"Reckless, irresponsible": Kansas teacher's "gay is same as murder" Facebook rant

[Charlie09]

Absolute rubbish. None of those things has happened, and I've read the entire thread. All Nova has done is express his own opinion, and back it up at times with outside sources.

Stop attacking the poster, please, and get back to debating the subject of the posts.

By all means flag my post if you want...just make sure you delete the liar one towards me first.

 

[Charlie09]

You are attacking the poster and not the posts, based on a "pattern" that is no more than a chimera, an excuse to launch attacks instead of responding to specific instances.

I stand by my post.

 

[Nova]

Every one of those things has happened on this thread, at least be honest about it.

Except it hasn't. I've never claimed to be the only one who knows anything about history. And I've provided cites for my arguments about Biblical translation. I'm sorry if you think I sound like a know-it-all, but as I said above, I have published on the subject of social constructions of homosexuality and have lectured at half-dozen or more universities on the subject.

That doesn't make me infallible by any means (or even up-to-date, since I'm retired from academia now). But it will take more than spurious assertions by those with an anti-gay agenda to convince me all the research I've done over the years was in vain.

Meanwhile, NOBODY has bothered to tell me how we pick which Biblical injunctions we follow and which we ignore. So I think it's entirely fair for me to assume personal prejudices are involved.

 

[Nova]

By all means flag my post if you want...just make sure you delete the liar one towards me first.

Please let's don't. Charlie and I are grown-ups who happen to disagree on a lot of things. No harm was done here.

 

[Cappuccino]

Originally Posted by Nova View Post
Yet another post from the "I'm rubber and you're glue" school of debate. Yes, I've read that page in the Fox News handbook. Not impressed.

That's a flippant, and none too undeserved, description of some of the things you have posted. It is in no way a justification of the litany of accusations you just reeled off at Nova, which IMO would seem completely out of left field to any objective reader, even one who agreed with your point of view on the whole gay marriage issue.

Where did you get off accusing him of pretensions to be the only person who knew this, or that or whatever? Do you have some personal reason to feel so overwhelmed by the only openly gay person in this thread that you need to go off like that?

 

[Charlie09]

That's a flippant, and none too undeserved, description of some of the things you have posted. It is in no way a justification of the litany of accusations you just reeled off at Nova, which IMO would seem completely out of left field to any objective reader, even one who agreed with your point of view on the whole gay marriage issue.

Where did you get off accusing him of pretensions to be the only person who knew this, or that or whatever? Do you have some personal reason to feel so overwhelmed by the only openly gay person in this thread that you need to go off like that?

No, I'm not going into a personal tit for tat with you. I stand by my original post to Nova - everything brought up, and explained gets discounted and the only theory possible by a few of you is that to disagree with gay marriage is equal to hate speech - that's ridiculous.

 

[Soulmagent]

I would like a legal opinion here, especially since I am a mere European who doesn't understand the intricacies of the US constitution.

If murder and homosexuality are both sins, how is it that convicted murderers on Death Row can legally get married, and homosexuals can't?

I am american ,and I dont see why it is an issue either .

The first thought I ever had on the issue was wondering if this was a big push by insurance agencies not wanting to pay out for domestic partner benefits. I understand homosexuals want to get married and agree they should be allowed if they choose. I am related to ,and friends with people who are homosexual (even thou I hate the word homosexual) My best friend and my mothers bother. I just wondered about the motives of wanting the state to stamp the seal of approval and wondered about the backlash. My best friend is covered under these benefits currently and I am unsure about my uncle because he and his partenr own their own bussiness.


http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/domestic-partner-benefit-eligibility-defining-domestic-partners-and-depende


Has anyone considered this ? Or am I being overly suspicious of coperate america?

Why do we rely on the state to say if our marriage is valid?

I would like to here from an attorney too!

 

[Charlie09]

Except it hasn't. I've never claimed to be the only one who knows anything about history. And I've provided cites for my arguments about Biblical translation. I'm sorry if you think I sound like a know-it-all, but as I said above, I have published on the subject of social constructions of homosexuality and have lectured at half-dozen or more universities on the subject.

That doesn't make me infallible by any means (or even up-to-date, since I'm retired from academia now). But it will take more than spurious assertions by those with an anti-gay agenda to convince me all the research I've done over the years was in vain.

Meanwhile, NOBODY has bothered to tell me how we pick which Biblical injunctions we follow and which we ignore. So I think it's entirely fair for me to assume personal prejudices are involved.

maybe start a new thread on this subject -
I find your words "anti-gay agenda" interesting. Really? So anyone who does not support gay marriage is part of an "anti-gay agenda?"

I am certain that it was you that mocked the idea of a "gay agenda" but now there's a reverse?

 

[Seek&Find]

Nobody--repeat NOBODY--is trying to do that.

I'm going to follow wfgodot's request that we not make this a "gay marriage" thread. Suffice it to say the only issue in that regard is civil marriage. I've yet to read a single gay activist argue that churches be forced to perform sacraments that violate the church's principles.

I have said before and I will say again that I support the right of any church to refuse to marry gay couples.

Some have tried exactly that. According to the articles I've seen, they feel the church has no right to deny them. Glad you don't feel the same.

 

[Cappuccino]

No, I'm not going into a personal tit for tat with you. I stand by my original post to Nova - everything brought up, and explained gets discounted and the only theory possible by a few of you is that to disagree with gay marriage is equal to hate speech - that's ridiculous.

I have no intention of starting anything as petty as a tit for tat with you, but I do have to be honest. Your post was a summary of out of context misrepresentations of everything another poster has said in this thread. All built up into a big strawman about gay marriage.

The reality is that very few of Nova's posts were even about gay marriage, and none of them presented the "know it all" picture you painted. His posts - regardless of whether or not you agree with them - were about the equation between homosexuality and murder.

 

[Nova]

No, I'm not going into a personal tit for tat with you. I stand by my original post to Nova - everything brought up, and explained gets discounted and the only theory possible by a few of you is that to disagree with gay marriage is equal to hate speech - that's ridiculous.

Once again: opposition to gay marriage is its own topic. The subject here, and the reason why I and some others are indignant, is the equation of homosexuality and murder.

That equation has traditionally proved to be an invitation to assault and/or murder gay people. It's no laughing matter.

(I am not saying that's what the teacher in question intended. But his lack of knowledge isn't really my problem.)

 

[Cappuccino]

I am american ,and I dont see why it is an issue either .

The first thought I ever had on the issue was wondering if this was a big push by insurance agencies not wanting to pay out for domestic partner benefits. I understand homosexuals want to get married and agree they should be allowed if they choose. I am related to ,and friends with people who are homosexual (even thou I hate the word homosexual) My best friend and my mothers bother. I just wondered about the motives of wanting the state to stamp the seal of approval and wondered about the backlash. My best friend is covered under these benefits currently and I am unsure about my uncle because he and his partenr own their own bussiness.


http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/domestic-partner-benefit-eligibility-defining-domestic-partners-and-depende


Has anyone considered this ? Or am I being overly suspicious of coperate america?

Why do we rely on the state to say if our marriage is valid?

I would like to here from an attorney too!

Does the state not guarantee certain rights to married couples? Eg, inheritance rights, tax breaks, etc?

In Ireland, that is the case. So maybe it is a European perspective to say that the state needs to guarantee the right of gay people to get married. After all, the state demands the same responsibilities off gay couples that they do off straight couples, so why not give them the same rights? Is that not common sense?

 

[Charlie09]

I have no intention of starting anything as petty as a tit for tat with you, but I do have to be honest. Your post was a summary of out of context misrepresentations of everything another poster has said in this thread. All built up into a big strawman about gay marriage.

The reality is that very few of Nova's posts were even about gay marriage, and none of them presented the "know it all" picture you painted. His posts - regardless of whether or not you agree with them - were about the equation between homosexuality and murder.

No it wasn't at all. The original post on facebook was disagreement with gay marriage -
Because the man used a biblical foundation for his argument - he is automatically called a bigot and he's accused of hate speech. I disagree with that as much as you disagree with my post.
I stand by my post, you are free to disagree, put me on ignore or whatever you chose to -

 

[wfgodot]

Yes, Charlie09, you have been the one who has tried to push this thread into that which it is not: a discussion of gay marriage. It is as if, deprived of the comfy cushion of a large target, you have chosen, for whatever reason, to dismiss anything you don't feel comfortable discussing - the nuts and bolts that go into probing the ideas behind, and the ramifications of, the Kansas teacher's Facebook statement, in which he lists homosexuality as a damnable sin.

 

[Charlie09]

Once again: opposition to gay marriage is its own topic. The subject here, and the reason why I and some others are indignant, is the equation of homosexuality and murder.

That equation has traditionally proved to be an invitation to assault and/or murder gay people. It's no laughing matter.

(I am not saying that's what the teacher in question intended. But his lack of knowledge isn't really my problem.)

It was not a call to be an invitation to assault and or murder.
The subject here is whether a teacher has the right to put on his personal facebook page how he felt about gay marriage. He said he disagreed with it, and why. You cannot separate that out of the post at this point.

 

[Nova]

I am american ,and I dont see why it is an issue either .

The first thought I ever had on the issue was wondering if this was a big push by insurance agencies not wanting to pay out for domestic partner benefits. I understand homosexuals want to get married and agree they should be allowed if they choose. I am related to ,and friends with people who are homosexual (even thou I hate the word homosexual) My best friend and my mothers bother. I just wondered about the motives of wanting the state to stamp the seal of approval and wondered about the backlash. My best friend is covered under these benefits currently and I am unsure about my uncle because he and his partenr own their own bussiness.


http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/domestic-partner-benefit-eligibility-defining-domestic-partners-and-depende


Has anyone considered this ? Or am I being overly suspicious of coperate america?

Why do we rely on the state to say if our marriage is valid?

I would like to here from an attorney too!

I'm not qualified to answer your question, and I won't presume to speak for insurance companies. (Surprise, Charlie!)

But I think corporate America has been pretty receptive to domestic-partner benefits. There are a lot of highly qualified gay people out there and such benefits are often seen as essential if a firm wants to stay competitive. (I am speaking of large corporations here. Small businesses may see the cost of such benefits as too high, if they have a small pool of insureds.)

 

[Charlie09]

Yes, Charlie09, you have been the one who has tried to push this thread into that which it is not: a discussion of gay marriage. It is as if, deprived of the comfy cushion of a large target, you have chosen, for whatever reason, to dismiss anything you don't feel comfortable discussing - the nuts and bolts that go into probing the ideas behind, and the ramifications of, the Kansas teacher's Facebook statement, in which he lists homosexuality as a damnable sin.

The basis for his post was disagreement with gay marriage.

 

[Nova]

maybe start a new thread on this subject -
I find your words "anti-gay agenda" interesting. Really? So anyone who does not support gay marriage is part of an "anti-gay agenda?"

I am certain that it was you that mocked the idea of a "gay agenda" but now there's a reverse?

In fact, yes. But that's a subject for the PP, I assume.

 

[wfgodot]

Do we want a thread on gay marriage? I can do one. MSM article all ready to go, etc.

I think if I do one I'll put it in Jury Room. And trust that it doesn't instantly plummet into the fiery bowels of the political forum thing.

 

[wfgodot]

The basis for his post was disagreement with gay marriage.

"Balderdash."

I do apologize for the "homphobe" thing. I was a bit of a jackass there. Mea culpa.