California To Begin Teaching Gay History

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 19007
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:22 pm
Location: In your grill

PostSat Jul 16, 2011 5:16 am » by Slith


luftuso wrote:If I gave a shit I'd have a sig with some random name and something corny like "original"

I don't give a shit if you're gay straight les, or w/e. Is what I mean by not giving a shit.

If you didn't give a shit about me not giving a shit then you wouldn't have posted that shit.

seriously dude. get over yourself and fuck off
Image

I'm just here for the popcorn Image

Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 11:07 am

PostSat Jul 16, 2011 5:38 am » by Navarroant


99socks wrote:
navarroant wrote:its not even because there teaching it its because there making it manditory.Its called civics class it preaty much covers how its bad to discriminate against anyone.



I thought the point of civics class was to teach civil and civic responsibility.

yeah and rights so there

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 592
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:54 am

PostSat Jul 16, 2011 6:00 am » by SonOfGodEternalFlame


Alifonica sia ursedca ithwa adba piritssa!
History's mistery . Well one day Jeb was a shootin at some hair up came arumblin some crude that was
there (black gold) they said california is the place
you ota be so they packed up their bags and move
their family Beverly hills that is.

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 15836
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:12 pm

PostSat Jul 16, 2011 12:25 pm » by Spock


99socks wrote:
luftuso wrote:
How is the fact that these people had sexual preferences in any way relevant to what they did in contribution to the human race?... "This man invented the wheel, he also liked to fuck young boys." It's stupid.


It's not that's why they're not excluding great people who did great things because they are gay/bi/les/transgendered.

It's more like this man did invent the wheel, yet hes gay, so we will not speak of him. What they're saying is, fuck that shit, who cares if hes gay, lets talk about him anyway.

And just for the record, flamboyant people, gay or not, annoy the shit out of me.



Ok, please tell us; what (known) homosexual in history was left out of history because of their homosexuality? Or rather (in addition to English literature class where this is talked about all the time), do you believe it is important to know if a chemist or psychologist was homosexual? If so, do you believe that sexual orientation should be a check box on job applications? If a Nobel winner was homosexual but wasn't "out of the closet," does his or her sexual orientation need to be announced before awarding them the prize?



It's because it is an agenda. Education of any sort is an agenda. This particular agenda is to glamorize homosexuality. Yes, glamorize, because you know in no way will homosexuality be taught as a perversion. The agenda has worked so far.

Homosexuality first, who knows what the next perversion of normal will be. NAMBLA?

And this isn't saying there are not good gay people, smart gay people, ethical gay people. No question there are. And there is nothing wrong with loving someone of the same gender. I have male friends I love. But there is a world of difference between the act of loving someone and having sexual desire for them. Means there is a screw loose somewhere, whether nature or nurture, it's a perversion of normal.

Most disturbing are elements in society that wish to champion this as a normal standardized lifestyle, where does it stop? Redefine mores. Rewrite history. Redefine normal. And demonize the foundation of normal gender and sexuality. Anyone that doesn't agree with it are meanies, closet homos, evil, etc.

Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

The new thing is this "gender bias" stuff to instill an androgynous mindset. It wouldn't surprise me if the ultimate goal would be to demonize the family unit.

Just extrapolating on this subject illustrates the fallacy of redefining normal and homosexual education would be akin to the "gateway drug" to the next fetish driven agenda.

Edison invented the lightbulb, he also enjoyed masturbating with feces smeared all over him. Though Edison's many inventions are today integral part of our world, Edison had the unfortunate burden of living in a backward, medieval era when feces stimulation was shunned by society. We can only imagine the psychological turmoil he endured having to hide his, what use to be termed "fetish". Consider what greater accomplishments he could have given humankind if he didn't have to hide his sexual desire. We are truly fortunate to live in an enlightened time when we realize that feces acts as a wonderful lubricant for masturbation and ever changing textures keep the spice in ones sex life, and now we know, there is nothing wrong with that as long you're not hurting anyone and you bathe sufficiently afterwards. It wasn't that long ago that meeting someone in a public park restroom for a quick exhilarating session of oral sex was considered "taboo", and now we know it does wonders for fighting stress. Which brings us to our next progressive icon, George Michael.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 6298
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:06 pm
Location: coast

PostSat Jul 16, 2011 12:37 pm » by Mediasorcerer


and not only that,keep it out of the sphere of kids.

now theres gay games for iphone[childrens games] so tell me please,who does a parent explain to a child what a homosexual male has sex,what they do? do you say to your child,they stick there penises up an areshole/? not only do i "personally" find that rather weird,not very clean,and not that "becoming"
but the idea of telling kids that makes me angry and sick to the core,these mofos are trying to destroy the family unit,like i give a fuk about strangers sexual preferences? i dont, but to shove it into school is a wicked fuking slimey thing to do,

whats next,sex with animals?
with the power of soul,anything is possible
with the power of you,anything that you wanna do

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 15836
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:12 pm

PostSat Jul 16, 2011 12:42 pm » by Spock


mediasorcerer wrote:whats next,sex with animals?


:clapper:

Exactly, if the education system wants to champion an ideology, let it be compassion, not sexual fetish.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 6298
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:06 pm
Location: coast

PostSat Jul 16, 2011 12:54 pm » by Mediasorcerer


same to you. respect from me.
with the power of soul,anything is possible
with the power of you,anything that you wanna do

Writer
User avatar
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:37 pm

PostSat Jul 16, 2011 5:21 pm » by Genmetsu


I don't really agree with them saying historical figures happen to be gay. It's completely unnecessary. Whether they are gay or straight doesn't make them any more important, or any less important.

That being said, I have absolutely nothing against gays or lesbians. I don't think of it as a perversion, or wrong in any sense of the word. It's not something you can help or change. Much like race or nationality.

However, it seems that a lot of people on this forum have a problem with gay people, and think that there is something wrong with gay people. I find it disheartening that people who are so aware of what's going on in the world, and know how the government wants to keep us divided by making things like race, religion, and sexual orientation a big deal, would have a problem with gay people. Not only in this topic, but in a lot of others, there has been a lot of gay hate or gay stereotypes that are completely innacurate. I'm all for voicing your opinion, because everyone has a right to. And that's what this forum is for. But then don't turn around and say how there should be more equality in the world. Or that there are unjust things going on in the world. Because gay people not having the same marital privileges as straight people, and to some degree being treated like second class citizens, is one of the most unjust things happening in the world. And that pretty much makes you a hypocrite.

I'm sure most of the members on this forum will agree that subjectifying women is wrong, and the middle east is completely backwards on the way they treat women. But then why is it ok to basically treat gay people differently? To think of them as sinners/perverse/wrong/disgusting/etc. Just because you feel that you are above them or superior to them in some way. In a sense the same way, and for a similar reason, that women are treated in the middle east. Or is this simply just unfair selective equality?

I know that this post has gotten pretty off subject, but this has bothered me for a while.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1005
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 2:00 pm
Location: UK

PostSat Jul 16, 2011 8:00 pm » by Endless16


genmetsu wrote:I don't really agree with them saying historical figures happen to be gay. It's completely unnecessary. Whether they are gay or straight doesn't make them any more important, or any less important.

That being said, I have absolutely nothing against gays or lesbians. I don't think of it as a perversion, or wrong in any sense of the word. It's not something you can help or change. Much like race or nationality.

However, it seems that a lot of people on this forum have a problem with gay people, and think that there is something wrong with gay people. I find it disheartening that people who are so aware of what's going on in the world, and know how the government wants to keep us divided by making things like race, religion, and sexual orientation a big deal, would have a problem with gay people. Not only in this topic, but in a lot of others, there has been a lot of gay hate or gay stereotypes that are completely innacurate. I'm all for voicing your opinion, because everyone has a right to. And that's what this forum is for. But then don't turn around and say how there should be more equality in the world. Or that there are unjust things going on in the world. Because gay people not having the same marital privileges as straight people, and to some degree being treated like second class citizens, is one of the most unjust things happening in the world. And that pretty much makes you a hypocrite.

I'm sure most of the members on this forum will agree that subjectifying women is wrong, and the middle east is completely backwards on the way they treat women. But then why is it ok to basically treat gay people differently? To think of them as sinners/perverse/wrong/disgusting/etc. Just because you feel that you are above them or superior to them in some way. In a sense the same way, and for a similar reason, that women are treated in the middle east. Or is this simply just unfair selective equality?

I know that this post has gotten pretty off subject, but this has bothered me for a while.


As I've said no end of times, it's irrelevant as to their sexual orientation, with the exception of Freddie Mercury. (As pointed out by Jet)

However, it is my opinion that homosexuality is a disorder, whether it be psychological or hormonal, since it's every normally functioning organism to reproduce, which means homosexuality is a malfunction, this does not mean I think they should be treated differently, just that I don't believe they should be considered fine and normal.

Subjectifying women is obviously wrong, but apart from that the issue is much more complex when it comes to men vs women, there are strengths and weaknesses on both sides and they are far from equal. (asin the same.)
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

Master Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 13293
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 12:27 pm

PostSat Jul 16, 2011 8:39 pm » by Drjones


Apologies but 79 replies for this ?? Jesus. :bang; :help:
Here's me thinking we are all one and divisive matters like this are of no significance.
Guess i need to start again.
:oops:
Image


PreviousNext

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook