Two Hate Groups Love Bullying Even If...

Two Hate Groups Love Bullying Even If It Hurts Straight People

There are 21 comments on the lezgetreal.com story from Aug 30, 2012, titled Two Hate Groups Love Bullying Even If It Hurts Straight People. In it, lezgetreal.com reports that:

Focus on the Family and the Alliance Defending Freedom have sent out their resource about bullying.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at lezgetreal.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#1 Aug 30, 2012
As long as this debate has been ongoing in recent memory, I have not heard it mentioned that many instances of bullying constitute criminal harassment. After reading the entire "Yardstick" bullet point list on bullying, I can only assess that it's recommendations would in many jurisdictions effectively supersede what is permissible behavior under law. I would highly recommend that any student subject to anti-bullying policies designed under these recommendations who is being bullied seek a temporary restraining order instead. Better than seeing school administrators either let off or discipline the bully for thier behavior, next time it happens, call the police and have that person arrested.

On a personal note, I wish I had thought of it back when I was in high school.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#2 Aug 30, 2012
The text of their guidelines is horrific!
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#3 Aug 30, 2012
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
As long as this debate has been ongoing in recent memory, I have not heard it mentioned that many instances of bullying constitute criminal harassment. After reading the entire "Yardstick" bullet point list on bullying, I can only assess that it's recommendations would in many jurisdictions effectively supersede what is permissible behavior under law. I would highly recommend that any student subject to anti-bullying policies designed under these recommendations who is being bullied seek a temporary restraining order instead. Better than seeing school administrators either let off or discipline the bully for thier behavior, next time it happens, call the police and have that person arrested.
On a personal note, I wish I had thought of it back when I was in high school.
Never as much as with gay rights matters have I *ever* advocated arrest, courts and judges so tirelessly. There is *nothing else* that is going to get the antigay to think twice. I promise you.

They believe they are *above the law* because they believe they have a *moral imperative* to fulfill. I laugh when the antigay think there are too many lawsuits on these subjects; I don't think there are nearly enough.

I love your suggestion. To have the students literally arrested might make people start to shut the **** up and think twice about harassing others because they have a right to live the way they were born.
david traversa

Berrotaran, Argentina

#5 Aug 30, 2012
It's hard for me to realize that some people actually like torturing others either verbally or physically, no matter how much you may disagree with them.. I don't think it has anything to do with moral standards but rather with the personal frustrations of the bully.. That's what the term scapegoat was coined for.. A shameful habit and one that should be severely dealt with.. A girl here in the town I live in (who just couldn't be a nicer) had to change schools because of this problem.. Her sin? She's extremely beautiful..

Sei

Since: Nov 08

Boston, MA

#6 Aug 30, 2012
snyper wrote:
The text of their guidelines is horrific!
Yes, they are.

And what gets me is that it isn't just gay kids who are bullied. A lot of straight kids get bullied...and they want bullies to be able to get away with that too.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#7 Aug 31, 2012
I'm sure they forget that many of the bullied kids aren't necessarily gay. It's usually any child perceived to be weaker or "different". It could be THEIR child, gay or not.

Since: Mar 07

Washington DC

#8 Aug 31, 2012
I can't wait for the first gay kids to kick the crap out of one of these "christian" bullies and claim that it is HIS/HER right to religious freedom since his/her religion freedom.

MY religion certainly doesn't advocate physically or emotionally tormenting someone for who or what they are. And it CERTAINLY doesn't tell me to fight policies that help the meek.
Judy

Minneapolis, MN

#9 Aug 31, 2012
I don't think homosexuals like Jerry Sandusky should be bullying little kids into sex.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#10 Aug 31, 2012
Judy wrote:
I don't think homosexuals like Jerry Sandusky should be bullying little kids into sex.
Just using the word "bullying" in a sentence doesn't mean that you are on-topic.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#11 Aug 31, 2012
Judy wrote:
I don't think homosexuals like Jerry Sandusky should be bullying little kids into sex.
Why does stuff like this *never appear in court transcripts* for gay rights cases?

I strongly believe that the pro-gay should begin taking this antigay rhetoric *into courts of law* and challenging the antigay on it, even if it ostensibly has nothing to do with the gay rights case at hand.

Stuff exactly like this statement; in fact, things which could be referenced IN A COURT OF LAW as having been stated on web sites LIKE TOPIX from anonymous posters. The point wouldn't be to indict this poster, per se; it would be to present these allegations in a court setting and see how the antigay react and what their reasoning is. The antigay themselves. In front of a judge.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#12 Aug 31, 2012
Because for goddamn once, I am suggesting something the pro-gay *CANNOT* say "can't be done." There is *NO* reason that that could not be done with *ANY* court case, say, the gay marriage court case coming up in Nevada.

In fact,*even if the judge stopped you and said it had nothing to do with the case at hand*, he would be speaking VOLUMES ABOUT THE VERACITY of the statements in question -- even by doing/saying that.
Judy

Minneapolis, MN

#13 Aug 31, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does stuff like this *never appear in court transcripts* for gay rights cases?
I strongly believe that the pro-gay should begin taking this antigay rhetoric *into courts of law* and challenging the antigay on it, even if it ostensibly has nothing to do with the gay rights case at hand.
Stuff exactly like this statement; in fact, things which could be referenced IN A COURT OF LAW as having been stated on web sites LIKE TOPIX from anonymous posters. The point wouldn't be to indict this poster, per se; it would be to present these allegations in a court setting and see how the antigay react and what their reasoning is. The antigay themselves. In front of a judge.
So you're saying they should just let Sandusky go? They violated his Gay Rights?
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#15 Aug 31, 2012
Judy wrote:
<quoted text>So you're saying they should just let Sandusky go? They violated his Gay Rights?
(To the board) For instance, here is the thousandth example of an antigay individual *very, very knowingly and deliberately* misconstruing what was said -- in service to antigay vitriol and rhetoric.

This type of vitriol and rhetoric should be introduced in court cases; I am deadly, deadly serious. For instance, it could be brought to the attention of judges and antigay attorneys that there is *constant* mention of Sandusky online -- but only by the antigay; that there are frequent attempts to link Sandusky to gay people themselves -- but only by the antigay; etc. etc.

This really, really needs to happen. Mark my words.

If I had my way,*THE VERY POST ABOVE* would be projected as part of a slide show in court to which the antigay would then have to answer before a judge. The point wouldn't be to indict the poster (in his/her knowing, very deliberate ignorance); the point would be to get *into court transcripts* this deliberate vitriol and rhetoric, to expose it, to give it national attention -- THIS IS THE PART THAT IS VERY BADLY NEEDED -- and to force the antigay to answer to it publicly in a widespread, unmistakable manner.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#16 Aug 31, 2012
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Dam, are you mad there Queer hi hi ??
Get over it bitc;h.
I want to know why you're able to "see and hear" someone invisible or to "predict" their mood.

By the way, you are (genuinely, literally) funny in your name-calling -- the ONLY antigay person here who is genuinely funny with your name-calling. I don't know how you manage that, but it makes you a tiny bit more bearable than the others.
Judy

Minneapolis, MN

#17 Aug 31, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
(To the board) For instance, here is the thousandth example of an antigay individual *very, very knowingly and deliberately* misconstruing what was said -- in service to antigay vitriol and rhetoric.
This type of vitriol and rhetoric should be introduced in court cases; I am deadly, deadly serious. For instance, it could be brought to the attention of judges and antigay attorneys that there is *constant* mention of Sandusky online -- but only by the antigay; that there are frequent attempts to link Sandusky to gay people themselves -- but only by the antigay; etc. etc.
This really, really needs to happen. Mark my words.
If I had my way,*THE VERY POST ABOVE* would be projected as part of a slide show in court to which the antigay would then have to answer before a judge. The point wouldn't be to indict the poster (in his/her knowing, very deliberate ignorance); the point would be to get *into court transcripts* this deliberate vitriol and rhetoric, to expose it, to give it national attention -- THIS IS THE PART THAT IS VERY BADLY NEEDED -- and to force the antigay to answer to it publicly in a widespread, unmistakable manner.
So you're saying that everyone who posts that homosexuals like Jerry Sandusky shouldn't be allowed to bully little boys into homosex should have to answer to some queer judge?
You're nuts, lady.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#18 Aug 31, 2012
Judy wrote:
<quoted text>So you're saying that everyone who posts that homosexuals like Jerry Sandusky shouldn't be allowed to bully little boys into homosex should have to answer to some queer judge?
You're nuts, lady.
To the board: Note the exceptionally stubborn insistence upon pretending that "the opposition" supports pedophilia (that would be me).

This is how the antigay operate: They are *exceptionally, libelously, slanderously and defamatorily* insistent upon attempting to insinuate that anyone who supports gay rights must "ergo" support pedophilia.

In a more serious context that was far more direct and not simply anonymous on a board like this, the poster above would have quite possibly committed slander, libel and defamation against me personally. In this context, that doesn't really hold.

However, the poster is being extraordinarily stubborn in their attempts to link gay sexual orientation with pedophilia.

I am being (and I will be, mark my words) equally and fanatically stubborn in exposing this poster's attempt to rape me of my voice and my right to support gay people; I will not flinch or back down; I will continue to reiterate that accusations such as those this poster makes *should be dealt with in SOME context in courts of law*, I do not care how; and I will continue to label this poster as virulently antigay, mendacious, manipulative and deliberately, knowingly misrepresentative.

Simple.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#19 Aug 31, 2012
Judy, the record shows that you are the only party repetitively mentioning Sandusky or making any implications connecting gays with pedophilia.

But you know this. You know that *the thread shows this clearly*, and that the thread *shows you clearly misrepresenting* what others are saying.

What's strange is that you think it'll make them back down when it *NEVER* has that effect, making them only all the more stubborn and all the more opposed to what you say and all the more likely to label you as amoral and anti-American.

Congrats on that. I am certainly one of those who is not about to blink in the face of your complete lack of a moral compass.

Thanks for reading.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#20 Aug 31, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
Never as much as with gay rights matters have I *ever* advocated arrest, courts and judges so tirelessly. There is *nothing else* that is going to get the antigay to think twice. I promise you.
They believe they are *above the law* because they believe they have a *moral imperative* to fulfill. I laugh when the antigay think there are too many lawsuits on these subjects; I don't think there are nearly enough.
I love your suggestion. To have the students literally arrested might make people start to shut the **** up and think twice about harassing others because they have a right to live the way they were born.
My whole point really is more of a response to the criticism this document offers. I think in most cases these instances of harassment should be handled by the school administrators. However, if critics of anti-bullying policy take issue with what they deem to be a lack of objectivity, I see criminal charges and the courts as the perfect answer to that. The policy suggestions put forth actually would have administrators giving a pass to behavior that in public might get someone arrested, or even possibly charged with a hate crime. They want objectivity? Okay, give the bullies their day in court.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#21 Aug 31, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
(To the board) For instance, here is the thousandth example of an antigay individual *very, very knowingly and deliberately* misconstruing what was said -- in service to antigay vitriol and rhetoric.
This type of vitriol and rhetoric should be introduced in court cases; I am deadly, deadly serious. For instance, it could be brought to the attention of judges and antigay attorneys that there is *constant* mention of Sandusky online -- but only by the antigay; that there are frequent attempts to link Sandusky to gay people themselves -- but only by the antigay; etc. etc.
This really, really needs to happen. Mark my words.
If I had my way,*THE VERY POST ABOVE* would be projected as part of a slide show in court to which the antigay would then have to answer before a judge. The point wouldn't be to indict the poster (in his/her knowing, very deliberate ignorance); the point would be to get *into court transcripts* this deliberate vitriol and rhetoric, to expose it, to give it national attention -- THIS IS THE PART THAT IS VERY BADLY NEEDED -- and to force the antigay to answer to it publicly in a widespread, unmistakable manner.
Would not likely be admissible in court unless attempting to prove a history and ongoing situation of discrimination and prejudice against LGBT people... the only time that would happen is if trying to gain strict scrutiny as the basis for challenging a law with the 14th Amendment.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#22 Aug 31, 2012
Judy wrote:
<quoted text>So you're saying...
Stay on topic and try actually discussing the issues. You are speaking to an entirely different subject. Also, Sandusky was not a homosexual- he was pedophile, and otherwise a married man.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
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.

Classical Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What If Jesus Is not God? 8 min Irish 1,403
News Women to 'never rule' in Jehovah's church 27 min Nomi 100
News Focus on families at Jehovah's Witnesses conven... Aug 30 El Cacique 18
News Should Anyone Be Given A Blood Transfusion? Aug 24 yanni 7
News How Jehovah's Witnesses Are Changing Medicine Aug 19 Lawrence Wolf 15
News Jehovah's Witnesses face child sex abuse invest... Aug 15 Grassclipper 9
News In the Oakville Arts... Friday, August 13 edition Aug 14 Muzak 1
More from around the web