Scools Board member calls students Faggots

Darth Rotor said:
Well, that is a good case of the sexual revolution spreading where it should not have, and a school district that didn't give a **** . . . since, perhaps, all the board members were wife swapping? :boggled: (Guessing)

DR
Click to expand...

I have no idea, but the school was pretty awful in every way.
 
steverino said:
I SAID: They will most likely discuss how not to be discriminated against. YOU are the one bringing up sex.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that?

steverino said:
Or maybe there is actually no such medical disease as "homophobia" and maybe Scherfel felt that his high school was a place to learn to read, write, and do math. And maybe by making his feelings overt, as you say, he was simply not intimidated by the do-gooders around him who were afraid to cliarify why a high school club needs to closely examine cunilingus and fellatio. I enjoyed reading The Importance of Being Earnest in high school without the prerequisit of joining a rectal-stimulation club.
Click to expand...


steverino said:
Yes-enjoy the genius of Walt Whitman, Aaron Copeland, etc. But if the students really want to gain a healthy sense of self by exploring which civil war soldier's penis went into Whitman's mouth at a makeshift triage facility, they can easily chat about it ad nauseum over lattes at Starbucks after the last school bell rings, and you can quote me on that.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The post you just reprinted, which is sexual, is post #61, which I wrote late last night. Then I gave your words a lot of serious thought this morning, and we hashed the topic out maturely during the day- you, antiquehunter, chrisineR, and I, and I asked the question of how specifically such a group would be organized in a high school environment, on posts #65 and #72. Then on #74 you say...

"Sheesh. You can only imagine that they'll either discuss sex or how to work the system?"

That was unfair as I had long dropped the sexual remarks.
I appologized and moved on. Now you have gone back to those earlier quotes, and take them out of chronological order which tinkers with the true evolution of this discussion, which I feel had become constructive.
 
Oh, so sorry. I was unaware you had been visited by the Three Ghosts of Tolerance in the night, and that previous remarks were to be stricken from the record.
 
TM, I think I love you.

Too bad about the whole poo-flinging thing.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Oh, so sorry. I was unaware you had been visited by the Three Ghosts of Tolerance in the night, and that previous remarks were to be stricken from the record.
Click to expand...

I don't deserve this from you.I am positively influenced by your posts which I acknowledge help me expand and grow, and I self-depricated, and show that I am open minded. My previous remarks should not be stricken from the record, but should be backburnered for my more recent posts which are more viable thanks to you, antiquehunter, and others. I am not sure what more a person can do. So for you to say, "Yes, but look what you said before all that," is unwarrented.

I am willing to rise above the occasion. Join me.
 
steverino said:
I don't deserve this from you.I am positively influenced by your posts which I acknowledge help me expand and grow, and I self-depricated, and show that I am open minded. My previous remarks should not be stricken from the record, but should be backburnered for my more recent posts which are more viable thanks to you, antiquehunter, and others. I am not sure what more a person can do. So for you to say, "Yes, but look what you said before all that," is unwarrented.

I am willing to rise above the occasion. Join me.
Click to expand...

I didn't see you apologize for anything other than using the word "blowjob" because you were "warned about it", and demanding people "cut you some slack" because you posted at 2 a.m. Stating "in all seriousness" and switching to a new tactic doesn't equate to a reversal of previously stated opinions.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I didn't see you apologize for anything other than using the word "blowjob" because you were "warned about it", and demanding people "cut you some slack" because you posted at 2 a.m. Stating "in all seriousness" and switching to a new tactic doesn't equate to a reversal of previously stated opinions.
Click to expand...
TM, the usually lyrical style is missing. :( I'll bet the over that you and steverino can sort this out in a PM.

DR
 
ChristineR said:
Are you blanking joking? I sure as hell hope so. I'm a 43 year old straight woman whose best friend in High School just happened to realize that he was gay. I have many, many times wished that there was such a thing as a gay-straight alliance at my school. Here are some of the topics we would have talked about:

Diffusing violence before it starts.
Why don't teachers intervene in gay-bashing?
How do we convince people gays are human?
Is homosexuality a choice?
If straight kids are allowed to kiss at school, what about gay kids?
What are the options for a teenager whose parents have thrown him out for being gay?

Trust me, sex techniques and orgies would have nothing to do with it. In fact, if an adviser had told us we had to limit ourselves only to school related issues, I'm sure we could have.
Click to expand...

I hope this was in response to the same post mine was, I work in a middle school, and I remeber fondly the harrasment I recieved, much less the harrasment I recieved in high school.

I hope that i don't have to counsel a student on thier sexuality because it would be crappy to say, hey it is okay to be gay, just for safety's sake don't tell your peers.

My favorite was when someone called my giorlfriend a faggot.
 
steverino said:
Thanks for th humor comment. I wish you'd cut me slack as it was 2am last night/this morning and I was having a bit of fun.

I am very sorry you were beat up for appearing gay. As I stated in an earlier post, my gym teacher in JH called me "faggot" a lot because I was passive compared to the other male students. My Junior High years were when my big brother disappeared. It was a terrible time for my identity to shape. I am honestly trying to imagine how you or I would have benefitted from bulley students and crappy gym teachers had such a sensitivity forum existed. Would you have joined as a teen? I just can't picture it at all...I can see a valid forum of "victims of bullies" taking place.
Click to expand...


I figured it was over the top, and meant to be humor.

the point to an allaince group is to be able to talk about it, my brother had no one to talk to from the age of four he was attracted to men, and every teacher he talked to said "That can't be". About half of my friends in high schools found out they wre gay or bisexual as soon as they graduated.

For me it would have been a forum to stand up and say that i supported them and that i would gladly threaten anymore people who threatened my brother. (I grew a lot between 9th and 10th grade). I was beat in seventh grade but was able to dog people into leaving my brother and friends alone, we endured the 'drama fag' stuff, but when they started to stalk us we took action.

I think that an alliance group may have helped to prevent the threat of violence(which i regret) and made school administrators suspend students for gay baiting, or at least suspend them from the sports team. It certainly might help to get people like your coach fired.
 
Region Rat said:
OK, that's enough. The "F-word"? Here too? So we're at the point where we can't even say a person said faggot without resorting to this blank-word crap. Oh, sorry, Blank-word C-word. Not that C-word, one of the other C-words. And I thought the F-word was the other F-word. You know, F***, not F*****.

Are we going to re-offend the people who were offended by the guy who said faggot? Or are we afraid we might offend some new folks by saying that a guy said faggot?
Click to expand...

In a terry Prachett novel there are two hoods who say "----ing this" and "----ing that" and later another character swears by saying "ing" because they don't actualy say the "----" part. i think it is The Whole Truth.
 
Antiquehunter said:
Anyways - on the matter of your friend in a heterosexual relationship - wouldn't 'common law' spousal laws apply?.
Click to expand...

Not all states support or require common law provisions. However, most larger corporations do include "domestic partner" benefits without specifying the gender or sexual orientation. In fact, I'm rather suspicious of Steverino's claim. I find it highly unlikely that a business that offers domestic partner benefits would offer them exclusively for same-sex couples, for no other reason than it would violate state and federal anti-discrimination laws. I've certainly never heard of a business that offered "gay/lesbian only" benefits.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Well, that is a good case of the sexual revolution spreading where it should not have, and a school district that didn't give a **** . . . since, perhaps, all the board members were wife swapping? :boggled: (Guessing)
Click to expand...

Well, if it was anything like my local high school, it wasn't just the students who were going at it on campus. There were a bit too many of the Student-Teacher conferences going on as welll.
 
luchog said:
Not all states support or require common law provisions. However, most larger corporations do include "domestic partner" benefits without specifying the gender or sexual orientation. In fact, I'm rather suspicious of Steverino's claim. I find it highly unlikely that a business that offers domestic partner benefits would offer them exclusively for same-sex couples, for no other reason than it would violate state and federal anti-discrimination laws. I've certainly never heard of a business that offered "gay/lesbian only" benefits.
Click to expand...

I will look into, what was actually the claim of my Boston friends. These benefits were not exclusive, but were for in place for BOTH married couples and gay couples, but not for opposite-sex cunmarried life-partners.
 
luchog said:
Not all states support or require common law provisions. However, most larger corporations do include "domestic partner" benefits without specifying the gender or sexual orientation. In fact, I'm rather suspicious of Steverino's claim. I find it highly unlikely that a business that offers domestic partner benefits would offer them exclusively for same-sex couples, for no other reason than it would violate state and federal anti-discrimination laws. I've certainly never heard of a business that offered "gay/lesbian only" benefits.
Click to expand...

This is actualy not that uncommon, and is a matter of litigation, the argument is that hetero couples have the option of getting married.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom