(01-27-2019 11:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 10:07 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 10:01 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 10:00 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 09:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I repeat my assertion that the AIDS crisis was a Holocaust.

It appears as if some have forgotten what happens when you allow people to so dehumanize a minority that society just sits back and laughs at them as they die like flies.

And the numbers were just immense. The 10 year survival rate for a Gay man in 1980 in the USA was about the same as for a Jewish person living in Germany in 1933 when Hitler took over... 50% (although the death rates for Jews living elsewhere in Europe fared much worse - the Jews in Germany had some time to escape). 50% dead, most in their twenties and thirties. While the Christians either laughed and reveled at it or simply ignored it and left us to our fate.

And since you brought up the holocaust in Europe, are you aware that Gay people were rounded up and gassed too? And there was no respite for the survivors either. They were sent back to their home countries and thousands of survivors were thrown back into prison for being gay. War Heros like Alan Turing were tortured simply because they were Gay.

Today is actually Holocaust Remembrance Day. I haven't forgotten. I think some people forget what happens why a majority so dehumanizes a minority by calling them filthy and a threat that they can do justify just about any outrage.

And today, there are round ups and death camps for Gay men. Today.

I'm replying to this utter hateful trash so that you don't go back and change it.

What the gays faced was NOTHING like Jews in Europe. If you actually believe this, then I am going to start question your sanity.

How about what the Gays in Europe faced?

According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum:
Source: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/e...hird-reich

"Between 1933 and 1945, an estimated 100,000 men were arrested for violating Nazi Germany’s law against homosexuality, and of these, approximately 50,000 were sentenced to prison. An estimated 5,000 to 15,000 men were sent to concentration camps on similar charges, where an unknown number of them perished."

For sake of argument, lets take the larger number of those that were sent to concentration camps and lets say 100% of them died.

You really want to compare 15,000 to 6,000,000.

On your AIDS claim...

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/PREVIEW/mmwrhtml/mm5021a2.htm

HIV and AIDS --- United States, 1981--2000

Quote:As of December 31, 2000, 774,467 persons had been reported with AIDS in the United States; 448,060 of these had died

Quote:Of these, 79% were men, 61% were black or Hispanic, and 41% were infected through male-to-male sex.

Are you sure you really want to compare ~180,000 to 6,000,000?

On this day of all days... you want to play that card?

As a percentage of out Gay men, it was around a 50% mortality rate

How many out Gay people do you think existed in Germany in the 1930s?

But sure, minimize the deaths of Gay men during the 1980's in the AIDS pogrom, while many Christian leaders stood by and reveled in a whole generation of Gay men dropping dead.

Uhhh,

And how many of those gay men were either charging into battle or knew FULL WELL what they were charging in to?

Don't lie.

Again.

(01-28-2019 12:52 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 12:41 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 02:13 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 01:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 01:53 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  "Christians" who support Mansfield ISD's defacto ban on all openly LGBT teachers in their PUBLIC elementary school are no better and no worse than the Muslim group in the UK.

The difference is that the UK Muslim group hasn't been able to ban LGBT teachers, and the "Christians" in Texas have.

Every single Muslim Member of Congress is 100% supportive of the full LGBT agenda. Every. Single. Last. One. Every Muslim MP in the UK is also fully supportive of the LGBT agenda. Are you aware of ANY elected Muslim in any electoral level in the USA that opposes LGBT rights? I'm not. There might be one somewhere. But as of yet, I'm not aware of any.

And there's the 'directional' issue too. What direction are things going in.

The right wing "christians" always take the LGBT community backwards. Always.

I think the bigger point here Tom is that parents want to have a say in the moral instruction of their children, and want the instruction at school to begin at age appropriate points in their child's life, if it is to be taught.

Then educate your kids in taxpayer non-supported schools that pay property taxes.

If you demand that LGBT teachers be shut out, or have less free speech rights than straight ones (to discuss their personal family life), or that LGBT kids be erased and effectively demeaned with taxpayer dollars, then I'm calling that out as homophobia and discrimination.

And I fail to see any difference between American evangelicals and the Muslim group in the UK on this issue. Actually the American evangelicals are the more pressing threat.

----

Implied in your argument is that Gay people are somehow bad or a threat to kids. Or that teaching kids, explicitly or implicitly that being LGBT is 'bad' or something 'dangerous' .

No, those would be pedophiles and they clearly come from all walks of the spectrum.

In my, relatively speaking to most, experience is that the biggest threat to LGBT folks are, frankly, other LGBT folks. Their partners beating the schit out of them, their drug dealers getting them hooked for a hook up then they can't pay the bills, their clear indulgence themselves in clearly 'dangerous' (Your word') activity. i.e. Themselves.

Fair question Tom. Who has caused the demise of more LGBT people in the U.S. in the last 40 or so years?

Christians
Muslims
Other LGBT
Themselves

Give 'em a 1 thru 4 ranking, this oughta be fascinating.

I'd argue that the Reagan Administration's inaction in the early days (or outright malevolent blocking of funding and prevention mechanisms) was responsible for much of the deaths.

Muslims aren't really on the list from a US perspective

K. So, who is?

On the list?

Christains
Other LGBT
Muslims

No.

Inaction doesn't mean reaction.

who caused these deaths? which of these patry's?

Not who may have, but could have prevented these deaths?

Who do you blame for these deaths? (as you say) Full Stop? \

(01-27-2019 11:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  But sure, minimize the deaths of Gay men during the 1980's in the AIDS pogrom, while many Christian leaders stood by and reveled in a whole generation of Gay men dropping dead.

I'm not minimizing anything. I'm taking the numbers direct from the CDC and openly acknowledging them.
The CDC claimed 448,060 deaths in 20 years (not the 10 you claimed), and that 41% of them were people who had engaged in homosexual activity. That's not my claim... that's the CDCs. So... 448,060 * 0.41 = 183,704.6
Lets be generous and round that up... 185,000.

I'm not trying to compare the death of ~185,000 to the death of ~6,000,000. You are.

You're the one minimizing the deaths of millions because you care more about your narrative than lives.

(01-28-2019 01:26 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 12:52 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 12:41 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 02:13 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 01:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think the bigger point here Tom is that parents want to have a say in the moral instruction of their children, and want the instruction at school to begin at age appropriate points in their child's life, if it is to be taught.

Then educate your kids in taxpayer non-supported schools that pay property taxes.

If you demand that LGBT teachers be shut out, or have less free speech rights than straight ones (to discuss their personal family life), or that LGBT kids be erased and effectively demeaned with taxpayer dollars, then I'm calling that out as homophobia and discrimination.

And I fail to see any difference between American evangelicals and the Muslim group in the UK on this issue. Actually the American evangelicals are the more pressing threat.

----

Implied in your argument is that Gay people are somehow bad or a threat to kids. Or that teaching kids, explicitly or implicitly that being LGBT is 'bad' or something 'dangerous' .

No, those would be pedophiles and they clearly come from all walks of the spectrum.

In my, relatively speaking to most, experience is that the biggest threat to LGBT folks are, frankly, other LGBT folks. Their partners beating the schit out of them, their drug dealers getting them hooked for a hook up then they can't pay the bills, their clear indulgence themselves in clearly 'dangerous' (Your word') activity. i.e. Themselves.

Fair question Tom. Who has caused the demise of more LGBT people in the U.S. in the last 40 or so years?

Christians
Muslims
Other LGBT
Themselves

Give 'em a 1 thru 4 ranking, this oughta be fascinating.

I'd argue that the Reagan Administration's inaction in the early days (or outright malevolent blocking of funding and prevention mechanisms) was responsible for much of the deaths.

Muslims aren't really on the list from a US perspective

K. So, who is?

On the list?

Christains
Other LGBT
Muslims

No.

Inaction doesn't mean reaction.

who caused these deaths? which of these patry's?

Not who may have, but could have prevented these deaths?

Who do you blame for these deaths? (as you say) Full Stop? \

About 70 percent of them could have been avoided had discrimination not been so prevalent.

1) Had Gay people been not so despised and our relationships been completely mocked, then perhaps Gay men would have put more faith into them

2) Had 90 percent of Gay men at the time not felt the need to be in the closet as a result of massive and systemic discrimination, then perhaps the promiscuity would have been lower too. Many Gay men were expected to not have any relationship except the furtive kind.

3) Had government not been so hostile to LGBT persons, then perhaps the community would have trusted the few government people that were trying to help

4) Had the government actually helped those in the LGBT community that were trying to help, instead of styming them, then perhaps they would have been more successful

5) Had the government funded the research appropriately or even in proportion to the crisis, the disease would have been checked much sooner

6) Had religious extremists not wanted to exploit AIDS as a way to stoke up fear and loathing of Gay people for political leverage, then perhaps the powers that be would have not blocked common sense approaches.

30% of the deaths in the Gay community probably could not have been avoided. But a LOT of the deaths happened in the mid 90's. The last year before AZT combination therapy was the worst year of the crisis. People died like flies that year. Had the disease been controlled 2 years earlier 20 percent of the deaths could have been avoided.

Simple solution. Sex ed is a topic that should be taught to age appropriate kids. 7th or 8th grade IMO. Strict reproductive sex ed is taught in a week long part of gym class like mine was. Any other sex-ed is an elective class that students can choose to take with parental permission.

End of story, no bad guys discriminating against anybody whether they be Christians or Muslims and no indoctrination by the school system.

But outraged mum Fatima Shah, who has taken her 10-year-old daughter out of the school, told BirminghamLive: "It's inappropriate, totally wrong.

"Children are being told it's OK to be gay yet 98 per cent of children at this school are Muslim. It's a Muslim community.


The lefties have to be running like rats off a sinking ship to avoid this subject.

Anti LGBTQ v. Anti Muslim.

Battle of the political correctness.

In the end, should be fun to see how the woke virtue signaling crowd spins this.

One of the interesting things to me is that I've seen surveys indicating that a fairly large number of Muslims have engaged in same sex activities as teens. When you keep boys and girls separated while going through puberty, what result do you expect?

(01-28-2019 07:46 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Simple solution. Sex ed is a topic that should be taught to age appropriate kids. 7th or 8th grade IMO. Strict reproductive sex ed is taught in a week long part of gym class like mine was. Any other sex-ed is an elective class that students can choose to take with parental permission.

End of story, no bad guys discriminating against anybody whether they be Christians or Muslims and no indoctrination by the school system.

Exactly how is simply admitting that Gay families exist and not hiding them like they're filthy and disgusting the same as sex ed?

So should Mansfield ISD ban Gay teachers from existing in any public way in public elementary schools?

Telling someone, you can be Gay, so long as no one knows about it is the same as saying...you can't be Gay and work here.

Every taxpayer supported job should be open to every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, marital status, or gender identity.

And what about Gay kids and kids in Gay families? Why does the school system get to make the implied statement that they are 'less than' straight families (or worse, that their families are so horrible that they can't even be mentioned) in public schools?

What percentage of education jobs should be barred to Gay teachers?

(01-28-2019 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 07:46 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Simple solution. Sex ed is a topic that should be taught to age appropriate kids. 7th or 8th grade IMO. Strict reproductive sex ed is taught in a week long part of gym class like mine was. Any other sex-ed is an elective class that students can choose to take with parental permission.

End of story, no bad guys discriminating against anybody whether they be Christians or Muslims and no indoctrination by the school system.

Exactly how is simply admitting that Gay families exist and not hiding them like they're filthy and disgusting the same as sex ed?

So should Mansfield ISD ban Gay teachers from existing in any public way in public elementary schools?

Telling someone, you can be Gay, so long as no one knows about it is the same as saying...you can't be Gay and work here.

Every taxpayer supported job should be open to every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, marital status, or gender identity.

And what about Gay kids and kids in Gay families? Why does the school system get to make the implied statement that they are 'less than' straight families (or worse, that their families are so horrible that they can't even be mentioned) in public schools?

What percentage of education jobs should be barred to Gay teachers?

I agree with you.

This isn't 1920. Not acknowledging that there are gay people in all walks of life is equivalent to burying your head in the sand. Banning people from positions they're qualified for because of their sexual orientation shouldn't be tolerated.

What I find interesting is the REACTION, or lack there of.

If this were a group of Christian families taking the same action, the MSM and the social media outrage mob would be all over those people. They'd be vilified, chastised, and condemned as bigoted and hateful.

Because they happen to be Muslim, the reaction doesn't seem to be as focused or intense.

Makes someone like myself with no dog in the fight wonder why that is.

Guess what's good for the goose ISN'T what's good for the gander.....

(01-28-2019 09:22 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  Guess what's good for the goose ISN'T what's good for the gander.....

You sexist misogynist! How dare you assign genders to these poor confused ducks! For all you know they could identify as gandolfs!

(01-28-2019 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 07:46 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Simple solution. Sex ed is a topic that should be taught to age appropriate kids. 7th or 8th grade IMO. Strict reproductive sex ed is taught in a week long part of gym class like mine was. Any other sex-ed is an elective class that students can choose to take with parental permission.

End of story, no bad guys discriminating against anybody whether they be Christians or Muslims and no indoctrination by the school system.

Exactly how is simply admitting that Gay families exist and not hiding them like they're filthy and disgusting the same as sex ed?

I didn't say they should be hid. I said keep sex-ed limited to reproductive education and strictly science based. Same-sex relationships are a social construct and can be explained in the elective class.

(01-28-2019 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  So should Mansfield ISD ban Gay teachers from existing in any public way in public elementary schools?

Of course not.

(01-28-2019 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Telling someone, you can be Gay, so long as no one knows about it is the same as saying...you can't be Gay and work here.

No it isn't. Elementary kids don't need to know personal information about their teachers. Any questions about their families should be answered in a manner appropriate for the age of the children.

(01-28-2019 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Every taxpayer supported job should be open to every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, marital status, or gender identity.

I believe federal and state laws say exactly that - with the exception of the 'gender identity' mess.

(01-28-2019 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And what about Gay kids and kids in Gay families? Why does the school system get to make the implied statement that they are 'less than' straight families (or worse, that their families are so horrible that they can't even be mentioned) in public schools?

They don't get to make any such statement - implied or otherwise. Teachers need to be taught how to answer in an age appropriate manner.

(01-28-2019 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  What percentage of education jobs should be barred to Gay teachers?

None - so long as they can educate without pushing an agenda.

(01-28-2019 09:54 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 07:46 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Simple solution. Sex ed is a topic that should be taught to age appropriate kids. 7th or 8th grade IMO. Strict reproductive sex ed is taught in a week long part of gym class like mine was. Any other sex-ed is an elective class that students can choose to take with parental permission.

End of story, no bad guys discriminating against anybody whether they be Christians or Muslims and no indoctrination by the school system.

Exactly how is simply admitting that Gay families exist and not hiding them like they're filthy and disgusting the same as sex ed?

I didn't say they should be hid. I said keep sex-ed limited to reproductive education and strictly science based. Same-sex relationships are a social construct and can be explained in the elective class.

(01-28-2019 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  So should Mansfield ISD ban Gay teachers from existing in any public way in public elementary schools?

Of course not.

(01-28-2019 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Telling someone, you can be Gay, so long as no one knows about it is the same as saying...you can't be Gay and work here.

No it isn't. Elementary kids don't need to know personal information about their teachers. Any questions about their families should be answered in a manner appropriate for the age of the children.

(01-28-2019 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Every taxpayer supported job should be open to every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, marital status, or gender identity.

I believe federal and state laws say exactly that - with the exception of the 'gender identity' mess.

(01-28-2019 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And what about Gay kids and kids in Gay families? Why does the school system get to make the implied statement that they are 'less than' straight families (or worse, that their families are so horrible that they can't even be mentioned) in public schools?

They don't get to make any such statement - implied or otherwise. Teachers need to be taught how to answer in an age appropriate manner.

(01-28-2019 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  What percentage of education jobs should be barred to Gay teachers?

None - so long as they can educate without pushing an agenda.

I'm looking forward to all the firings of teachers for mentioning their straight spouse in class.

(01-28-2019 10:10 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 09:54 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 07:46 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Simple solution. Sex ed is a topic that should be taught to age appropriate kids. 7th or 8th grade IMO. Strict reproductive sex ed is taught in a week long part of gym class like mine was. Any other sex-ed is an elective class that students can choose to take with parental permission.

End of story, no bad guys discriminating against anybody whether they be Christians or Muslims and no indoctrination by the school system.

Exactly how is simply admitting that Gay families exist and not hiding them like they're filthy and disgusting the same as sex ed?

I didn't say they should be hid. I said keep sex-ed limited to reproductive education and strictly science based. Same-sex relationships are a social construct and can be explained in the elective class.

(01-28-2019 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  So should Mansfield ISD ban Gay teachers from existing in any public way in public elementary schools?

Of course not.

(01-28-2019 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Telling someone, you can be Gay, so long as no one knows about it is the same as saying...you can't be Gay and work here.

No it isn't. Elementary kids don't need to know personal information about their teachers. Any questions about their families should be answered in a manner appropriate for the age of the children.

(01-28-2019 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Every taxpayer supported job should be open to every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, marital status, or gender identity.

I believe federal and state laws say exactly that - with the exception of the 'gender identity' mess.

(01-28-2019 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And what about Gay kids and kids in Gay families? Why does the school system get to make the implied statement that they are 'less than' straight families (or worse, that their families are so horrible that they can't even be mentioned) in public schools?

They don't get to make any such statement - implied or otherwise. Teachers need to be taught how to answer in an age appropriate manner.

(01-28-2019 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  What percentage of education jobs should be barred to Gay teachers?

None - so long as they can educate without pushing an agenda.

I'm looking forward to all the firings of teachers for mentioning their straight spouse in class.

The problem is that you don't seem to think there is such a thing as "too young" to expose children to non-traditional lifestyles.

(01-27-2019 11:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 10:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 10:01 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 10:00 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 09:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I repeat my assertion that the AIDS crisis was a Holocaust.

It appears as if some have forgotten what happens when you allow people to so dehumanize a minority that society just sits back and laughs at them as they die like flies.

And the numbers were just immense. The 10 year survival rate for a Gay man in 1980 in the USA was about the same as for a Jewish person living in Germany in 1933 when Hitler took over... 50% (although the death rates for Jews living elsewhere in Europe fared much worse - the Jews in Germany had some time to escape). 50% dead, most in their twenties and thirties. While the Christians either laughed and reveled at it or simply ignored it and left us to our fate.

And since you brought up the holocaust in Europe, are you aware that Gay people were rounded up and gassed too? And there was no respite for the survivors either. They were sent back to their home countries and thousands of survivors were thrown back into prison for being gay. War Heros like Alan Turing were tortured simply because they were Gay.

Today is actually Holocaust Remembrance Day. I haven't forgotten. I think some people forget what happens why a majority so dehumanizes a minority by calling them filthy and a threat that they can do justify just about any outrage.

And today, there are round ups and death camps for Gay men. Today.

I'm replying to this utter hateful trash so that you don't go back and change it.

What the gays faced was NOTHING like Jews in Europe. If you actually believe this, then I am going to start question your sanity.

How about what the Gays in Europe faced?

That isn't what you compared. You compared AIDS to the Holocaust.

And I will always refer to it as such. As does virtually everyone in the Gay community.

I don't think you should stereotype virtually all gays as paranoid, delusional and disrespectful to the Jewish people. Leave it on yourself.

(01-28-2019 12:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 10:40 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 09:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 09:38 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 09:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  We remember the awful 1980's where we were simply laughed at while we died like flies by those people. They reveled in our holocaust. I've personally seen how "Christians" treat Gay men.

Don't you f*cking dare call that a Holocaust.

I lost family to the holocaust, two great grandparents, and my grandfather who had fled to the US but went back in the US Army to fight against Nazi Germany.

That... That right there is the most vile thing you've ever said.

Have LGBT been treated badly in this country? Sure, I can admit that. Have 6+million of them been slaughtered and gassed to death?

I repeat my assertion that the AIDS crisis was a Holocaust.

It appears as if some have forgotten what happens when you allow people to so dehumanize a minority that society just sits back and laughs at them as they die like flies.

And the numbers were just immense. The 10 year survival rate for a Gay man in 1980 in the USA was about the same as for a Jewish person living in Germany in 1933 when Hitler took over... 50% (although the death rates for Jews living elsewhere in Europe fared much worse - the Jews in Germany had some time to escape). 50% dead, most in their twenties and thirties. While the Christians either laughed and reveled at it or simply ignored it and left us to our fate.

And since you brought up the holocaust in Europe, are you aware that Gay people were rounded up and gassed too? And there was no respite for the survivors either. They were sent back to their home countries and thousands of survivors were thrown back into prison for being gay. War Heros like Alan Turing were tortured simply because they were Gay.

Today is actually Holocaust Remembrance Day. I haven't forgotten. I think some people forget what happens why a majority so dehumanizes a minority by calling them filthy and a threat that they can do justify just about any outrage.

And today, there are round ups and death camps for Gay men. Today.

And the AIDS crisis was something they spread among themselves. Those who weren't promiscuous weren't at big risk. People who didn't share needles weren't at risk. It was a disease that their lifestyle spread among themselves. And research started immediately. The disease is not eliminated or solved. Its just understood. Nothing would have made a significant difference.

Comparing what the Nazis did to the Jews to AIDS is sick and insulting to all Jews. But then Democrats don't mind demonizing Jews either.

AIDS funding was incredibly underfunded and deliberately so until it started to impact people that society felt were human...straight people.

And I strongly suspect that some of the anger in here by me using the term we use for the AIDS era is motivated partly by the reinforcement that somehow bad things happening to Gay people is somehow 'less of an outrage' than as if it happens to people who matter. Or that being associated with Gay people is filthy or disgusting.

Why not read "And the Band Played On" by Randy Shilts, or "How to Survive a Plague" if you'd like to know what happened. Or just watch "Dallas Buyers Club" to get a flavor of the time.

As far as demonizing Jews, I think that you might want to see what's going on Orban's Hungary or right wing Poland right now. I went to Auschwitz last year. The right wing PiS government tour guide didn't mention Jews during the entire tour (no joke). It was appalling. Or go to Russia (Christian Areas) and tell people that you're Jewish. Or simply go to Brighton Beach in Brooklyn and talk to some of the Jews that came over in the 1980s.

Where there is anti-Semitism, homophobia is rarely far behind. And the converse is also true.

So you should be really careful hanging out with Democrats. Anti-semitism is preached by people high up in the Democratic Party and never challenged.

"Underfunded" is simply an opinion.

(01-28-2019 10:23 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 10:10 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 09:54 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 07:46 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Simple solution. Sex ed is a topic that should be taught to age appropriate kids. 7th or 8th grade IMO. Strict reproductive sex ed is taught in a week long part of gym class like mine was. Any other sex-ed is an elective class that students can choose to take with parental permission.

End of story, no bad guys discriminating against anybody whether they be Christians or Muslims and no indoctrination by the school system.

Exactly how is simply admitting that Gay families exist and not hiding them like they're filthy and disgusting the same as sex ed?

I didn't say they should be hid. I said keep sex-ed limited to reproductive education and strictly science based. Same-sex relationships are a social construct and can be explained in the elective class.

(01-28-2019 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  So should Mansfield ISD ban Gay teachers from existing in any public way in public elementary schools?

Of course not.

(01-28-2019 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Telling someone, you can be Gay, so long as no one knows about it is the same as saying...you can't be Gay and work here.

No it isn't. Elementary kids don't need to know personal information about their teachers. Any questions about their families should be answered in a manner appropriate for the age of the children.

(01-28-2019 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Every taxpayer supported job should be open to every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, marital status, or gender identity.

I believe federal and state laws say exactly that - with the exception of the 'gender identity' mess.

(01-28-2019 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And what about Gay kids and kids in Gay families? Why does the school system get to make the implied statement that they are 'less than' straight families (or worse, that their families are so horrible that they can't even be mentioned) in public schools?

They don't get to make any such statement - implied or otherwise. Teachers need to be taught how to answer in an age appropriate manner.

(01-28-2019 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  What percentage of education jobs should be barred to Gay teachers?

None - so long as they can educate without pushing an agenda.

I'm looking forward to all the firings of teachers for mentioning their straight spouse in class.

The problem is that you don't seem to think there is such a thing as "too young" to expose children to non-traditional lifestyles.

You're right, I don't think Gay couples are any more filthy or disgusting than straight ones and there's no reason to hide them from anyone, including the young. Hiding them implies that there's something wrong with them.

(01-28-2019 10:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 12:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 10:40 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 09:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 09:38 PM)q5sys Wrote:  Don't you f*cking dare call that a Holocaust.

I lost family to the holocaust, two great grandparents, and my grandfather who had fled to the US but went back in the US Army to fight against Nazi Germany.

That... That right there is the most vile thing you've ever said.

Have LGBT been treated badly in this country? Sure, I can admit that. Have 6+million of them been slaughtered and gassed to death?

I repeat my assertion that the AIDS crisis was a Holocaust.

It appears as if some have forgotten what happens when you allow people to so dehumanize a minority that society just sits back and laughs at them as they die like flies.

And the numbers were just immense. The 10 year survival rate for a Gay man in 1980 in the USA was about the same as for a Jewish person living in Germany in 1933 when Hitler took over... 50% (although the death rates for Jews living elsewhere in Europe fared much worse - the Jews in Germany had some time to escape). 50% dead, most in their twenties and thirties. While the Christians either laughed and reveled at it or simply ignored it and left us to our fate.

And since you brought up the holocaust in Europe, are you aware that Gay people were rounded up and gassed too? And there was no respite for the survivors either. They were sent back to their home countries and thousands of survivors were thrown back into prison for being gay. War Heros like Alan Turing were tortured simply because they were Gay.

Today is actually Holocaust Remembrance Day. I haven't forgotten. I think some people forget what happens why a majority so dehumanizes a minority by calling them filthy and a threat that they can do justify just about any outrage.

And today, there are round ups and death camps for Gay men. Today.

And the AIDS crisis was something they spread among themselves. Those who weren't promiscuous weren't at big risk. People who didn't share needles weren't at risk. It was a disease that their lifestyle spread among themselves. And research started immediately. The disease is not eliminated or solved. Its just understood. Nothing would have made a significant difference.

Comparing what the Nazis did to the Jews to AIDS is sick and insulting to all Jews. But then Democrats don't mind demonizing Jews either.

AIDS funding was incredibly underfunded and deliberately so until it started to impact people that society felt were human...straight people.

And I strongly suspect that some of the anger in here by me using the term we use for the AIDS era is motivated partly by the reinforcement that somehow bad things happening to Gay people is somehow 'less of an outrage' than as if it happens to people who matter. Or that being associated with Gay people is filthy or disgusting.

Why not read "And the Band Played On" by Randy Shilts, or "How to Survive a Plague" if you'd like to know what happened. Or just watch "Dallas Buyers Club" to get a flavor of the time.

As far as demonizing Jews, I think that you might want to see what's going on Orban's Hungary or right wing Poland right now. I went to Auschwitz last year. The right wing PiS government tour guide didn't mention Jews during the entire tour (no joke). It was appalling. Or go to Russia (Christian Areas) and tell people that you're Jewish. Or simply go to Brighton Beach in Brooklyn and talk to some of the Jews that came over in the 1980s.

Where there is anti-Semitism, homophobia is rarely far behind. And the converse is also true.

So you should be really careful hanging out with Democrats. Anti-semitism is preached by people high up in the Democratic Party and never challenged.

"Underfunded" is simply an opinion.

The government spend more on the Tylenol scare than it did in the first several years of the AIDS crisis.

Here's a snippet from the 1980's (Chicago Tribune). WASHINGTON, D.C., Feb. 4, 1985-Even the most cynical critics of the Reagan administration were staggered when the Office of Management and Budget released its proposed AIDS budget for the 1986 fiscal year.

Not only had the administration not increased AIDS funding, but the budget called for reducing AIDS spending from the current level of $96 million to $85.5 million in the next fiscal year. The 10 percent reduction would be felt across the board in AIDS research but most heavily at the Centers for Disease Control, where funds would be cut back 20 percent, to $18.7 million.

I don't know why the government should have been reducing AIDS spending in 1985, unless it was to underfund it. Perhaps you can explain it.

----

Anti Semitism? I didn't realize the anti-Soros stuff was coming from the Democrats.

Sure, to be clear, Louis Farrakhan, who isn't really active in Democratic politics is an anti-Semite.

But simply opposing Isreali settlements in the West Bank is not anti-Semitism. Neither is opposing Netanyahu's government. Plenty of Jews in Israel and the USA don't want more settlements and don't like Netanyahu.

(01-28-2019 01:41 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 01:26 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 12:52 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 12:41 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 02:13 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Then educate your kids in taxpayer non-supported schools that pay property taxes.

If you demand that LGBT teachers be shut out, or have less free speech rights than straight ones (to discuss their personal family life), or that LGBT kids be erased and effectively demeaned with taxpayer dollars, then I'm calling that out as homophobia and discrimination.

And I fail to see any difference between American evangelicals and the Muslim group in the UK on this issue. Actually the American evangelicals are the more pressing threat.

----

Implied in your argument is that Gay people are somehow bad or a threat to kids. Or that teaching kids, explicitly or implicitly that being LGBT is 'bad' or something 'dangerous' .

No, those would be pedophiles and they clearly come from all walks of the spectrum.

In my, relatively speaking to most, experience is that the biggest threat to LGBT folks are, frankly, other LGBT folks. Their partners beating the schit out of them, their drug dealers getting them hooked for a hook up then they can't pay the bills, their clear indulgence themselves in clearly 'dangerous' (Your word') activity. i.e. Themselves.

Fair question Tom. Who has caused the demise of more LGBT people in the U.S. in the last 40 or so years?

Christians
Muslims
Other LGBT
Themselves

Give 'em a 1 thru 4 ranking, this oughta be fascinating.

I'd argue that the Reagan Administration's inaction in the early days (or outright malevolent blocking of funding and prevention mechanisms) was responsible for much of the deaths.

Muslims aren't really on the list from a US perspective

K. So, who is?

On the list?

Christains
Other LGBT
Muslims

No.

Inaction doesn't mean reaction.

who caused these deaths? which of these patry's?

Not who may have, but could have prevented these deaths?

Who do you blame for these deaths? (as you say) Full Stop? \

About 70 percent of them could have been avoided had discrimination not been so prevalent.

1) Had Gay people been not so despised and our relationships been completely mocked, then perhaps Gay men would have put more faith into them

2) Had 90 percent of Gay men at the time not felt the need to be in the closet as a result of massive and systemic discrimination, then perhaps the promiscuity would have been lower too. Many Gay men were expected to not have any relationship except the furtive kind.

3) Had government not been so hostile to LGBT persons, then perhaps the community would have trusted the few government people that were trying to help

4) Had the government actually helped those in the LGBT community that were trying to help, instead of styming them, then perhaps they would have been more successful

5) Had the government funded the research appropriately or even in proportion to the crisis, the disease would have been checked much sooner

6) Had religious extremists not wanted to exploit AIDS as a way to stoke up fear and loathing of Gay people for political leverage, then perhaps the powers that be would have not blocked common sense approaches.

30% of the deaths in the Gay community probably could not have been avoided. But a LOT of the deaths happened in the mid 90's. The last year before AZT combination therapy was the worst year of the crisis. People died like flies that year. Had the disease been controlled 2 years earlier 20 percent of the deaths could have been avoided.

So you are blaming others for the bad decisions made by gay men? Talk about a victimization mentality! And in the big cities, it was not in the closet in the 80s (or even the mid 70s). It was very open in Houston. The promiscuity was a culture and lifestyle choice. To paraphrase Obama, "Choices have consequences." And many continued that lifestyle even after they determined the likely means of spreading the disease.

(01-28-2019 10:42 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 10:23 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 10:10 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 09:54 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Exactly how is simply admitting that Gay families exist and not hiding them like they're filthy and disgusting the same as sex ed?

I didn't say they should be hid. I said keep sex-ed limited to reproductive education and strictly science based. Same-sex relationships are a social construct and can be explained in the elective class.

(01-28-2019 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  So should Mansfield ISD ban Gay teachers from existing in any public way in public elementary schools?

Of course not.

(01-28-2019 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Telling someone, you can be Gay, so long as no one knows about it is the same as saying...you can't be Gay and work here.

No it isn't. Elementary kids don't need to know personal information about their teachers. Any questions about their families should be answered in a manner appropriate for the age of the children.

(01-28-2019 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Every taxpayer supported job should be open to every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, marital status, or gender identity.

I believe federal and state laws say exactly that - with the exception of the 'gender identity' mess.

(01-28-2019 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And what about Gay kids and kids in Gay families? Why does the school system get to make the implied statement that they are 'less than' straight families (or worse, that their families are so horrible that they can't even be mentioned) in public schools?

They don't get to make any such statement - implied or otherwise. Teachers need to be taught how to answer in an age appropriate manner.

(01-28-2019 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  What percentage of education jobs should be barred to Gay teachers?

None - so long as they can educate without pushing an agenda.

I'm looking forward to all the firings of teachers for mentioning their straight spouse in class.

The problem is that you don't seem to think there is such a thing as "too young" to expose children to non-traditional lifestyles.

You're right, I don't think Gay couples are any more filthy or disgusting than straight ones and there's no reason to hide them from anyone, including the young. Hiding them implies that there's something wrong with them.

Straight parents generally don't discuss sex with their 5 year olds.

(01-28-2019 10:52 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 10:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 12:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 10:40 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 09:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I repeat my assertion that the AIDS crisis was a Holocaust.

It appears as if some have forgotten what happens when you allow people to so dehumanize a minority that society just sits back and laughs at them as they die like flies.

And the numbers were just immense. The 10 year survival rate for a Gay man in 1980 in the USA was about the same as for a Jewish person living in Germany in 1933 when Hitler took over... 50% (although the death rates for Jews living elsewhere in Europe fared much worse - the Jews in Germany had some time to escape). 50% dead, most in their twenties and thirties. While the Christians either laughed and reveled at it or simply ignored it and left us to our fate.

And since you brought up the holocaust in Europe, are you aware that Gay people were rounded up and gassed too? And there was no respite for the survivors either. They were sent back to their home countries and thousands of survivors were thrown back into prison for being gay. War Heros like Alan Turing were tortured simply because they were Gay.

Today is actually Holocaust Remembrance Day. I haven't forgotten. I think some people forget what happens why a majority so dehumanizes a minority by calling them filthy and a threat that they can do justify just about any outrage.

And today, there are round ups and death camps for Gay men. Today.

And the AIDS crisis was something they spread among themselves. Those who weren't promiscuous weren't at big risk. People who didn't share needles weren't at risk. It was a disease that their lifestyle spread among themselves. And research started immediately. The disease is not eliminated or solved. Its just understood. Nothing would have made a significant difference.

Comparing what the Nazis did to the Jews to AIDS is sick and insulting to all Jews. But then Democrats don't mind demonizing Jews either.

AIDS funding was incredibly underfunded and deliberately so until it started to impact people that society felt were human...straight people.

And I strongly suspect that some of the anger in here by me using the term we use for the AIDS era is motivated partly by the reinforcement that somehow bad things happening to Gay people is somehow 'less of an outrage' than as if it happens to people who matter. Or that being associated with Gay people is filthy or disgusting.

Why not read "And the Band Played On" by Randy Shilts, or "How to Survive a Plague" if you'd like to know what happened. Or just watch "Dallas Buyers Club" to get a flavor of the time.

As far as demonizing Jews, I think that you might want to see what's going on Orban's Hungary or right wing Poland right now. I went to Auschwitz last year. The right wing PiS government tour guide didn't mention Jews during the entire tour (no joke). It was appalling. Or go to Russia (Christian Areas) and tell people that you're Jewish. Or simply go to Brighton Beach in Brooklyn and talk to some of the Jews that came over in the 1980s.

Where there is anti-Semitism, homophobia is rarely far behind. And the converse is also true.

So you should be really careful hanging out with Democrats. Anti-semitism is preached by people high up in the Democratic Party and never challenged.

"Underfunded" is simply an opinion.

The government spend more on the Tylenol scare than it did in the first several years of the AIDS crisis.

Here's a snippet from the 1980's (Chicago Tribune). WASHINGTON, D.C., Feb. 4, 1985-Even the most cynical critics of the Reagan administration were staggered when the Office of Management and Budget released its proposed AIDS budget for the 1986 fiscal year.

Not only had the administration not increased AIDS funding, but the budget called for reducing AIDS spending from the current level of $96 million to $85.5 million in the next fiscal year. The 10 percent reduction would be felt across the board in AIDS research but most heavily at the Centers for Disease Control, where funds would be cut back 20 percent, to $18.7 million.

I don't know why the government should have been reducing AIDS spending in 1985, unless it was to underfund it. Perhaps you can explain it.

----

Anti Semitism? I didn't realize the anti-Soros stuff was coming from the Democrats.

Sure, to be clear, Louis Farrakhan, who isn't really active in Democratic politics is an anti-Semite.

But simply opposing Isreali settlements in the West Bank is not anti-Semitism. Neither is opposing Netanyahu's government. Plenty of Jews in Israel and the USA don't want more settlements and don't like Netanyahu.

You never get tired of lying when it suits your purpose, do you?

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals...iled-obama


"When I saw a recently released photo, by Askia Muhammad, of Obama and a beaming Louis Farrakhan, I immediately thought of the Clinton campaign. What fun they could’ve had with this one! Muhammad took the picture, in 2005, at a gathering hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus, after Obama’s star-making turn at the 2004 Democratic National Convention but before it was clear that the Senator would offer himself as a candidate for President—when, in other words, the man was pure potential, unsullied in the eyes of hopeful Democrats. After some pressure from one of the caucus’s staffers, Muhammad agreed to bury it. Now he plans to include the picture in an upcoming self-published book; Talking Points Memo asked to run the photo after learning of it from a newsletter written by the journalist Richard Prince.

For me, the star of the picture is Farrakhan, who understands—better, maybe, than anyone else in American political and cultural life—just how much power he can wield without uttering a word...."