Opponents of Calif gay history law seek referendum Read more: http://www.adn.com/2011/07/26/1986454/opponents-of-calif-gay-history.html#ixzz1THWjiMn4

[Zero Sum 305]

Life should be such that one can simply call claims untruthful and that would make then so.

You have declared yourself a non-participant. Your choice.

And you have declared yourself worthy of lying in order to make false claims. Your style.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I read the bill, Zero. My mind wasn't melded with yours anyway.

I fail to see where in the law "** ####### sex & carpet munching" as normal. Maybe the law has invisible ink that states this is the case, yes?

People are having hissy fits without actually reading the law. Or reading it an simply ignoring it. Pretty disingenuous for an honest debate.

The broken record technique isn't always effective.

And you have declared yourself worthy of lying in order to make false claims. Your style.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Sofiyya

[Zero Sum 305]

All you had to do was give an opinion on the law. Of course, you can't be bothered to actually post that opinion now could you?

Instead you opt to show your prowess of engaging in a style war by misinforming and then ignoring simple requests to substantiate those claims.

Round and round.

Is there nothing new to add here?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Explain "gay" for us, please.

All you had to do was give an opinion on the law. Of course, you can't be bothered to actually post that opinion now could you?

Instead you opt to show your prowess of engaging in a style war by misinforming and then ignoring simple requests to substantiate those claims.

Round and round.

Is there nothing new to add here?

[Zero Sum 305]

Explain this law for us, please.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The law is part of a slippery slope intended to impose gay acceptance on vulnerable children.

Explain gay for us, please.

Explain this law for us, please.

[Zero Sum 305]

The law is part of a slippery slope intended to impose gay acceptance on vulnerable children.

Explain gay for us, please.

Your opinion of the anti-discrimination law- as its written.

See? Tolerance isn't such a bad thing is it? Interesting vocabulary: vulnerable children... Its not the first time in this thread alone where a slippery slope argument is attempted without actually qualifying its progression from the law itself into a curricular and classroom setting.

Of course, the 'its part of' likely means you believe its a conspiracy. At least you qualify as much with 'gay acceptance.' Such a horrible thing!

Gay:

Homosexual.

(You're still evading actually going into the law. Since you read it- it shouldn't be hard. Its not too long to read.)

[mawilson 2,133]

Is that the best you can do? I know your defense of gay history is lame, but you're addressing me, and I deserve your A game.

It's not just you, other people have mentioned the gay lifestyle and how it's apparently being forced on them.

So I have to ask, what exactly is "the gay lifestyle"? Barbra Streisand and Bob Fosse musicals?

[Zero Sum 305]

It's not just you, other people have mentioned the gay lifestyle and how it's apparently being forced on them.

So I have to ask, what exactly is "the gay lifestyle"? Barbra Streisand and Bob Fosse musicals?

God I'd have to agree with the homophobes and those that don't like having homophobes criticized on that one. Barbra? I'd prefer to be shot to have to witness one of those.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The law as written is totally innocuous, but we have been around this block enough times to know that it opens the door to so much more than it states, especially in Cali.

Homosexual: the love of and sexual desire between those who share the same gender. This cannot be avoided in class. The expectation of acceptance of this cannot be avoided in class. The clash between those pushing the acceptance and those who resist the indoctrination cannot be avoided in society.

There is a reason why you are so smug in your denouncement of "homophobes". You have accepted the indoctrination and believe that it's the right way to go. Yet, that is where it ends for you. In your mind, there are no societal drawbacks to consider. It's all good.

However, there are those who disagree, and, if you truly believe your cause is one worth fighting for, you need to do better than name-calling and copping out in the face of opposition. You have to deal with folks who oppose historical heroism being based on who you sleep with. I don't blame them, and they deserve to be heard. No all of them are like Kip, so your cop out is pretty lame when dealing with milder opposition like me.

Your opinion of the anti-discrimination law- as its written.

See? Tolerance isn't such a bad thing is it? Interesting vocabulary: vulnerable children... Its not the first time in this thread alone where a slippery slope argument is attempted without actually qualifying its progression from the law itself into a curricular and classroom setting.

Of course, the 'its part of' likely means you believe its a conspiracy. At least you qualify as much with 'gay acceptance.' Such a horrible thing!

Gay:

Homosexual.

(You're still evading actually going into the law. Since you read it- it shouldn't be hard. Its not too long to read.)

[SMOKE 1,426]

Pretty disingenuous for an honest debate.

what honest debate? people pro & con tonsil bruising have been taking shots at each other since page 1.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

If there is nothing different about gays that creates lifestyle differences, than straight history should suffice. It isn't good enough for gays and their supporters, so there must be a difference.

So, what is it? Is there no difference between gays and straights, or enough difference that it needs to be taught and indoctrinated? You can't have it both ways.

It's not just you, other people have mentioned the gay lifestyle and how it's apparently being forced on them.

So I have to ask, what exactly is "the gay lifestyle"? Barbra Streisand and Bob Fosse musicals?

what honest debate? people pro & con tonsil bruising have been taking shots at each other since page 1.

Zero can't even be honest about being pro-gay, so it's ridiculous to expect honesty from him.

[Zero Sum 305]

The law as written is totally innocuous, but we have been around this block enough times to know that it opens the door to so much more than it states, especially in Cali.

Homosexual: the love of and sexual desire between those who share the same gender. This cannot be avoided in class. The expectation of acceptance of this cannot be avoided in class. The clash between those pushing the acceptance and those who resist the indoctrination cannot be avoided in society.

There is a reason why you are so smug in your denouncement of "homophobes". You have accepted the indoctrination and believe that it's the right way to go. Yet, that is where it ends for you. In your mind, there are no societal drawbacks to consider. It's all good.

However, there are those who disagree, and, if you truly believe your cause is one worth fighting for, you need to do better than name-calling and copping out in the face of opposition. You have to deal with folks who oppose historical heroism being based on who you sleep with. I don't blame them, and they deserve to be heard. No all of them are like Kip, so your cop out is pretty lame when dealing with milder opposition like me.

The law is fairly clear. Its not a pro-homosexual agenda. If you read it, you'd have noticed other contributory aspects of society beyond just homosexuals.

Hence, your conspiracy theory is lacking in much basis beyond what you and more vocal opponents have an opinion of. At least you could say much of the writing came from a Bay Area legislator or something to that stereotypical tune.

what honest debate? people pro & con tonsil bruising have been taking shots at each other since page 1.

Without much regard for the actual law, which I posted in detail more than once. Just trying to keep the debate honest- something others completely refuse to do to this moment.

If there is nothing different about gays that creates lifestyle differences, than straight history should suffice. It isn't good enough for gays and their supporters, so there must be a difference.

So, what is it? Is there no difference between gays and straights, or enough difference that it needs to be taught and indoctrinated? You can't have it both ways.

Zero can't even be honest about being pro-gay, so it's ridiculous to expect honesty from him.

And its ridiculous to expect you to substantiate your claims.

In a forum, you have to take people for their words. In your case, we can take you for the absence of relevant ones.

The rest is your hissy fit over things that are unsaid and not based in any sort of truth.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I live in an area that is rather unique in the high population of LGBT's that both live and tourist the place. Gays are okay. They have lots of money, and are generally clean and well dressed. Lesbians are okay as well, except they are mostly broke, and constantly want to borrow your tools. Transgenders are the ones that take a bit getting used too, especially when they are first transitioning.

It is also a safe Democratic district. They don't like Republicans. Period. Everybody got to hate somebody it seems.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The law is fairly clear. Its not a pro-homosexual agenda. If you read it, you'd have noticed other contributory aspects of society beyond just homosexuals.

Hence, your conspiracy theory is lacking in much basis beyond what you and more vocal opponents have an opinion of. At least you could say much of the writing came from a Bay Area legislator or something to that stereotypical tune.

I'm trying very hard to reject the idea that you are as stupid as this post makes you sound. The others are not distinguished by their sexual preference. Sexual preference is THE notion you have been advocating on this thread for two days. You have not been advocating for racial, ethnic or national origin acceptance. You have been advocating for homosexuality acceptance. That is the advocacy that this law adds to the mix.

And its ridiculous to expect you to substantiate your claims.

In a forum, you have to take people for their words. In your case, we can take you for the absence of relevant ones.

The rest is your hissy fit over things that are unsaid and not based in any sort of truth.

You are miffed that I see through you. Sorry, I can't help it, you're sooo transparent. So, if all you're going to do is deny that you have spent considerable time on this thread defending gays and spouting off at those who oppose the gay agenda in the name of tolerance, then you are pretty dayum useless on this thread.

You should consider being a politician.