23 Comments

• 1. Steve  |  June 18th, 2007 at 6:45 pm

  “Don’t parents have the right to know that their impressionable 8-year-old son is about to be taught that sex between an adult male and a boy can be “a positive experience”?

  Holy crap man, you are out of control. Talk about twisting the truth. Do you honestly think that gay rights groups want to teach children that molestation is a “positive experience”? I can’t wait to see what bs you spew out next.

• 2. Andy (a different one)  |  June 18th, 2007 at 7:04 pm

  Steve,

  perhaps you don’t pay much attention to the news.. because stories like are not unheard of.

• 3. Stephanie M. Davis  |  June 18th, 2007 at 8:34 pm

  Hi all; the only thing that parents have the right to “know” is where to send the tax money. Remember, we are too stupid and too mean-spirited to make intelligent decisions concerning the nature of the society we want to live in. And Steve, do us a favor, and OPEN YOUR EYES! If I had suggested to you 10 years ago, that the Boy Scouts of America would come under attack by the homosexual lobby, you would have declared that prospect preposterous too. Face facts, the homosexual lobby is a subversive organization which is working to redefine traditional (male/female) families. They won’t stop until they are stopped! Live and live yes, but don’t shove the crap down my throat!

• 4. Steve  |  June 18th, 2007 at 8:57 pm

  Andy,
  I pay plenty of attention to the news. Please provide examples (with links to proof) of main stream gay rights groups that advocate teaching children that molestation is a positive experience. If it’s so common, it should be pretty easy for you. I’ll check back later.

  Stephanie,
  What’s being shoved down your throat? Is a lesbian forcing you to marry her? And if you don’t want your kids learning the realities of human sexuality, send them to a private school that’s more in line with your own personal beliefs instead of trying to use the public school system as a means of shoving your religion down every else’s throat. How does granting marriage rights to a same-sex couple redefine male/female marriages? I don’t expect a logical answer from you. The truth is that people like you are desperate to create the appearance that you have something to lose. That way, you can say things like “live and let live” out one side of your mouth while simultaneously trying to shove people back into the closet.

• 5. V  |  June 19th, 2007 at 6:58 am

  Stephen;

  You get more blowhardish every time I read you. The “realities of human sexuality”??? You have got to be kidding me. You’re going to hang your argument on THAT????? So what’s next? We start teaching about B&D, S&M, NAMBLA? The reality is that there are some deviant people out there Stephen. And if you get your nose under the tent, so will they, using the tactics the Sodomy Lobby did to get marriage.

  As far as being “out of the closet”…oh brother…..When was the last time you saw a bunch of heterosexual people parade through Boston in drag? Who’s shoving what down who’s throat Stephen?

• 6. Bruce  |  June 19th, 2007 at 10:51 am

  Try teaching grade-schoolers about firearms safety (something that could actually save their lives or the life of a classmate) and watch the Left shit themselves in righteous indignation over such an advancement of violent hate speech.

  And, if these schools would spend an equal amount of time and resources teaching kids to balance a checkbook or responsibly use a credit card as they do teaching PC, leftist ideology, this country would be a hell of a lot better off.

  My kids just turned five, and they know more about planets, dinosaurs, animals, and mathematics that, I’d say, 75% of the nation’s eight-year-olds. And, it’s got nothing to do with anything they learned at school.

  The parents’ right to control their children’s education should be paramount above all.

  I’d like to know what percentage of those opposed to this bill actually have children. I love hearing from childless people preaching to me about what is the best way to raise and educate my children.

  Piss off, the lot of you.

• 7. Steve  |  June 19th, 2007 at 12:52 pm

  V,
  You seem more ignorant every time I read you. If you can’t distinguish between sexuality and sexual acts, then you have a serious problem. Exposing children to the fact that some of their peers have two mommies or two daddies is no more comparable to teaching S&M than reading them Cinderella is.
  Your question about heterosexuals parading in drag indicated that you really are clueless and can’t grasp the basic idea behind Gay Pride. I guess I can respond to your question with a question: When is that last time you had to defend your sexuality on the internet to a stranger?

• 8. Steve  |  June 19th, 2007 at 12:59 pm

  Bruce,
  I’m not sure what “left” you’re talking about. I’d be interested to read some actual names of liberals who oppose teaching gun safety to kids. However, I can assure that many on the right go crazy when anyone tries to make it more difficult to acquire guns - you know, restrictions that could actually save children’s lives.

• 9. V  |  June 19th, 2007 at 2:06 pm

  Steve;

  Apparently I am doing it now, no? I don’t (normally) have to defend my sexuality because I’m not parading it around. Can you imagine the uproar over a “hetero pride” parade?

  Most “pride” movements are borne out of some kind of shame. A “we will not be ashamed of who we are” type of thing. I’m not asking you to be ashamed or not be ashamed. I’m simply asking you to leave me and my children alone. I’m asking you to keep your sexuality to yourself because that is where it belongs.

  Pride is something that goes before destruction. Neil Orts (a homosexual by the way) sums it up like this:

  “What I still have problems with is the word, “pride”. While I will admit to struggling with those vagaries known as self-respect and self-esteem, pride always seemed like a rather large thing to claim just for being. For example, even as a kid growing up in rural Texas, I never understood the “proud to be a Texan” sort of rhetoric. I was a Texan by accident of history and ancestral choices. I remain a Texan by choice as it is the only place I’ve known as “home”. But “proud” to be one? Not especially. Ashamed to be one? Not usually. It’s a fact of my life, much like being white or being gay. To be proud of such things feels like following a path to haughtiness, to arrogance.”

  You stated your support to teach “realities of human sexuality”, and now YOU wish to define what those realities are? How arrogant are you??? You want to define things as YOU see them, not as they are. The “sexuality” vs “sexual acts” here is a distinction without a difference. You define things to suit your argument. My premise remains valid Stephen…..teach homosexuality in schools and you’ll have to teach all the rest.

• 10. Steve  |  June 19th, 2007 at 2:50 pm

  V,
  No, you’re not. I’m not asking you to defend your heterosexuality. There is no need for hetero-pride (I can’t believe that has to be explained to an adult) because no one’s telling heterosexuals to be ashamed of who you are based on their sexual orientation. No one’s telling you to “keep it to yourself” as you’re telling me. I don’t belong in the closet and I will never give in to small minded bigots like you who tell me otherwise. Again, it’s people like you who make things like gay pride necessary.
  Leave you and your children alone? I don’t see how I’m doing otherwise. But here’s the deal. I’ll leave you and your children alone if stop trying to take legal protections away from me an mine. Sound fair?
  I’m not defining realities. Reality is reality. Homosexuality exists. Some of the children you want to protect are gay themselves believe it or not. Interesting how you define things as you see fit. Is it fair to say “teach heterosexuality and you’ll have to teach all the rest”? I mean, why should we be be instructing children on sexual acts? Let’s take out all fairytales such as Sleeping Beatuy. Let’s throw out stories of children with a mom and a dad since if we do, we’re on a slippery slope toward S&M, incest and beastiality. Is that fair or should we just let YOU define where the line is? That’s arrogance.

• 11. Mr J  |  June 19th, 2007 at 3:37 pm

  So basically Steve believes because gays weren’t allowed to marry in Massachusetts - that grown gay “men” (is that right?) needed to have a parade and dress in g-strings and ride on top of a decorated firetruck that had the word “ramrod” written across it? All this while asking we acknowledge that as “normal?”

  To use YOUR argument Steve - if you want YOUR kids to learn about gays etc in school - then why don’t YOU pull YOUR kids out of school and start a gay only school? Since the gay community has so much money to throw around - it shouldn’t be a problem at all.

• 12. Steve  |  June 19th, 2007 at 4:29 pm

  You think the flamboyant behavior of some somehow invalidates gay marriage? Have you been to spring break? Have you seen Girl’s Gone Wild? Heterosexuals display some pretty wild behavior too - but we don’t use it to deny them rights or suggest that their existence shouldn’t be acknowledged in public schools.

  Nice try, but you’re actuallly NOT using my argument against me. In fact, it’s the opposite argument. I guess if I was asking public schools to avoid the topic of heterosexuality, or asking that they don’t acknowledge the existance of Jews, then yes, I should pull my kids out and put them in a private school. But that’s not the case here, is it?

• 13. V  |  June 20th, 2007 at 6:29 am

  Steve;

  My issue with the “legal protections” that you are talking about is the WAY in which they were obtained. We can discuss/argue the reality of homosexuality until we are blue in the face but I doubt we are going to convince each other.

  The Marshall court erred in its ruling (a FACT that constitutional scholars across the country seem to agree on) and the legislature and Mitt Romney erred in letting the ruling force this action. What happened the other day at the con-con was procedurally correct, but it was still shrouded in cloak and dagger. Arlene Isaacson summed it up best when she told the Globe that she was surprised how some legislators “upped the ante” required to switch votes. As representatives of the PEOPLE (75% of whom want to vote on this issue) I believe they failed in their duty.

  I don’t believe I have drawn any line regarding teaching. The line already exists. I just don’t think that your VERY TINY minority view should be taught as normal when it certainly isn’t the norm (a standard, model, or pattern regarded as typical). Again I argue that you want to legitimize your behavior simply as a matter of pride (which we already covered).

  And no, I don’t believe you should be ashamed of yourself. I just don’t need to know you are homosexual.

• 14. BigBish  |  June 20th, 2007 at 9:15 am

  I love those girls gone wild videos

• 15. Mr. J  |  June 20th, 2007 at 1:09 pm

  You think the flamboyant behavior of some somehow invalidates gay marriage? Have you been to spring break? - Posted by: Steve at June 19, 2007 04:29 PM

  Steve -

  Now you are comparing “spring break” to the organized gay/transexua/transeverything parade by gov’t center wher epeople are trying to shop with there children? WOW ! you ARE DELLUSIONAL!

• 16. Steve  |  June 21st, 2007 at 1:52 pm

  Mr. J,
  I’d like to know exactly what you were so offended by (were you there by the way?). From reading your comments one would think that there were live sex acts on every float. How about the religious groups, band members, athletes, families, politicians, senior citizens…. I guess it’d be hard for you to argue about their rights so it’s easier to just ignore them, isn’t it? I can find lots of examples of questionable behavior by straights, African Americans, Muslims, etc. but using them as an a basis for the denial of rights would be nothing more than a thin veil for bigotry. And that’s exactly what yours is.

• 17. Harold Stassen  |  June 21st, 2007 at 3:38 pm

  I don’t think many of you have read the bills were talking about that were introduced by local nut job Brian Camenker. They go so far as to say there can never be any mention of anything related to human sexuality or homosexulaity including mentioning that an author or poet happened to be gay.

  After actually reading the bill more than half of the legislators who signed on or were singend on as co-sponsors without thier knowledge had their names removed.

• 18. anthony  |  June 22nd, 2007 at 10:00 am

  V wrote:

  “The Marshall court erred in its ruling (a FACT that constitutional scholars across the country seem to agree on)”

  This is completely made up. It is not a fact and I am unaware of any consensus of constitutional scholars who agree with this sentiment. Almost every constitutional law text book in the country was updated to include at least an excerpt from the Goodridge decision and it is treated without disdain, but with the same level of academic scrutiny as all contemporary civil rights jurisprudence is.

• 19. V  |  June 22nd, 2007 at 3:31 pm

  Anthony;

  If you want to look it up, there over 100 newspaper articles on the subject that back up my statement. Feel free to argue the facts, but to acuse me of making things up is just rude man.

  Also, it’s easy to say that “Almost every constitutional law text book in the country was updated to include at least an excerpt from the Goodridge decision”….that’s a no-brainer. They would be updated because even if incorrect, the ruling is relevant. And, I suppose you have “almost every constitutional law text book”, so you KNOW that to be true (because YOU would NEVER make anything up now, would you?).

• 20. anthony  |  June 22nd, 2007 at 3:52 pm

  V - I’ve looked it up and you are a liar.

• 21. anthony  |  June 22nd, 2007 at 4:03 pm

  And for the record….I have read the section regarding the Goodridge decision in no less than 20 different texts but I do not own them all.

• 22. V  |  June 22nd, 2007 at 4:19 pm

  Anthony;

  As I suspected, when cornered with the facts, you resort to personal attacks. I’ll waste no more of my time on an irrelevant cad like you.

• 23. Mr J  |  June 23rd, 2007 at 1:03 pm

  Mr. J,
  I’d like to know exactly what you were so offended by (were you there by the way?). From reading your comments one would think that there were live sex acts on every float. How about the religious groups, band members, athletes, families, politicians, senior citizens…. I guess it’d be hard for you to argue about their rights so it’s easier to just ignore them, isn’t it? I can find lots of examples of questionable behavior by straights, African Americans, Muslims, etc. but using them as an a basis for the denial of rights would be nothing more than a thin veil for bigotry. And that’s exactly what yours is.

  I was there, and I am offended because it is disgusting - thats why. As far as “politicians” being there - I didn’t see any except those who live in fear of your “informational groups” such as “knowthyneighbor.com” - with THAT group alone - don’t even talk to me about bigotry, hatred, and intimidation. Grow up.

Twitter Updates