Parent group takes aim at Day of Silence

Feb 20, 2008 Full story: Snoqualmie Valley Record 46

“We believe that the classroom should not be biased”

A 40-strong group of Valley parents have formed a new coalition, with the aim of ensuring that teachers at Mount Si High School aren't touting their personal agendas in the classroom. via Snoqualmie Valley Record

Full Story
First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Timothy

Portland, OR

#1 Feb 24, 2008
Anyone who believes -- or heaven forbid, states -- that homosexuality is wrong or unnatural, is labelled a bigot.

This demonstrates the true nature of "liberals." They never were interested in what was right, or true. They never cared about freedom of speech, or the protection of the citizens from the govt.

I feel sorry for all who fell for the "liberal" propaganda from the 1960's to the 1990's. It was a sad and frustrating time, and it's too bad there are still so many dishonest, irrational, unreasonable people out there today.

Fortunately we are turning the tide. Gays are welcome and should feel safe and respected. But they also need to understand that they are (unfortunately) damaged with an unnatural tendency, picked up sometime in childhood due to not getting certain needs met.
Jim

Banská Bystrica, Slovakia

#2 Feb 24, 2008
I agree

Since: Feb 08

Union, SC

#3 Feb 24, 2008
I have a somewhat strange belief in all of this. I am your average Joe: White male. Married. Kids. Little house with a white fence. Mini Van.
I have been an atheist my whole life. I do not believe in any gods or any religion. Most atheists believe in gay rights. They don't see any problem with gay people.
I am a strong believer in science, and most of my atheistic beliefs came from science. Our goal as a member of humanity is to breed and pass on our genes. Gay sex does not accomplish this goal. I ask my gay female friends these questions: Why do you have a uterus? Why do you have a period? The clear answer is for REPRODUCTION. My gay male friends cannot tell me why they have sperm. It is created by their bodies for a reason. REPRODUCTION of the human species.
It is obvious that gay sex is the opposite of what our bodies are for. But this all makes sense to me in the realm of science. Evolution weeds out the weak and abnormal from the gene pool. No offense to my gay friends, but that is what I believe.
In the end, it does not matter to me. As an atheist, I have no MORAL objection to homosexuality, just a SCIENTIFIC one. But I support gay rights the same way I support religious freedom. I am not gay nor religious, but its not my right to tell others how to live.

Since: Jan 08

Indianapolis, IN

#4 Feb 24, 2008
Timothy wrote:
Anyone who believes -- or heaven forbid, states -- that homosexuality is wrong or unnatural, is labelled a bigot.
This demonstrates the true nature of "liberals." They never were interested in what was right, or true. They never cared about freedom of speech, or the protection of the citizens from the govt.
I feel sorry for all who fell for the "liberal" propaganda from the 1960's to the 1990's. It was a sad and frustrating time, and it's too bad there are still so many dishonest, irrational, unreasonable people out there today.
Fortunately we are turning the tide. Gays are welcome and should feel safe and respected. But they also need to understand that they are (unfortunately) damaged with an unnatural tendency, picked up sometime in childhood due to not getting certain needs met.
Its not if you think its wrong, but why you think its wrong. Those people advocating against it simply because some book says its wrong are bigots. There is nothing wrong with it. It is not a choice, so why are you so against it. Didnt we learn anything from the 60's when we went through the civil rights movement? Yet here we are again, repeating the same mean spirited discrimination.
inapart

Summerville, SC

#5 Feb 24, 2008
I hate to burst any bubbles, here, but homosexuality is a mental disorder.....the APA may have reversed an earlier opinion on the issue, but all one has to do is "THINK"....NORMAL PEOPLE HAVE SEX IN A NORMAL FASHION.

THINK ABOUT THAT.....NORMAL VS. ABNORMAL!!!!

“I'll think about it.”

Since: Nov 07

central Florida

#6 Feb 24, 2008
Witness10 wrote:
I have a somewhat strange belief in all of this. I am your average Joe: White male. Married. Kids. Little house with a white fence. Mini Van.
I have been an atheist my whole life. I do not believe in any gods or any religion. Most atheists believe in gay rights. They don't see any problem with gay people.
I am a strong believer in science, and most of my atheistic beliefs came from science. Our goal as a member of humanity is to breed and pass on our genes. Gay sex does not accomplish this goal. I ask my gay female friends these questions: Why do you have a uterus? Why do you have a period? The clear answer is for REPRODUCTION. My gay male friends cannot tell me why they have sperm. It is created by their bodies for a reason. REPRODUCTION of the human species.
It is obvious that gay sex is the opposite of what our bodies are for. But this all makes sense to me in the realm of science. Evolution weeds out the weak and abnormal from the gene pool. No offense to my gay friends, but that is what I believe.
In the end, it does not matter to me. As an atheist, I have no MORAL objection to homosexuality, just a SCIENTIFIC one. But I support gay rights the same way I support religious freedom. I am not gay nor religious, but its not my right to tell others how to live.
So you think we are only born on this planet to breed and die?
Bodies have other functions, otherwise, if our only goal in life was to procreate,
we could just be mobile uteruses and penises.
But we have these marvelous senses with which to smell, taste, feel, hear, and see.
The act of sex CAN BE only for the sharing of pleasure, you know.(Well, maybe you don't know...)
Two people who care for each other want to give each other the gift of themselves, the most precious gift possible. Gender is irrelevant.

“I'll think about it.”

Since: Nov 07

central Florida

#7 Feb 24, 2008
Timothy wrote:
Anyone who believes -- or heaven forbid, states -- that homosexuality is wrong or unnatural, is labelled a bigot.
This demonstrates the true nature of "liberals." They never were interested in what was right, or true. They never cared about freedom of speech, or the protection of the citizens from the govt.
I feel sorry for all who fell for the "liberal" propaganda from the 1960's to the 1990's. It was a sad and frustrating time, and it's too bad there are still so many dishonest, irrational, unreasonable people out there today.
Fortunately we are turning the tide. Gays are welcome and should feel safe and respected. But they also need to understand that they are (unfortunately) damaged with an unnatural tendency, picked up sometime in childhood due to not getting certain needs met.
"Gays are welcome and should feel safe and RESPECTED."

"...they are (unfortunately) damaged...."

How do you talk out of both sides of your mouth like that?
Don't your lips and tongue get all tangled up? Doesn't your brain cringe at the hypocrisy?
FloydMom

United States

#8 Feb 24, 2008
I can identify with your ideology! I believe someone may not have the ability to control their orientation towards sex, BUT that doesn't make it natural. I don't really want it shoved down my throat anymore than I want to watch you and your wife making out! And I don't want someone teaching my children about such lifestyles.
I feel the same way about breastfeeding. There is a legitimate reason our body produces milk.
Timothy

Portland, OR

#9 Feb 25, 2008
Sabinus wrote:
<quoted text>
Its not if you think its wrong, but why you think its wrong. Those people advocating against it simply because some book says its wrong are bigots. There is nothing wrong with it. It is not a choice, so why are you so against it. Didnt we learn anything from the 60's when we went through the civil rights movement? Yet here we are again, repeating the same mean spirited discrimination.
You sound rational and reasonable, but you're making the same errors I'm talking about.

What makes someone a "bigot?" Simply -believing- something? Or is there a certain attitude, and manner of treating and thinking about people? Your second sentence above says someone is a bigot simply because of their reasons for believing something. That is NOT what makes someone a "bigot."

"It is not a choice, so why are you so against it?"

The physiological disorder is not a choice, but to engage in ACTS because of that disorder IS a choice.

Lastly, we're not talking about "mean spirited discrimination." Did I not clearly state that gays should feel welcome, safe, and respected? Most gays I've known were nice people one-on-one, but if anyone is "mean-spirited," it's the shrill, incredulous homosexual "lobby" that tries to blackball (or worse) anyone who dares stand against it.
Timothy

Portland, OR

#10 Feb 25, 2008
aWitchintheWoods wrote:
<quoted text>
"Gays are welcome and should feel safe and RESPECTED."
"...they are (unfortunately) damaged...."
How do you talk out of both sides of your mouth like that?
Don't your lips and tongue get all tangled up? Doesn't your brain cringe at the hypocrisy?
Well, you are either mistaken, or dishonest/irrational/unreasona ble. I hope it's the first.

Lots of people are damaged from their upbringing in one way or another. Perhaps most people.

Now, you are incredulous at my words, but that is because you accept the dominant cultural mindset. Despite what this culture teaches you, it IS possible to disagree with someone, yet still welcome them. It IS possible to disagree with someone, yet not want to kill them. It IS possible to disagree with someone, yet still respect them.

Only someone who is a TRUE BIGOT -- or is mistaken -- calls that "talking out of both sides of your mouth," or, "hypocrisy."

“No man is an Island”

Since: Feb 08

Bloomington via Washington, DC

#11 Feb 25, 2008
Timothy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you are either mistaken, or dishonest/irrational/unreasona ble. I hope it's the first.
Lots of people are damaged from their upbringing in one way or another. Perhaps most people.
Now, you are incredulous at my words, but that is because you accept the dominant cultural mindset. Despite what this culture teaches you, it IS possible to disagree with someone, yet still welcome them. It IS possible to disagree with someone, yet not want to kill them. It IS possible to disagree with someone, yet still respect them.
Only someone who is a TRUE BIGOT -- or is mistaken -- calls that "talking out of both sides of your mouth," or, "hypocrisy."
I'm curious, Timothy, how would you define a bigot?

“No man is an Island”

Since: Feb 08

Bloomington via Washington, DC

#12 Feb 25, 2008
Timothy wrote:
Anyone who believes -- or heaven forbid, states -- that homosexuality is wrong or unnatural, is labelled a bigot.
This demonstrates the true nature of "liberals." They never were interested in what was right, or true. They never cared about freedom of speech, or the protection of the citizens from the govt.
I feel sorry for all who fell for the "liberal" propaganda from the 1960's to the 1990's. It was a sad and frustrating time, and it's too bad there are still so many dishonest, irrational, unreasonable people out there today.
Fortunately we are turning the tide. Gays are welcome and should feel safe and respected. But they also need to understand that they are (unfortunately) damaged with an unnatural tendency, picked up sometime in childhood due to not getting certain needs met.
I'm not labeling you a bigot, Timothy, but I'm curious how you would define one.

If someone were to say that based on their religious beliefs they believe black people are inferior or damaged, would they be a bigot? If they told you that the trouble with conservatives is "they were never were interested in what was right, or true" would they be a bigot? If they were to tell you that evangelical Christians "should feel safe and respected, but they also need to understand that they are (unfortunately) damaged with an unnatural tendency",often picked up sometime in childhood, to believe things that can't be proven scientifically, would they be a bigot?

I don't believe any of these things but I'm curious as to where YOU draw the line. What is bigotry and what is legitimate disagreement?

Since: Jan 08

Indianapolis, IN

#13 Feb 25, 2008
Timothy wrote:
<quoted text>
You sound rational and reasonable, but you're making the same errors I'm talking about.
What makes someone a "bigot?" Simply -believing- something? Or is there a certain attitude, and manner of treating and thinking about people? Your second sentence above says someone is a bigot simply because of their reasons for believing something. That is NOT what makes someone a "bigot."
"It is not a choice, so why are you so against it?"
The physiological disorder is not a choice, but to engage in ACTS because of that disorder IS a choice.
Lastly, we're not talking about "mean spirited discrimination." Did I not clearly state that gays should feel welcome, safe, and respected? Most gays I've known were nice people one-on-one, but if anyone is "mean-spirited," it's the shrill, incredulous homosexual "lobby" that tries to blackball (or worse) anyone who dares stand against it.
you must have a valid reason for being against something. If it has no negative affect on you or anyone you know there is no valid reason to be against it. Also, you should know that sexual orientation is based on who you are attracted to not who you sleep with. A gay virgin is still gay.

As far as the legislation goes, ultimately thats what this is all about. Almost every state is either trying to pass this garbage or already has. Its sickening. Religion is for the weak of mind. Open your eyes, this is all there is. And one more little bit, an all knowing and all powerful god cannot exist in the same realm as free will.
Timothy

Portland, OR

#14 Feb 25, 2008
Bloomington Transplant wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not labeling you a bigot, Timothy, but I'm curious how you would define one.
If someone were to say that based on their religious beliefs they believe black people are inferior or damaged, would they be a bigot? If they told you that the trouble with conservatives is "they were never were interested in what was right, or true" would they be a bigot? If they were to tell you that evangelical Christians "should feel safe and respected, but they also need to understand that they are (unfortunately) damaged with an unnatural tendency",often picked up sometime in childhood, to believe things that can't be proven scientifically, would they be a bigot?
I don't believe any of these things but I'm curious as to where YOU draw the line. What is bigotry and what is legitimate disagreement?
Bigotry is when you ACT a certain way toward people, or have a certain ATTITUDE toward them, when it is unjustified, and you refuse to listen to them or consider their points of view -- or their value as a person.

Bigotry is more than just intellectually "believing" a certain thing. There are aspects of one's attitude, of how one treats others, and most of all, there is an aspect of unreasonableness, in being a bigot.

If you said any of those things in quotes above, that would be an intellectual belief of yours, and it may or may not be correct. But if you were reasonable enough to talk about it and consider opposing viewpoints, and if you still acted civilly and treated people with respect, then no, you would not be a bigot.

GENERALLY, I'd define a bigot as a person who is prejudiced, has an -attitude- of bigotry, mistreats or disrespects others unjustly,*AND* acts unreasonably.

I know that probably wouldn't suffice as a formal definition, but a bigot is all those things.

“I'll think about it.”

Since: Nov 07

central Florida

#15 Feb 25, 2008
Timothy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you are either mistaken, or dishonest/irrational/unreasona ble. I hope it's the first.
Lots of people are damaged from their upbringing in one way or another. Perhaps most people.
Now, you are incredulous at my words, but that is because you accept the dominant cultural mindset. Despite what this culture teaches you, it IS possible to disagree with someone, yet still welcome them. It IS possible to disagree with someone, yet not want to kill them. It IS possible to disagree with someone, yet still respect them.
Only someone who is a TRUE BIGOT -- or is mistaken -- calls that "talking out of both sides of your mouth," or, "hypocrisy."

You give lip service to *respect* when what you are really doing is looking down on people, judging them "damaged," and, in your morally superior position, ALLOWING them to live among us (while hoping that they may be *healed* of their problem).
This is not *respect* in my world. Obviously our definations of the word differ.

RESPECT:
1. a particular, detail, or point (usually prec. by in): to differ in some respect.
2. relation or reference: inquiries with respect to a route.
3. esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability: I have great respect for her judgment.
4. deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment: respect for a suspect's right to counsel; to show respect for the flag; respect for the elderly.
5. the condition of being esteemed or honored: to be held in respect.
6. respects, a formal expression or gesture of greeting, esteem, or friendship: Give my respects to your parents.
7. favor or partiality.
8. Archaic. a consideration.
–verb (used with object) 9. to hold in esteem or honor: I cannot respect a cheat.
10. to show regard or consideration for: to respect someone's rights.
11. to refrain from intruding upon or interfering with: to respect a person's privacy.
12. to relate or have reference to.

My concept of *respect*(in regard to the discussion) would be as in #3, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 11.
What is yours?
Timothy

Portland, OR

#16 Feb 25, 2008
Sabinus wrote:
<quoted text>
you must have a valid reason for being against something. If it has no negative affect on you or anyone you know there is no valid reason to be against it. Also, you should know that sexual orientation is based on who you are attracted to not who you sleep with. A gay virgin is still gay.
As far as the legislation goes, ultimately thats what this is all about. Almost every state is either trying to pass this garbage or already has. Its sickening. Religion is for the weak of mind. Open your eyes, this is all there is. And one more little bit, an all knowing and all powerful god cannot exist in the same realm as free will.
1. Agreed, you must have valid reasons for being against something. My point was not to argue against homosexuality (though I am against it); my point was: just because someone disagrees with homosexuality, that doesn't make them a "bigot."

2. It's not "wrong" or immoral to be gay. But it is wrong to engage in homosexual acts. Many people come out of childhood with maladaptive issues. Part of adult life is to resist and -- if possible, overcome -- those issues.

3. What rights do gays not have? Marriage between one man and one woman, is part of the natural order of things, and the state cannot sanction a marriage between a man and a tree, or a car, or three women, or anything else. No one is saying gays can't be together. Just that the state will not grant that relationship marriage status, just as many other types of relationships cannot be given that status. So I don't know what other legislation you're referring to.

4. The topics of religion and free will have thousands of books written on them, and plenty of people with all kinds of opinions. I won't try to answer the matter in one line.
Timothy

Portland, OR

#17 Feb 25, 2008
aWitchintheWoods wrote:
<quoted text>
You give lip service to *respect* when what you are really doing is looking down on people, judging them "damaged," and, in your morally superior position, ALLOWING them to live among us (while hoping that they may be *healed* of their problem).
This is not *respect* in my world. Obviously our definations of the word differ.(...)
Respect:
" 9. to hold in esteem or honor:
10. to show regard or consideration for:"

1. Now, I do not respect a rapist or a dictator the same way I respect others. But I can still treat them with respect because (1) they are still humans, and every human should be treated respectfully, and (2) it damages MY character to treat someone disrespectfully.

I may think homosexual activity is wrong, but I can still respect gays who are otherwise good people. The less good they are (e.g., if they were also a crook, and a child-abuser, etc), the less respect they deserve. But if they are just gay, and otherwise a good person, then there's no reason to treat them disrespectfully. A proper person treats everyone with respect.

2. I don't know whether I'm "looking down on them," but IF they are damaged, is there anything wrong with intellectually stating that? Is a handicapped person "damaged?" Yes. Is a neurotic person "damaged?" Yes. So what's wrong with stating it?

3. I'm not "allowing" them to live among us, as if "we" own the place, and they're "just here." I see why it sounded that way, but I didn't mean it that way. Gay people are part of this society.

Nevertheless they still need to avoid giving in to their urges, for their own good.

Since: Jan 08

Indianapolis, IN

#18 Feb 25, 2008
Timothy wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Agreed, you must have valid reasons for being against something. My point was not to argue against homosexuality (though I am against it); my point was: just because someone disagrees with homosexuality, that doesn't make them a "bigot."
2. It's not "wrong" or immoral to be gay. But it is wrong to engage in homosexual acts. Many people come out of childhood with maladaptive issues. Part of adult life is to resist and -- if possible, overcome -- those issues.
3. What rights do gays not have? Marriage between one man and one woman, is part of the natural order of things, and the state cannot sanction a marriage between a man and a tree, or a car, or three women, or anything else. No one is saying gays can't be together. Just that the state will not grant that relationship marriage status, just as many other types of relationships cannot be given that status. So I don't know what other legislation you're referring to.
4. The topics of religion and free will have thousands of books written on them, and plenty of people with all kinds of opinions. I won't try to answer the matter in one line.
hey idiot, a car and a tree cannot give informed consent. There is no more reason for a homosexual to resist having sex than there is for a heterosexual to resist having sex. How does homosexual marriage have any affect on you?
Timothy

Portland, OR

#19 Feb 25, 2008
Sabinus wrote:
<quoted text>
hey idiot, a car and a tree cannot give informed consent. There is no more reason for a homosexual to resist having sex than there is for a heterosexual to resist having sex. How does homosexual marriage have any affect on you?
Should three people be allowed to marry? What about 16? And homosexual activity lowers the character of those who engage in it. So they should resist having sex because it's damaging to themselves.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#20 Feb 25, 2008
Timothy wrote:
Anyone who believes -- or heaven forbid, states -- that homosexuality is wrong or unnatural, is labelled a bigot.
That is because it is a good first order approximation. Homosexuality is in fact "natural". It is not "normal", simply because "normal" is defined by what the majority of people are doing.
Timothy wrote:
This demonstrates the true nature of "liberals." They never were interested in what was right, or true. They never cared about freedom of speech, or the protection of the citizens from the govt.
Nonsense. This whole thing IS about protecting the civil rights of ALL Americans.
Timothy wrote:
I feel sorry for all who fell for the "liberal" propaganda from the 1960's to the 1990's. It was a sad and frustrating time, and it's too bad there are still so many dishonest, irrational, unreasonable people out there today.
Fortunately we are turning the tide. Gays are welcome and should feel safe and respected.
If only you really believed this...
Timothy wrote:
But they also need to understand that they are (unfortunately) damaged with an unnatural tendency, picked up sometime in childhood due to not getting certain needs met.
Try learning about the real science. Many homosexuals had perfectly normal childhoods with no traumas more serious than a skinned knee, yet they have still grown into adults who prefer to seek love from members of their own sex.

Perhaps you were unaware that EVERY species of mammal has members that exhibit homosexual behaviour? All in all, including various birds, there have been observations made of over 1,500 species of animals that show homosexual behaviours. In some cases, this includes homosexual pair bonding for life.

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.

Snoqualmie Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
north bend traffic Sun Penny 1
WA Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Washingto... (Oct '10) Sep 22 Go Blue Forever 719
Private Piano Teachers Sep 2 Pianoparent 1
Sheriff's office investigating former nudist pa... Aug '14 Nudistfriendfinder 1
Garage Door Repair Issaquah Aug '14 Talbot Bisson 1
Open-mindedness isn't a one-way street (May '08) Jul '13 Alyssa 75
Boy, 10, sentenced to juvenile detention for ra... (May '13) Jul '13 DC tells it like ... 29

Snoqualmie News Video

Snoqualmie Dating

more search filters

less search filters

Snoqualmie Jobs

Snoqualmie People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Snoqualmie News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Snoqualmie

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]