The Sodomite Party strikes again: Parents rip school

[Rusty Syringes 478]

But July 2003 was prior to the Supreme Court decision (as was Nov 2003, but not Feb 2004).

 

It hasn't had many ups and downs. As Pew notes, it peaked with the SC decision, stayed there during the election season, and has been dropping ever since.

 

There is no logic in saying it's not much of a drop from July 2003, when you know that it wasn't dropping from July; it was dropping from November/February. If your stock is at $5 in May, $10 in July, and $3 in September, you don't say, "hey, my stock has only dropped 2 bucks!" because it hasn't; it's dropped 7 bucks. You're pretending no spike in opposition ever occurred.

 

Spin all you want; I'm correct: opposition has declined significantly since 2003. That's a fact.

 

No, there's no logic in pointing to the 60 + figure, because it was a quick reaction to the court decision, and yet you present it as a "significant" drop in American opinion.

 

That's like living in a state where volcanoes remain dormant for 2,000 years, and then they all go off in one year, and then five years later, when the volcanoes are quiet again, you say volcanic activity has dropped off significantly from five years earlier, muttonhead.

[Ravens 03 0]

BIG OBVIOUS GRAPHIC ON RIGHT SIDE SAYS: YOU'RE WRONG!!!!

 

JULY 2003 - 53 PERCENT

FEBRUARY 2004 - 63 PERCENT

 

I don't get it.

[Rusty Syringes 478]

I don't get it.

 

Let me provide some GRAPHIC ASSITANCE to clear up your cornfusion.

[fastfish 0]

Dood..you are completely wasting your time. Most who disagree with this are those that cannot separate same sex marriage from sex...they just cant.

 

There is no way you can win this argument. Small minds....

 

Dood...you must be new here...Torrid never loses an argument, he just declares victory and then won't respond.

 

example:

 

Torrid rest his case on the fact that in MA, gay marriage is legal. Thus, kids in 2nd grade need to know that legal = ok.

 

This leap of illogic can be best understood by having the two homo-Princes in the story doing shots of peppermint liqueur, getting very gay on the alcohol, and then after their kiss at the end, they retire for a smoke and sex.

 

Now explain to the children that men can marry men because in the great state of MA, this is legal. And they can drink alcohol because that is legal and they can smoke because that is also legal. And sex between grownups is legal too. All legal and ALL wrong for children to try to decipher.

 

These news reports of the indoctrination of children by the Gay Agenda at such an early age need to be given the widest possible broadcast. The apologists here for these so called lessons in tolerance and diversity are exactly what the voters need to hear. If they were heard, then the Party of sodomy, surrender, abortion and atheism could be placed in permanent minority status on the national level.

[torridjoe 48]

Dood...you must be new here...Torrid never loses an argument, he just declares victory and then won't respond.

 

Doood....he was talking about you, not me.

[fastfish 0]

Doood....he was talking about you, not me.

 

And I was talking about you. Reading 2nd graders a homo-storybook where the prince kisses the prince is a blatant attempt at homo-indoctrination lesson planning. Your "diversity and tolerance" canard is a fig leaf excuse for what is going down (pardon the pun) in the public schools. Parents care about their kids and politically, the "gay activists" in the Dem Party are condemning themselves and Dem politicians everywhere with these vile tactics. Tactics you defend, refusing to concede an inch to any voice of protest. Hurling the "homophobe" accusation won't work when it's about the children.

 

See ya at the polls in November for another Dem defeat as America rejects the lib-left agenda....again.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,445]

On 4/20/2006 at 7:28 PM, torridjoe said:

 

sorry, I missed that last line of yours.

 

Why would the teacher be giving a health lesson? They don't teach health until 5th grade. The scenario you describe would lead to the teacher saying, "Talk to your parents about that."

My how things have changed in retardville. 

[torridjoe 48]

5 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

My how things have changed in retardville. 

You still seem fragile and weak, tho. 

[edjr 6,593]

On 4/20/2006 at 6:58 PM, fastfish said:

The Gay Agenda is 100% identified with the Dems....and as it was in 2004, it will highly motivate the "family values" voters to go to the polls and pull the lever for the GOP in 2006. Nothing spells defeat for Dems better than the gay activists pushing their agenda down family throats.

 

 

Gay indoctrination tactics won't win votes with any parent, anywhere.

another HT alias  

[squistion 2,203]

Oh, my. I had forgotten about fastfish.  

His handle was a reference to him being some kind of Bible thumper, or maybe "born again," I think...but it has been like 17 years, so I could be misremembering.

And seeing Democrats being referred to as "The Sodomite Party" seems almost quaint, doesn't it?

[Alias Detective 1,402]

On 4/20/2006 at 7:12 PM, jerryskids said:

I've got a second grade girl. She basically understands that mommies and daddies get married and babies are the result. This topic IMO brings up questions that are not appropriate for children that age.

 

I'm not against diversity education per se, I just think it is a little young for the topic.

 

Note also I said "general". If there were a child with gay parents in the specific class, I would consider a discussion on the topic.

Now in NYC.

[HellToupee 1,779]

11 hours ago, squistion said:

Oh, my. I had forgotten about fastfish.  

His handle was a reference to him being some kind of Bible thumper, or maybe "born again," I think...but it has been like 17 years, so I could be misremembering.

And seeing Democrats being referred to as "The Sodomite Party" seems almost quaint, doesn't it?

I think he goes by weepaws now