On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 03:33:55 GMT, "Who Cares?"
<whocares@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:1fyv9c0.1x43ffh1agqanvN%usenet@no-spam
>| Who Cares? <whocares@no-spam> wrote:
>|
>| > "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote in message
>| > news:1fyv5o7.3z8mxi1aitnwlN%usenet@no-spam
>| > | whit <whit@no-spam> wrote:
>| [..]
>| > | > it's wrong, it's against everything we have learned in the
>last
>| > | > several decades about equality, fairness, and justice. and it
>has no
>| > | > place in a public school.
>| > |
>| > | It's a really unfortunate comparison, but do you believe that
>the
>| > | developmentally-disabled should be mainstreamed?
>| >
>| > To a large extent they are, at least in the school districts I am
>familiar
>| > with. Teachers are now forced to "educate" those kids with sub 70
>IQs in
>| > the same class room with everyone else.
>|
>| My point in bringing it up is that education is about *education,*
>and
>| if a kid spends their day getting abused (as is the case with any
>| outsider, be they gay or developmentally disabled), it's hard to get
>| educated. If you'd argue that everyone's needs would be better met
>by
>| separating those with special needs, within public school systems,
>then
>| why would you argue that gay kids, often the victims of taunting and
>| assault, shouldn't be similarly separated?
>
>If we extend the privildge to gay kids, we need to extend it to ALL
>kids that are impeded in the learning process by anything - religion,
>skin color, appearance, income, whatever. The gay students I am
>familiar with receive no more taunting than many other kids.
And you do feel comfortable with them and freely associate with
them right?
>|
>| > 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?
>
>I have chosen not to immerse myself in it, if that is what you mean.
>So what is your rebuttal to my statement(s)?
>
>But then again,
>
>Who Cares?
>
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:7vifivcr4k42enpe4lnki61n5vjqooaclj@no-spam
| On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 03:33:55 GMT, "Who Cares?"
| <whocares@no-spam> wrote:
|
| >
| >"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote in message
| >news:1fyv9c0.1x43ffh1agqanvN%usenet@no-spam
| >| Who Cares? <whocares@no-spam> wrote:
| >|
| >| > "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote in message
| >| > news:1fyv5o7.3z8mxi1aitnwlN%usenet@no-spam
| >| > | whit <whit@no-spam> wrote:
| >| [..]
| >| > | > it's wrong, it's against everything we have learned in the
| >last
| >| > | > several decades about equality, fairness, and justice. and
it
| >has no
| >| > | > place in a public school.
| >| > |
| >| > | It's a really unfortunate comparison, but do you believe that
| >the
| >| > | developmentally-disabled should be mainstreamed?
| >| >
| >| > To a large extent they are, at least in the school districts I
am
| >familiar
| >| > with. Teachers are now forced to "educate" those kids with sub
70
| >IQs in
| >| > the same class room with everyone else.
| >|
| >| My point in bringing it up is that education is about
*education,*
| >and
| >| if a kid spends their day getting abused (as is the case with any
| >| outsider, be they gay or developmentally disabled), it's hard to
get
| >| educated. If you'd argue that everyone's needs would be better
met
| >by
| >| separating those with special needs, within public school
systems,
| >then
| >| why would you argue that gay kids, often the victims of taunting
and
| >| assault, shouldn't be similarly separated?
| >
| >If we extend the privildge to gay kids, we need to extend it to ALL
| >kids that are impeded in the learning process by anything -
religion,
| >skin color, appearance, income, whatever. The gay students I am
| >familiar with receive no more taunting than many other kids.
|
| And you do feel comfortable with them and freely associate with
| them right?
Yes I do. They know that I do not approve of their lifestyle, but we
are still friends.
|
| >|
| >| > 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?
| >
| >I have chosen not to immerse myself in it, if that is what you
mean.
| >So what is your rebuttal to my statement(s)?
| >
| >But then again,
| >
| >Who Cares?
| >
|
| O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
| "Those who can make you believe absurdities can
| make you commit atrocities."
| - Voltaire
| O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:16:23 GMT, Obwon <ob110ob@no-spam> wrote:
>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.
"Various social frauds"? What the hell is that? All of the behavior
you list is already addressed in virtually all school districts with
guidelines about harassment, bullying etc. I'm positive that
segregating kids who (rightly or wrongly) believe that they are "gay".
Sounds like some heavy duty attempts at indoctrinations
inappropriately aimed at young children who should have a lot more to
do than worry about their "sexual orientation". Why rush them?
>
> 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.
On the contrary, as a parent, and as a Law Enforcement officer, I come
into contact with lots of juveniles daily, and I'm telling you, sexual
proclivities notwithstanding, kids are brutal, to almost everyone at
some time or another. Finding ways for the mainstream educational
system to deal with such issues sounds a lot more helpful than making
these kids pariahs by educational segregation.
>
> 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.
You keep repeating this "social devices" mantra. Without an
understanding of what you mean, and I consider myself of at least
average intelligence, you just sound a little silly.
>
> 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!
Why is it that children need to become pawns by being segregated
educationally? I have two boys, 14 and 11, and they don't need to be
dwelling on sexual orientations. As far as I am concerned, if when
older, they feel that they are homosexual, fine. But why young
children need to be exploited for larger agendas by the homosexual
lobby is a mystery to me. I suspect that the impetus behind this "gay
school" has little or nothing to do with the children's best interest.
Gay or not, these children are going to need to function in society at
large, warts and all, segregating them seems to me to be harmful, not
helpful.
>
> 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.
As above, segregation seems to me to be in the interest of a special
interest group, and definitely not the children involved. And that's
something that is a shame and should be challenged and shown for what
it is, a pathetic attempt to shove a political agenda down the throats
of local communities.
>
> 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?
"Sexualism"? "Keep slaves in line"? "Advocates"? Advocates for who?
The children? Or, as it looks like, themselves? Your hysterical
hyperbole may play well with fanatical homosexual lobbyists, but us
parents know better, and we won't let our children be used as fodder
for the "cause".
>
> 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.
"Unconstitutional"? Probably. But the more puerile and shameful
aspect is the children being used as pawns by segregating them away
from the "society" that you attempt to portray as "unfair" and
laughingly "abnormal". Parents recognize the agenda that's really
being championed here.
I have a novel concept. How about just letting the kids be kids?
Instead of goose stepping them into being warriors for the homosexual
lobby. Reading, baseball, writing, football, not forcing sexual
orientations on them as an issue.
ALOHA
Reply to group
(Unsolicited e-mail is deleted unread)
Had it been the other way around, that is school officials demanding that
homosexuals be sent to separate high schools, the Leftwing Liberals would be
having fits of apoplexy and the ACLU would be doing worse mental gymnastics
than they usually do. Segregation is segregation, period. All right, let's
say, the suspected "homosexual" children are being segregated for their own
protection. Are they being protected from heterosexual children? And when
they get out of high school will they be able to continue being protected
from contact with heterosexuals? Who is going to protect them from such
contact?
V.I. Lenin learned long ago that one of the ways to attract rabid followers
was to target "victims" and people who were outcasts from society. First it
was necessary to convince them of their "plight" and that they were, indeed,
ostracized by the rest of society because society was wrong. He learned and
taught that by isolating such people, they were much more likely to be ready
subjects for indoctrination and brainwashing. Those who took the bait
readily were used until they no longer proved necessary to his cause and were
then done away with and the others were what he called "useful idiots" who
would parrot and promote his propaganda even though they weren't aware of
what they were doing or why they were doing it. In either senario, the
children being carted off to the homosexual high school are about to become
pawns to cold-blooded political agendas that don't give a rat's knuckle about
the children or their sexual preferences. The kids are only so much more
fodder for the Leftwing Liberal machine who strive to bring us a brave new
world of cowards. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
"Thomas" <mauicop@no-spam> wrote in message
news:1icmivg8vcaskka9rc45dhb8sbimalhljb@no-spam
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:16:23 GMT, Obwon <ob110ob@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> "Various social frauds"? What the hell is that? All of the behavior
> you list is already addressed in virtually all school districts with
> guidelines about harassment, bullying etc. I'm positive that
> segregating kids who (rightly or wrongly) believe that they are "gay".
> Sounds like some heavy duty attempts at indoctrinations
> inappropriately aimed at young children who should have a lot more to
> do than worry about their "sexual orientation". Why rush them?
> >
> > 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.
>
> On the contrary, as a parent, and as a Law Enforcement officer, I come
> into contact with lots of juveniles daily, and I'm telling you, sexual
> proclivities notwithstanding, kids are brutal, to almost everyone at
> some time or another. Finding ways for the mainstream educational
> system to deal with such issues sounds a lot more helpful than making
> these kids pariahs by educational segregation.
> >
> > 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.
>
> You keep repeating this "social devices" mantra. Without an
> understanding of what you mean, and I consider myself of at least
> average intelligence, you just sound a little silly.
> >
> > 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!
>
> Why is it that children need to become pawns by being segregated
> educationally? I have two boys, 14 and 11, and they don't need to be
> dwelling on sexual orientations. As far as I am concerned, if when
> older, they feel that they are homosexual, fine. But why young
> children need to be exploited for larger agendas by the homosexual
> lobby is a mystery to me. I suspect that the impetus behind this "gay
> school" has little or nothing to do with the children's best interest.
> Gay or not, these children are going to need to function in society at
> large, warts and all, segregating them seems to me to be harmful, not
> helpful.
> >
> > 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.
>
> As above, segregation seems to me to be in the interest of a special
> interest group, and definitely not the children involved. And that's
> something that is a shame and should be challenged and shown for what
> it is, a pathetic attempt to shove a political agenda down the throats
> of local communities.
> >
> > 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?
>
> "Sexualism"? "Keep slaves in line"? "Advocates"? Advocates for who?
> The children? Or, as it looks like, themselves? Your hysterical
> hyperbole may play well with fanatical homosexual lobbyists, but us
> parents know better, and we won't let our children be used as fodder
> for the "cause".
> >
> > 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.
>
> "Unconstitutional"? Probably. But the more puerile and shameful
> aspect is the children being used as pawns by segregating them away
> from the "society" that you attempt to portray as "unfair" and
> laughingly "abnormal". Parents recognize the agenda that's really
> being championed here.
> I have a novel concept. How about just letting the kids be kids?
> Instead of goose stepping them into being warriors for the homosexual
> lobby. Reading, baseball, writing, football, not forcing sexual
> orientations on them as an issue.
>
> ALOHA
>
> Reply to group
> (Unsolicited e-mail is deleted unread)
