Louisiana boy punished for talking about gay mom

I'm not sure of the origin of the adjective 'thumper' in this situation ("Bible thumper" perhaps?) but I should note that the article linked to did not make any mention of morality, religion or other issues that seem to have you so angry at the situation.

It seems to me that you have jumped at the opportunity to heap scorn on your 'usual suspects' without knowing what the situation is.

O'Daniel may have a point about things not being reported "word for word" in the article. It seems odd that about the only acceptable word of common use would be ruled off limits by a teacher. It may be the reporter substituted the word gay in the original article in some form such as italics to indicate that a different word instead was used. I'm also thinking that what was done has been skewed in the reporting and the teacher instead was concerned not with the word "gay" but instead on having other children being exposed to talk about a gay relationship, something she knew their parents would disapprove of, or at least had not given their permission to have discussed around elementary age children. I suspect there is more to this than just a word.

That was one of the best examples of castles in the sand since Philip K ****.

Ian

till it became associated with activity that was not appropriately described by it. Due to that modern day association, the stain of it's association seems destined to doom it to the always increasing pile of perfectly good words throughout history that have been temporarily used to mask or hide the truth of despicable activities. On the other hand, "Thumper" is taking on an increasingly appealing meaning. It seems association is everything in linguistics.

It's just the dirty minds of some of the narrow minded who make themselves see it as so.

Dan

6 of one, half-a-dozen of the other...

as much as i don't like homosexual/***** men, i don't like gay men either...

Come on Jonah, that's like saying "Jewish" is PC "****."

At least you admit you're bigoted when it comes to homosexuals. I have a few gay friends and they're very nice people (they wouldn't be my friends if they weren't, obviously). Pity you've already decided you don't like them even though you've never met them.

bigot=a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
opinion=1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view
prejudice=1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

on what grounds do you class me as a bigot?

are you not standing in a bigots shoes when you call me one?

i have reasons to dislike homosexuals, my dislike is not based on preconcieved ideas or notions, nor is my attitude irrational or one of hostility.....

anyway Josh, as i said "for" or against" and nobody is likely to change their views on the subject...

On what grounds? How about

2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge

Have you met my friends? If not, how do you know you don't like them?

a pity you ignored this # my dislike is not based on preconcieved ideas or notions, nor is my attitude irrational or one of hostility#

http://reviews.cnet.com/5208-6130-0.html?forumID=50&threadID=4620&messageID=55132

Doesn't matter, Jonah. You don't have to meet every single definition of the word. You are expressing a blanket sentiment about a substantial number of human beings whom you have never met.

Did you have a bad experience involving a gay man? If so, do you really think it's fair to condemn all gay men because of one person? I've been robbed a few times in my life, and most of the robbers were black. Does that give me legitimate grounds to dislike all black people? Of course not.

Is ***** non-PC now. I know that gay has become the accepted use term, but there was a group calling themselves ***** Nation several years ago.

Quick search finds several hits mentioning it. And there's a tv show called that in New Zealand that their web page mentions the current debate in the US about gay marriage.

There are papers on the organization etc, in Canada and the USA. There are various web sites, although checking just a few didn't find one I'd label an offical website of the group currently active in the US.

Is the term ***** now non-PC? or is it one of those words that can only be used by the group it applies to and is wrong for anyone else to use it?

Seriously, it's often been used in a demeaning way I know, but it was once also the term used by groups for gay rights.

I guess gay just won because it was less prevocative at the time it began to be used?

roger

How do you know that you don't like them? Have you met them? Isn't this the ultimate prejudice? To say that you don't like an entire GROUP of people because of their sexual preferences. Aren't they human beings? And once again, how do you know that you don't like them (and I don't mean are attracted to them, but like them as people)?

To answer your question, yes, it may be. But it is up to the gay community to decide what they feel like being called. It should definitely not be done by those who claim not to like them even though they don't even know them!

you are both so fanatically defending the rights of minorities that you both seem to be not reading/ignoring selected parts of my posts...

my "jewish pc friend" is? I have MANY Jewish (Notice that it is written with CAPITAL "J" out of respect!) friends since I live in a part of the world where we have the highest rate of orthodox Jews outside Israel, but none of them are posting here AFAIK...

AFA minorities goes, yes, I will defend the weak part of the population ALWAYS! Being blacks, Muslims, Jews, Gypsies, Latinos, homosexuals etc. They will always have my support one way or the other. The strong majority already has enough financial support.

to who they are or the activities they engage in? If so, there are any number of penal institutions just full of new potential friends for you to associate and get chummy with.

James,

What about all of the people you know and like that are homosexual but not open about it? Will you go from liking them to hating them the instant you find out?

Dan

Hi, James.

>>If you discover your sister is having an affair with a married man should I assume that you now hate her? If your father had an affair with someone other than your mother should I assume you now thoroughly hate him?<<
In both those cases you'd have more reason for doing so, because they would be betraying a vow. All the gays are doing is being human.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

I don't do that "gay" thing. I know a lot of other people I would call "human" who don't do the "gay" thing. I think being "human" has less to do with it, and being "perverted" has everything to do with it.

Konkel NEVER said that ONLY those who are gay are humans. BUT he, and many with him, feels that it is human to be sexually attracted to a person of the same gender. That doesn't mean that Konkel or anybody else here are sexually attracted by people of the same gender, but that we RESPECT their decision to have an intimate relationship with each other.

BTW, let me repeat for the third time; WHO decides what's perverted? You still haven't given ONE SINGLE reason why it is perverted to be gay! And I am really curious about your view of perversion and WHO you think should decide what perversion is.

if you think a sister sleeping with a married man was "betraying her vows".

Did all your and your wife's siblings (and presumably cousins, etc.) have to make some kind of vow about honoring your marriage by not sleeping around?

The gays by the way are not "being human", they are being deviant. By your apparent thought process a serial killer is only "being human" and a child molester is only "being human".

so many posters make claims, without defining the basis of that claim.

Ed, you and James proclaim from the rooftops that your beliefs as to what is or is not deviate or correct is the only possible correct interpretation of that word.

And neither of you justify your claims with a self definition, let alone any facts.

BTW, to all the Christians here, quoting the Bible is a source of opinion. I'm not a Chrisitan, and I sure do NOT accept your particular version of the Bible as fact. For fawd's sake, there's even a different version for Roman Catholics versus Protestants.

So, Christans do not accept their book as absolute either, excepting wherein they reject every other Christian's version of the book as a distortion of the real truth.

Stop basing your claims on putting somebody down, and start making positive assertions as to what you believe.


Ed, you know quite well that one cannot make a thorough rebuttal to an unjustified negatory, that's why you've been pulling this complete and utter **** for months now.

Personally, I'm sick to death of all the "It aint my God, so you're wrong by definition crap". Tell us what you believe, stop spending all your efforts on trying to despoil those you've identified as suitable victims to your intellectual arrogance.

Ian

.

there are even many churches full of potential friends...

Hi, Jonah.

You don't have to like them -- but their rights should not be denied, either.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

n/p....

when homosexuality is accepted by 100% of the people, by 100% of the law/law makers and for 100% of the time...

Are you one of those that accept them? If not, how can you expect a 100% to accept them?

Or did you really say you'll respect the rights of a group only when 100% of the population and lawmakers respect that group?

You don't really believe this, do you?

Dan