"Gay Days" at Santa Rosa High

[Lisa_N]

Tlaloc:

Again we aren’t talking about practicing catholics Lisa. We’re talking about constitutional amendments, discriminatory laws backed and lobbyied for by the Catholic Church (amongst others).

Why are you being so obtuse? Name these supposedly discriminatory laws please. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Further we are all free to lobby or are you suggesting that only lobbyists YOU approve be given access to our lawmakers?

Tlaloc:

You are talking about a tiny minority. I’m talking about the homosexual population as a whole.

Hello, this is creationism calling! The Catholic Church has absolutely tried to interfere with secular education.?

My understanding is that even proponents of creationism (actually my understanding is that Catholics subscribe to intelligent design theory) say that it is a theory to be taught alongside other theories. Evolution may explain some changes in various species but it does not prove how life BEGAN. So that portion is a theoretical position.

Tlaloc:

Teaching tolerance is different than teaching bigotry. You could also say blacks demand that equality of the races be taught, well kind of but its hardly pushing their beliefs especially since racial (and sexual) equality is backed up by the best scientific evidence to date.?

WHAHHH??? I have no clue what you are talking about but trying to align the homosexual agenda with racial activism is a red herring. There is no proof you were born homosexual but every African American and every woman was born that way (well I guess there might be a few transvestites but they claim they were the opposite sex all along).

Tlaloc:

Absolutely. Can you stop trying to make laws to the contrary though? I have no interest in pushing mine or anyone’s sexuality on you, but your faith keeps picking a fight over it. They fight against teaching kids facts about sex, they fight over teaching kids facts about homosexuality, they fight over allowing gays to marry, and so on oand so forth.

Lobbying.
cc.org/

Maybe you saw the news during this last election cycle?

Contrary to what? Your opinion? Yes that is incredibly compelling. I want all of our school curricula to be right in line with YOUR thinking. Did it occur to you that it is unlikely that any group of people will agree what children should be taught about sex? I don’t see a single compelling reason to promote ANY particular sexual activity to CHILDREN. They should understand basic biology but we do not need to tell them how to perform oral sex or other such specifics. Unfortunately the homosexuals activists are not satisfied with anything less than elevating sodomy to the level of normal sex between married people.

And I have never seen a law that prohibited homosexuals from marrying. Of course they have to comply with the laws of the particular state but there are no statutes that say you cannot marry if homosexual. Maybe you’d like to quote a statute or two?

Lisa N

 

[Tlaloc]

Kevin Walker:

Now I know why I instinctively HATE jurists so much. Remember when America used to practice democracy?

Remember when Christian practiced loving their neighbor? Maybe Hate in all capitals and underlined is a bad thing for someone claiming to follow a religion of love.

 

[Tlaloc]

Lisa N:

Why are you being so obtuse? Name these supposedly discriminatory laws please. I have no idea what you are talking about.

There is a movement for a constitutional amendment to discriminate against gays. There are numerous state laws that passed that amended the state constitutions to similar effect…
I find it hard to believe you missed all of it.

Further we are all free to lobby or are you suggesting that only lobbyists YOU approve be given access to our lawmakers?

I’m suggesting that lobbying for discrimination is bad. Furthermore lobbying based on a religious belief is bad. This isn’t a theocracy. Religion has no place in the government and the government has no place in the religion. Both should keep strictly hands off of the other.

My understanding is that even proponents of creationism (actually my understanding is that Catholics subscribe to intelligent design theory) say that it is a theory to be taught alongside other theories. Evolution may explain some changes in various species but it does not prove how life BEGAN. So that portion is a theoretical position.

All science is a theoretical position. ID is creationism in a new suit, nothing more. And many creationists want to completely overthrow evolution in favor of their pet theories that have no evidence but religious backing. Don’t kid yourself that the church doesn’t and hasn’t interfered with education in this country.

WHAHHH??? I have no clue what you are talking about but trying to align the homosexual agenda with racial activism is a red herring. There is no proof you were born homosexual but every African American and every woman was born that way (well I guess there might be a few transvestites but they claim they were the opposite sex all along).

Actually there is proof as to the genetic component of homosexuality. That proof is accepted by both the medical and mental health community.

Contrary to what? Your opinion? Yes that is incredibly compelling. I want all of our school curricula to be right in line with YOUR thinking.

No I want schools in line with science and the law. Both say that homosexuals are equal people to you and me. I align my thinking to the facts not vice versa.

Did it occur to you that it is unlikely that any group of people will agree what children should be taught about sex? I don’t see a single compelling reason to promote ANY particular sexual activity to CHILDREN.

Lower accidental pregnancy, better std prevention, and more well rounded human beings.

They should understand basic biology but we do not need to tell them how to perform oral sex or other such specifics. Unfortunately the homosexuals activists are not satisfied with anything less than elevating sodomy to the level of normal sex between married people.

Sodomy is normal. It’s not my thing but whatever.

And I have never seen a law that prohibited homosexuals from marrying. Of course they have to comply with the laws of the particular state but there are no statutes that say you cannot marry if homosexual. Maybe you’d like to quote a statute or two?

They cannot marry their partners. Again I have a hard time believing you managed to miss all of that this last year.

 

[Lisa_N]

Tlaloc you must have missed reading the actual amendments. There is nothing that says homosexuals are barred from marriage. Maybe you would like to point out where the proposed constitutional amendment or the various state laws recently passed make ANY reference to homosexuals.

Gosh I had no idea there was a “Gaydar” machine that could screen out marriage license applications that were completed by homosexuals.
Lisa N

 

[geezerbob]

It is obvious to me, after reading this entire thread, that one poster wants to cry discrimination and make vague and unsubstantiated allegations because he can’t have his way all the time. He also seems to be suffering from a severe persecution complex. A number of questions have been posed, but he has failed to answer them. Instead, he chooses to lash out in all directions at everything and everybody that disagrees with him. Kinda like the old saleman’s motto: “If you can’t baffle 'em with knowledge, then blind 'em with B.S.” Moreover, he does not seem to want equal treatment. He wants preferential treatment. Perhaps he would feel a little better if he could make the distinction between the sin and the sinner and then try to live his life accordingly.

I posted this on another thread. I don’t know to whom to attribute this remark, but it is so true. “What one generation tolerates, the next one embraces.” Look back a few years when we first got on this political correctness kick and started “accepting” all forms of behavior. Now, look at today, when that behavior is not only accepted, but is being actively promoted in our tax-supported institutions. Satan is actively at work here and it scares me no end to think of what kind of country (and world) we are leaving for our kids and grandkids.

 

[Bill_A]

The only people that are crying are the Gays and their gay bingo. Wahhh, Please let us have more petophilic, gay priests. So we can get more diocese like Boston and Miami Closed. What a load of tripe. I dont remember any Gay Apostols in the bible. In fact most of them where married.

Now I understand, Im supposed to be tolerant of Gays and thats why I havent used any Gay, derogatory name calling but they Gay ministry itself I find dispicable and evil. If Gay peopel want to go around sticking their noses and other things where it dont belong thats fine but keep it out of our church and dont push it on little kids who dont know better.

Just like I said, Gay Wolf in in Gay sheeps clothing.

 

[felra]

Tlaloc:

Here’s the difference Felra, I’m not trying to force Catholics to do anything. *Catholics *are trying to force homosexuals to be second class citizens. I think you should be free to live your own life, just don’t push your beliefs on others.

It makes it true unless you happen to be of the opinion that the church is right. You do have that opinion, that’s fine. But are you wise enough to see how these actions constitute an attack on anyone not of that opinion?

To add to what Lisa N responded, you can conversely take out Catholic and *church *and insert homosexual rights advocates (and homosexual with Catholics) and read your above statement in the same assertion. It really depends then on what side of the fence that you are standing. But, somehow in your presented bias, Catholics are to be the silent by virtue of simply being the majority?

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by **Tlaloc **
Actually there is proof as to the genetic component of homosexuality. That proof is accepted by both the medical and mental health community.

There is NO viable proof of any such thing & NO it is not.

 

[Brad]

Tlaloc:

There is a movement for a constitutional amendment to discriminate against gays. There are numerous state laws that passed that amended the state constitutions to similar effect…
I find it hard to believe you missed all of it.

In what ways do the proposed ammendment of any of the state ammendments discriminate against homosexuals?

 

[crusader4life]

This is kind of like reverse discrimination…
If tax money is used to support these “Gay Days” then the tax money should support “Heterosexual Days” or something like that. Then if this happens, more of the tax money will have be used for other “school spirit days” just to make it all even; where instead the money should have went school supplies and providing a better education facility.

 

[Adam_Costanzo]

Is this what I have to look forward to? Being forced to support this garbage with my tax dollars? How can I be expected to sleep at night knowing I’m contributing to this?

---

I hate democracy. People are not smart, and this last election proved it to me (even though Bush ended up winning, I heard the Kerry supporters’ logic). They said stuff like “Bush isn’t going to raise the minimum wage” etc… well minimum wage is devistating to the economy, and since people don’t know this, they end up destroying the economy because they don’t know any better. Of course, democracy has a redeeming quality, which is, who’s to say the government would be on our side if they didn’t have a democracy. But I do think it is flawed.

 

[Tlaloc]

Lisa N:

Tlaloc you must have missed reading the actual amendments. There is nothing that says homosexuals are barred from marriage. Maybe you would like to point out where the proposed constitutional amendment or the various state laws recently passed make ANY reference to homosexuals.

Thats disingenuous, Lisa. When you suddenly rush to make an amendment saying marriage is only between a man and a woman in the wake of a few places allowing gays to marry each other then yes the amendment is most certainly aimed at gays.

 

[Tlaloc]

felra:

To add to what Lisa N responded, you can conversely take out Catholic and *church *and insert homosexual rights advocates (and homosexual with Catholics) and read your above statement in the same assertion. It really depends then on what side of the fence that you are standing.

No it doesn’t. Take this sentence:

The Catholic Church is lobbying to support amendments aimed at discriminating against homosexuals.

That statement is true, you may not want to admit it or you may feel said discrimination is desirable but the statement is true. Swtiching the place of “homosexuals” and “Catholic Church” results in a statement which is not true. There is no movement to discriminate against Catholics underway.

 

[Tlaloc]

Brad:

In what ways do the proposed ammendment of any of the state ammendments discriminate against homosexuals?

By precluding a member of the population from enjoying the same rights as another member. That’s the textbook definition of discrimination.

 

[Lisa_N]

Tlaloc:

By precluding a member of the population from enjoying the same rights as another member. That’s the textbook definition of discrimination.

Gee Tlaloc I’ve wondered where you’ve been.

Folks Tlaloc imagines that not allowing homosexuals to marry someone of the same sex is discrimination. However most of our state laws do not allow anyone to define marriage as they wish. IOW there are other members of the population who cannot decide to marry anyone they wish. I can’t marry my brother. I can’t marry three men. I can’t marry my 18 month old nephew. Shoot I can’t marry ANYONE since I’m already married. Darn there is so much discrimination in this world. There oughta be a law!

Of course you can also point to discrimination in granting DRIVERS licenses along with marriage licenses. YOu know ridiculous things like you have to be of a certain age and be able to read, pass a test and gosh you have to be able to see the road! Isn’t that outrageous?

Sorry the ‘discrimination’ argument regarding homosexuals marrying others of the same sex just doesn’t fly. Even in OREGON it didn’t fly and if it doesn’t fly here in the land of fruits, nuts and flakes, you aren’t gonna get it passed anywhere very soon.

Lisa N

 

[Tlaloc]

Lisa N:

Gee Tlaloc I’ve wondered where you’ve been.

I occasionally do other stuff

Folks Tlaloc imagines that not allowing homosexuals to marry someone of the same sex is discrimination.

Imagination has nothing to do with it, it is discrimination by a simple logical test:
Is Elizabeth permitted to marry Gary? Yes.
Is Steve permitted to marry Gary? No.
QED.

However most of our state laws do not allow anyone to define marriage as they wish.

Most of our Constitutions (state and federal) preclude discrimination unless it is written into the constitution itself. Hence you are actually the one trying to rewrite the marriage definition. The law has always allowed gay marriage, people just didn’t realize it.

IOW there are other members of the population who cannot decide to marry anyone they wish. I can’t marry my brother. I can’t marry three men. I can’t marry my 18 month old nephew. Shoot I can’t marry ANYONE since I’m already married. Darn there is so much discrimination in this world. There oughta be a law!

Lets handle one thing at a time, you’ve had difficulty enough with just this topic without dragging in three more.

Of course you can also point to discrimination in granting DRIVERS licenses along with marriage licenses. YOu know ridiculous things like you have to be of a certain age and be able to read, pass a test and gosh you have to be able to see the road! Isn’t that outrageous?

Driving is a privilege. Marriage is a right. But beyond that deficiency in your argument there are indeed discriminations written into our legal system, some of which are probably for the best and some of which aren’t. The amendments in question are an attempt to write such discrimination into the constitutions of our country, but as they rely on either religious teachings or faulty logic they make for a bad precident. Lets not regress, okay?

Sorry the ‘discrimination’ argument regarding homosexuals marrying others of the same sex just doesn’t fly. Even in OREGON it didn’t fly and if it doesn’t fly here in the land of fruits, nuts and flakes, you aren’t gonna get it passed anywhere very soon.

It does fly though. Just as with your choice of ignoring biological evidence, the facts remain as they are.

 

[Lisa_N]

Tlaloc we have NEVER been able to marry anyone we wanted to marry. There have always been restrictions on marriage partners. Now if there WERE a law saying homosexuals could not marry, PERIOD, then yes there would be discrimination against homosexuals. But there is no specific prohibition against homosexuals being able to marry. Like everyone else, they must pick for a partner someone that the law allows. Just as I cannot pick anyone I wish to marry. For example in some states I could marry my cousin and in others I could not. Some states I can get married at 16 and some states it’s l7. Gee that’s discrimination isn’t it?

Lisa N

 

[Genesis315]

Tlaloc, long time no see. Last time I read you was in the most absurd thread ever about your screenname.

Tlaloc:

Imagination has nothing to do with it, it is discrimination by a simple logical test:
Is Elizabeth permitted to marry Gary? Yes.
Is Steve permitted to marry Gary? No.
QED.
.

Is Bob allowed to marry someone of the same sex? No.
Is Sue allowed to marry someone of the same sex? No.
QED

Likewise:
Is Bob allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex? Yes
Is Sue allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex? Yes
QED

Looks like this applies to everyone.

Let’s look at another one:
Can Bob marry whoever he wants? No.
Can Sue marry whoever she wants? No.
QED

Driving is a privilege. Marriage is a right.

Finally, who says marriage is a right? It’s like GK Chesterton said, “If there are rights, there is an authority to which we appeal for them.” What authority are you appealing to Tlaloc? The Constitution no where says there is a right to marriage. God certainly doesn’t say that. And a right “to the pursuit of happiness” means to own property, and even if it didn’t, it is not a limitless right.

 

[Tlaloc]

Lisa N:

Tlaloc we have NEVER been able to marry anyone we wanted to marry.

Anyone? No not anyone. But a single adult woman can marry a single adult man. A single adult man cannot marry a single adult man.

There have always been restrictions on marriage partners. Now if there WERE a law saying homosexuals could not marry, PERIOD, then yes there would be discrimination against homosexuals. But there is no specific prohibition against homosexuals being able to marry.

So if we passed a law saying Catholics could marry anyone…except other Catholics, that’d be fine, right? I mean you aren’t precluded from marrying at all, only from marrying the ones you most likely want to marry.

Like everyone else, they must pick for a partner someone that the law allows. Just as I cannot pick anyone I wish to marry. For example in some states I could marry my cousin and in others I could not. Some states I can get married at 16 and some states it’s l7. Gee that’s discrimination isn’t it?

Discrimination against children is written into the law and it’s one of the forms of discrimination that tends to make sense. It is not a denial of rights entirely but only until the person in question becomes mature (although the standard of that maturity is rather poor). On the other hand discriminating against gays is done with no good reason. Religious edicts have no place in secular law. Science shows no reason to preclude their marrige. Rather it is just the lingering prejudices of society that stand between us and what’s right.

 

[Lisa_N]

Tlaloc:

Anyone? No not anyone. But a single adult woman can marry a single adult man. A single adult man cannot marry a single adult man…

And a single adult woman cannot marry her single adult brother. A single adult man cannot marry his single adult mother. A single adult man cannot marry a single female who is under age. So?
Marriage has never been seen as being between two partners of the same sex.

Tlaloc:

So if we passed a law saying Catholics could marry anyone…except other Catholics, that’d be fine, right? I mean you aren’t precluded from marrying at all, only from marrying the ones you most likely want to marry. .

Lame Tlaloc INCREDIBLY lame. Try again.

Tlaloc:

On the other hand discriminating against gays is done with no good reason. .

Sorry no discrimination against homosexuals in the marriage law. Do you know of any laws that prohibit homosexuals from marrying? I don’t.

Tlaloc:

Religious edicts have no place in secular law. Science shows no reason to preclude their marrige. Rather it is just the lingering prejudices of society that stand between us and what’s right.

Tlaloc you are assuming that the only reason to restrict marriage is religious. Untrue. There are biological reasons, historical reasons, and traditional reasons for the structure of marriage as it is seen by most people. The reason that society gives particular rights and responsibilities to specific groups (i.e. married people) is because there is an assumed benefit to society. Married people are the traditional producers of the next generation. Thus society in its interest in long term survival wishes to have another crop of citizens. Homosexual unions cannot produce children. So how do they benefit society in the same fashon as married heterosexuals?

Lisa N