Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Michael Johnson :: Townhall.com Columnist
Why are so many American Educators so Afraid of the Truth?
by Michael Johnson
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will Congress pass Obamacare by the end of the year?

Silence can be golden, the wise man pointed out … but sometimes it’s just plain yellow.

And there’s certainly something saffron about the “Day of Silence” being promoted across the United States this spring, by advocates of homosexual behavior. The event is being sold to sympathetic schoolteachers and administrators as a gentle plea for sexual tolerance and understanding. But the real agenda is to gild and glamorize homosexual behavior while gagging anyone who opposes it.

“Silence” is certainly the operative word – and in this case, it’s intended as a verb, not a noun.

The idea of the “Day of Silence” is that students and educators go all day without talking, while flashing a card at those around them explaining that the quiet is their way of showing solidarity with the culturally-oppressed kids who get bullied “just for being who they are.” Teachers and administrators all over the country embrace the opportunity to stand with the sexually-confused, silently sighing and wringing their hands over the bitter repercussions faced by the innocent youth who suffer ‘neath the bigotries of narrow-minded mostly-white/heterosexual/Christian Puritans.

But the limits of their sympathy, empathy, and unanimity quickly become apparent on the day after the “Day of Silence,” when Christian students throughout the country request a “Day of Truth,” in which to counter the unspoken assertions of the riot of quiet with some thoughtful discussion of differing views – religious, scientific, social, personal – on homosexual behavior.

Suddenly, all pretense to tolerance – indeed, all interest in real education – is off the table. Requests for “Day of Truth” events are perfunctorily denied, students who initiate discussions or even wear philosophically provocative T-shirts quickly find themselves on the short list for detention, even suspension. You can almost hear some principal yelling:

This is a school, people – the last thing we want to do is think!

And thinking is pretty clearly the enemy here, as far as some school officials are concerned. Even when student protests don’t call for open discussions, debates, and conversation – as in the pro-life Days of Silent Solidarity, which focus on calling attention to abortion – educators and government officials move fast to shut down what are usually quiet, respectful, non-aggressive demonstrations.

In other words, it’s not the tactics these schools are worried about … it’s the message. Students who support homosexual behavior deserve a platform; students who oppose such behavior do not. Sex education classes and safe-sex assemblies are required; expressions of conscience against abortion are forbidden. (That flagrant double-standard is the main reason courts nationwide are upholding the rights of students who participate in “Day of Truth” and “Day of Silent Solidarity” events.)

Clearly, several factors are at work here. One is the grassroots-level embrace by many teachers and administrators of the National Education Association’s position on social and political issues. Too many educators are more concerned with goose-stepping to their union’s party line than they are with cultivating their students’ appreciation for honest discussion and principled debate.

Another is the knee-jerk opposition of government employees to any conversation or activity that even hints of religious faith. Never mind the First Amendment protections of speech and religion; never mind the possibility that a Christian could be thoughtful, compassionate, and reasoned in his concerns about those engaged in homosexual behavior or abortion. As one school official told Chase Harper – a San Diego high school student whose suspension for wearing a T-shirt questioning the assertions of the “Day of Silence” spawned a lawsuit now in federal court – “next time, leave your faith in the car.”

But beyond any of these naked biases and transparent political agendas is the simple question of what, exactly, a public school education is supposed to accomplish. Is it merely a forum for grinding a handful of key facts and skills into still-pliable minds, the better to up test scores, the better, in turn, to secure ongoing state and federal funds for teachers and their facilities?

Or do we actually want our young people to learn critical thinking … to be able to sift through complex emotions and conflicting facts and compelling arguments, and decide intelligently for themselves where they stand on the most pressing social and political issues of our time?

Are we so terrified of our children, that we can only entrust them with one side of the debate? Are we so unsure of our own convictions that we think they can’t withstand the tests of candid discussion and open assertion? Do we still believe in a truth that will reveal itself, if the full, unshaded light of reason and faith is shined upon it?

Say what you will about the young people pressing for a “Day of Truth” … they have the courage of their convictions. Courage enough to state them, out in the open. Courage enough to invite free and far-ranging conversation, argument, debate. Courage enough to risk suspension for the privilege of celebrating their most basic American liberty.

That’s a lot more courage than the supporters of homosexual behavior are showing, as they move to silence anyone who questions their established agenda.

But then courage has always been rare … and the truth, a precious thing.

Both are worth their weight in gold.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Mike Johnson is a senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation, and its subsidiary, Community Defense Counsel. ADF President Alan Sears is the former head of the Commission on Pornography under U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese.

Be the first to read Michael Johnson's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

SPEECH CENSORSHIP IN SCHOOLS
Christian teenagers are to be prohibited from a day of truth because they are coming from a religious point of view with regards to homosexuality. I imagine that these same "educators" would also have prevented Christian teens back in the 60's from offering a day of truth in support of an end to racial discrimination against black Americans.
The total war on religion these days is a sad tale that underscores the hatred the left leaning secularist teachers unions have toward religion and faith in America. In truth, many of the advancements in society that promoted true tolerance for others originated with churches. It was a role forseen by our founding fathers, which is one reason they wanted to protect freedom of religion in the Constitution.
The left does not believe in a country based upon law, but want a world order based upon the whims of men in power, the very issue we need to stand against. How ironic that this great American experiment in freedom is attacked to return all human kind back into slavery by elites. It is time to vote these left leaning politicians out of office.

From a historical perspective
Whenever there have been periods of great libertinism (not liberty -- liberty comes with responsibilities), there has been a counter backlash of conservatism to follow. We haven't really seen that yet. We've seen increasing libertinism with conservatives having no voice and now we're seeing increasing libertinism with conservatives able to speak among themselves and occassionally yell loudly enough to be heard and rejected by the libertines. If history repeats itself there will be a crisis -- a Black Plague, the collapse of an empire -- and then people will return to being conservative -- for a while. There have always been libertines among us and there always will be and they will never take responsibility for their own actions. Usually, they end up with the consequences of their lifestyles killing them, but the last of them will (historically) end up on the gallows. But, their heirs will be back in a couple generations because that is the way the world is.

The problem everyone is missing
Identifying oneself based on their sexual behavior is preposterous. Why does this have anything to do with school?

Are the students who like having three-ways going to have a day of silence to honor their sexual inclinations? Are the students who attend sex parties (they do occur in high school) going to have a day of silence to garner respect?

I think heterosexuals would have much more respect for homosexuals if they didn't make it their identifying characteristic. I don't make my sex life part of your business; you keep your sex life to yourself, as well. Conservative homosexuals understand this. Most liberal homosexuals (especially those that would "out" others) do not.

Two things
The truth in this case seems very postmodern.
That is truth from a certain perspective,
in the quote below Jesus's.

From the site's "Hostile Questions":
"How do you know your “truth” is the absolute truth? Isn’t truth a relative term?

When there is no standard for truth - when truth means different things to different people - the consequences can be tragic. Most people would agree that the commandment from God, “Thou shalt not kill” is truth. But what happens if someone rejects that as truth, and their “truth” allows them to engage in the killing of innocent human beings? We are simply pointing to what our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, recognize: that there are absolute truths, and that such truth comes from our Creator, God."

I think the site misinterprets the truths
of the Declaration and the First Amendment
of the Constitution which would be open to
people having the liberty to practice
homosexuality.

Second, I thought the site was useful and
is a good resource for Christian students
who believe as the writer does.

critical thinking is nearly extinct
Michael, you finally touched on the true, underlying problem, not just in education, but in society in general today.

People simply don't think clearly and critically any more. Schools and colleges don't foster learning the techniques of examining assertions, comparing facts and principles, understanding the underlying motives of advocacy. The inability of We The People to critically examine any issue, whether which toothpaste to buy or which presidential candidate to support, will doom us.

When decisions are made on emotional bases, when influence is measured in decibels, when truths are called lies and lies are called truths, we may as well surrender to the ensuing chaos.

If we don't get this problem fixed soon, it all will be over, with a whimper.

Some rough stats:
The Day of Silence was started 11 years ago. The last count I could find was 1900 schools involved.

The Day of Truth was started 3 years ago. The last count I could find was 800 schools involved.

So, Silence has more than double the schools, but has been around 8 years longer. Seems like the Day of Truth is flourishing just fine. Sounds like both groups are getting their day to get their opinion across -- which is what freedom of speech is all about.

So -- what's the problem?




Animalgirlisback
After reading your rant I was wondering if you even know any Christians? I would guess that you don't. Much of what you spew does not even come close to reality. The point of this article was not so much about agreement or disagreement with the homo lifestyle but about the way agreement with it is promoted as a right to free speech but disagreement and the right to demonstrate it is stifled despite the right to free speech. How hard was that to understand? You might want to read it again. Another thing that so many libtards like you fail to realize: while many people disagree with homosexuality their disagreement does not necessarily stem solely from religious convictions. Homosexuality simply goes against the laws of Nature no matter how much you or anyone else tries to spin it and regardless of which animals partake in the practice. There are a number of things animals do that are not recommended for humans. The problem for homos is that most men cannot grasp the attraction of another man and the same goes for most women yet we are demonized for feeling that way. Stop trying to wedge all anti-gay people and Christians into your generalized and distorted views. By doing so you demonstrate that the author's contention that people do not possess critical thinking skills is correct.

Animalgirlisback
One more thing: God Bless You:~)

Fascism
It's good these students are are getting a first hand look at the fundamentals of fascist ideology and administration. It doesn't matter what, in particular, it is that is being promoted whether it be anti-Jewish racial supremacy, Anti-Americanism, Ant-Zionism, Christian persecution, pro-black racism, etc. any number of coercive propagandistically promoted ideological programs or isms, they are seeing what it is to be forced to adopt a mode of behavior, a speech freedom restriction, religious intolerance and the enforcement of a particular thought process.

This is very inimical to the very principles upon which this country was founded as enacted in the Bill of Rights. It's significant that the leftists, who mendaciously claim to be the defenders of 'civil rights', are the first to deny them to those they don't like or want heard.

So -- what's the problem?
NDI

I'll tell you what the problem is. A behavior is being enforced against students who otherwise would wish to participate in the 'silence'.

You leftists have no problem no problem running Christianity out of the public square or demanding every expression of it be subject to a cease and desist order. But when you want your observances, they are to be complied with by force.

The public schools are no place for you to be preaching liberalism, environmentalism, anti-White male racism, anti-Zionism, or any of ideology or ism at the expense of basic education, which is the norm at this time. And no sexual preference causes need apply for special consideration either.

If you want to promote homosexual behavior, do it on your own time on a voluntary participation basis.

That's the problem.

Correction
I'll tell you what the problem is. A behavior is being enforced against students who otherwise would NOT wish to participate in the 'silence'.

How I see the issue of Gay Marriage
I still remember the day I had to apply for my marriage license. I was going to be married according to my religious tradition, all was set up. But I had to pay $50 in a marriage tax to have permission from the Government to be wed. It is the most insulting check I have ever written.

Marriage is a religious concept. What vested interest does the Government have to regulate a religious institution?

Marriage should be performed according to religious standards, and the Government shouldn’t be involved. There is no reason for the Government to approve of marriage, homosexual or otherwise. Until we implement a flat tax, the only reason Government needs to know whether people are married is for taxation purposes, which can be easily remedied by the concept of reporting taxes according to household.

This then, is my solution: The Government doesn’t recognize homosexual marriage, nor does it recognize heterosexual marriage. All the public debate can be relegated to religious ceremonies. There are surely progressive churches that would perform such ceremonies. People could still elect to have a religiously based marriage, or they could merely shack up and live together.

Either way, its not for the Government to be involved.

Making a lie the truth.
By denying a "truth day" they walk in the same shoes of radicals. They destroy America from the inside, as radical Islamic terrorist seek to destroy from outside. It is of the same evil,with a happy face. A face that smiles on the immoral nature of man, as it is of that nature. The nature of man, woman,who's first impulse is to satisfy self-love, self gratification. When allowed to prevail without check it becomes mans,womans,surroundings. It becomes the radical truth.

LibertyBob:
Nice thought, but unfortunately marriage has to be defined for those nasty moments in life when it is necessary to legally define things like next-of-kin.
That said, you have a valid point: there are two aspects to the definition of marriage. One is civil (recognized for legal purposes) and the other is religious (which many forego and are still legally married).

Personally, I have no idea why this has people in such a snit. I don't think it weakens or threatens traditional man-woman marriages to allow same-sex couples to make lifetime commitments that are legal. Nor do I think it threatens society in any way.

Not really
Actually, legal definitions of marriage aren't needed for next of kin issues. Can anyone give me an example where a legal definition of marriage is required for the court to make a good decision of interested parties?

Is it needed to determine what is in a Child's best interests in divorce?

Is it needed for next of kin issues when a will is in place?

Is it ever needed?

Yes, Bob, it is
"When a will is in place" is the key to your answers. I'd be willing to bet that MOST people do not have wills.
And Yes,It is necessary: to determine who makes your medical decisions when you can't (again in the absence of wills and directives), who gets custody of your children, your money...pretty much everything.
So, sure, everyone should just have wills and all their paperwork in order before they pop off the mortal coil. But you are sadly naive if you think that's the norm.

That said, the real topic is...
Not same-sex marraige. The article's real issue was more about what's happening in our so-called education system.
In my view, it points up exactly why we need school-choice. I would pull my child out of any school that sponsored EITHER of these politically motivated events.
I don't know what's gotten into educators. Perhaps like journalists, they want to expand their role to become molders of public opinion. That is wrong. They're supposed to be teaching (you know, stuff like math, reading, writing...), which they're failing at.
I am disgusted by much that's happening (and not happening) in our school system.

Truth? I Doubt It
Maybe the school system refused A Day of Truth because what was on offer isn't truth. Look at the definitions. Let us say that truth is the same thing as fact. Fact is not the same thing as opinion. Even if you tell me your opinion while holding a gun to my head, that doesn't make your opinion a fact. Even if you find 300 people to agree with you, your opinion is still not a fact.

A fact must appear the same to ALL reasonable people in the same circumstances. Examples: At sea level, water boils at 212. Most humans die before reaching the age of 100. A dog is bigger than an ant.

An opinion is objective: you might believe it with all your soul, but it doesn't appear the same to everybody. Examples: Chocolate ice cream is better than strawberry. Dogs are nicer than cats. Homosexual behavior is a sin.

If the purpose of "A Day of Truth" is to provide a forum for Christian students to present the "Christian point of view" about homosexuality, then at best it is a day of opinion. (And not even an accurate one, since all Christians do not despise gays.)

newduncanimperial,
Your argument, phrased in the form of a question goes like this:

--> 'Because "Day of Truth" events have grown at a faster rate than "Day of Silence" events, there is no problem...'

You can see how absurd this argument is when you finish the thought:

--> 'Because "Day of Truth" events have grown at a faster rate than "Day of Silence" events, there is no problem. Even if one groups rights are violated in specific instances, it does not matter because others in their group are making progress in expressing their views at other schools.'

Totally absurd.


It's a wonder I have any hair left.
Once again a republican shill is using homosexuality to fire up the base. The real issue is the republican party and its inexplicable shift to the left.

Open your eyes people, there is only one party now and its called the republicrat party. Don't let them distract you from this fact. Oh, one more thing....ABORTION!

Gay : Straight : : Renters : Homeowners
I find that the secular, conservative viewpoint opposing Gay Marriage is weak. Most of the points that are raised by secular conservatives can also apply to heterosexual marriage as well. Therefore, conservatives who oppose Gay Marriage typically fall back on the argument from tradition or religion.

What if:

* heterosexual couples also received a Civil Union document along with their marriage license
gay couples could also obtain Civil Union documents
* the word 'marriage' had religious and traditional connotations, but no financial or civil benefits
* all Civil Unions were treated identically by the state

While on the subject, why not assume that:

* taxes were 'flat'
* married couples did not get any special treatment under the tax laws

Would gays still agitate for the right to marry if there were no economic benefits involved?
-----------------end of excerpt-----------------
The above is excerpted from an article titled: " It took a Civil War to end Slavery - will Civil Unions end the 'War' on Gay Marriage?"

Also in the article is the analogy
"Gay Marriage:Heterosexual marriage :: Renters:Homeowners"

To read the entire article, please visit:
http://voice.townhall.com/g/331f0d34-b56e-4a2e-9c29-64ca7eaaa12a

animalgirlisback


Speaking of the inability to think critically... animal girl is back. At least she doesn't advocate hanging the Christians or feeding them to lions.

Public school should not be the venue for espousing a lifestyle, do it on your own time off school property.

You want I should be in your face about my heterosexuality? No?

Then don't be in my face with your personal choices either !

Gonna find out who's mean or nice
The liberals want to have a day to accept gays and the supposed Christians want to have a day to hate them.

wether it be Palymra Jane or John
Tom Nelson of Denton Bible CHurch brought up a good point. If Jane is not your wife and you have sex with her and you are a guy or a girl if you are guy and John is a dude or you are a single guy who takes Palmyra out for a date...it is all sin the same kind of sin. We nod not wink wink at 007 yet freak out about Ellen.

The sexual impulse belongs between husband and wife. That is the place it shall be directed to. Anyplace else is poison of it.

I'd say you got an issue
===================
You write: "I view the homosexual act as disgusting and lack of respect for women as cruel.
===================

You mean you find 2 hairy guys going at it disgusting, but 2 girls is a different fish, what? :NUDGE NUDGE, WINK WINK::

Sorry your choice of the word disgusting told on you. Either: You really are an uptight homophobic (ie a closet Q)
+oR+

Er. that's all I can come up with.

You got teased for NOT having any illegitimate kids, right dude sure ,unless you can use "my baby momma" in a conversation your hip-hop career is dead.

You got teased for not beating up a gay? What did you have "Beat up a Q " day at school?

animalgirlisback
If you characterize your opponents' arguments dishonestly, you can always make them sound silly. One of the true tests of a person's intellectual honesty, however, is whether they can characterize their opponents' arguments accurately. Another is, when they claim to rebut their opponents' arguments, are they rebutting the strongest version, or the weakest? In my estimation, you don't have any intellectual right to your opinion unless you can rebut the STRONGEST version of your opponents' arguments.

So, here's the strong version; and please be assured I can back every statement with statistical evidence.

The average homosexual has 40 times more sex partners in their lifetime than the average heterosexual; this is so despite the fact that the average homosexual only lives to the age of 45. Homosexuals are much more prone to certain diseases, as much as 4000 times more likely to contract them than heterosexuals. Homosexuals are many times more likely to exhibit serious mood disorders, alcoholism, depression, or suicidal tendencies, and also more likely to exhibit violent tendencies. Homosexual relationships last less than 2 years on the average.

The problem is that these facts have been hidden from the public. Instead, we're given a steady stream of misleading information, to produce the impression that homosexuality is just like heterosexuality, only with a different preference. Nobody familiar with the facts I just presented is fooled; the facts make it painfully obvious that homosexuality is a self-destructive pathology, probably a form of sexual addiction.

So, the gay propaganda machine makes sure nobody ever hears those facts. THAT is why the day of silence is applauded, but the day of truth disallowed.

Rebut that. But thanks for acknowledging that we should be permitted a platform for the facts.

LGM
Those who cannot rebut what another person says, resort to characterizing that argument as evil. That's why you call what Christians say "hate": because you can't dismiss their claims logically.

A lot of us really want to respect liberals; it would be so much easier if you guys would actually raise reasonable objections, rather than resorting to ad hominems as the first recourse.

Calling the Christian pov "hate" is an ad hominem, and as such, a logical fallacy. Why don't you try reason for a change?

The Joys of Rural America
I'm happy to say that in the public school where I teach, this is a non-issue.

There is no day of silence. I doubt many of the students (or teachers) know of such a thing. There is no opposing movement.

We are protected by remoteness and (believe it or not, in a small town) an attitude of "mind your own business." We have students with all sorts of beliefs, but they don't force them on anyone. Teachers do not do this either.

A monolithic culture? No. Just simple respect and civility. We have large differences, and I have lived in more "multicultural" areas enough to know what diversity is.

Mike_Lee
The 'you must be closeted because you think homosexuality is gross' argument is tired, dude.

You don't have to be a self-leathing "Q" to think that sticking your business up someone else's anus is disgusting. You settle down with a nice little woman, pop out a couple of offspring and change three or four hundred diapers, you'll see what I mean.

Ewwwww.

oops
that should've been "self-loathing"... hard to type while changing the baby's nappy ;-)

any other word
No what was interesting to me was that it's a big issue but (or I perceived) that he honed in on the actual act, not the lifestyle or the philosophy but he zoned on on the act and then used a very interesting word "Disgust" which is closely associated with shame. You can't be disgusted with something you haven't personally partaken of.

Of course these are all ideas and you could indeed use the word in an offhand manner, but the other 2 comments sealed it for me

The sexual phoebe type is for all areas of sexuality, when you mom says "It's dirty" Most likely she is very unfulfilled sexually and thus responds by making the thing she desires an object of hate. Dads who gad secret dreams of being a violinist respond by getting angry with a child for taking up trumpet etc.

mike_lee
"You can't be disgusted with something you haven't personally partaken of."

That has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard a human being say.

I can't be disgusted with eating snails unless I've eaten snails??????

You're making things up in order to accuse your opponents (this is something most aggressive gays do, I can't figure out exactly why), and the things you're making up are just LOONY.

Here's a fact: I haven't met a leftist yet who understands even the most basic things about human beings. They frequently THINK they do, though, so they spout these just incredibly vapid pseudopsychological assessments based on absolutely nothing.

Let's hope you're not trying to make a living as a counselor, mike_lee. You really should stick to gardening, or whatever it is you do.

I'm a leftish witch
You assume I'm gay because I didn't follow the republican script.
You assume I'm left because you assumed I was gay. But people who make assumptions about others with almost no data to go on, you may safely assume, are not what you might call the intellectual "cream of the crop." No no you object, while you dare not say anything in public you know something. That's why you could assume so many things - because you knew the reason. Hee hee, you rock back and forth in your chair rhythmically hee hee . . . it's because . . . . "he has a spirit" you hiss aloud - "a demon."
Your fat little legs are running, fat little feet kick up dust as you let the thought consume your mind "a demon, must be a demon he didn't say the republican words.” Some twenty minutes later amidst the noise and excitement of a hastily called council meeting you finish up your argument as the self proclaimed intellectual voice of the right
"And so you see elder Baxter if he is gay, and he most certainly is because he did not use our words . . . he is different." You listen as your friends and neighbors grunt in satisfaction at your argument.
"Perhaps he's from outside of Springfield,' Baxter reasons timidly. So quickly did the room fall silent that the faint echo of Baxter's words could still be heard bouncing against the walls. A few minutes ago such quiet would be impossible to imagine.
"Excuse me brother Baxter," your shill voice low and menacing "he did not say the words." The power of your voice as you spat "WORDS" surprises everyone and the men repeat aloud "He did not say the words, He did not say the words. You raise your fat hands for quiet
"The words that all republicans must say when answering a message board question. He did not observe our rules nor our sacred traditions. You are either a republican and an inheritor of all the kingdom of knowledge" your voice snakelike "or you're a witch." All non sanctioned thoughts are thoughts of demons and witches "Filthy left wing witches.”
The men rose as one "Leftist witch, leftist witch, leftist witch,
"But what will we do" a man cries "how can we know?"
"We throw him in the pond, if he's a witch he'll float."
And if he's not a witch Baxter asks.
"Then he'll drown but we'll give him a republican funeral.”

"disgust"
I am disgusted to learn that Keith Richards has snorted up his father's cremated ashes along with some cocaine.

However, this does not mean that I have done the same!

Case in point.

I understand you
You will notice I did say people will use the word in an offhand manner

I wrote "Of course these are all ideas and you could indeed use the word in an offhand manner,"

His comment was " I view the homosexual act" Why say that? Who was talking about the actual sex? It was that phrase that triggered a flag when he used the word disgust When we see something disgusting we turn away, we see maggots on some food we involuntarily turn our heads.

Homosexuality is more the lifestyle and mindset then the deed.. Then he tried to justify himself with the ridiculous claims he was made fun of for not having any illegitimate children and he was made fun of for not beating up a gay. person.

Back to keith Richards I didnt read the article but I assume he did this as a way of making his dad a part of his life. Which I thought kinda touching in a ragged out rock and roll star kind of way. When I read the headline I was shocked, but not really disgusted. I could have been disgusted as I've snorted a few things in my time so I could imagine the feel of the ash on my mucus membrane and taste it and realize "that's me da':

To use the snail example if you went to a french restaurant and you said eating snails was disgusting, you'd be pretty freaking rude. Now the people who invited you will be uncomfortable ordering them, the waiter will probably spit on something etc. More importantly you don't have the right to say eating snails is disgusting because you've never tried them. You know that many people eat them so normally you would say "I don't think I'm ready for escargot yet, however the lamb looks good." Before I ate sushi I thought man that's nasty, after I went to Japan and ate sushi I was told about chicken sushi, raw chicken. I could now safely say that sounded disgusting and the Japanese who was telling me about eating raw chicken was doing so for shock value.

Just type the word disgust into google and you will find whole books written on the use of the word

It's all about bullying.
There is no discussion when it comes to this issue. The attitude is, "You WILL accept homosexuality, and if you do not you will be shut down."

End of discussion.

It angers me
I am sick and tired of hearing that Christians who oppose homosexual activity HATE homosexuals. From a Christian prospective hating a person is not now and has never been with-in the fundamental tenets of Christianity. We are taught to hate SIN not person. "We all are sinners and fall short of the glory of God" Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone" said Jesus. Those who accuse us of HATING homosexuals have clearly never met a true born again Christian. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Spare me the rhetoric about the Crusades, the "lynchings" in the South, and the abortion clinic bombers. These people and those acts were never committed by born again Christians who loved God and followed Jesus. They were and are Christians in name only, period. The fact that they claimed to be Christians does not make them Christians. There are delusional people in every facet of life - but they are not typical of the group with whom they associate. And these people and their acts bare no resemblance to the life of a true Christian.

Secondly STOP saying that Christians want to IMPOSE their beliefs on others. This is an absolute and total FABRICATION! A true born again Christian knows that God Himself does not IMPOSE His way on mankind! God gave us "free will" the absolute right to chose how we want to live and what we want to believe. The only thing is that we must accept the consequences of our choice - good or bad. This is fundamental to all of life whether or not you believe in the God of the Cristian Bible! We all have to live with the consequences of our decisions and we can not escape them. Everyone has the right to chose how to live their own life. To impose our beliefs on others is antithetical to biblical Christian teachings. A true Christian will share his/her understanding of God's truths with others who are willing to listen. A true Christian observes God's provision of Free Will and knows that you can not impose God's way on another person - in fact a True Christian knows that you can not even persuade a person to chose God. All a Christian can do and remain faithful to God is to share his understanding of God's truth. Anything else is contrary to God's own behavior.

It is true that God as revealed in the Old Testament did seem indeed to impose many things upon His people and sometimes upon other people. The New Testament reveals the rest of God's truth and plan, to us and therefore one must judge Christians in the light of what Jesus taught and how He acted, not be the partial view of God in either of the testaments.

As to how we "know" that God's word is TRUTH - that indeed is a matter of faith. Just as even those who do not accept God's word as truth exercise faith in their daily lives - even when they deny they ever use faith as a basis for their actions. For example when we get on board a plane to fly somewhere. Who among us investigates the pilots to be certain they are qualified? and how do we KNOW they are qualified even if they have a license? Do we check the engines, kick the tires and investigate the airworthiness of the craft? Do we check all the luggage to be sure there is no bomb on board? NO we get on and fly by faith! We believe it the systems that are doing these things for us. By the way the next time you walk into a room you have never been in before and set down in a chair -- you have just exercised your faith! You BELIEVED that chair would hold your weight with out first investigating it to make certain. Faith is an everyday part of everyones life.

So we Christians believe that truth is not relative but absolute because truth is rooted in an infallible God. We are NOT DEMANDING you believe this as well. We will how ever share with anyone who is willing to listen how our lives have benefited by our adherence to these beliefs. Like Fox News, "We Report, You Decide" That is the true Christian way.


We are taught a lot of things
Dude, let me tell ya straight up a lot of Christians do hate gays. I'm not all that fond of gay people myself, not if they feel the need to make their gayness my problem. You could hang around me for years and never have to hear about my sex life

My work is lights and sound so I do lots of church work. I was in a service where a preacher was praying for a black lady and said - into his mic "Lord I just pray you'll heal this old n_gger woman"

Yep and last election I was in an Assembly of God church delivering something when I saw 3 guys back a young guy into the wall and just berat him. "If you don't vote for Bush then you must like fags huh?" How can a Christian vote for Kerry" That illegal as hell and happens almost exclusively in churches.

It puts you in a tough spot because maybe you believe the red words and would never do something like that, but you're not representative of the church - just yourself. And the biggest culprits are the Pentecostals.charismatics who keep giving money to televangelists who use that money to srir crap up so they will get even more money.

Worse, A greater lie
than needed protections for homosexuals (they have the entire US Constitution--particularly the 1st, 4th, and 14th Amendments--the Dec. of Ind.; various ind. local, state, and fed. laws prohibiting and punishing A) terroristic speech, B) battery and assault, C) discrimination in housing and hiring, D) every other civil and criminal law, and in addition, A) more money devoted to HIV/AIDS than any other medical condition in the US, B) an overly sympathetic press and entertainment fields, C) tremendous pressure--sometimes dangerous--group machines) while the entire solar system is warming, not just the Earth. Mars' poles are melting, Venus is hotter than ever, Jupiter has developed another giant red spot or monstrous planetary storm; Saturn has one pole warming, and even littel planetoid Pluto on the outer limits of our system is warming. Cosmologists believe the sun is in a period of warming. What will we do as a species when the temp. rises 10 or 20 degrees? We better drill for oil off all the continental shelves, throughout Alaska, process shale oil across the northwest, and put up wind farms even where Kennedy and Kerry oppose them because we're going to need a powerful amount of energy to run all that air conditioning. In the meantime, watch out for Al Gore and the 75 cent fed. gas tax he wanted in '96 (nixed by Clinton who preferred re-election), because Al-boy believes YOU should have to buy less gas because he said so. In the meantime, he will buy "energy offsets" from a co. he runs himself, and I'm sure, would be glad to sell energy offsets to you from a co. he owns himself. In the meantime, what will the environmentalists do when the ocean start to boil? Will there be more taxes? Or just more whining?

A hard time was had by all
The fact that they claimed to be Christians does not make them Christians.

Didn't you just claim to be a Christian? Christianity officially includes Mormon s, Jehovah Witnesses and Catholics, if you claim your little belief set is true Christianity you walk right into a trap.

Animalgirlisback: Pathetic Missive
“These are all losers when you hold them up to scrutiny. Religious people try to hold events like the Day of Truth not because they want open debate, which they invariably lose, but because they want to tick people off by acting like jerks and then whine oppression.”

What a thoroughly gratuitous and unsubstantiated assertion. How about some reality on purely secular terms independent of your “neo-marxism as social engineering tool” prism:

WRT the state of the “Public Education Industrial Complex”:
+ “Education majors” generally have the lowest SAT, ACT & GRE scores of any other “profession”
+ Half of all public school teachers have never passed the “Praxis Series” which includes passing an exam equivalent to 8th grade math- these are of course the “Education majors”
+ Nearly half of all math teachers in some school districts do not have Math degrees- Education majors fill the void
+ Rather than focusing on addressing the apparent academic deficiencies of the primary education discipline, the National Education Association, the major Neo-Marxist contributor of political funding to the Democratic Party, instead makes “social engineering” (i.e., the “normalization” of same-sex marriage) the cornerstone of this year’s platform in 2006.

On the subject of “gay normalization”:

Speaking as a Jesuit-educated Deist who none the less believes in the salient values associated w/ Judeo-Christian Philosophy, I nevertheless have a strong libertarian streak: ““Morality” shouldn’t be legislated, but “Amorality” shouldn’t be subsidized. You and I would probably agree on most “gay-related” issues, i.e., I am ambivalent WRT “gay civil unions”. I also have a problem with anyone bringing in their own biblical interpretation into the argument. But, in purely secular terms, I have a problem with homosexuals (i.e., CONGENITAL SEXUAL DYSLEXICS) trying to attain de facto “normalization” for their behavior via activist judges. Please do not attempt apply you left-wing “invalidation tactics” (i.e., HOMOPHOBIA-label) on me- I am HOMO-HOSTILE like most reasonable people: I don’t fear homosexuals & I think that hey have right to privacy like everyone else, but don’t ever try to convince me that such behavior in “NORMAL.” But in purely secular, biological terms please consider the following:

The male rectum is lined with relatively thin membrane that is not built to withstand the penile thrusts associated with ejaculation. This in turn causes tears which expose blood vessels in an area heavily populated with fecal bacteria, opening the way for infection to enter the bloodstream. The female vagina, on the other hand, is thick and lubricated and fully able to handle what it was designed by evolution.

Or maybe Darwin was wrong?

They are so they are normal
Homosexuals have been around for as long as man - therefore they are not an anomaly they are a normal part of society and are deserving (not just entitled) to the same protections and rights as a straight person.

Christians get upset by things like this because they don't believe the gospel - plain and simple. They were commanded by Jesus to avoid politics but they just had to help God because they don't really believe him. The insist of sticking to a unscriptural view of sin because it's traditional. Drinking for example, most of the church's teaching on drinking were invented during the great prohibition debate but they still cling to them. Those that do study the scriptures with an open mind always say "Well it;s better to leave things like they are we can't have our church members out at bars." But the fact is - truth is truth even when you don't like it. I hardly believe the church would all hit the local bar if someone were to preach about that.
Smoking is a health issue, not a spiritual issue.
Stay out of peoples sex lives unless you're going to do some good.
There is not one single scripture in the bible about masturbation, why? Was God embarrassed? Or could it be he doesn't care - why does the church have to place unrealistic expectations on young people? etc I could go on till you got bored.. . . what? what did you just say?

The anal sex thing is a bit of a stretch. We could say that about a whole bunch of things. Easting meat for example. The human body was not designed to eat meat. Oh yea, why do we die without it? Vegetarians can live only if they take supplements that replace the B vitamins they are not getting.

Burlington High School
is available on line. You can express your displeasure at their cowardly use of fundamentalist Christians as dupes for their "anti-terror" exercise on their website under reviewing the school.
The Crusades were named so by Renaissance historians. In their own day, they were Holy Wars, or the Arab term, jihad.
They occurred in reponse to a 100 years of beheadings, ambushes, kidnappings, massacres, torture, and brutlizations; additionally, the descecration and ruination of sacred sites, and pligrim embargoes by the Saracen Turks, who unlike the original conquerors of the Levant, the Arabs, did not try to live in peaceful coexistence with the Christians and Jews.
That craven and callous murderers who use pipebombs, chlorine explotions, kidnappings, and torture for terror today might use the "Crusades" as an excuse is unspeakable and unprintable.
That wiseass know-nothings would insolently and arrogantly use such ill-informed history to justify sectarian slaughter of the moment is pitiful.

Public School Education Grade: F
"A day of silence" is just one of many examples of the dumbing down of public education. We can't teach algebra, science, or English composition any more- to do so might affect some student's self-esteem or be intolerant of some student's lack of English or math skills.
These dear young people arrive at college-where they are shocked to find out that they have to take remedial English and Math classes just to catch up to entry level courses. They then find out that entry level business opportunities for graduates are going to foreign educated young men and women who are better prepared for the workplace environment.
This all too common scenario leads one to conclude that the public school education should be graded as an "F" However, they did very well with their "Day of Silence" skills!

public education
I'm a public educator, and I laugh every time I see debates like this come up. Too many people think that taking an issue and blowing it up is indicative of the state of public education. The beginning of these posts people are arguing that we NEED to have more critical thinking, and by the end we have people crying about not teaching enough skills. All of these things are being taught, and the majority of the kids are walking away with a great beginning to their intellectual lives.

By the way, I consider myself a moderate, which from most of these posts it seems people posting here are far on the ends of the bell curve. You shouldn't get so worked up folks, life is too short. Democracy is not going to end because we don't let Christians practice a day of silence. When it comes to this issue, the reason you don't get as many Days of Silence for the anti-gay folks is BECAUSE it is ANTI-anything regarding tolerance. Could this be going to far, I'll let others fight about it. But I can't remember anytime ANY group has been allowed to practice a day that is ANTI specific PEOPLE. Government, yes, wars, yes, GROUP OF PEOPLE?

I'm sure many of you will come up with examples, but stop letting your diatribes convince yourselves that PUBLIC education is failing. In large metropolitan areas like Milwaukee, Chicago, etc, they have problems because SOCIETY has problems. Go visit your public school and really see what is going on before you write your columns and wring your hands

SHUT UP AND STUDY
I am so sick to death of this issue. How were schools able to function for 150 years without having to talk about buggery, as if anyone really cares either way?

My solution: muzzle both sides, issue uniforms and refer all inquiries about sexuality to parents, violators to be expelled.

Now, can we get back to reading , writing and arithmetic please?

Animalgirls isback
Why do you assume there are no Jews opposed to the militant gay agenda? Your point #1 excludes us, as I keep all those commandments you say the "anti-gay" protestors ignore. Or do you stereotype all who oppose the militant gay movement as backwoods Christian hicks? You see, the torah is pretty explicit on these matters, and is followed by a whole lot of non-Christian people. And we don't see homosexuality as a morally neutral matter either.

Mike Lee
So, you are not disgusted by rape or murder or child molestation because you haven't partaken in those practices (I hope)?

That is absurd. I can be disgusted by an number of things in which I have never participated.

Mike Lee
The post to which you objected mentioned the homosexual act, as that is what defines one as a homosexual. If you do not do the deed, you are not gay. I know the left invented the "nonpracticing" homosexual, but most everyone without a political axe to grind does not define a man as homosexual until he has engaged in sodomy.

The act defines the homosexual, so the act was what he mentioned.

Talk about "lifestyle" all you want, that may make waves among the "metrosexual" crowd, but until you bugger someone, I don't think you are a gay man. (Subsitute appropriate deeds for the female version.)


A Day of Silence....
...for all the dead gay idiots who were killed when their irresponsible behavior led to their contracting the HIV virus and eventually developing AIDS.

Now see beowulfe
Now see beowulfe if you want to talk about evil what you just said outweighs a hundred butt pirates on Viagra. But you don't see that do you? As a social issue, because gays insist on forcing the issue, something needs to be said but on a personal level what do you care what people do when they're along? There's something like 3 billion p*uss_s in the world, so far I've gotten 11 which is statistically irrelevant but that's 11 chances to catch something I didn't know existed. STD's are a fact of life, and AIDS would have come along gay people or not, it could have spread through the heterosexual population just as easily and no doubt would have done 100 times the damage so if you're still breathing thank a gay guy.

And hey libtard, you did OK. They way they talked about you I expected a two headed rosie o'donnell Barbra Streisan monster with a crocs tail.

Well lets see
I think you have a double standard and here's why. And I'm sorry this post will need to get kinda adult Almost all women will have sex with other women on a limited basis it starts young and continues a lifelong pattern. In Japan you see a lot of girls play with each others boobs in the oddest places. If I could talk my wife into an orgy tonight she'd be all over the other woman but they're not really gay are they? I think it has to do with the way most women functioned around the world, harem's, multiple wives, the widespread practice of separating all the woman at menstrual cycle, the early death of men, the loving nature of women etc ( but that's just a theory)

What makes females gay is the lifestyle choice . . . and the flannel shirt haha

With men it's totally different but still you could have the odd switch up, regret it afterward and not "be" gay or bi. You just did something you regret.

I had a little thing happen at 15 or so, it was what it was but I just ain't got a gayman in me.

Animalgirlisback
Yes, as long as I was not sexually active I could be classified as neither hetero nor homsexual, as I did not engage in sexual activity.

The hallmark of homo or hetero sexuality is engaging in sex with the same or the opposite sex. So I was not heterosexual so long as I did not engage in sexual activity.

I suppose one who engages in semi-sexual activity, such as kissing, etc. with members of the same or opposite sex could be considered hetero or homo sexual in some sense, but, I would still refrain from using the title until they had engaged in actual sexual contact.

And I do deny that one's sexual desires make one hetero or homo sexual. Otherwise, almost all men and women would be adulterers, as they have sexual dsire for those to whom they are not married. However, as with hetero or homosexuality, I define an adulterer as one who acts on thsoe urges, not one who simply feels those urges.

So, just desiring sex with members of the same sex does not make one a homosexual, any more than wanting to be president makes one a politician, or wanting to do the right thing makes one a saint.


Mike Leeo
I disagree with the "women are all bisexual" thesis. This theory has only appeared recently, and is quite obviously the product of our porn-obsessed society.

A decade or two ago, no one would have accepted the idea all women are bisexual. But now, with the prevalence of casual lesbianism due to (mostly) the influence of pornography, and a society which accepts female bisexuality and even glorifies it, you hear how women are naturally bisexual.

And I don't think you should hold up any sexual activities in Japan as proving what is normal. Unless you consider school girl bondage fantasies, drinking yourself unconscious, utlra-violent tentacle porn and Miike movies to be the norms of society. Japan has much to recommend it, but it is in all way (good and bad) an exceptional society and the behavior of young Japanese girls (whether lesbianism or schoolgirl prostitution) is hardly a good source by which to define normality.

Truth, What Truth?
Educators afraid of the truth? Perhaps subconsciously, but I doubt that they (as a community) would know the truth it if bit them on the gludious maximus. Of course, there are exceptions. Some know the truth and struggle with their peers every day. Others among them know the truth, but despise it.

I recall working with our board of education and the department responsible for curriculum development in the early 1990 timeframe as they were rushing to publish guidance for AIDS education. The truth was the last thing they wanted to enter the discussion.

They deliberately worked to conceal the fact that the Center for Disease Controls (CDC) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Journal published factual numbers that reflected 70 percent of the reported AIDS cases were attributed to promiscuous homosexual activity. They tried to promote the fear that “heterosexual woman” were at great risk and “they were the most rapidly growing group of affected people.” The truth was they had gone from 1.5% to 3% in one year. In the same year, 1.5 % was from unknown causes. Shear hysteria was deliberately being promoted at the expense of truth.

They continue to be driven by the same irrational agenda to normalize sodomy by brainwashing our children. Truth has already suffered an untimely death in academia. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are now being sacrificed on the alter of hedonism and the high priest and priestess are card carrying members of the NRA. No wonder there is an epidemic of teachers having sexual relationships with students. Next, they will be making this a matter of employee relations rather than law.

animalgirlisback
No, and you missed my point.

If I am attracted to women and do not act on it, it is wrong to call me heterosexual. As one who does not have sex, I am asexual at that point.

As I said, wanting to do good does not make one good. Doing good is required for that.

Wanting to cure cancer does not make you a doctor.

And, similarly, wanting to have sex with members of the same sex does not make you homosexual. Acting on those desires does.

It is for this reason I say homosexuality is a choice, not inborn. Whether or not the inclination is inborn, the decision to act is a choice. So, performing homosexual acts is volitional, and, as one is not a homosexual until one acts on those desires, becoming a homosexual is a volitional act.

Also, to refute your idea that desiring women or men makes one a homo or hetero sexual, please look into "situational homosexuality". No one would deny that prisoners often commit homosexual acts, and are, while so doing, considered homosexual. Yet they likely prefer women to men when both are available. It is not their desires that make them situational homosexuals, it is their acts which so define them.

If acts, not desires, define homosexuality in this context, why not in others?

Oops
In the post above, by "prisoners" I mean male prisoners. I assume the same is true of female prisoners, but, as the later sentences make clear, I was thinking exclusively of male prisoners when I wrote.

Light and Sound
Mike Lee tells us he is a sound and light man.

How ironic? A sound and light man who gives every evidence of being both deaf and blind to the truth.

So you've seen a few bad Christians. Horrors; even a few bad Pentecostals? Well, let’s paint them all with a broad brush.

If you send me your email, I'll send you a P.O. Box number where you can send all of your money. You see, there are some counterfeit bills out there and since you seem inclined to reject all for the sake of a few counterfeits, you should send all of your currency to me rather than throw it out.

Just in case you have some vision left, if you can see any spark of light at all, I will hold this candle out to you. You are wrong about sin. Both your heart and the Word of God have told you what it is. It is your love of sin that makes you so hostile to Christianity. Even so…here comes that light Mike Lee….Jesus loves you and died to save you from your sins. In fact, he also died for every homosexual, for the express purpose of paying for their sins. If you (and they) will but accept this truth, you can become the beneficiary of it and become a never-dying, ever-living, sin-free child of God.

eleutheros
I agree with the broad brush comment towards light guy, but your proselytizing at the end proves a point, you can't stand it if others don't "believe" what you do, because you have to be right, right?

Intolerance in the form of a damned soul nonetheless, nice.

Telaunit
I am unabashedly a man on a mission. It is called the ministry of reconciliation. I make no distinctions between the different sins that seperate men (and women) from God. My mission is to appeal to them to accept his offer of forgiveness and be reconciled. I am not engageed in winning arguments.

hahee
my goodness you people are shell shocked, everything you say is carried to the nth degree and anything you don't bath with praise and accolades becomes an object you hate and want to kill. Relax bato, you need to learn to enjoy the colors in the middle of life. I didn't say one of those things. You said them - now whats that tell you. And I sure as hell don't want to be like you.

Point taken Andrew, but most of those things are western exports (for westerners to consume) Japan is a buddist shinto country they have no sexual hangups but at the same time that natural sexual law that governs people is in effect And boob touching isn't a blatant sexual act to them just to us.The uniforms up to their butts is actual forced on them. In lower grades girls skirts are very long (middle of the calf) each grade they are allowed to raise their hemline. School uniforms are very important to those kids since that is all they wear 6 days a week. Japanese schools are all private and a school uniform is a status symbol. (the parents pay tuition but they don't pay property tax so with their system schools are directly accountable to the parents, in our system schools become big non producing bureaucracies. (Whine but what about the poor people who helps them? They get a job Japanese are a responsible people they don't have children they cant support) So a way schools compete is laxer dress codes (higher hemlines - but it gets ok again in a minute) .So much thought goes into making the uniform smart and one way to dress up a skirt is make it shorter. By the time they are in 12th grade it's a*s level. Even Japanese girls get embarrassed walking around with their butt hanging out so they get really thick luxurious underwear the pantie obsession. Look all you want it's like cheerleader underwear. After a week in Japan girls underwear becomes invisible, or once you are there is person you realize "Hey these school girls are school aged" and you feel like a pedo.t

Kathy, what's that have to do with it
I know kids whose parents died in car wrecks and mothers who tried desperately to live long enough to see their babies 13th birthday. Illness is illness, someone can die of cancer from a lifetime of bad eating habits and you would weep an cry and talk about how great they were. But if the person died of aids you'd kick them after they're dead, cause that's what you just did

andrews
"If I am attracted to women and do not act on it, it is wrong to call me heterosexual. As one who does not have sex, I am asexual at that point."

You're using the word "asexual" (which technically means not having sex organs) instead of the real word here: "celibate." If, as a man, you are attracted to women but make a choice not to act on it, you are practicing celibacy. Or abstinence. Or restraint. Whatever you'd like to call it -- the point is that if you abstain from sex you're making a choice to do so.

But -- the attraction, the desire, is involuntary. You don't choose to be attracted to women -- you simply are.




Not to put too fine a point on it...
...but mike_lee is an idiot. Homosexuality is "more of a lifestyle and philosophy"? That has to be the most idiotic thing I've seen posted here by one of our leftie trolls, and I didn't think that was possible.

Don't know about you, Ace, but I know plenty of gays and lesbians, many are friends of mine. And when it comes to "lifestyle and philosophy", there are as many different flavors as there are among straights. Homosexuality is about sex, and who you have it with and how, period.

Furthermore, the notion that HIV/AIDS would have appeared regardless is also total BS. I'm old enough to have been around through the whole "Gay Liberation" thing (as it was once called), starting back in the late 1960s and onward. And the sad fact is that, when society at large essentially told the gay community "go for it; we don't care", that is just what they did.

Unfortunately, the males did what any male, regardless of orientation, will do when given the opportunity to have lots of sex. They had LOTS of sex, among themselves. In fact, they went absolutely ape with it. By the mid-1970s, sexually transmitted diseases were wildly rampant among gay men. By the late 1970s, the handwriting was appearing on the wall, as not only were not only the more common but a lot of obscure but still treatable STDs endemic among gay men, but hepatitis C had appeared in the mix as well. And we all know what showed up next, by the early 1980s.

Something I found very illuminating insofar as just how powerful the "gay lobby" is, and what kinds of information they will and will not allow to be disseminated, was on the CDC web site. A few years back, after being bombarded with all this rhetoric about how HIV could be contracted by anybody, and that straights were just as likely to get it as gays, I decided to take a look at the CDC web site and see what they had to say about this.

Now, on that site, you can see all sorts of statistics for every disease known to man, broken down in all sorts of ways. By race, creed, color, age, hat size, you name it, whether it be cancer, heart disease, pulmonary disease, everything. All there, free for anyone to look at.

All except HIV/AIDS. Those stats were login and password protected.

And it is not hard to figure out why. If those statistics were available to the public, then the "inconvenient truth" would be revealed that yes, AIDS was still primarily a "gay" disease, and the gang at the CDC did not want to fade the heat that releasing that information would generate from the usual suspects.

Now, I've not been back there since, and maybe they have opened up those stats since then. But the fact that they had to hide them at all speaks volumes, to anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together, that is.

And no, I don't "hate" gays. Frankly, I'm like the overwhelming majority of people out here, in that I don't give a damn one way or the other what anyone does in the privacy of their bedrooms. Whatever floats your boat, and all that.

But what the usual suspects in the "gay activist" crowd, and their metrosexual fellow travelers can't seem to wrap their little pea brains around is that, way back 30 years ago when society at large said to the gay community "go for it", there was a little caveat included:

Don't rub our noses in it.

Homosexuals comprise about 2-3% of the population. If you factor in those who like working both sides of the street (bisexuals), your number runs up to maybe 10% tops. That leaves the other 90% of the population as straight. Deal with it. And human nature being what it is, after a while the average straight, no matter how "open minded" he/she is, is going to get just a little sick and tired of hearing about it.

I agree with an earlier poster who said ALL of this garbage, pro or con, has no place in the schools. Get back to teaching the ol' "three Rs", and leave the polemics at home.



Telaunit
You wrote:

"But I can't remember anytime ANY group has been allowed to practice a day that is ANTI specific PEOPLE. Government, yes, wars, yes, GROUP OF PEOPLE?"

From the original article:

"The idea of the “Day of Silence” is that students and educators go all day without talking, while flashing a card at those around them explaining that the quiet is their way of showing solidarity with the culturally-oppressed kids who get bullied “just for being who they are.”"

Surely you can see the danger of applying your logic. Wouldn't the Day of Silence be practicing a day of ANTI-'bullies'? Aren't 'bullies' a group of people? Why do they not deserve tolerance? I suspect it's because you view the practice of 'bullying' something that you do not agree with. You are therefore basing your decision on your belief of whehter an act is acceptable or not, not on tolerance.

Wow a whole new crop of nuts
I don't think it's worth my time, talk about throwing pearl before the swine. Now you're like Rush Limbaugh, who once was a great mind but now just throws anything out because he bought into his own PR.

First up, if you resort to name calling you lose. You've let emotion take over because you don't have the intellectual chops to get the job done - usually because your position is weak.

Gay lifestyle is a right wing term, gay people don't use that. term anti gay people created it. That's Focus on the Family's pet word.

I thought I was anti gay till I came here but some of you are just filled with hatred and I don't think it matters to you who you hate. I don't understand that emotion, life is hard for everyone why would you find satisfaction in adding to peoples grief? Maybe you just don't know how to debate an issue where you learn something at the end, you should give that a try. When Abraham Lincoln was trying to read books by fireplace light you have the whole world at your fingertips and choose to occupy a tiny corner of it. Jesus would definitely get flamed if he tried to post here, because hate to say it . . . Pharisees.
While I find homosexuality disturbing it's just 2 people touching for god sakes they're not eating white babies. There is a story that when the Jews came to Jesus and demanded punishment for the woman at the well Jesus stooped down and wrote in the sand. He wrote, the legend goes, the sin of every man there and they left one by one until just the woman remained and he said go and sin no more. What a little pansy eh?

Because I don't hate gays I'm automatically a leftest? Do you think that's what conservatism is about? Who you hate? How Bush rotted your brains that much?

Here is my position
Pro Life,
Pro second amendment, in fact from The first republican president until Bush it has been the Republicans who guarded the constitution.
Until Bush it was the republicans who guarded the three branches of government
I believe in a small government, basically a military and a governmental structure to keep states in order
I believe for every drop of rain that falls a flower grows
I believe in trading partners,
believe we should play a limited role in keeping the world in order
I'm anti killing of Arab babies. They that live by the sword die by the sword and we will have to account for lives we so carelessly snuffed out. God isn't on anyone's side, he's above all that.
I'm against any sort of income tax. That thing you buy at wal mart has been taxed 100 times, every chip, every wire everything was taxed, it was taxed before it was shipped tax tax tax,
Gayness is not a conservative issue. Social issues are not big on the conservative agenda. We get the job done create jobs and keep *fascism at bay (*government control of industry protected by the military)
I believe that everyone is guaranteed a bill of rights even if they do suck di*k
I believe the American dream of liberty and justice for all
I'm first generation American I'm no longer a republican because republicans are now democrats and democrats have become republicans - but I'm American first.

If I'm the first conservative you people have ever met, if anything out of the normal lines of townhall rhetoric hurts your head I'd find a better place to hang out like myspace or something. I've heard maybe 3 people with any sort of legitimate argument the rest of you just react like single celled blobs

It Gets Worse
Cave Bear wrote that CDC hides AIDS data.

I was a subscriber to CDC MMMJ and study this data for several years before they locked it down and made it accessible to healthcare professionals only. It was about the same time that C. Edward Koop came out with his propaganda brochure for every American household.

At the same time that CDC was telling American laymen that it was OK to share a toothbrush and they should not fear kissing a HIV infected person (except “deep kissing” whatever that means), they were publishing “Prophylactic Measures for Healthcare Professionals.” These measures warned that all contact with body fluids should be avoided. They stated that 32 different body fluids had been demonstrated to culture HIV. They advocated using goggles and gloves if you had a profession that involved routine contact with body fluids such as dental technicians.

It is demonstrably true that CDC hid the truth, just as the NRA strives to conceal the truth today.

A Day of Cruelty
It sounds as if A Day of Silence is intended to teach tolerance and A Day of Silence is intended to demonstrate why tolerance is unacceptable. If that's the case, then the school is being asked to hold the gay students while the Christian kids beat them up. No responsible educator is going to sponsor a forum in which some of the students are attacked. Let's set up a parallel. Suppose this business were about white attitude toward blacks or Jews or Hispanics. First we have a day of tolerance. Then we have a day when all the prejudiced white kids get to say all the bad things they believe to be true about the minority group that's up for grabs today.

This is unkind. It's assaultive. It's mean. And however you may feel that being unkind and assaultive and mean is justified, or The American Way, or whatever your schtick is, the fact is that educators and administrators in a school are not supposed to condone cruelty between students.

Regarding Stupid Teachers, Not
In 1982 I conducted a research study to explore why public school secondary teachers elected to leave teaching, a secure profession with decent salary and good group benefits. My subjects had on the average 200% of the educational preparation of teachers who chose to stay. They had been remarkably involved and successful both in the classroom and with extracurricular activities. They cared passionately about kids. What they loathed was administrators. They told the usual war stories about kids doing awful things. They had had the same contact with nutty parents. But what took them out the door was: administrators, who not only failed to appreciate or recognize these energetic teachers but who tried to pull them down to the level of the non-performers. Example: a music teacher whose bands consistently won state awards was told "You are just making the other teachers look bad". A science teacher who was praised for her clever educational bulletin boards was assigned to do bulletin boards for all the other teachers in the science department---she was the only woman in the department and the only one prepared to teach physics to advanced students, but another was to take her advanced class so she could do bulletin boards (that's when she left and went to law school).

After my subjects departed high school, 50% of them went for graduate or professional degrees in another field. Most of the others established a business. Many expressed relief to be out of a field where they were commonly perceived as stupid or incompetent.

I wish you folks would ponder this information since chatting about dumb teachers seems to be a favorite townhall thing to do.

I remember Koop
I remember koop saying this, very nearly word for word. "An aids infected person could spit on a telephone and you could come behind him and lick it up. and you wouldn't get aids." Hey at least his example stuck with me, he forgot to aid "I mean if you don't have any cavities or mouth sores."

eeewwww that is so gross.

You can't talk about AIDS without mentioning Africa. North America had 27,000 deaths last year, Africa 2 million. Places like Japan have been spared but they are sitting ducks. The pill was only approved in 1999 forty years behind the rest of the world. Women will not use condoms equating it with being dirty, while they have an out of control STD problem something like 70% of active girls have chlamydia (whatever that is) An outbreak of AIDS there would spread unchecked for months, due to an absence of testing.

animal girl
Probably back before you were born, homosexuals existed, and were looked on as different, kind of interesting, but kind of exotic, like artists and actors. The rest of us were "normal" and got married, had sex, and then kids. Some of us broke out of the mold and "had to get married." And this is the way it was for hundreds of years. Now all of a sudden, gays are "special" and are also considered to be "normal." Well, cats can act like dogs and dogs can be catlike, but "it is what it is." Does saying this make me homophobic? No. It makes me a realist. Back in the days when I fought for sex education in the schools, I had no idea how far and looney things would get. Sex is a body function and it can be abused, just as anorexia and bulimia can be an abuse of another body function. Yeah, other animals have "gay" tendencies, but my daughter's dog eats her feces and that hardly makes that tendency "normal."

Really?
my daughter's dog eats her feces and that hardly makes that tendency "normal."

Time for a grammar brush up there kiddo. LoL

-mike-

knowledge is power, well it used ti be
I don't think that was an argument, you taught me with some useful information.

1% chance? I got an 8% chance of getting shot by the husband so those are good odds

Viewpoint Discrimination
Any public skool that allows the one event while prohibiting the other is engaging in constitutionally prohibited viewpoint discrimination.

Go to The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education's (FIRE) website for more details.

I most heartily agree with the above sentiment about vouchers being the answer to this question. Viewpoint discrimination disappears as an issue the moment parents and students are given a choice.

I send my child, warily, to our small town public school. So far, so good. But if I hear about any ramming of leftist junk down my kid's throat, it's Catholic school for her.

I hope it doesn't come to that, but believe you me, if they try to force "An Inconvenient Truth" on her, we'll sue for equal time for "The Great Global Warming Swindle" on viewpoint discrimination grounds.

I hope FIRE would like to help us tackle that one. Wouldn't that just be a shot across the educrats' bow?

Typical Distraction
Animalgirl

Nice try. So, working from memory, I misidentified the name of the journal. I was getting it on line. I had One of the first internet access accounts in my department of the government, and it was in the early 1990's. It did get locked down and became inaccessible unless I wanted to pay a fee for it.

You choose in your response to sidestep the issue I raised. I have hard copies of the CDC warnings from this publication in my files if I need to dig them out. I accurately described the instruction they issued to healthcare professionals. Surely, you remember your dental hygienist putting on goggles and gloves. It was AIDS that started this, not HC. The point I make, that you completely elude, is the willingness of the Surgeon General to lie to the American people to protect the homosexuals from a backlash. The man’s first responsibility was the safety of the American public.

Just how does my pointing at the lying Surgeon General’s demonstrate conservatives disregard for homosexuals? Which one of my statements demonized anyone, are you confusing me with someone else? You are so eager to find a cause to dismiss my argument because of my conservative/religious beliefs, I have to wonder where the limits of your ability to engage in rational discussion are.

I did like your point about homosexual activity being a choice in an earlier post. I think we agree that a homosexual is a person who acts on those impulses or compulsions. I would go further and say, that it is a person whose life is defined by acting on those impulses and not someone who mistakenly acts on an opportunity and decides it is not for them. It is this way for all sin



Lilly Sets Up A Strw Man
Lilly

What you have really setup is a straw man. The truth is, everyday in America is suppose to be open to free expression. SCOUS has held in numerous rulings, that Christian students cannot be prevented by public school officials from expressing their religious beliefs. But school officials continue to show either their ignorance or their contempt for the law and silence their expressions.

To All: eleutheros is KWH4
I am logged in this morning on a different computer and I forgot that it had an old account with my original screen name on it. Hope it hasn't caused anyone confusion.

MMWR
Animalgirl,

As I recall, I was getting it from an FTP server. It has been a long time. I have been using the internet since before Al Gore invented it. My original account was a DDN account on ARPANET. I was using a dumb IBM terminal and a 300 baud rate accoustically coupled modem initially and then got the first desktop computer in our organization. I actually had the first eddition of Windows and hated it so much, I turned it off and did my work using MS DOS commands.

I think I started off with MMRW in hard copy and switched to on-line access. The reason I was getting it was I was a member then the chairman of our public school sex ed curriculumn review committee.

If you will read what I wrote carefully dear, you will see that I did not make any statement about actual risk or modes of transmission. I was pointing out the fact that CDC was publishing very strong warnings for healthcare professionals specifically stating a concern for potential transmission of the disease by contact with body fluids of all kinds. At the same time they were telling the public there was no significant risk. In the guidance, they even warned that hospital workers providing custodial services like changing bedding were at elevated risk and should avoid contact with body fluids. All of this was tied to the potential for transmission of HIV.

I cannot say with certainty why they cut off free access on line and went to subscription access. But it sue seemed suspicious to me.

What I do know is that the educators on my committee were not happy about having this data feed to them. It clearly offended them and showed the folly of their lie. The truth was the last thing they wanted entering the dialog.

Personal thoughts
I am gay and I don't like this whole "Day of Silence" thing, I think it's silly and annoying. I think that open discussion is vital to the learning experience and should not be cut short--however it does need to be moderated in this case becasue of the emotional nature of the debate. Name calling should not be acceptable behavior in school, ever, no matter what the reason is. Words like facist and evil and faggot fly far too easily among the young and idealistic.

As a side note, I once again have to remind all you hetrosexuals that your sexuality defines the entire culture. You think that you don't flaunt your sexualtiy because what you do is "normal"--wedding rings, children, photos on your desk, holding hands, cute nicknames, dates, kissing in public, etc. But when a gay person does any of these "normal" things with their partner suddenly we are "flaunting our sexuality" and need to stop it. You are basically saying that if we'd just stop reminding you that we exist, you wouldn't care that we exist. How very big of you.

I didn't choose to be gay, but I refuse to be miserable just becuse I am. I can live a full and content life, but I can't do that if I am forced to lie and hide my love behind a locked door and drawn shades. You can think I'm a sinner and going to hell all you like, but you don't have a right to punish me, in this life and in this country, just because you don't understand me. I don't begrudge you the comfort of relationships or religion, I'm just asking for the same consideration.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.