On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:09:51 GMT, "alohacyberian"
<alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote:
>"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:1fyvwa3.1uwn7w51l1kxeqN%usenet@no-spam
>> Cap'n TrVth <The_Telling_Light_of_TrVth@no-spam> wrote:
>> [..]
>> > This is just plain silly.
>> >
>> > But I like it..
>> >
>> > When Lefties try to force feed gay issues down the throats of the
>populace
>> > the Right wins *EVERY TIME*
>> >
>> > See Hawaii's new Republican Gov.
>> > See New Hampshire's new Republican Gov.
>> > See Conservativism take root and flourish wherever gay issues are
>force-fed.
>> >
>> > Nice job Lefties,
>> > -keep up the good work and enjoy the backlash.
>>
>> Well, it's nice that you have the students' education and well-being at
>> heart.
>>
>God knows that if homosexual students attend school only with other
>homosexuals, they will get a superior education without the distraction of
>all those *shudder* heterosexual kids. KM
Not to mention:
1. Those who will shun them.
2. Those who will encourage others to shun them.
3. Those who will attempt to use negative stereotyping against
them.
4. Those who will seek to perpetuated various social "frauds"
against them.
5. Any thing else they can use to show that they are not one of
them themselves.
All of which are not visited upon so called "normal" children
in the various taunting and abuse sessions some think should be
part of a healthy "toughening up" regime all kids should be
subjected to in the effort to earn their academic credentials.
So, as one might devine from the above, there are quite a few
very unhealthy social devices, that can and usually are, called
into play against gay children, that are very much more harmful
than the "normal" taunting kids usually dish out to their peers.
So, why then is it such a bad thing for the state to recognize
it's inability to prevent very harmful social devices from being
used against a portion of their legal educational charges? The
state is charged with a duty to provide education to all
children, if social mores get in the way, I think they have a
perfect right to acknowledge that impediment to their mission and
ameliorated and abate it!
So, until society at large changes to where sexual preference
is no longer a basis that justifies the employment of especially
harmful/hurtful/hateful treatments to their charges, that becomes
a real impediment to their mission, they have the right to take
the necessary remedial measures.
One cannot cloak the negative effects of sexualisms that are
known and proven to interfere seriously with the education of the
children who must turn to the state for it's educational
resources! To deny that such impediments exist for this group,
is to attempt to raise arguments that have the covert agenda of
denying educational resources to the few and needy. Isn't that
exactly what was done to keep slaves in line? Raise arguments of
equality, justice and fairness to resist doing what was needed to
ameliorate real problems that the "advocates" of such fairness,
equality and justice, were intent upon perpetuating?
Finally, the U.S. Constitution allows for the recognition of
past injustice and the use of otherwise-unconstitutional
solutions to remediate the problems while they exist. Normally
the make up of schools is left to the demographics of the
communities where they are located. But, when there are abnormal
situations, pressures, unfairnesses etc., the courts hold that
remedial actions are necessary, may not be Constitutional of
reasonable necessity, but should be imposed and/or supported
by/with judicial power/force, until it can be shown that such
remedies are no longer needed.
Obwon
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can
make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
>
>> What do you propose after highschool? Segregated colleges? Segregated
>> workplaces? Special stores for gay people to shop? Maybe we could just
>> create an "Island of Lesbo" and move all of them there so they can live
>> free of any ill will...
>
>You really aren't familiar with gay culture, are you?
Either that or in heavy denial, hahaha.
Obwon
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can
make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
Obwon <ob110ob@no-spam> wrote in message
news:8effivslacqaqnac515b0ddesb6jvrv62q@no-spam
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:09:51 GMT, "alohacyberian"
> <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote in message
> >news:1fyvwa3.1uwn7w51l1kxeqN%usenet@no-spam
> >> Cap'n TrVth <The_Telling_Light_of_TrVth@no-spam> wrote:
> >> [..]
> >> > This is just plain silly.
> >> >
> >> > But I like it..
> >> >
> >> > When Lefties try to force feed gay issues down the throats of the
> >populace
> >> > the Right wins *EVERY TIME*
> >> >
> >> > See Hawaii's new Republican Gov.
> >> > See New Hampshire's new Republican Gov.
> >> > See Conservativism take root and flourish wherever gay issues are
> >force-fed.
> >> >
> >> > Nice job Lefties,
> >> > -keep up the good work and enjoy the backlash.
> >>
> >> Well, it's nice that you have the students' education and well-being at
> >> heart.
> >>
> >God knows that if homosexual students attend school only with other
> >homosexuals, they will get a superior education without the distraction
of
> >all those *shudder* heterosexual kids. KM
>
> Not to mention:
>
> 1. Those who will shun them.
> 2. Those who will encourage others to shun them.
> 3. Those who will attempt to use negative stereotyping against
> them.
> 4. Those who will seek to perpetuated various social "frauds"
> against them.
> 5. Any thing else they can use to show that they are not one of
> them themselves.
>
> All of which are not visited upon so called "normal" children
> in the various taunting and abuse sessions some think should be
> part of a healthy "toughening up" regime all kids should be
> subjected to in the effort to earn their academic credentials.
>
> So, as one might devine from the above, there are quite a few
> very unhealthy social devices, that can and usually are, called
> into play against gay children, that are very much more harmful
> than the "normal" taunting kids usually dish out to their peers.
>
> So, why then is it such a bad thing for the state to recognize
> it's inability to prevent very harmful social devices from being
> used against a portion of their legal educational charges? The
> state is charged with a duty to provide education to all
> children, if social mores get in the way, I think they have a
> perfect right to acknowledge that impediment to their mission and
> ameliorated and abate it!
>
> So, until society at large changes to where sexual preference
> is no longer a basis that justifies the employment of especially
> harmful/hurtful/hateful treatments to their charges, that becomes
> a real impediment to their mission, they have the right to take
> the necessary remedial measures.
>
> One cannot cloak the negative effects of sexualisms that are
> known and proven to interfere seriously with the education of the
> children who must turn to the state for it's educational
> resources! To deny that such impediments exist for this group,
> is to attempt to raise arguments that have the covert agenda of
> denying educational resources to the few and needy. Isn't that
> exactly what was done to keep slaves in line? Raise arguments of
> equality, justice and fairness to resist doing what was needed to
> ameliorate real problems that the "advocates" of such fairness,
> equality and justice, were intent upon perpetuating?
>
> Finally, the U.S. Constitution allows for the recognition of
> past injustice and the use of otherwise-unconstitutional
> solutions to remediate the problems while they exist. Normally
> the make up of schools is left to the demographics of the
> communities where they are located. But, when there are abnormal
> situations, pressures, unfairnesses etc., the courts hold that
> remedial actions are necessary, may not be Constitutional of
> reasonable necessity, but should be imposed and/or supported
> by/with judicial power/force, until it can be shown that such
> remedies are no longer needed.
>
> Obwon
so, again. where are the studies, the stats, and the comparative analysis
between other 'victim' groups to show this compelling need for gay only
schools?
do you just jump to conclusion regarding radical systemic changes that
effect serious constitutional precedent, merely based on emotion?
have you studies the stats and studies before supporting this radical
proposal?
i doubt it.
whit
> O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
> "Those who can make you believe absurdities can
> make you commit atrocities."
> - Voltaire
> O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
>
