Most local school districts ignore st...

Most local school districts ignore state's anti-gay bullying law - First of two parts

There are 56 comments on the Press-Telegram story from Aug 26, 2012, titled Most local school districts ignore state's anti-gay bullying law - First of two parts. In it, Press-Telegram reports that:

For three consecutive years, Alyssa Mullenix, a 17-year-old senior at Lakewood High School, said she has been harassed with anti-gay slurs and physically assaulted by fellow students because she is a lesbian.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Press-Telegram.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#41 Aug 26, 2012
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Pattysboi.
I am not unfamiliar with news concerning violence in our expensive taxpayer funded Government schools. Nor am I unfamiliar with the fact that most of that violence is being directed at little non-Homosexual girls and boys. What I cannot understand is why the Homosexual and non-Homosexual politicians never enact non-Homosexual bullying laws. This is especially puzzling were one to consider the fact that little Homosexuals and little lesbians are only a very tiny minority within the taxpayer funded Government school population.
Ronald
Ronald, it's really quite simple.

All the little heterosexual boys and girls who are being bullied because of their real or apparent heterosexuality are now covered by the law, just the same as kids who are being bullied because they are or appear to be gay.

Isn't that great? It should satisfy your overwhelming concern for all those heterosexual kids who are being picked on for being straight. That should put your mind at ease.

And whenever you feel up to it, feel free to provide evidence for all of those "non-Homosexual" kids who are being subjected to "most of the violence" because of their sexual orientation.
Ronald

Bellflower, CA

#42 Aug 26, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
I have been giving you straight answers. They just contradict the loaded words and false premises that you provide.
For instance, in post 28 you started with "So you are saying...." and proceeded to claim to tell me what I'm saying.
In post 30, I stated in plain language exactly what I'm saying, I even told you that in just those words, and because my answer contradicts your false premise, you now claim that I don't answer you.
You're wrong, and you appear to be a liar.
<quoted text>
Because, Ronald, the original section of the education code didn't include specific references to real or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. People were claiming that harassment wasn't taking place because the harassment was based on apparent sexual orientation, which the law didn't cover.
Religious groups in particular objected to these laws because they wish to be able to harass and intimidate people on the basis of sexual orientation with impunity.
<quoted text>
No, you put words in my mouth that I never said. You are a liar.
As I said in post 30, I support laws that prohibit harassment, intimidation, and discrimination in public schools based on factors that include (but are not necessarily limited to) race, religion, gender, disability, nationality, ethnicity, real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.
Feel free to cite ANY hate crimes or bias law ANYWHERE in the US that protects homosexuals and doesn't at the same time protect heterosexuals. There are no "scapegoat classes."
Jerald.

Exactly. Unless we quit beating around the bush and cut to the quick we will be forever talking past one another. The fact is that the Government collects most of the hard earned tax money from decent non-Homosexuals. What that means is that our Homosexual friends have a financial interest in promoting laws that are designed to turn non-Homosexual women and men into "second-class citizens".*(so to speak")*

Because most of the tax money Government collects is not paid by our Homosexual friends - or the lesbians - they can promote redundant anti-Homosexual bullying and other discriminatory laws at little or no cost to themselves.

Ronald

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#43 Aug 26, 2012
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Jerald.
Exactly. Unless we quit beating around the bush and cut to the quick we will be forever talking past one another. The fact is that the Government collects most of the hard earned tax money from decent non-Homosexuals. What that means is that our Homosexual friends have a financial interest in promoting laws that are designed to turn non-Homosexual women and men into "second-class citizens".*(so to speak")*
Because most of the tax money Government collects is not paid by our Homosexual friends - or the lesbians - they can promote redundant anti-Homosexual bullying and other discriminatory laws at little or no cost to themselves.
Ronald
Talking past each other isn't really the problem.

You probably can't even handle talking to yourself.

Come back when you have evidence to support your claims that anti-heterosexual violence is the real bullying problem in our schools, that I or the public schools, or the Long Beach Press-Telegram hate "non-Homosexuals," and cite how any of these laws discriminate against "non-Homosexuals."

Evidence, Ronald. That's what you lack.(In addition to intelligence, common sense, and reading comprehension.)

FaFoxy

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#46 Aug 26, 2012
Cherry Red Lipstick wrote:
The only bullying going on in my state is not allowing the voters to vote on gay marriage or even now, gay parenting. Tiberius and Caligula reside in Massachusetts.
Goodbye Rome.
How about we allow voters to vote on Catholic marriage. This IS a God-fearing PROTESTANT country after all, and Catholics are just NASTY !

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#47 Aug 26, 2012
Cherry Red Lipstick wrote:
The only bullying going on in my state is not allowing the voters to vote on gay marriage or even now, gay parenting. Tiberius and Caligula reside in Massachusetts.
Goodbye Rome.
Poor you, that your marriage or your ability to raise your children are negatively affected by the bullying of the courts and the legislature who have recognized the right of same-sex couples to obtain a civil marriage in your state.

Any evidence to support the notion that allowing same-sex couples to marry causes any harm, or that preventing same-sex couples from marrying benefits anyone?

The bullies are those who demand that the civil rights of others should be curtailed in the absence of any compelling governmental interest, or that the rights and liberties of fellow citizens should be put up to a vote.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#50 Aug 26, 2012
Cherry Red Lipstick wrote:
<quoted text>
What the hell is it with you faggots projecting that all marriages fail. I've proven time and again along with many others the detriments of same sex acts causing great harm on society. Think hiv and aids for starters you fool. Now you want to share such relationships with children.
Voted down everytime.
So you're one of THOSE fools... people who think they've proven something that no empirical evidence will support. HIV and AIDS? Is that the best that you can come up with? Straight people get HIV and AIDS and no one denies them the right to obtain a marriage.

Feel free to provide empirical evidence that recognizing marriage for same-sex couples causes any harm at all. You've got nearly 20 years of evidence in Europe and several years worth of evidence in Canada and several states here in the US. Knock yourself out.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#51 Aug 26, 2012
Cherry Red Lipstick wrote:
<quoted text>
Smoking is a health hazard and should not be mentioned or done around children. To liberals anal sex by two men is not a health hazard and is actually acceptable. Imagine that. Insane and highly transmissable.
More heterosexuals perform anal sex than all the gay men combined.

"Based on an extensive review of the research, Voeller (1991) estimated that at least 10% of sexually active American women engage in receptive anal intercourse with some regularity. Halperin (1999) pointed out that even if this estimate is inflated twofold, anal intercourse occurs among more women annually than among MSM—four million versus one million, respectively." Journal of Sex Research
http://rectalmicrobicides.org/docs/Heterosexu...

"About one-third of U.S. heterosexuals report having ever engaged in anal intercourse, a proportion that has been rising since the early 1990s. The majority say they do not use condoms for anal sex, even if they do for vaginal intercourse."
http://www.amfar.org/Articles/In_The_Lab/2010... (July_2010)/

And lesbians rarely if ever engage in anal sex and have the lowest HIV rates of all. Imagine that.

The evidence is against you.
david traversa

Cordoba, Argentina

#52 Aug 26, 2012
Ronald wrote:
Most victims of bullying in expensive taxpayer funded Government schools are little non-Homosexual girls and boys. This is especially true ever since revolutionary activists *(now in power)* saw fit to integrate Thug students into all Government schools. As much as we love our Homosexual friends and the lesbians, one must wonder why Government licensed "news" media are not speaking out in defense of little non-Homosexual children who are victims of bullying in Government schools.
Ronald
Right! It's not only homosexual children who are the victims.. Neglectful parenting, bad example and general indifference are to blame..
Ronald

Bellflower, CA

#55 Aug 27, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Talking past each other isn't really the problem.
You probably can't even handle talking to yourself.
Come back when you have evidence to support your claims that anti-heterosexual violence is the real bullying problem in our schools, that I or the public schools, or the Long Beach Press-Telegram hate "non-Homosexuals," and cite how any of these laws discriminate against "non-Homosexuals."
Evidence, Ronald. That's what you lack.(In addition to intelligence, common sense, and reading comprehension.)
Jerald.

Exactly. According to a current news report that was linked to by Drudge, another little student was shot on the first day of an expensive taxpayer funded Government school. Initial reports from the scene make no hysterical claim that the little victim was victimized because of his sexual "identity". Therefore, it is only common sense to conclude the bullying victim was a little non-Homosexual child. Unfortunately, non-Homosexual students have no organized champions loudly demanding the genocide of little non-Homosexual students be stopped. Reading "between the lines", one cannot escape the suspicion that the shooter may have been a Thug student that Government has integrated into this "good" Government school for the purpose of keeping the pot boiling in order to further revolutionary social goals.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/8clywwv

Ronald

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#57 Aug 27, 2012
Brown Lipstick wrote:
<quoted text>
HIV/AIDS is still a gay disease and raising children in such a careless environment is dangerous. Aside from the drug abuse that is rampant among gay men HIV/AIDS is still a gay disease for the simple fact that homosexuals represent a small amount of the total population but by percentage they have exponentially higher cases than heterosexuals. At one time this was considered a health crisis and now has become a marriage and parenting crisis.
So you conveniently and carelessly say 'how does ssm cause any harm'
When in fact same sex acts have done plenty of damage and harm to the world and yes, despite what the Zionist media refuses to say, you still are to blame for what all this really is, a world health crisis.
Maybe if you'd stop getting all your information from Free Republic.com you'd have something worthwhile to contribute. As it is, your opinions are so full of misinformation, ignorance, and stereotypes that they aren't even worthy of discussion.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#58 Aug 27, 2012
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Jerald.
Exactly. According to a current news report that was linked to by Drudge, another little student was shot on the first day of an expensive taxpayer funded Government school. Initial reports from the scene make no hysterical claim that the little victim was victimized because of his sexual "identity". Therefore, it is only common sense to conclude the bullying victim was a little non-Homosexual child. Unfortunately, non-Homosexual students have no organized champions loudly demanding the genocide of little non-Homosexual students be stopped. Reading "between the lines", one cannot escape the suspicion that the shooter may have been a Thug student that Government has integrated into this "good" Government school for the purpose of keeping the pot boiling in order to further revolutionary social goals.
Source: http://tinyurl.com/8clywwv
Ronald
Ronald

You're an idiot.

Jerald

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#60 Aug 27, 2012
Brilliant Blue Lipstick wrote:
Wow Gerald when confronted with respectful delegations you convey what most progressives display consistently.
Short sweet ignorance.
Thank you.
"Respectful?"

You anti-gay folks don't know the meaning of the word.

I've simply responded with short, sweet dismissal of the ignorance that you folks so readily display.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#62 Aug 27, 2012
Brilliant Blue Lipstick wrote:
<quoted text>
You're one to talk. By committing such acts you disrespect your own body. Don't forget dishonoring ones parents for desires. A sexual misfit is you selling out as Judas did 2000 years ago.
Roman vice.
Caligula and others.
History does indeed repeat itself my aspiring homofascist Bolshevik.
I rest my case. I needn't put up a defense. Your words are sufficient to the task.
Ronald

Bellflower, CA

#63 Aug 27, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
"Respectful?"
You anti-gay folks don't know the meaning of the word.
I've simply responded with short, sweet dismissal of the ignorance that you folks so readily display.
Jerald.

You remind me of a cartoon I once saw. The chickens were having a Halloween party. One of the chickens came dressed as Colonel Sanders. One of the chickens was captioned by the illustrator as saying to another, "I suppose SOME think that is funny".

Ronald
ELH

Portland, OR

#64 Aug 29, 2012
Ronald wrote:
Because most of the tax money Government collects is not paid by our Homosexual friends - or the lesbians - they can promote redundant anti-Homosexual bullying and other discriminatory laws at little or no cost to themselves.
Ronald
So you are saying that even though INDIVIDUALLY "the" Homosexuals- and "the" Lesbians pay the EXACT SAME same tax rate as any other SINGLE ADULT (and BTW far more that MARRRIED COUPLES) they are "plotting" to force the government to fund anti bulling laws because OVER ALL, due to their larger numbers the cost would be borne by heterosexual?

You really don't think this nutty crap you spew out to well do you?

BTW, how much tax do you pay on the SSI_D check you collect from the government every month for being nuts?
Ronald

Bellflower, CA

#65 Aug 29, 2012
ELH wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are saying that even though INDIVIDUALLY "the" Homosexuals- and "the" Lesbians pay the EXACT SAME same tax rate as any other SINGLE ADULT (and BTW far more that MARRRIED COUPLES) they are "plotting" to force the government to fund anti bulling laws because OVER ALL, due to their larger numbers the cost would be borne by heterosexual?
You really don't think this nutty crap you spew out to well do you?
BTW, how much tax do you pay on the SSI_D check you collect from the government every month for being nuts?
ELH.

Yes. That's what I am saying. Like all Big Government promoted "public interest" NGO's, the purpose of organized Homosexual NGO's is to promote social change along revolutionary lines. As such, one might call those organizations "tax eaters" rather than tax payers. As "tax exempt" organizations, their cost is borne by the minority of Americans who pay taxes - most of whom are non-Homosexuals.

Ronald

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Long Beach Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Tso Rat Sexesup Dem Blackfemales! 9 hr Dave Seylosss 1
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) Tue Buck Rohde 20,478
News Settlement bars barbershop from being a mena s ... Tue Ronald 1
Military Pay - too much or too little? (Dec '10) Mon thomjames 31
Tiny dog on Anaheim st - Sunday night Mon k8baldwin 1
Anyone remember "Seal Beach James" ? (May '08) Aug 21 Jeffrey Lear 54
Poll legacy long distance (Sep '08) Aug 18 KDK 26

Long Beach Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Long Beach Mortgages