patrick.net

The school didn't come in between the parent and their child when they provided information about the child to their parent.

It is the parent that is 100% responsible for their children, not the school. The parent makes decisions about what is important, and not important when it comes to their children, not the school.

elliemae says

I just believe that there's a professional responsibility to give the amount of information that necessary, and no more.

Then you can certainly request the school withhold information from you about your children, but allowing the school to withhold that information from other parents is simply not your prerogative, nor is it the schools.

We're not talking about teachers gossiping about the child, or about the school, for no reason other than bias against the student, picking up the phone, calling the parents, and tattling on the student. We're talking about an effort on the part of the school to actively withhold information about a child from that child's parents. That is simply wrong.

elliemae says

This applies to my children, my neighbor's children, and the children I've never met. It's their life and the school had no right to force the issue.

That's the problem right there. You don't get the privelage of imposing your world view or your morality onto all parents in your community.

If you were my childs school administrator, and you intentionally withheld information from me about my child, and I found out about it, I would become your worst nightmare.

Children have their own lives once they've moved out of my home. Until then, they are my children, and my responsibility, and you keep your goddam religion away from us.

That's precisely the problem with this country. Both conservatives and liberals... Everyone wants to be able to control what everyone else is doing. Conservatives want to control our morality, put everyone in prison for victimless crimes, and indoctrinate all of us with christianity. Liberals, want take over everyone's families and take parenting away from parents and hand it over to the "village." Both groups are assholes and are best served by staying away from my family.

Amen to that.

the "reason" for the bullying only worried about because of the Deviant Nation and their demand for enhanced punishment for actions against their Nation. Can't have it both ways. If you want to call some crime "hate" crime, then you have to call some bullying "hate" bullying.

Bullying is done to anyone with something so different about them that a large percentage of the rest of the group notices the difference. We all try to raise our kids right. Normal people dress their kids and send them to school in a manner that will help them fit in and not be targets. Boys are dressed in sports stuff and play ball games and physical stuff at a very early age, naturally -- unless the boy is a sissy. If a boy is a sissy, he is different from the norm and will be bullyed. Not just in school, but in life. Until he surrounds himself with sissy boys and they create their own gang ... like the GLBT Gang, or NOW, or ACLU, or whatever other groups are formed by those guys for protection from bullying. Until that time, he will be a target and bullyed because he is different from the normal group.

Maybe it's like the red-dot-on-the-beak thing?

Maybe it's like being a Conservative Christian on here? A person has to expect (not accept) being a target when they are different from the norm.

ReasonNotFaith says

you keep your goddam religion away from us.

Jewish by birth, don't practice anything.

ReasonNotFaith says

Everyone wants to be able to control what everyone else is doing.

So do you, from your post. But you can't control your children, you can make them your enemy for life with this attitude. They are who they are and should be accepted for this.

Bap33 says

Bullying is done to anyone with something so different about them that a large percentage of the rest of the group notices the difference.

No, bullying is done out of ignorance. Everyone is different and you're blaming the victim. Bap33 says

If a boy is a sissy, he is different from the norm and will be bullyed.

Your definition of a sissy could reach to Bill Gates, Albert Einstein and many other people who weren't "normal."

Take this several times a day, and turn off faux news.

ReasonNotFaith says

I don't think it's reasonable or plausible to hide anything about a child from their parents, especially if you work for a public school.

Unless it is for an abortion or birth control - then it is OK to do that and it is somehow covered by the constitution. Give them a Tylenol or Benedryl? No way you have to have a parental consent for for that!

Bap33 says

... like the GLBT Gang, or NOW, or ACLU, or whatever other groups are formed by those guys for protection from bullying. Until that time, he will be a target and bullyed because he is different from the normal group.
Maybe it's like the red-dot-on-the-beak thing?
Maybe it's like being a Conservative Christian on here? A person has to expect (not accept) being a target when they are different from the norm.

Wow, you are a good and faithful right winger because you manged to go from bigot-asshole to the victim status in record time. You might get a front row pew next week for that outstanding transition.
But it is nice that you and others like you like to wear your (selective)bigotry and religion on your arm like some kind of badge of honor because it let's the rest of us people know where you're at constantly. Your words and behavior are usually only JUST offensive but frequently you kooks do something really horriffic and destructive.

Naaa, just obnoxious asshats like you.

You seem to be pretty informed about all kinds of pedophilia too, and that's more than strange.

Bap33 says

the "reason" for the bullying only worried about because of the Deviant Nation and their demand for enhanced punishment for actions against their Nation.

I have no idea at all what you are talking about...

elliemae says

Jewish by birth, don't practice anything

It sounds like you practice sticking your nose into other people's business by trying to control other people's families. The dogma you have forces you to do that is what I was referring to as your religion.

People like you are largely why we'll probably end up home schooling our children.

elliemae says

So do you, from your post.

What is it that I have said suggests I want to control anything that anyone else does, apart from protecting my own rights.

EightBall says

Unless it is for an abortion or birth control - then it is OK to do that and it is somehow covered by the constitution.

That's bullshit, I don't agree with that either. While I do support a womans right to safe, and easy to access healthcare, including the right to an abortion, I don't agree with the left's attempts to subvert the family (the rights of the family) by helping kids do things behind their parents back. This whole "it takes a village" idea is complete garbage.

upisdown says

Naaa, just obnoxious asshats like you.

You're right, Cloud truly is an obnoxious asshat.

ReasonNotFaith says

Bap33 says

the "reason" for the bullying only worried about because of the Deviant Nation and their demand for enhanced punishment for actions against their Nation.
I have no idea at all what you are talking about...

yea .. I write pretty poorly. I was saying that the only reason there is a search for the "reason" for the bullying is out of the search for deviant victims and then the lable of "hate" can be tired to an action that is already wrong/bad/illegal. THe bullying was wrong, and that should be all there is to say about that. A white kid wearing a cowboy hat to an all black inner-city school would be bullyed and beat, but the media would laugh at the stupid choice made by the kid/parents to send him to school dressed as a cowboy, BESIDES being the only white kid there. Does that help at all explain my post?

@ellie,
if you read my post again, try to see that I was just giving my view of how bullying/bad bahavior is part of life and normally happens - no matter the "reason" for the bullying. I know that many sissys turned out just fine. And they were bullyed. Just like some cheerleaders were sluts, but still make good moms/wives. Sissy is subjective ... in some circles guy-A might seem to be a sissy, while in other circles he would seem to be a stud. Subjective.

I think I understand what you are saying, and I agree with what I think you are saying about bullying being a part of life.

It's always happened. Kids need to learn to deal with assholes before they become adult and find they have no idea how to deal with them, and there's no one around to help them anymore. I think parents do much less "parenting" these days than in previous generations because most families need to have a dual income household to make ends meet, so parenting/mentoring/bonding is neglected. I really believe that's one of the largest causes of most of our problems in our society today.... Well, that and religion.

I do have an issue with your term "deviant victims". I'm curious what you mean when you use that term.

If you're implying homosexuals are deviants, I would say that is truly ignorant.

Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq says

Bullies play an important part of underclass society. Bullies condition the underclass masses into accepting that being different is fucking gay.

Being homosexual isn't a problem because it is different. Being homosexual is bad because our liberal media celebrates it, and that corrupts the minds of our youth.

FortWayne says

Being homosexual is bad because our liberal media celebrates it, and that corrupts the minds of our youth.

1. Being a homosexual isn't bad.
2. The media celebrates diversity... Sometimes too much.
3. A youth who decides they are a homosexual has not been corrupted. They have made a legitimate choice as to how to live their life.

ReasonNotFaith says

1. Being a homosexual isn't bad.
2. The media celebrates diversity... Sometimes too much.
3. A youth who decides they are a homosexual has not been corrupted. They have made a legitimate choice as to how to live their life.

Children do have a gene in them that makes them repeat what they see, without necessarily understanding it. When a 12 year old tells you that she thinks she should be a bi because that's what is cool, without actually knowing what that even is... As a parent I tell you I much rather see media being honest about it, instead of celebrating diversity just for the sake of having diversity.

ReasonNotFaith says

I do have an issue with your term "deviant victims". I'm curious what you mean when you use that term.
If you're implying homosexuals are deviants, I would say that is truly ignorant.

P.C. rules of engagement has resulted in the search for the deviant/qualifying/"protected class" victim after any crime.

yes, a human that shapes their life around their desire to perform unnatural sex acts with same sex humans, animals, kids, or dead people is - in simple terms - Deviant in their nature. Human males that prefer to mount other human males are sodomites, human males that prefer to be mounted by human males are perverted deviants, but not sodomites. Human females that pretend to be males in their lifestyle, and find sexual gratification by acting out the role of a male with a human female, are bull-dyke lezbians. The human female that plays the role of the female in a lezbian couple is a doe-dyke. Most doe-dykes normally are "bi", since they enjoy the natural sex act as performed by a man. A human male that mounts males and females is a perverted sexual deviant, known as "bi". If a human male is mounted and used as a female by any other human, and also mounts females, he is "bi" and extreemly deviant in their nature. Any human that mounts a dead human is a deviant. Any human that mounts a human under 16 years of age is a deviant. Any human that rapes another human is a deviant.

Only deviants that are sodomites and lesbians are "protected class", simply because of their chosen system of sexual gratification. I find that unfair, so in protest I refer to all of the deviants as "deviants", and remove any need to properly lable each ones choice of gratification.

Short answer: GLBT, pedifile, necrofile = deviant.

I hope that helps.

Celebrate Normalcy!!

Bap33 says

GLBT, pedifile, necrofile = deviant.

Along with the likes of Rick Perry and Rick Santorum, history will remember you as an ignorant bigot, just as we regard the likes of David Duke and Ross Barnett today. You must be so proud.

Ignorant christian bigots are the real deviants. Herd mentality is what drives you and your fellow lemmings. Of course you lash out at someone who looks/acts differently than you do; just like the fools who insisted the earth was flat, you don't have strong enough character to allow you to be who you are, and allow others to be who they are.

Bap33 says

yes, a human that shapes their life around their desire to perform unnatural sex acts with same sex humans, animals, kids, or dead people is - in simple terms - Deviant in their nature. Human males that prefer to mount other human males are sodomites, human males that prefer to be mounted by human males are perverted deviants, but not sodomites. Human females that pretend to be males in their lifestyle, and find sexual gratification by acting out the role of a male with a human female, are bull-dyke lezbians.

He talks this way because his feelings have been so hurt by so many times being thought of as an an "uneducated hillbilly" or as a "racist redneck" or a "peckerwood preacher" or a "dimbulb cracker" etc...

Even if you've lived your life surrounded by gullible and extremely stupid
authoritarian fools, I want you to know that I honestly still have hope for you Bap.

Bap33 says

shapes their life around their desire to perform unnatural sex acts with same sex humans, animals, kids, or dead people

Do you shape your life around your sexual urges ?

By the way what's with putting pedophilia, beastiality and necrophelia right up there with homosexuality ? Have you no clue how that reflects on you ?

As for homosexuality: Since the real driver behind our sexual urges is our hardwiring to reproduce, who's to say that homosexuality isn't just a natural way of not passing on our DNA ? I don't know if that might be the case. But we do know that it has always occurred.

My personal opinion is that is someone is strongly oriented that way and they openly pursue that lifestyle, then it's just a different normal, so to speak. But if on the other hand they are living a hetrero lifestyle and secretly sneak out on occasion to blow a stranger in an airport restroom, now THAT is clearly a perverted deviant.

Bap33 says

Short answer: GLBT, pedifile, necrofile = deviant

Maybe Bap is a pedophile and wishes to be thought of as no worse than a homosexual ?

Here is a clue for your primitive small brain Bap. Does the term "2 consenting adults" mean anything to you ?

FortWayne says

When a 12 year old tells you that she thinks she should be a bi because that's what is cool, without actually knowing what that even is

FortWayne has been watching too much porn.

Please show some examples of the media glamorizing being "bi."

marcus,
if two consenting male adults agree to hold you down and rape you because they say they were born with that desire, does that make it right?

what if an adult male is born with the desire to never wait in line, but to just walk/drive past everyone and go first at all times? is that ok? It is not their fault they are born with a desire to not get in line and wait. Society is all F-ed up for dreaming up that crap, anyways! Right?

marcus says

But if on the other hand they are living a hetrero lifestyle and secretly sneak out on occasion to blow a stranger in an airport restroom, now THAT is clearly a perverted deviant.

marcus,
best line ever.
Your point is good and well recieved. I'm just stirring poop. Merry Christmas.

marcus says

Does the term "2 consenting adults" mean anything to you ?

Radical Religious Zealots like Bap, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, etc, are always trying to regulate other people's ability to have sex with each other...

So much for "small government"

Bap33 says

if two consenting male adults agree to hold you down and rape you because they say they were born with that desire, does that make it right?

Are you incapable of doing simple math? That would be 3 adults, not two.

Two consenting adults should be able to do anything with each other that they choose... Or did the radical religious zealots take the idea of a right to the pursuit of happiness out of the constitution while we slept last night?

Bap33 says

marcus,
if two consenting male adults agree to hold you down and rape you because they say they were born with that desire, does that make it right?

Oh oh I want to respond to this one!
NO! It's not right. BUT if two consenting adult men agree to hold a woman down it's ok? Am I getting this right Bap?

We celebrate diversity not because it's *really* that great - diversity has caused plenty of conflict and we'd really be happier if we were all the same, not counting the terminal boredom. We celebrate diversity because the alternative .. as seen through history ... is ignorant intolerance of the unavoidable. The conflict caused by that is even worse. Please see WW2, the apartheid, slavery in the US, the persecution of religious minorities that pushed so many into the US in the first place, etc etc, the list just goes on and on.

Intolerance of diversity is a cancer that has eaten away at the progress of human kind since our time as a species began. Today, the societies that celebrate freedom also celebrate diversity because we (or some of us) understand and rightly fear the alternative. You may say it goes too far, but hopefully you can understand why having a cross-dressing flaming school teacher is far, far better than having a religious zealot who advocates violence in spite of his/her professed devotion to the words of christ ... against all the heathens, gays, and political opposition. If you can't, then be glad that you don't live as a minority (racial, religious, sexual - whatever) in an intolerant society. If you did, you would quickly learn a painful lesson about humility.

A lesson a few in this thread were never taught by their mothers!

There is no debate about this anymore. There is just a segment of our population that remains in blissful (or not so blissful) ignorance. People who wish the south seceded and kept slavery alive. People who wish that freedom of religion had never been part of our country. People who wish that gay-bashing (physically) was an accepted sport. People who wish that women did not have the right to vote - let alone leave the kitchen or bedroom without permission. For those people I have nothing but pity because they will likely go to their graves pitiful examples of why evolution is necessary - examples of why even a race as accomplished as ours should always strive to be better.

Bap33 says

if two consenting male adults agree to hold you down and rape you because they say they were born with that desire, does that make it right?

I was obviously only talking about your comparison of homosexuality to bestiality, pedophilia and necrophilia. Homosexuality is the only one of these that includes 2 consenting adults that aren't harming anyone else or affecting anyone else for that matter.

Bap33 says

I'm just stirring poop. Merry Christmas.

I know. Same to you.

Bap33 says

yea .. I write pretty poorly...People like you are largely why we'll probably end up home schooling our children.

Must....hold.......tongue..... must........not.... make snarky.....comment about teaching a child when one isn't able to communicate effectively in the written word.........must....be.......strong........... awe, fuck it!

You might want to hire someone to homeschool on the English composition part of their education. Unless Mrs. BAP can formulate thoughts into sentences better than you. Just sayin'

The truth is that bullying does occur - but shouldn't blame the victim. If the kid wanted to come out, he would have. The school forced the issue. Being gay isn't a choice, it identity. No one would willingly choose to do something - to be something - so different from others.

Matt.BayArea says

Intolerance of diversity is a cancer that has eaten away at the progress of human kind since our time as a species began.

Just because someone is different doesn't make me want to tolerate their actions. We bemoan the fact that there isn't enough "tolerance" when in fact there isn't enough intolerance. Do you tolerate the actions of those in NAMBLA? How about BP screwing up and dumping oil in the gulf? Polygamy? After all, you are just adding a number to the "consenting adults". How about prostitution? Meth dealers? People exercising their constitutional right to bear arms? People who aren't like you because they are religious? Someone that lives in the midwest and a small town? How about those southerners that talk funny? Would it have been better for Cortez to have allowed the Aztecs to survive with their human sacrifice rituals in the name of diversity and tolerance? What are you intolerant of? Where is the rule book that says "this is ok and this is not ok"? If you had said rule book, why would I need to follow it? And would you force me to follow it if you had the means to do so? Isn't that tyranny and the exact thing you accuse the religious nutjobs of doing?

elliemae says

No one would willingly choose to do something - to be something - so different from others.

umm .... tattoo/pierce shops make lots of money from folks doing that very thing.

The kid should not be sexual at all at his age. Nobody mentioned that thus far. He will not know for sure if he digs guys until he kisses one, sees one naked, has a crush. Assuming it works for queers like it works for normal boys. I was obviously into chicks at 2 or 3 years old. But, the idea was not put into practice until 4th or 5th grade. Same should be true for queer guys.

This is all about private sex between adults? not!

That's the thing with the whole sodomite issue, they aint really happy to be able to bugger each other at home. In the 70's they wanted to make sure everyone knew that they wanted to bugger each other at home. In the 80's they wanted pity for AIDS, and blamed Reagan and Coop. In the 90's they wanted the military to accept them and schools to teach their activity as "normal". In the '00's they wanted to get married in church and have states recognize it. I am pretty sure, but I may be wrong, that the focus of the sodmoite nation is not just "two adults having sex in their own private setting". If that were the issue, then Prop 22 and Prop 8 would have never came up. Right?

So, what happens if an adult feels waiting for ones turn in line is a stupid thing?

Bap33 says

So, what happens if an adult feels waiting for ones turn in line is a stupid thing?

Being gay is no more of a choice than your retardation was (and still is) for you.

Bap33 says

I'm just stirring poop

That's what he said.

Bap33 says

That's the thing with the whole sodomite issue, they aint really happy to be able to bugger each other at home........................

So this group that is what, maybe 10 to 12% of the population, who has
pushed the envelope for a few decades, getting a lot of attention, but also now finally fairly close to acceptance, gets under your skin ? We get it.

And since they are only 10% its easy for your type to take issue with them, and how they don't fit your idea of how people should behave. Everyone should be more like you, of course. I think more people should be like me. Wow, I think I'm having a breakthrough.

By the time you're dead and gone, this issue will be about as interesting as black people being able to drink out of our water fountains, or woman being allowed to vote.

Righteous change is painful for the dimbulbs.

@marcus,
God's answer to the water fountain/voting issue was the Good Sumeritan, I think. Besides God said to love your neighbor and such, so those issues should have never existed in a Christian based society.

God's answer to male human sodomite activity is very easy to read. The percentage of deviant humans on the planet seems to be constant over human history. Would you agree? Not just sodomites or other sexual based differences, but liars, artists, murderers, singers, whores ... I think the percentage of the total for each sub-group of humans has been pretty flat since Noah.

My point is, it would appear that some actions and behaviors, while common in humans, are not supposed to be accepted by society. Society has rules, like waiting ones turn in line, that are not popular with some, but we still raise our kids with that rule so they will fit in and function in society. I'm not sure why the few, who have been made, or choose to be, different, don't understand that it is them who are different, and that they should not expect society to change to make the odd seem common.

I guarantee thare were many good Christian rednecks in the south that went to their grave in say the 60s or 70s kicking and screaming over the rights given to african americans who they used much convoluted "logic" to argue were subhuman.

The same would be true of many older chauvinist idiots who died in the decades after women go t the vote.

These are just two easy examples, where we see nobody now questions these things except possibly the occasional neonazi.

Your rules, which you take to be God's rules are arbitrarily chosen. There are many "rules" from the bible that even you would not think of following. Others have made the point that different cultures over the centuries have had vastly different views of homosexuality. I think you confuse the effects of your authoritarian personality, your difficulty with cultural change, and possibly some other personality factors with some sort of absolute good that you have access to, but which much of the population, especially the more educated and or younger members do not.

EightBall says

Just because someone is different doesn't make me want to tolerate their actions.

No, you don't get it - this strawman illustrates your ignorance. You don't tolerate someone *because* they are different ... you tolerate them because their differences are not harming people. Two gay people want to wear rings and say they're married? It doesn't harm you. An adult male wants to rape a young boy? That has a victim - don't tolerate it.

EightBall says

Do you tolerate the actions of those in NAMBLA?

No. As for the topic of the age of consent I don't pretend to have any answers. I think our current system (~18 in most places) makes some sense. I would not be angry today if people had let a 25 year old woman have sex with me when I was 15, though ... maybe our current laws need refinement, but who said anything about scrapping them?

EightBall says

How about BP screwing up and dumping oil in the gulf?

Is there a victim here? Seems quite a bit different from what I was talking about. Don't get me wrong - I'm not for 'all religions and all religious practices'. Some should not be tolerated and I think it's pretty clear which - cultures that oppress women, for instance, should not be ignored in the name of tolerance.EightBall says

Polygamy? After all, you are just adding a number to the "consenting adults".

Is there something fundamentally wrong with polygamy? If my wife was ok with me having another woman in the equation, and I treated them both well, then what's wrong with it? If, on the other hand, you're talking about societies that don't allow girls to get an education and teach them that the only option they have in life is to be the subservient wife of a man, that's a problem (even if the man only has one such wife slave).EightBall says

People exercising their constitutional right to bear arms? People who aren't like you because they are religious? Someone that lives in the midwest and a small town? How about those southerners that talk funny?

Now you're just showing your crazy side. Obviously bearing a gun - and not using it recklessly - is not harming anyone. Why would I be against that? And why anyone argue that we should not tolerate small town folk?
Of course, some accents are bad enough that we should persecute those people. Kidding.

EightBall says

Would it have been better for Cortez to have allowed the Aztecs to survive with their human sacrifice rituals in the name of diversity and tolerance?

Fun facts for the history intolerant:
1) Cortez did not act out of noble intentions - at all.
2) Cortez didn't have the option of letting them survive. His mere presence ensured their destruction. You see, it was disease that wiped out the natives, not superior military might. Lacking disease, things would have gone very differently, at least until european armies arrived en masse.

EightBall says

What are you intolerant of? Where is the rule book that says "this is ok and this is not ok"?

There is no universal rule book. Just the one written by the present powers that be. In the past, the rule book was pretty shitty, but it's getting better. No one really cares if people who like to gay bash and enslave black people and dictate what religious beliefs people have to say about the new rules. No one cares about the people who whine about how society is progressing toward a more tolerant future. Whine all you want. People like you oppressed religious groups, sexual groups, races, etc, and did not care one whit about what is noblest, let alone about how the oppressed felt.

The negative feedback that certain types of intolerance creates grows as communication and food production technologies advance. More people connected, living in more denser societies, make it more important that society have ground rules preventing unnecessary intolerance. It is not necessary that everyone call their 'god' by the same name, so we scrapped that intolerance. It is not necessary that only different-sex pairs of humans wear gold bans, so we're in the process of scrapping that (give it time, you will see where things are headed). Doing these things - and others, like slavery - hinders progress. It creates tension and strife ... kills off otherwise productive minds. And so the societies that embrace this sort of intolerance will stagnate relative to tolerant nations. Look at the middle east and you'll see what I mean.

ReasonNotFaith says

The school didn't come in between the parent and their child when they provided information about the child to their parent.

It is the parent that is 100% responsible for their children, not the school. The parent makes decisions about what is important, and not important when it comes to their children, not the school.

OH Goody! I just love Childless Assholes like you.
Every thing is the Parents responsibility 100% until you fucksticks want to inject you distorted parenting views on them.
What's the matter Daddy didn't love you?

If it's the Parents responsibility then what in the fuck are they outing the Kid the parents for? They should sue the School district for undue stress. Get a good lawyer and have the kid say he's not Gay(whether he is or not), and sue those Bastards for county tax role for the year.

Then use those Millions to send the kid to the Michelle Bachman Gayhab.

You people take the cake, the parents responisblity blah blah blah. But God forbid the parents use tough love on a kid going down the wrong path, then Oh that's child abuse. Or when the parents intervene with who their Kids keep company with. Then you assholes are all like "Oh well you can't do that... You have to learn tolerance... blah blah blah"

You've got a millions words of wisdom for Ham and eggers trying to raise their kids, with the same conservative values they were raised with in a urban or suburban environment.
Of course you dole out your advice from behind the Gate of your exclusive community and you chauffeur your kid to the exclusive magnet school god forbid your Jr. is going to learn bad habits from those low life cretins.

I bet you bitch about babies crying in a restaurant too, don't you?

lol that was a funny one, but one a serious note most childless people have absolutely no desire to preach to parents, specially the large percentage who are irresponsible fucks. Throughout history has a crappy parent ever stopped being such an asshole?

Tax fueled public schools are there so the schools can do their best for the kids consistently, at least thats the idea. Good thing dumb bigoted assholes are usually too lazy and cheap to home school or send their kids to private schools.

Matt.BayArea says

Just because someone is different doesn't make me want to tolerate their actions.

No, you don't get it - this strawman illustrates your ignorance. You don't tolerate someone *because* they are different ... you tolerate them because their differences are not harming people.

This illustrates your ignorance. You tolerate people because they are human. You don't tolerate bad/illogical/harmful behavior. Now you are saying I am intolerant of people *because* they are different? No, I'm intolerant of what they do and there is nothing wrong with that. You do the same thing but we differ on what is right and wrong. Don't put words in my mouth just so you can make a point and act high-and-mighty.

Matt.BayArea says

Fun facts for the history intolerant:
1) Cortez did not act out of noble intentions - at all.
2) Cortez didn't have the option of letting them survive. His mere presence ensured their destruction. You see, it was disease that wiped out the natives, not superior military might. Lacking disease, things would have gone very differently, at least until european armies arrived en masse.

Nice. You didn't answer the question. I know the answer - of course you wouldn't tolerate human sacrifice.

Eightball, reread your original response to my comment. You are the one putting words in people's mouths. You read my post and accused me of supporting NAMBLA and oil spills. At least, that's how it seems to me. What exactly is your point? You want to bash gay people? Where do YOU draw the line? I made it clear where I draw the line. I tolerate behavior that does not harm other people, in general.

Matt.BayArea says

I tolerate behavior that does not harm other people, in general.

sir, if I may, you're not able to take the pro-deviant position (no pun) and then draw the line at the general harming of other people. If a person feels they need to protect their child/family/company/nation from the effects of deviant behavior, PDA's, fill-in-blank, then they are being harmed by your acceptance of deviant behavior. Right? Maybe you only draw a line at not harming deviant/progressive/liberal/weird-o/anti-Americans, but you have no such line for the feelings of those who have old fashioned morals and/or a belief in God.... like me. Is that possible?

Once again, cutting in line, does it cross your line of acceptable behavior?

Protect their children from what? From seeing 'deviant' behavior? Personally, I find it offensive when people preach near children - I would not want my children exposed to such blatant falsehoods. I don't want someone telling my children that if they don't do a bunch of crazy rituals with potential pedophiles they'll go to hell for eternity.

So, if we start to force gay people to hide their differences - even though the differences do not physically harm others ... then we should also force religious people to practice their religion in private. Religious marriages should be outlawed, too.

The place I draw the line is where there is harm done. Seeing something you disagree with is not harming you. Having something done to you against your will is - but seeing is not doing.

Let me ask you plainly, Bap, where you draw the line. Religious buildings and especially religious ceremonies offend me to the core. People are LIED to, from my perspective, and while you may not agree with me about one religion, surely you will agree with me about another. You are offended by gay people and worried that seeing gay people will influence your children. I'm worried that religious people will influence my children with their lies. Again, you may not agree about one religion, but you surely agree about all others.

There are so many people who are gay and would rather not be (all the people in the closet, for instance). Why can't they just change? People who dont close themselves off from the gay community, people who actually know gay people, know that it's not a choice. It's how you're born, whether it's genetics or hormones in the womb or something else along those lines. The chances of someone turning gay from seeing gay people is practically nonexistent. Nonexistent if you discount people who are in the closet.
On the other hand, being influenced by powerful, frightening religious rhetoric promising eternal pain if you don't believe, can influence people. In fact, it's such a powerful influence that most people who grow up in a religious household end up religious... no, not religious, they grow up with the SPECIFIC religion they were indoctrinated with. However you look at it, most of the world believes in outright lies, and children are clearly susceptible to these lies. They are also clearly nowhere near as susceptible to the gay influence - if at all.

Sorry for beating the dead horse into the ground, but I'm absolutely sure. We can argue about this all day - and at the end of the day you may close your mind to my arguments but you can't beat them. Try to preach to a muslim ... no matter how well you argue the point, their faith prevents them from believing you. Even if you had logical arguments (there aren't any for believing in the Christian god, as I assume you do), you could not win. That's how you treat me in these religious debates.
You can't win. You can't give someone faith unless they want it. As much as you glorify your faith, remember what faith is - it's the belief in something you can't prove. If you could prove it, it'd be science.

Sorry if I'm assuming too much about you with the faith and christianity stuff. I strayed a bit off topic here.