Like you are the one who never changes topic.....LOL
Gay Marriage
- Thread starter delldude
- Start date
- Status
Like you are the one who never changes topic.....LOL
Equality
If some homosexuals engage in disgusting behavior in public, then no homosexuals should be allowed to marry.
If some heterosexuals engage in disgusting behavior in public, then no heterosexuals should be allowed to marry.
Is that about right?
It is equal.
No, I am not defending public sex, or public lewdness or indecency.
But who gets to define disgusting?
I also will not defend the guy I stopped from beating his girlfriend in the KMart parking lot, or the all too common instances of public displays of spousal and child abuse.
I think that is disgusting.
And this thread was about marriage, wasn't it?
(Until someone forgot the topic, or ran out of message, and decided to make it about some people's behavior--painting all of the group with the same broad brush...)
Surprise, surprise
Sorry, that is not an argument for/against gay marriage
It is a deflection, and that topic is lewd behavior in public, which is a law enforcement issue.
This topic is gay marriage
If some homosexuals engage in disgusting behavior in public, then no homosexuals should be allowed to marry.
If some heterosexuals engage in disgusting behavior in public, then no heterosexuals should be allowed to marry.
Is that about right?
It is equal.
No, I am not defending public sex, or public lewdness or indecency.
But who gets to define disgusting?
I also will not defend the guy I stopped from beating his girlfriend in the KMart parking lot, or the all too common instances of public displays of spousal and child abuse.
I think that is disgusting.
And this thread was about marriage, wasn't it?
(Until someone forgot the topic, or ran out of message, and decided to make it about some people's behavior--painting all of the group with the same broad brush...)
Surprise, surprise
Sorry, that is not an argument for/against gay marriage
It is a deflection, and that topic is lewd behavior in public, which is a law enforcement issue.
This topic is gay marriage
im back..!!
Senior
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2011
- Messages
- 499
- Reaction score
- 504
Dell, does your avi resemble your attitude and persona in real life?
If so then a quote from what must be a favorite movie of yours, "Deliverance", You got a pretty mouth.....
I hear tell, you too have a pretty mouth......wanna hook up?
Dog Wonder
Veteran
Knotbuyinit
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,299
- Reaction score
- 421
Glowacki v. Howell Public School Dist. June 19, 2013
Members of the Howell High School Gay Straight Alliance wanted to participate in a national campaign aimed at raising awareness of the bullying of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered youth on October 20, 2010. As such, the student group submitted a flyer its members hoped to post around the high school with information about Anti-Bullying Day to Principal Aaron Moran. The flyer, which was ultimately approved and placed throughout the school, identified October 20, 2010 as Anti-Bullying Day and asked students and teachers to wear the color purple in recognition of the day. Other than approving the posting of the flyer, the school did not sanction activities or events in connection with Anti-Bullying Day.
Defendant Jay McDowell, one of plaintiff Daniel Glowacki’s teachers] wore a purple ... t-shirt to school on Anti-Bullying Day. Before proceeding with his lesson plans that day, McDowell engaged his students in a brief discussion about bullying and showed a short video about an individual who committed suicide as a result of being bullied due to his sexual orientation. This presentation caused no problems until McDowell’s sixth hour class.
As students began filtering into McDowell’s economics class, McDowell noticed a female student wearing a Confederate flag belt buckle and asked that she remove it. Daniel, who arrived to class a “little late,” witnessed this interaction. From this point forward, the events in question become muddled as the participants and witnesses have different versions.
During his deposition, Daniel testified that after the student removed her belt buckle, class began and McDowell “started to explain about ... his purple shirt, what it represented and what it meant.” At this time, Daniel “calmly raised [his] hand” and asked McDowell why the female student could not wear a Confederate flag belt when students and teachers could wear purple shirts and display rainbow flags. McDowell responded by explaining “the difference in symbolism between the Confederate flag and the rainbow flag.”
According to Daniel, this explanation included statements “that the Confederate flag represented the hanging and slashing of African Americans, that it wasn’t allowed in his classroom, and that it was discrimination against blacks.” Daniel then apparently voiced his concern that the purple shirts discriminated against Catholics. McDowell testified that after providing the symbolism explanation Daniel said “I don’t accept gays.” According to McDowell, he told Daniel that he could not say that in class, to which Daniel responded “I don’t accept gays because I’m Catholic.”
In a written statement concerning what transpired in his classroom, McDowell indicated that he conveyed to Daniel that it was fine if Daniel’s religion was opposed to homosexuality but that saying such things was inappropriate in a classroom setting. McDowell admits that he became emotional during this discussion but tried to illustrate the statement’s inappropriate nature by analogy. McDowell explained that one cannot say “I don’t accept gays” any more than one can say “I don’t accept blacks.”
McDowell “then asked Daniel if he accepted gays or not. Daniel said he did not.” At this point, “McDowell threw Daniel out of class and wrote up a referral for unacceptable behavior.” At this point, another student asked, “I don’t accept gays either, can I leave?” McDowell said yes....
After Daniel and the other student departed, those remaining in the classroom asked “why McDowell had thrown them out and why didn’t they have free speech.” McDowell “explained that a student cannot voice an opinion that creates an uncomfortable learning environment for another student.”
As a result of the above-described interaction, the School District conducted an investigation. Although Daniel was removed from class, all record of any discipline was removed from Daniel’s file and he was placed in another economics class by parental request.
The School District did, however, issue McDowell a reprimand. The written reprimand provided that McDowell “disciplined two students for holding and stating personal beliefs, to which you disagree. You disciplined them in anger under the guise of harassment and bullying because you opposed their religious belief and were offended by it. The students were causing no disruption to the educational process.” The reprimand further indicated that McDowell “disciplined two students who told you that they do not accept gays due to their religion. After a failure of getting one student to recant, you engaged in an unsupported snap suspension, rather than allow the student his beliefs.” The reprimand opined that McDowell “modeled oppression and intolerance of student opinion . . . This could be construed as teacher-to-student bullying; ironic of the Anti-Bullying Day intent.”
The School District suspended McDowell for one day without pay and ordered McDowell to participate in First Amendment training.
Members of the Howell High School Gay Straight Alliance wanted to participate in a national campaign aimed at raising awareness of the bullying of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered youth on October 20, 2010. As such, the student group submitted a flyer its members hoped to post around the high school with information about Anti-Bullying Day to Principal Aaron Moran. The flyer, which was ultimately approved and placed throughout the school, identified October 20, 2010 as Anti-Bullying Day and asked students and teachers to wear the color purple in recognition of the day. Other than approving the posting of the flyer, the school did not sanction activities or events in connection with Anti-Bullying Day.
Defendant Jay McDowell, one of plaintiff Daniel Glowacki’s teachers] wore a purple ... t-shirt to school on Anti-Bullying Day. Before proceeding with his lesson plans that day, McDowell engaged his students in a brief discussion about bullying and showed a short video about an individual who committed suicide as a result of being bullied due to his sexual orientation. This presentation caused no problems until McDowell’s sixth hour class.
As students began filtering into McDowell’s economics class, McDowell noticed a female student wearing a Confederate flag belt buckle and asked that she remove it. Daniel, who arrived to class a “little late,” witnessed this interaction. From this point forward, the events in question become muddled as the participants and witnesses have different versions.
During his deposition, Daniel testified that after the student removed her belt buckle, class began and McDowell “started to explain about ... his purple shirt, what it represented and what it meant.” At this time, Daniel “calmly raised [his] hand” and asked McDowell why the female student could not wear a Confederate flag belt when students and teachers could wear purple shirts and display rainbow flags. McDowell responded by explaining “the difference in symbolism between the Confederate flag and the rainbow flag.”
According to Daniel, this explanation included statements “that the Confederate flag represented the hanging and slashing of African Americans, that it wasn’t allowed in his classroom, and that it was discrimination against blacks.” Daniel then apparently voiced his concern that the purple shirts discriminated against Catholics. McDowell testified that after providing the symbolism explanation Daniel said “I don’t accept gays.” According to McDowell, he told Daniel that he could not say that in class, to which Daniel responded “I don’t accept gays because I’m Catholic.”
In a written statement concerning what transpired in his classroom, McDowell indicated that he conveyed to Daniel that it was fine if Daniel’s religion was opposed to homosexuality but that saying such things was inappropriate in a classroom setting. McDowell admits that he became emotional during this discussion but tried to illustrate the statement’s inappropriate nature by analogy. McDowell explained that one cannot say “I don’t accept gays” any more than one can say “I don’t accept blacks.”
McDowell “then asked Daniel if he accepted gays or not. Daniel said he did not.” At this point, “McDowell threw Daniel out of class and wrote up a referral for unacceptable behavior.” At this point, another student asked, “I don’t accept gays either, can I leave?” McDowell said yes....
After Daniel and the other student departed, those remaining in the classroom asked “why McDowell had thrown them out and why didn’t they have free speech.” McDowell “explained that a student cannot voice an opinion that creates an uncomfortable learning environment for another student.”
As a result of the above-described interaction, the School District conducted an investigation. Although Daniel was removed from class, all record of any discipline was removed from Daniel’s file and he was placed in another economics class by parental request.
The School District did, however, issue McDowell a reprimand. The written reprimand provided that McDowell “disciplined two students for holding and stating personal beliefs, to which you disagree. You disciplined them in anger under the guise of harassment and bullying because you opposed their religious belief and were offended by it. The students were causing no disruption to the educational process.” The reprimand further indicated that McDowell “disciplined two students who told you that they do not accept gays due to their religion. After a failure of getting one student to recant, you engaged in an unsupported snap suspension, rather than allow the student his beliefs.” The reprimand opined that McDowell “modeled oppression and intolerance of student opinion . . . This could be construed as teacher-to-student bullying; ironic of the Anti-Bullying Day intent.”
The School District suspended McDowell for one day without pay and ordered McDowell to participate in First Amendment training.
Dog Wonder
Veteran
Did they get married?
La Li Lu Le Lo
Veteran
- Joined
- May 29, 2010
- Messages
- 7,490
- Reaction score
- 2,680
Gay marriage does not have anything to do with marriage.
Gay marriage is nothing more than a minority group trying to force an unpopular concept on the American public.
The gays believe if they can get the government to legitimize gay relationships by legalizing gay marriage then the population will have no choice but to accept gay relationships.
Gay marriage is nothing more than a con game.
See it for what it really is.
Gay marriage is nothing more than a minority group trying to force an unpopular concept on the American public.
The gays believe if they can get the government to legitimize gay relationships by legalizing gay marriage then the population will have no choice but to accept gay relationships.
Gay marriage is nothing more than a con game.
See it for what it really is.
Dog Wonder
Veteran
It is a vast conspiracy against old White guys.
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
Does the COTUS allow for denial of rights based on any of this? Where there any other minorities who tried to force an unpopular decison on the majority? Where does the COTUS stipulate that minorities do not get equal protection unxer the law?La Li Lu Le Lo said:
Eighteen states currently allow for same sex marriage. DOMA was struck down. Prop 8 is history as is the kaw in CA and UT. Several other ststes will be passing legislation soon. The battle for equal rights is pretty much all but won. The religious zealots have lost another battle.
Glenn Quagmire
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2012
- Messages
- 4,809
- Reaction score
- 4,343
Women voting...was nothing more than a minority group trying to force an unpopular concept on the American public.La Li Lu Le Lo said:
Blacks marrying whites...was nothing more than a minority group trying to force an unpopular concept on the American public.
Non-property owners being allowed to vote...was nothing more than a minority group trying to force an unpopular concept on the American public.
Blacks serving with white in the military...was nothing more than a minority group trying to force an unpopular concept on the American public.
American Indian right to vote and citizenship...was nothing more than a minority group trying to force an unpopular concept on the American public.
Blacks allowed to vote...was nothing more than a minority group trying to force an unpopular concept on the American public.
Blacks not being owned as property and deemed free...was nothing more than a minority group trying to force an unpopular concept on the American public.
Any more you can think of?
Glenn Quagmire
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2012
- Messages
- 4,809
- Reaction score
- 4,343
How about this: Libertarians will no longer be allowed to vote in this country.
They are nothing more than a minority group trying to force an unpopular concept on the American public.
They are nothing more than a minority group trying to force an unpopular concept on the American public.
- Status
