll ask you too, WHO decides what's natural/normal?

Toni, again you are relying on a supposed accuracy in THE COMPLAINT rather than on any ACTUAL QUOTATION.

Complaints tend to be written up in such a manner as to get attention and do not have to be accurate renditions of the actual offense EXCEPT in direct quotations ascribed to specific persons--none such have been indicated.

You, as the author intends, are reading between the lines and basing your response on assumptions rather than hard fact.

I am saying wait for ALL THE FACTS before buying the rope for the lynching.

Then please also wait for all the facts to be in before making declarations as to what "probably" really happened:

My reading of the article gives the impression that more probably the teacher overheard and corrected him for saying that his mother was ***** or that gays were QUEERS.

You have no facts upon which to draw that conclusion.

I am and my statement clearly indicates that it is MY READING of the article made noticable by its complete lack of actual information.

An impression (as stated) is NOT a conclusion as you misinterpret the word.

My impression is backed up by the long history of "news" reporters making their stories more appealing through omission of what would render the story ordinary or even humdrum.

....your post sounds awfully like the very thing you chastised Tim for (and rightly so) in his Disney thread.

compare pointing out what is NOT present (actual quotes and facts) to claiming what is not mentioned is the major cause of something.

I said wait for all the facts whilst Tim was saying overlook all the facts and concentrate on this one small aspect (which is essentially what the author did here).

The information in the article is from the COMPLAINT, people! You DON'T KNOW if it is true or not!!!!

this appears to be one of the "benefits" of televised trials and the media MAKING "news".

People are too quick to presume guilt rather than innocence until the accused can prove their innocence not only in court but to the media and it is arguably more beneficial to prove it to the media.

Toni, I get the impression that you think it to be acceptable to use the term "Thumper" (short for Bible Thumper) as a label for a poster with whom you happen to disagree.
What if you happened to know that that poster happened to be Jewish? Would their post that happened to disagree with your view also automatically be a case of when they "forced their own sick moralities"? Would you also feel that it was acceptable to label them with a derogatory term for someone who was Jewish because, "they've earned it and more"?
I think that you may have a double standard.

I didn't call a member a Thumper....I said that Thumpers make me sick and that was with regard to the original POST <B>NOT</B> the POSTER.

I don't know where you're from, but here in my area of Virginia, bible thumpers proudly call themselves that name so it is by no means derogatory here....and I've not seen any members here until Mary Kay posted complain about my use of that term, and I've used it before.

If some members find it to be offensive, I will cease using it....find me another to use instead, please, since 'religious fanatic' is actually more extreme than a bible thumper in my opinion and in most cases I think it would be inappropriate to use that description. Bible Thumpers may make me sick, but fanatics are dangerous.

TONI

Toni, in my case, I've lived in Virginia, Tennessee, Louisiana, Georgia, and Mississippi, and every time I have heard that term (a great many times) it was used as a negative. Try as I might, I just can't seem to remember someone refering to themselves as that term as a positive name.