'Dig a hole and dump them in it.'

woiyo wrote:

The hysteria from some has taken the debate off track.

The legislation appears to address schools and having taxpayers dollars be used to put books in those schools that promote a homosexual lifestyle.

I guess those who would support those books in shools would not object to pornography books in those schools also.

I would not and neither would I support taxpayer dollars putting "pro-homo" books in schools either.

Aha! And now you HAVE made the assumption that art depicting reality about homosexual lifestyles (ie including positive portrayals) DOES "promote" it.

Firstly:

Either a. You believe that ONLY are depicting homosexual lifestyle spositively "promotes" it -

Which appears an odd thing to believe - art tends to depict positives and negatives about most lifestyles - probably because most have positive and negative aspects. Why are you picking out positive depictions of gay lifestyles as "promoting"????? This seems to be what our redneck believes - but why??? Lots of folk are gay - I would argue that depicting them reflects reality - very importantly for our gay youth, especially - who deserve to see themselves reflected in art as much as any other group.

or b. You believe that depictions of ALL lifestyles depicted positively promotes them - yet you APPEAR to be picking out one (or perhaps some, I do not know, you have only mentioned gayness here) for condemnation.

Why?

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Yes, assuming someone fron Alabama is a stupid, moronic redneck is so much less bigoted.

Actually, I called him a moron and a redneck who was being stupid, not a "stupid moronic redneck", like you said. For the record.

And if his constituency decided they wanted him to start burning witches, I'm sure you'd say, like the conservative automaton that you seem to be trying to be, "Yes, he should get to work on that. His constituency wants it, and that's good enough for me. Burn witches, burn!!!"

I hope you do not fail at comprehending everyone's posts as badly as you do mine. Your step off the deep end shows your inability to see anything but what you wish to see in opposing viewpoints as I have not said I support this legislation, merely that he seemed to be doing his job of representing his constituency. I am sure that burning witches is against the law in Alabama already, so I doubt he would endorse such behavior.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

I guess those who would support those books in shools would not object to pornography books in those schools also.

I literally can't believe you would equate the two.

woiyo wrote:

I would not and neither would I support taxpayer dollars putting "pro-homo" books in schools either.

Without having a working definition or a live example of what constitutes a "pro-homosexual" book, and basing our dialogue on a presupposition that literature containing positive depictions of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle is somehow "pro-homosexual" is missing the point.

That Mein Kampf exists on library shelves does not entail the contents are "pro-Hitler". Fictional stories like Huck Finn use nigger quite frequently, but we are not to assume the book exists to support segregation or racist attitudes.

That the rightists feel their position in the world, and in fact, their morality is so compromised by the presence of such un-natural beings, should they not just allow the debauch to continue in the mundane world and let their God relay His bigotry upon them personally--I mean, if we have to take it that far.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

I wonder if Tico would say " let the religious buy their own books". After all we should not be fostering religion with our tax dollars. Hey Tico what say you?

I say we vote on it.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

"With all due respect, why don't you just buy your own gay books?"

Dumbest argument I think I have ever heard from you Tico.

If that little question is my dumbest argument, I must be doing something right.

But I'll concede it was a little "dumb," and probably "insensitive" to boot. I'm going to a mandatory company "sensitivity training" class next week, so maybe I'll be a changed Tico following that.

Frankly, my only concern is with books in schools. I don't care if an adult walks into the public library and wants to read up on the latest gay novel or whatever -- my concern is really only with school libraries. I still think the question is "where to draw the line," and I'm not suggesting an answer.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

kickycan wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Yes, assuming someone fron Alabama is a stupid, moronic redneck is so much less bigoted.

Actually, I called him a moron and a redneck who was being stupid, not a "stupid moronic redneck", like you said. For the record.

And if his constituency decided they wanted him to start burning witches, I'm sure you'd say, like the conservative automaton that you seem to be trying to be, "Yes, he should get to work on that. His constituency wants it, and that's good enough for me. Burn witches, burn!!!"

I hope you do not fail at comprehending everyone's posts as badly as you do mine. Your step off the deep end shows your inability to see anything but what you wish to see in opposing viewpoints as I have not said I support this legislation, merely that he seemed to be doing his job of representing his constituency. I am sure that burning witches is against the law in Alabama already, so I doubt he would endorse such behavior.

I was going to go off on you about this, but I just realized I don't really give enough of a damn right now. Later...

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

dlowan wrote:
"With all due respect, why don't you just buy your own gay books?"

Dumbest argument I think I have ever heard from you Tico.

If that little question is my dumbest argument, I must be doing something right.

But I'll concede it was a little "dumb," and probably "insensitive" to boot. I'm going to a mandatory company "sensitivity training" class next week, so maybe I'll be a changed Tico following that.

Fabulous.

You will probably be quite popular and have a full dance card here after that!

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

That the rightists feel their position in the world, and in fact, their morality is so compromised by the presence of such un-natural beings, should they not just allow the debauch to continue in the mundane world and let their God relay His bigotry upon them personally--I mean, if we have to take it that far.

Well, obviously they are threatened in some way by the very depiction of a homosexual relationship. I just don't understand what they're afraid of.

Another way to look at it is that they are just playing up to the mob. I sincerely doubt that the legislation will ever see the light of day; I expect that it will die in committee.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

How does not wanting taxpayers to support promotion of homosexual lifestyle in any way being a bigot?

You did not answer my question. Are gay people not taxpayers ?

Let me give you an example. I pay more tax (and not bragging, just stating reality) than what more than 60% of the people in this country earn.

Going by yr logic, why should my tax money be used to promote or support the lifestyle which I do not lead ?

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

I do not want taxpayer money to promote a homosexual lifestyle.

Let the homosexual community try to promote their own lifestyle.

fine. let's burn all the books while we're at it. i'm not gay (in case you're ready to toss that out, btw.) and i didn't really dig it when my song writing partner of 11 years showed up with his new boyfriend for thanksgiving either(whaaaaa???). but, gays are humans. they are citizens that pay taxes. hell, some of them even want to go fight wars that the people who hate them start, but won't fight themselves. get over it and leave 'em alone. jeeezzz....

is this really all america has to worry about?? al qaida gonna sneak up and smack ya in the ass with a queer bomb??? make l'il bobby play with barbies?? oh, brother...

and woiyo... i do not want taxpayer money to promote a religious lifestyle (as in those multi-million dollar faith based initiatives and "abstinance only" sex ed classes). let the religious community try to promote thier own lifestyle. after all, churches don't pay taxes, they should be rolling in the do-re-me...

0 Replies

okay. i finished reading the rest of the thread now. and damned if mcg didn't make the most remarkable comment;

"The government shouldn't be promoting ANYONE'S lifestyle!".

right on mcg.

0 Replies

Lol! Only if you accept the odd premise that showing ANY lifestyle in art is promoting it!!!!

What on earth would we write about?

How is it possible to do so without reflecting SOME sort of lifestyle?

0 Replies

of course, the other idea is that showing ANY lifestyle is promoting it.

I would LOVE to see a RATIONAL argument defending NOT portraying, realistically, any lifestyle which has real people living it, if we take this as a given.

0 Replies

oh, i just think the government (especially under the current management) needs to butt out.

all of this "morals", "character" and "values" stuff is just a way for the politicians to run around waving their arms and crying "wolf" so they don't actually have to do anything about the stuff that's going to make a difference in the real world.

i hate to say it, but one of the people that i have heard say anything about this that made good sense was donny osmond ( oh, gawd. i'm doomed... Laughing

). he said something like;

"parent's will raise good children by teaching correct values".

the important part of that statement is "parent's will raise good children". i find it incredible that the same people who complain that they don't want the liberal state raising their children are the same people that do want the conservative state raising mine.

one more time... there's a good reason that the founding fathers wanted to keep the state and the church separate.

0 Replies

Where we draw the line? It is very simple, we choose books based on their literary quality. End of story.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

woiyo wrote:
DLOWEN
A) This post did not ASK about any other lifestyle
B) I assume NOTHING and was specific that taxpayers should not fund books supporting Homo lifestyle.

I am correct. You do not know the meaning of the words you use.

Sigh.

I will try and walk you through it, Woiyo.

You are objecting to tax money being spent on art depicting homosexuality - apparently only if it depicts it positively.

You have not raised objections to tax money being used to support art depicting other lifestyles.

If you had, we would be arguing about philistinism, not bigotry, which is a whole separate argument.

Please explain why you object. The only reason I can see to your choosing to STATE your objection ONLY to art depicting a gay lifestyle positively is your bigotry.

I will be happy if you can prove me wrong.

Oh - this is what you said:

"Allen does not want taxpayers' money to support "positive depictions of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle".

I agree. What's the problem?"

Walk through this ......

I DO NOT WANT THEM IN SCHOOLS!!!!

That's what the bloody article is talking about!!

0 Replies

So, like, you dont want your kids to encounter anything that has gay people in it - but you're not a bigot about them. Its just that, you know - you dont want any of 'em around.

Right.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

So, like, you dont want your kids to encounter anything that has gay people in it - but you're not a bigot about them. Its just that, you know - you dont want any of 'em around.

Right.

YES!!! I do not want homosexual references/books in front of my children at school. Just like I do not want pornography books in school, or religious books in public schools.

I AS THE PARENT will administer MY morals on my children. Not YOU!

If you want to lead a homosexual lifestyle, that is your choice and I do not oppose your lifestyle. I just do not want YOU to influence my child.

Any problem with that?

0 Replies

Methinks you have got yr location wrong mate

0 Replies

the prince wrote:

Methinks you have got yr location wrong mate

Why Prince? Don't you think parents have the right to decide what is appropriate for their children? Or do you think YOU should decide what is appropriate for my child?

0 Replies

'Dig a hole and dump them in it.'

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know