The Polish prime minister believes that teachers who push homosexual propaganda should be fired. What homosexuality has to do with math, science, history, and other appropriate classroom subjects, I do not know. The EU, however, is aghast, and has dispatched investigators to examine "the emerging climate of racist, xenophobic and homophobic intolerance in Poland." Might the investigation itself be racist and xenophobic? The Poles aren't like the French, the Germans, or the Dutch with regard to homosexuality. The French, the Germans, and the Dutch want the Poles not to be like Poles, but to be like the French, the Germans, and the Dutch. And isn't that what the EU boils down to? A thuggish, centralizing, culturally imperialist body seeking to achieve through political machinations what its domineering member states failed to do through conquest?
Haven't the Poles been picked on enough by these self-righteous a-h's in the last 200 years?
Although we shouldn't try to make homosexuals' lives any more difficult than they already are, why in the vision of the EU-type liberals does everyone have to agree with everyone?
What is wrong with someone saying, "The homosexual life-style is not a healthy one"?
Because that might offend someone, namely, a homosexual. It also isn't enlightened thought like that of the French, Germans and Dutch. It MUST be cleansed. Now wonder Europe is filled with so many sissies.
That's EXACTLY what the EU is and they want the whole of Europe to be in lockstep with their brand of the new Global economy. The fact that the Poles still adhere to their religious beliefs and still demand social standards should not compromise their sovereignty. So, are Germany, France and Holland ramping up the new Nazi state? Could be Rabbit.
Push the homosexual agenda?
Are you kidding?
They want to fire teachers for being gay.
NExt thing you know they'll want them to wear little rainbows on their lapels just like the Nazis did to the Jews.
This gay-bashing blsiht is just part of the Repulbican Fascist agenda. FU all for being igornant pigs who can't realize that homosexuality is a natural, genticially determined outcome for a certain percentage of people.
FU all.
Genetically determined? Says who?
says the gaythug who like gerbils up his arse. lol
I, for one, am against all forms of propaganda in schools. I believe all students should have unfettered access to the truth.
That being said "homosexual propaganda" is completely undefined at this point (at least according to the linked article). One has to wonder if this propaganda is pushing "the homosexual agenda" or advocating tolerance of homosexuals (say for example in the workplace).
"The Poles aren't like the French, the Germans, or the Dutch with regard to homosexuality."
It's obvious from this article that there are indeed poles that are homosexual--sure, they are a minority--however, their rights shouldn't be limited just because they constitute a minority.
Essentially what you are doing here is playing tolerance against itself. Should tolerance be tolerant against intolerance? My answer is firmly, and resolutely, sometimes. In this case I don't know, because I don't know what homosexual propaganda entails.
I do know that arguing that the Poles should somehow be allowed to discriminate against other Poles, because that's part of the Polish way of life (i.e. we need to preserve the differences between Polish and French, etc.) is not an adequate argument.
r.c.
What does the alleged "Repulbican Fascist agenda" (taking a wild guess what a Repulbican is here)have to do with Polish authoritis firing teachers that do anything other than TEACH? Proving again how nutz the RP is.
How awful that the Poles believe teachers spreading a homosexual agenda in elementray schools are unfit. The Gay Prince obviously believes that soliciting little children is morally acceptable.
My first post on this subject (which is linked in the trackbacks) provoked all sorts of vitriol from the pro-homosexualist crowd. They esp. scoffed at my assertion that homosexual practice is a dangerous practice. Well, I figured I'd better spell it out for them, though I tried to be as tactful as possible without losing clarity. To read about it, see my post: "On the Gay Agenda and its Suppression of the Politically Incorrect"
My thanks again to Dan for bringing this to our attention.
Sorry - I must have messed up the html for the link. Here it is:
Eric,
I have two point to make about your assessment of the physical dangers of homosexuality.
First of all you treat all homosexuality as gay male sex, there are lesbians as well.
Second of all straight people have a great deal of an@l sex. In fact if I had to guess I bet there are more straight people on a day to day basis doing it in the 2 hole than homosexual males (not all of whom engage in butt pounding).
r.c.
Yes, let's guess and bet that straight people are having more @n@l sex. Pluuueease!! More typically, straight people use the correct equipment for the purposes it was designed for.
With regards to lesbians: why are they all so pi$$ed off? How can people who get that much oral $ex be so angry?
asdf,
you obviously lead a very sheltered life. First of all homosexuals are not as over sexed as you would like to think they are. And second of all heterosexuals are not as "normal" (read: missionary) as you would like to imagine.
Even a cursory look at the internet backs up my position (I would post a link but it has the word an@l in it).
r.c.
Well, I guess you've got me. Yes, sheltered. Absolutely. In fact, when not having missionary sex with my saintly female wife once a week, I'm usually found reading the Bible or am in church. But definately not giving and certainly not taking it up the keester.
a wife? once a week? you surprise me.
Eric,
Read that post. Well done and interesting. Bottom line is that the radicals will not rest until public displays of same sex copulation, oral sex and pedophilia are standardized and accepted by society and their lifestyles are normalized and integrated completely. Any disagreement with this agenda is tantamount to hate speech or social Nazism.
My thoughts are that, even though I don’t agree with it, in a free society you have the right to do with another consenting adult what you choose to do. And, if that means having your way sexually with one of the same gender, so be it. But, it should be kept on the QT and not advertised.
R.C.,
Yes, lesbians aren't at nearly as high risk of those diseases as gay men are. But my remaining comments certainly apply to gays and lesbians equally.
Nevertheless, there have been more than a few studies that have demonstrated that homosexuals of all stripes are much more promiscuous than heterosexuals, on average. This means that lesbians are at elevated risk of STDS - and so that portion of my comments applies to them, after all, just not as clearly as it does to homosexual men.
And yes, any person who is putting their tongue or organ where it shouldn't go is at great risk of the same diseases. Note to the wise: don't do it.
ASDF,
Thanks.
Eric,
If, as you say, "any person who is putting their tongue or organ where it shouldn't go is at great risk of the same diseases," than why do you single out homosexuals? Clearly being involved in a same sex relationship isn't the problem, but promiscuity. "Sexual deviants"--whether gay or not--are at a higher level of risk. You are misusing the "data" to make blanket statements about homosexuals--your comments don't apply to monogamous homos who wash themselves regularly,and in fact do apply to a great deal of heterosexual people.
r.c.
It's quite simple, R.C.: There are no "Heterosexuals for Sticking Things Up Each Other's Rears" groups out there trying to force there way into Elementary and Secondary school curricula.
Taking a moment to note the context of my remarks would help your understanding, as well. (Hint: it had to do with Poland and homosexual activism in their schools - just like what this thread here is disusing, in fact! - and the resulting controversy my original post provoked.)
You are right, in general: Sexual deviants of all stripes are at higher risk, yes. But I cited the medical literature quite clearly, and what it shows is, and I quote myself:
"A long list of diseases ... are found in hugely disproportionate numbers by practicing homosexuals. Some are so rare as to be virtually unknown among heterosexuals.""Further, the American Medical Association’s Archives of General Psychiatry found that 'gay, lesbian and bisexual young people are at increased risk of psychiatric disorder and suicidal behaviors.'"
And, actually, my statements DO apply to monogamous homosexuals, because the out door is not meant to be entered and penetrated by hardened objects. Simple biology will tell you that the sphincter works just one way, and that rectal tissue is very thin, meaning high likelihood of bleeding and, hence, transmission of disease. Plus, the cultural and psychological issues I discussed apply, as well.
Sincerely,
--Eric
Eric,
All sarcasm aside, what medical source did you gleam your first of your two quotes from? From what I read off of your link the entire paragraph was uncited, you also fail to substantiate your claim by naming any of the homo only diseases.
I'll leave alone the impossibility of knowing what the human body is "meant" to do, unless you want to explain the male prostate and male nipples.
And even if homosexuals are doing themselves a great disservice to their health, what right do you have to stop them. Your position sounds akin to liberals who want to ban trans-fats and smoking. How would banning homosexuality differ from either of these two examples if your justification is the health of the individual?
To me this is just another example of how the religious right has corrupted good old fashioned conservativism.
r.c.
R.C.,
Who said anything about "banning homosexuality?
I'm sorry that you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. If you refuse to acknowledge the context of the remarks - and my actual words therein - and if you insist on putting words into my mouth and ideas into my head that I have clear not espoused - then I see discussing this further with you will be a waste of time. Afte rall, I am likely to have all future sentences interpreted by you completely out of context, as well.
Cheers,
--Eric
I was watching a program the other night on Hollywood crime and they did a segment on the Wonderland Murders which involved, in one way or another, porn star John Holmes who had a nasty cocaine habit.
Holmes did multiple hundreds of heterosexual porn films but at the end of his career, to support his worsening drug habit, he did one gay porn film where he had and gave @n@l sex.
Four years later, he died of AIDS.
Eric,
My apologies for mistaking your position. I realize that you never claimed to want to ban homosexuality, I guess I don't realize what the "gay agenda" is; beyond being gay. Any light you could shed on what exactly you oppose about the "gay agenda" would be helpful.
r.c.
[url]http://zaceni.ueuo.com[/url] nissan car
Nice site!!! http://zaceni.ueuo.com
Can't imagine many other western democracies where the citizenry riots when one candidate wins fair and square over another. But, in France, it's a reality.
