"Gay Days" at Santa Rosa High

[Tlaloc]

Lisa N:

So far you have not posted any rationale for your contention that if a homosexual male has the right to marry anyone that a heterosexual male could marry, that somehow this means there is discrimination against homosexuals. If both males have the same rights then there is no discrimination against homosexuals. Please explain how if two people have the same rights, one is being discriminated against.

They only have the same rights when you carefully craft the question. As before I gave a simple example of how two people (a heterosexual and a homosexual of the opposite sex) do not have the same rights. One may marry a given person while the other can’t. I’m sorry that makes you grumpy to hear but please stop pretending I never gave a rationale.

Further you try to ally the homosexual movement with other civil rights movements. But again you are trying to compare intrinsic qualities with choices and lifestyles. I am female. I was born female. I will die female. I live every day female. That will not change. Any limitations of being female are intrinsic to my nature. I have an African American co-worker. She was born African American. She has lived every day African American. Nothing will change about this characteristic.

You could get a sex change but anyway this is where you once again ignore the evidence that homosexuality has a genetic component and I once again point it out and you pretend that it doesn’t exist. Frankly that dance is getting tiresome. Trust me I get it: you’ll never accept the evidence of a genetic component no matter what. Okay, fine. I can’t force you to be rational.

As to homosexual marriage you simply blow off my statements about no evidence of homosexual marriage saying it “may” have occurred. Well has it? We’re all waiting for evidence. Your opinions are already clear.

Really what are my opinions? I said Gay marriage may have happened. Well guess what? I get that from reading conflicting reports from historians about the matter. I don’t declare unambiguously that they did happen (as opposed to your declaration to the opposite).

If you are not homosexual and disdain Catholicism what are you doing on this list? Are you just here to tell us we are all foolish and since you are so compelling in your presentation we will all capitulate? Good luck.

I’m on this list to discuss things with people who are of different views than me. I don’t disdain Catholicism. I certainly do disdain some Catholics but thats not the same thing. I do get annoyed by people who pretend to be experts on subjects when they aren’t. I also sometimes feel compelled to correct factually incorrect statements (c.f. “there is no evidence of a genetic component to homosexuality”). I’d much rather be having a stimulating discussion but I hate to leave this topic to people who have shown remarkable prejudice and unwillingness to confront facts. That’s just me though.

Frankly it is pointless to continue discussing anything with you. You refuse to respond to questions. You fail to provide evidence of your premises. You are just the world’s greatest expert on your own opinion. Aren’t we all?

Right. I haven’t answered any of your questions at all. And I haven’t given you links to the studies and the organizations that support my points. Oh no not one!

Like everything else, Lisa, your perspective of the situation is 99% what you want to have happened and 1% what really did.

 

[Tlaloc]

Exporter:

Tlaloc,
I have noticed that your posts are simply reactions to other posts.
If you were a boxer,you’d be a counter-puncher.

Frequently I’m debating things with three to four other people. That takes time.

I look forward to the day when you actually write something that you have originated. Maybe you don’t have any original thoughts.

If you wanted to see my original ideas why didn’t you just look up the threads I’ve started? Or was this a flimsy excuse to engage in some personal attacks?

 

[Tlaloc]

Brad:

Homosexuals have exactly the same rights as any other person in those states after the ammendments were passed.

in case you missed it above:
Bob can marry Elizabeth
Sheryl cannot marry Elizabeth
that means they do not have equal rights.

This isn’t exactly rocket science. Two adults, one allowed to do something the other not purely due to their sex is called, anybody? Anybody? Sexism. Thats a form of discrimination our law does not allow for.

 

[Brad]

Tlaloc:

in case you missed it above:
Bob can marry Elizabeth
Sheryl cannot marry Elizabeth
that means they do not have equal rights.

This isn’t exactly rocket science. Two adults, one allowed to do something the other not purely due to their sex is called, anybody? Anybody? Sexism. Thats a form of discrimination our law does not allow for.

That is a preposterous example.

I will state you example in a different manner.

My Dad married my Mom.
I cannot marry my mom.
That means my Dad and I do not have equal rights.

Two adults. One allowed to do something the other not purely due to his mother! That is even more specific discrimination - just because I happen to have this particular mother, I cannot marry her.

Now let’s state your example with reason included:

Bob can marry Ellizabeth.
Bob can marry Sheryl.
Sheryl can marry Bob.
Elizabeth can marry Bob.
Bob cannot marry a cat.
Elizabeth cannot marry a cat.
Sheryl cannot marry a cat.

Everyone has the same rights. Everyone can get married. The definition of marriage inlcudes the partner being of the opposite sex and a human.

If you want to do something other than marriage, be my guest. Just don’t call it marriage or you enagage in word discrimination.

 

[felra]

Tlaloc:

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.

There certainly is, its called Supreme Court nominations. The Democratic party has made it known through actions and innuendos “Catholics who believe as Rome teaches need not apply”.This is an organized “movement”, highly financed and highly lobbied by those special interest groups who oppose anyone who is a traditional Catholic from having a voice in the public policy arena. This is discrimination against Catholics in the highest order. If you don’t believe me, just watch what happends in the next 4 years, and follow the money to those discrimatory special interest lobby groups.

 

[Genesis315]

Tlaloc:

Thats a form of discrimination our law does not allow for.

If the Constitution was amended to define marriage as between one man and one woman, what would be your argument? Because then our law would allow for that kind of discrimination as you call it. Your arguments are all based on the what US federal law could be interpreted today to allow. As it is now, this can be interpreted to fit either position. If there was an amendment specifically banning all same-sex marriage, there would be no room for interpretation on this subject. Would you have an argument if that happened? If so, what would it be?

 

[Tlaloc]

Brad:

That is a preposterous example.

I will state you example in a different manner.

My Dad married my Mom.
I cannot marry my mom.
That means my Dad and I do not have equal rights.

Two adults. One allowed to do something the other not purely due to his mother! That is even more specific discrimination - just because I happen to have this particular mother, I cannot marry her.

We’ve chosen to preclude marriage within close family members (although its worth pointing out that that has in fact been accepted at times as has polygamy). On the other hand sexism is not an accepted part of the law.

Now let’s state your example with reason included:

Bob can marry Ellizabeth.
Bob can marry Sheryl.
Sheryl can marry Bob.
Elizabeth can marry Bob.
Bob cannot marry a cat.
Elizabeth cannot marry a cat.
Sheryl cannot marry a cat.

Everyone has the same rights.

You left out a few statements, specifically the ones that show your point to be incorrect.

Everyone can get married. The definition of marriage inlcudes the partner being of the opposite sex and a human.

No it doesn’t. Not until the most recent attempt to institute discrimination into our laws. Prior to than marriage in the US was simply two adults. And again Sexism is not considered a viable form of discrimination in the US.

If you want to do something other than marriage, be my guest. Just don’t call it marriage or you enagage in word discrimination.

Personally I want to simply remove marriage from the law so we can avoid these arguments. But if we continue having marriage we must make it an equitable arrangement.

 

[Tlaloc]

felra:

There certainly is, its called Supreme Court nominations. The Democratic party has made it known through actions and innuendos “Catholics who believe as Rome teaches need not apply”.

Tell me you understand the difference between excluding someone from your group and creating laws to discriminate against them entirely.

This is an organized “movement”, highly financed and highly lobbied by those special interest groups who oppose anyone who is a traditional Catholic from having a voice in the public policy arena.

There are lots of catholics in the Democratic party including their last presidential nominee. If “Traditional” Catholics aren’t attracted to their platform that’s fine. It’s not discrimination. If the Democrats gained power and used it to pass laws against “Traditional” Catholics that would be wrong. Are you going to tell me any group that doesn’t include “Traditional” Catholics is discriminatory?

 

[Tlaloc]

Genesis315:

If the Constitution was amended to define marriage as between one man and one woman, what would be your argument? Because then our law would allow for that kind of discrimination as you call it.

Indeed it would. Let me turn the question around on you: if we amend the law to allow sexism, slavery, whatever…is it then a good idea? Didn’t we abandon these forms of discrimination for a good reason? If so then why do we now regress and start putting them back into our laws?

Your arguments are all based on the what US federal law could be interpreted today to allow.

That’s one argument, more compelling is the argument that marriage has continually evolved and changed over the years and that homosexuals are just as healthy and deserving of the same rights as heteros.

As it is now, this can be interpreted to fit either position. If there was an amendment specifically banning all same-sex marriage, there would be no room for interpretation on this subject. Would you have an argument if that happened? If so, what would it be?

Indeed see above. I understand the law may change, and that is unfortunate because it will very much be counter to the spirit of this country. Since our inception we have steadily, if slowly, moved toward less and less discrimination. Lets not retard that progress now. In a new millenium I want Jetson’s style cars not a regression back to the dark ages.

 

[Brad]

Tlaloc:

We’ve chosen to preclude marriage within close family members (although its worth pointing out that that has in fact been accepted at times as has polygamy). On the other hand sexism is not an accepted part of the law.

It is not sexism. Both sexes have equal rights to enter into marriage. Neither sex has a right to redefine marriage. Equal rights exist.

Tlaloc:

You left out a few statements, specifically the ones that show your point to be incorrect.

I have shown that everyone has the same rights. You are trying to demonstrate that people that feel that marriage should have a new defintion should be able to redefine marriage. Well, I feel that it is unfair that I cannot be the president of Ford. I called and asked and they said no - simply because I haven’t worked in the automobile business. I said Ford should be changed to work in a business that I am familiar with. They said get lost. Is this experience discrimination?

Tlaloc:

No it doesn’t. Not until the most recent attempt to institute discrimination into our laws. Prior to than marriage in the US was simply two adults. And again Sexism is not considered a viable form of discrimination in the US.

I think that is your opinon of the marriage laws, not the actual marriage laws. Again, there is no sexism here as both genders have equal rights to marry the opposite gender.

Tlaloc:

Personally I want to simply remove marriage from the law so we can avoid these arguments. But if we continue having marriage we must make it an equitable arrangement.

Well, I’m glad you are honest about the agenda of homosexual activists - eliminate marriage altogether. Why don’t you publicize that loud and clear so everyone understands what you really want to do? If this is your desire, then why do you fight so passionately to change something you want to get rid of? How would you like it if I fought passionately to eliminate the things you care most deeply about? Would you be tolerant if I spent night and day trying to eliminate the meaning of what you thought was important in your life?

 

[Tlaloc]

Brad:

It is not sexism. Both sexes have equal rights to enter into marriage. Neither sex has a right to redefine marriage. Equal rights exist.

Bob can do something Sally can’t purely due to their gender. That’s the text book definition of sexism, Brad.

I have shown that everyone has the same rights.

No you haven’t. You haven’t found anyway to negate the example I gave except to pretend it didn’t exist and then feign ignorance of what sexism is.

You are trying to demonstrate that people that feel that marriage should have a new defintion should be able to redefine marriage.

What new definition? The old definition never said anything about male and female, thats the thing being added. Notice this:
“The second substantive section of the bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex.”
lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm

“what has been understood” is short hand for “what we meant but never said.” In other words the official definition never included male and female, if it had they wouldn’t have had to rush out all these amendments now would they?

Well, I feel that it is unfair that I cannot be the president of Ford. I called and asked and they said no - simply because I haven’t worked in the automobile business. I said Ford should be changed to work in a business that I am familiar with. They said get lost. Is this experience discrimination?

No, being president of Ford is not a right granted to one type of person. Owning property is a right you share with the president of ford. Just because you have the right to get married doesn’t mean you get to marry Cathrine Zeta-Jones. But you still can get married to a willing partner.

I think that is your opinon of the marriage laws, not the actual marriage laws.

Well you can think that but then it makes no sense to make new amendments to say something that was in the law all the time.

Again, there is no sexism here as both genders have equal rights to marry the opposite gender.

Right. So if we say “Any man can marry Sheila but no woman can” that isn’t sexist? Try this analogy “Any man can drive a car but no woman can.” Or more accurate “Men can only drive red cars, women can only drive blue.” Are you really sure you don’t see just a wee bit of sexism in any of those statements?

Well, I’m glad you are honest about the agenda of homosexual activists - eliminate marriage altogether.

I keep hearing that reading comprehension has gone down in the US but its disappointing to be confronted with it. Did I say eliminate marriage altogether? No. I said remove it from government. Unless your universe consists solely of government you have to be smart enough to realize the difference. Or at least I’d hope so.

Why don’t you publicize that loud and clear so everyone understands what you really want to do?

Even when I say things explicitly you get them wrong. Should I put it in GIANT LETTERS?

 

[Tlaloc]

Brad:

It is not sexism. Both sexes have equal rights to enter into marriage. Neither sex has a right to redefine marriage. Equal rights exist.

Bob can do something Sally can’t purely due to their gender. that’s the text book definition of sexism, Brad.

I have shown that everyone has the same rights.

No you haven’t. You haven’t found anyway to negate the example I gave except to pretend it didn’t exist and then feign ignorance of what sexism is.

You are trying to demonstrate that people that feel that marriage should have a new defintion should be able to redefine marriage.

What new definition? The old definition never said anything about male and female, thats the thing being added. Notice this:
“The second substantive section of the bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex.”
lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm

“what has been understood” is short hand for “what we meant but never said.” In other words the official definition never included male and female, if it had they wouldn’t have had to rush out all these amendments now would they?

Well, I feel that it is unfair that I cannot be the president of Ford. I called and asked and they said no - simply because I haven’t worked in the automobile business. I said Ford should be changed to work in a business that I am familiar with. They said get lost. Is this experience discrimination?

No, being president of Ford is not a right granted to one type of person. Owning property is a right you share with the president of ford. Just because you have the right to get married doesn’t mean you get to marry Cathrine Zeta-Jones. But you still can get married to a willing partner.

I think that is your opinon of the marriage laws, not the actual marriage laws.

Well you can think that but then it makes no sense to make new amendments to say something that was in the law all the time.

Again, there is no sexism here as both genders have equal rights to marry the opposite gender.

Right. So if we say “Any man can marry Sheila but no woman ca” that isn’t sexist? Try this analogy “Any man can drive a car but no woman can.” Or more accurate “Men can only drive red cars, women can only drive blue.” Are you really sure you don’t see just a wee bit of sexism in any of those statements?

Well, I’m glad you are honest about the agenda of homosexual activists - eliminate marriage altogether.

I keep hearing that reading comprehension has gone down in the US but its disappointing to be confronted with it. Did I say eliminate marriage altogether? No. I said remove it from government. Unless your universe consists solely of government you have to be smart enough to realize the difference. or at least I’d hope so.

Why don’t you publicize that loud and clear so everyone understands what you really want to do?

Even when i say things explicitly you get them wrong. Should I put it in GIANT LETTERS?

 

[Genesis315]

Brad:

It is not sexism. Both sexes have equal rights to enter into marriage. Neither sex has a right to redefine marriage. Equal rights exist.

I have shown that everyone has the same rights. You are trying to demonstrate that people that feel that marriage should have a new defintion should be able to redefine marriage. Well, I feel that it is unfair that I cannot be the president of Ford. I called and asked and they said no - simply because I haven’t worked in the automobile business. I said Ford should be changed to work in a business that I am familiar with. They said get lost. Is this experience discrimination?

I think that is your opinon of the marriage laws, not the actual marriage laws. Again, there is no sexism here as both genders have equal rights to marry the opposite gender.

Well, I’m glad you are honest about the agenda of homosexual activists - eliminate marriage altogether. Why don’t you publicize that loud and clear so everyone understands what you really want to do? If this is your desire, then why do you fight so passionately to change something you want to get rid of? How would you like it if I fought passionately to eliminate the things you care most deeply about? Would you be tolerant if I spent night and day trying to eliminate the meaning of what you thought was important in your life?

Once again Tlaloc, we are back to our original problem. You are obviously claiming there is some law greater than the Constitution of the Unites States. What is this law? Again, I ask you why would slavery be worng if it was allowed by the US government? You are placing limits on the Constitution. Where are you getting these. Here is your problem: you appeal to yourself as your authority. You cannot say, “banning same-sex marriage is wrong because I say it is.” Even if you say “banning same-sex marriage is wrong becuase some people today agree it is wrong,” you are appelaing to some sort of majority rule or minority rule.

I guess here is my big question for you: if not for the US law, why do homosexuals deserve to be able to marry?

 

[Lisa_N]

Tlaloc you have obviously misread my posts. I’ve never said there is NO genetic tendency although the studies you posted really proved nothing at all. I think that there are certain genetic TENDENCIES that are real, that are probably pretty difficult to track because the connection is so nebulous. Have you ever known families that seemed to be predisposed to gain weight easily or families where there seems to be alcoholism? Now we can never divorce this completely from environmental factors as well but knowing there is a genetic predisposition possible we can AVOID the kinds of behavior that would tend to encourage the problem. IOW my family has a lot of alcoholics. I have been very careful all of my life not to drink. I am not a teetotaler but I am always aware that it would be quite possible to step over the line and it’s not worth ruining my life.

But as I said before. If there IS a genetic component, so what? It is not a trackable to a specific gene or gene combination. I am an animal breeder and we can predict coat color, in some cases at levels of 100%. However there is no evidence that there is clear genetic CAUSE of homosexuality. Again, so what? Do you want it to be considered a disability? If it is genetic is that an excuse to behave like an idiot? Given that people can be treated and leave this orientation behind them, it does not seem to be any sort of hardwired condition. Rather it mimics other mental illnesses that may manifest themselves at certain points during a person’s life but may be treated.

You answer my questions by calling me stupid or ignorant. You don’t provide any factual information to counter. THat’s not very effective Tlaloc. As you see you are not making much headway on this list. Not because we are all homophobes but becuase with rare exception, the people on this list are pretty hard to fool

Lisa N

 

[Tlaloc]

Genesis315:

Once again Tlaloc, we are back to our original problem. You are obviously claiming there is some law greater than the Constitution of the Unites States. What is this law? Again, I ask you why would slavery be worng if it was allowed by the US government? You are placing limits on the Constitution. Where are you getting these. Here is your problem: you appeal to yourself as your authority. You cannot say, “banning same-sex marriage is wrong because I say it is.” Even if you say “banning same-sex marriage is wrong becuase some people today agree it is wrong,” you are appelaing to some sort of majority rule or minority rule.

Gen, do you honestly believe that slavery is wrong regardless of the legality? I suspect so. You’ll say it’s due to God’s law but God said nothing about slavery. And I suspect even if the pope came out tomorrow in favor of slavery you’d still know it was wrong. It’s wrong for a lot of reasons. One of them is that logic thing. Another is that golden rule. These are elements of our western culture. They are not carved in stone but they still influence us. I don’t judge other cultures that have had slavery for that reason. It’s wrong for us. Because of who we are and how we’ve defined ourselves. We’ve settled on certain basic principles as a society, when we violate them we become deranged as a society. One of those principles is equality. Slavery was a derangement and we eventually dealt with it and became more halthy. The Suffragette movement was another move toward mental health for our society. This latest call for discrimination is nothing more than another form of derangement. We can deal with it now or 50 years from now. Personally I don’t want to let it fester like that. We’re still dealing with white supremacists because of how long we let racism fester in our laws. Lets learn from history, okay? Just this once, let’s actually learn the lesson.

I guess here is my big question for you: if not for the US law, why do homosexuals deserve to be able to marry?

For exactly the same reason heteros do. Because they want to enter into a long term relationship with a partner and we have no good reason to prevent that.

 

[Genesis315]

We’ve settled on certain basic principles as a society…It’s wrong for us. Because of who we are and how we’ve defined ourselves.

Western society has been settled on the principle that marriage is between a man and woman and has defined it so. it is wrong for *us *to have same-sex marriage.

 

[Tlaloc]

Lisa N:

But as I said before. If there IS a genetic component, so what?

Well for one thing it means any argument about homosexuality being different from sex or race are bogus.

Given that people can be treated and leave this orientation behind them, it does not seem to be any sort of hardwired condition.

People can be brainwashed to do all kinds of things.

You answer my questions by calling me stupid or ignorant.

Was it fine when you started hurling insults at me? You always approach things with such a double standard.

You don’t provide any factual information to counter.

Right, lets see I gave you links to the twins studies and have gone to the effort of explaining the results and correcting people’s misunderstandings repeatedly. I gave you the links to the APA and the other APA and what they say about homosexuality as, you know, mental health professionals. I’ve given you simple logical examples of how precluding gay marriage is discriminatory and again dealt with the misunderstandings. Yeah I just never provide any facts at all. You’re right.

THat’s not very effective Tlaloc. As you see you are not making much headway on this list. Not because we are all homophobes but becuase with rare exception, the people on this list are pretty hard to fool.

Dogmatism is positive feedback loop. I’m not making much headway because some people refuse to deal with facts and choose instead to ignore them. At least you now admit there is a genetic component. Lets help Kevin and brad and then we’ll all have gotten past one incorrect belief together. One step at a time.

 

[felra]

Tlaloc:

Tell me you understand the difference between excluding someone from your group and creating laws to discriminate against them entirely.

There are lots of catholics in the Democratic party including their last presidential nominee. If “Traditional” Catholics aren’t attracted to their platform that’s fine. It’s not discrimination. If the Democrats gained power and used it to pass laws against “Traditional” Catholics that would be wrong. Are you going to tell me any group that doesn’t include “Traditional” Catholics is discriminatory?

Tell me you understand the difference between enacting legislation that represent the will of the people and appointed activists judges who unilaterally usurp the will of the people. It is discrimination to front end exclude those [judicial nominees] based on their adherence to their fundamental Catholic beliefs.

You are correct in using lower case catholic to identify those “catholic” politicians who menu select Church beliefs based on personal political expediency and gain. There are “catholics” and then there are Catholics who attempt to live as they speak and speak as they live (integrity) in the beliefs and convictions of their Catholic faith. I hope that this is not too surprising to you.

 

[God_saves]

Island Oak:

This is why…should I find myself still living on the west coast when my kids reach high school age…my kids will be attending Catholic high school.

That would have been an option at one time. Not now, check out what is happening in some Catholic High Schools. Oakland California for starts. Never mind the high schools. Check out the sex ed in Catholic elementary schools. You could start with Fr. Richard Sparks’ “Growing in Love” discussed on another thread or “Benziger Family Life.”

 

[CreosMary]

GloriaPatri4:
"Gay Days" at Santa Rosa High:

A glimpse into the brave new world of
sexual freedom in California schools.

By Scott Lively

lively@abidingtruth.com
I have long warned that the agenda of the gay movement for public education is to turn schools into recruiting centers for homosexual activism. As I saw last week with my own eyes, Santa Rosa High School is one place where this agenda has been fully implemented. I was privileged to be one of a panel of experts opposed to the gay agenda who had been allowed to make one 50-minute presentation during the first day of Diversity Week at the school. The Principal, Mr. Waxman, considered this single slot sufficient to provide balance in a week-long program that included more than 20 hours of pro-homosexual indoctrination of students. The requirement of balance had been imposed on the school by the school board following a parental revolt the prior year, when a single Day of Diversity at another local high school in the district failed to include any opponents of the homosexual political agenda.

This year, parents were better prepared, and on the first day of Diversity Week over a dozen of them went to school in the place of their teens. One group went immediately to the office of the new school superintendent to ask why the school had failed to provide balance as the parents had been promised. As it happened, the superintendent was the same person who had written the school board policy requiring balance, and he in turn called Mr. Waxman into his office to face the parents himself. Meanwhile, other parents fanned out across campus to find out just what had happened to turn their school into a hotbed of gay activism.

What they (and I) learned during the course of that day was astonishing, even to a veteran pro-family leader like myself. We discovered a comprehensive system for promoting homosexuality to the student population, complete with a taxpayer-funded staff facilitator and the approval of the administration.

The paid facilitator is a veteran gay activist named Jim Foster. Foster teaches what is called Peer Education at the school and also runs an off-campus community center called Positive Images where gay teens can mingle with older homosexuals. I met several members of Foster’s eight-person “Peer Education” class, each of whom was an outspoken, self-identified homosexual, bisexual or transgendered teen. Each member of Foster’s class receives the title of Peer Counselor, which appears to bestow upon its bearers a special status in the student peer group. One member of the class whom I interviewed told me that it was the Peer Education class which had designed and sponsored Diversity Week The young man seemed remarkably unimpressed that the school had turned over the entire campus for a full week to accommodate the social engineering projects of his small team of gay activists-in-training.

Gay activists they were, indeed. The week’s schedule included at least four sessions on “homophobia” (defined as any disagreement with the social objectives of the gay movement), and many additional hours devoted to gender issues, transexualism and other topics dear to gay activism. While prominent, homosexuality was not the only subject. Other sessions featured radical environmentalism, animal rights, veganism and reasons to hate America.
continue reading at: narth.com/docs/gaydays.html
This truly is shocking, please God tell me this is not a Catholic school?
The bit about ‘reasons to hate america’ could you not write to you poltician or president? could this go against your constitution as treason?.
Do all you can, picket, ban, invite the (Catholic friendly) media, all these young lives being twisted in the name of education. It really is a nightmare