Town Square

Post a New Topic

California Senate Approves Measure Mandating Homosexual (Gay) History Curriculum

Original post made by Common Sense on Apr 15, 2011

The California Senate passed a bill mandating California's public schools include homosexual (gay) history in social studies lessons. Homosexual supporters state the move is sorely needed to counter anti-homosexual stereotypes that make gay, lesbian, and bisexual students vulnerable to bullying and suicide. Opponents believe that the newly mandated homosexual history material bill will burden an already crowded curriculum and expose young students to objectionable acts of decency. The Senate bill leaves the actual details of the homosexual curriculum to individual school districts. Homosexuals including gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people would be added to the list of ethnic groups that public schools must include in social studies lessons under the landmark bill passed Thursday by the California Senate. It will be the first such law in the country.

Comments (40)

Posted by craig, a resident of Birdland
on Apr 16, 2011 at 8:28 am

First of all I don't think that telling kids about gay history will stop bullying. That's up to parents to teach their kids how to treat others. Second I get really angry when gay activists try to suggest that being gay is ok, or "normal". It's not. I don't think gays should be hated, or made fun of in any way. However I do feel that they shouldn't be given special rights due to their choice to live their lives. Yes it is a choice. No one knows where the gay feelings come from. No study has 100% confirmed the there's a gay gene. So my point is just because you have a feeling that isn't "normal" should you act upon it? If someone is born with a short temper, is it ok for him to punch someone that makes him angry? Of course no. We all have the choice to act opon our "feelings" right, or wrong, but I don't think we should endorse, celebrate, certain behaviors that aren't normal. After all where do feelings come from anyway?

Posted by Yet Another Teacher, a resident of Hart Middle School
on Apr 16, 2011 at 10:07 am

Sigh. Where do I begin to answer the predictable homophobia?

I'll be brief, knowing it's a waste of time to argue with bigots.

First, claiming that homosexuality is a choice and not genetically determined exposes a huge failure of logic: Gays have been cruelly persecuted throughout history and even in the USA, still don't have full citizenship rights (such as the right to marry)--knowing that, who would CHOOSE a way of life that can be so difficult?

Second, let's suppose for a moment that the bigots are correct and homosexuality is a choice, so it's ok to discriminate against them. Being Catholic or Jewish is also a choice (religious affiliation always is), so by this logic, we can discriminate against Catholics and Jews, and if they don't like it--well, it was their choice to be part of a despised group, wasn't it?

Notice I didn't even bother with the ridiculous argument that THE BIBLE CONDEMNS HOMOSEXUALITY. The Bible does not inform American law in any way, shape, or form, nor should it--and the same Bible (the Old Testament) also endorses slavery.

I think the idea of teaching gay history in our public schools, in an age-appropriate fashion, is a good idea. California has outlawed discrimination against gays in employment and in education, so educating our youth to be more tolerant of others corresponds with our state's culture and laws.,

Posted by Common Sense II, a resident of Downtown
on Apr 16, 2011 at 1:17 pm

I am not too concerned with schools teaching about some homosexuality history babble in social studies class, just as long as they continue to teach that homosexuality is a dirty, filthy, and potentialy deadly activity in their health & science class.

Posted by Craig, a resident of Birdland
on Apr 16, 2011 at 7:20 pm

@ yet another teacher
It's sad how you put the label, and or name calling (bigot). That's not right. Why bring the bible into it? Yes it does condemn that lifestyle, but I'm not sure why you're pointing your finger at Christians. Yes Christians, Jews, and even Muslims are discriminated against because of their choice on how to worship, and that's been going on forever. The groups mentioned don't get special government benefits for doing so. Nor does the way a churches' existence burden a society like can. Tell me why would you say that in the S.F. gay pride parade, where gays openly are naked (not all) and expressing sexual acts be ok? So even if it is a genetic crossing of wires, and they know it's not right, or normal, why act opon those feelings. When a pedophile is attracted to a child, and acts upon his "feelings" is it right, or normal

Posted by Janna, a resident of Dublin
on Apr 16, 2011 at 8:55 pm

Janna is a registered user.


Your comparison of gays to pedophiles is completely off base and tells me you are very confused or just pushing an agenda. Consenting adults, whatever their orientation, are doing something they both want to be doing. The same can NEVER be said of molestation of a child.

Who are you to decide what's right and wrong for everyone else? When did you choose to be straight? At what age?

Posted by Mike, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Apr 16, 2011 at 9:34 pm

Would someone please define "objectionable acts of decency" before we continue this discussion?

Posted by Julie, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 16, 2011 at 9:52 pm

Julie is a registered user.

Wow. It's hard to even know where to start. Well, first, "Yet Another Teacher" and "Janna"...well said. I seriously can't believe that a person would compare homosexuality to pedophilia. During the Prop. 8 debate those same people compared gays getting married to, e.g., a man wanting to marry his pig. One word...ridiculous.

Craig, what does some people going over the top and "expressing sexual acts" in a gay pride parade have to do with "being gay"? You make it sound like ALL gays do that. I didn't see anyone post that they thought lewd public acts were acceptable, only that being gay is acceptable. You seem to have an issue with logic. I am a straight woman. Some straight women are prostitutes. Does saying it's okay to be a straight woman mean that you are okay with prostitution? That is the same logic you used above with your "parade example". Yes, some gay people act inappropriately....just as some straight people behave inappropriately.

Craig, tell me the date you "chose" to be hetero (assuming that you are in fact hetero...).

Craig, you say it's "up to parents to teach their kids how to treat others". Well, that is a nice theory. However, when those parents hold the same prejudices against certain groups as you and Common Sense II, then it's up to the schools to teach tolerance. Parents should also be teaching their kids not to drink and drive, but thanks to such *school* programs as "Every 15 Minutes" we see a decrease in drunk driving.

Posted by Common Sense II, a resident of Downtown
on Apr 16, 2011 at 11:01 pm

Homosexuality is indeed filthy. Please re-read and understand that I did not call the homosexual filthy or disgusting, just the homosexual act. Human beings are equipped with an advantageous evolutionary olfactory sensitivity which assists in preventing the spread of disease through the avoidance of feces contact. Personally, I need to roll down the car window if I detect leakage, or wipe my shoe off at the curb, if I accidently step in the stuff.

However, if someone wants to purposefully override these sensitivities, that is their personal business.

It though seems extremely unfair to call me a bigot just because I cannot stand the smell like most people or have a natural reaction which turns my stomach, and nearly makes me vomit.

If you want to play with the stuff, that is your business.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 17, 2011 at 3:42 am

If they allow gay history to be taught in school, then why not allow christian history? Right now, any christian studies are not allowed in public schools (which is fine with me since I am not religious), but it would seem unfair to give one group (gays) the right to something that is not allowed for another group (christians)

And where do we draw the line? Do we teach that being a mormon (fundamentalist) who practices plural marriage is okay, and teach its history so as to not discriminate against that particular group? I hope NOT.

Besides, what is this nonsense about gay history? It should all be HISTORY of an INFLUENCIAL PERSON. Now if that influencial person happens to be gay, okay, but there should not be a curriculum titled "gay history" - the focus should be on what that person did for our country or the world, not on his/her sexual preferences (Ab Lincoln comes to mind, we focus on his accomplishments as it should be, not his personal choices, when talking about him in class)

Posted by craig, a resident of Birdland
on Apr 17, 2011 at 7:58 am

The comparison I made between gays and pedophiles was intended to show that in a civilized society, we have the choice to act rightly or wrong. Did you know that Harvey Milk was a pedophile? And here you want to celebrate what he did in history, or teach that his lifestyle was normal or good? Julie, when there is a pride parade, and the flaunt their naked bodies or sexual acts on display, how and why should that be ok? Yes woman are prostitutes, but there's not a parade celebrating it. I can't tell you when I knew I was hetero. They're feelings. No one knows where feelings come from from. This whole attitude of right and wrong being relative is why peoples morals are circling the drain today. As I stated before, if one has a behavior that's not normal, or right, they ave the choice to act upon it or not. You obviously picked and chose what you read from my previous comments

Posted by Guest, a resident of another community
on Apr 17, 2011 at 11:33 am

"No one knows where the gay feelings come from."

No one knows where the "straight" feeling comes from either, so there is no right or wrong in this picture. People need to mind their own business; gay people don't go around saying "O look at that straight person. Let's be like him/her/" Equating gay people to a religion is also a bit absurd. We don't have a religion of the US (although we all know Christianity is deeply embedded here), but there also is no law that states ethnic groups can't be studied and taught.

Obviously Craig you've never been to a Pride Parade. The people that are naked in an area that is completely closed off to the general public and you have to have ID to get in. And why would you care if someone else is naked on the street? I didn't know someone else's actions effected your life.

Posted by Mary, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 17, 2011 at 12:37 pm

Thankfully, my kids are just about done with public schools. I really feel sorry for their generation, though. The state of California is shoving so much at them, so early, none of them will have a childhood. They'll be desensitized robots - running our country! God help us!

Posted by Longtime resident, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 17, 2011 at 2:20 pm

Really Mary, see I was thinking the opposite- thank God my children and their children will be raised to not hate, discriminate, or judge others based on their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation. The irony of religious groups teachings to discriminate just kills me. All men are created equal in this country- not just the ones you agree with.

Posted by Julie, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 17, 2011 at 9:19 pm

Julie is a registered user.

Craig: "I can't tell you when I knew I was hetero. They're feelings. No one knows where feelings come from from"

That's right, Craig. You didn't *choose* to be hetero. You don't know how you got those feelings of being hetero. Why then do you imply that homosexual people *choose*? They are just like you - it's a feeling they get and they don't know why and they certainly don't choose it.

I still don't see where I or anyone has stated that public nudity/sexual acts are okay. And, the parade is not for celebrating nudity or sexual acts. It's a parade for homosexuals to combat all the negativity thrown at them in our society; it's a parade for them to celebrate who they are and not to hide it as they've been so oppressed to do in the past. *Some* gay people choose to participate in ways that, I agree, are not appropriate. Some times other parades for various issues get out of hand and people go around breaking car windows and wrecking havoc in a neighborhood. The parade itself may have been appropriate, but some people behave inappropriately.

By the way, JFK did a lot of things in his personal life that I don't agree with. I still think his presidency is important enough to be in history books.

I don't know about teaching "Gay History"...all I care about is that schools teach tolerance - for gays/straight, christian/non-christian, etc. And doesn't Christianity get mentioned in school? How do they teach about California Missions without mentioning religion? I don't think religion itself should be taught in schools (i.e. teach what kids "should believe") but I have no problem with schools teaching children about various religions -e.g. as they must when teaching California history.

Posted by steve, a resident of Parkside
on Apr 18, 2011 at 10:00 am

Chalk up another one for Mark Leno and the gay agenda. Another of our esteemed Calif politicians looking out the best interests of our children. Instead of spending our education dollars on deifying practictioner of deviant behavior, spend the money on either identifying (and correcting) the genetic flaw that makes someone queer or use the money to teach our kids something pratical like reading and math.
Honestly, with the way Calif has gone down the tubes, is this really something legislators should be focusing their efforts on?

Posted by Just a parent, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 18, 2011 at 12:23 pm

To Longtime Resident:

Very well stated. My children are young and I couldn't be happier to see our country move in a direction which will give ALL PEOPLE the equality they deserve. I am raising my children to be accepting without judgement for all human beings. As a practicing Catholic, I alway ask myself the question, "What would Jesus do?" My response to that question is alway: "love people unconditionally". And that is what I will forever teach my children.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 18, 2011 at 7:48 pm

Just a parent:

I voted no on prop 8 and am all for gay rights. But it is one thing to want equality for all and teach tolerance to kids, and quite another to mandate a "gay curriculum" - I am not okay with that. People should study how a person made a good or bad impact in this country or the world, without having to be forced to learn about that person's sexual practices.

I do not know how the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal is being handled or will be handled in the history books, but I think we can all agree that the intimate details (like the stained dress, etc) can be left out. Same goes for gays, no need for a "gay curriculum" anymore than there is a need for a "cheaters/womanizers curriculum" (and we probably have a lot more in the "cheaters" group than in the "gay" group)

Posted by unclehomerr.., a resident of Downtown
on Apr 18, 2011 at 8:35 pm

When I was 8years old.. I went to NYC to see the Christmas lights. I also went ice skating at Rockefeller Center and on an NBC studio tour.

Then, I went to see the Rockettes Christmas show and a movie at Radio City Music Hall. From the 8th or 9th row [center] when the dancers started kicking.. I knew I was heterosexual. Didn't know what the word was or meant at 8.. but, I was one. I liked girls!!

[still do!]

Posted by joanna, a resident of Downtown
on Apr 18, 2011 at 9:02 pm

What would be in the gay curriculum? I would imagine it would focus on discrimination issues and the history of those who had the courage to stand up for equal rights. The Stonewall Riots, Harvey Milk and the Gay Pride Movement, the marriage equality issue, hate crimes, i.e. Matthew Shepherd and Gwen Araujo murders, etc. I personally don't know much more about gay history than those things, but they are important to know about and I think high schoolers should know about them if we are to move forward as a society. The curriculum would not be about sexual practices. I do want to know more about it, but I don't feel threatened or upset about it.

Posted by Common Sense II, a resident of Downtown
on Apr 18, 2011 at 10:20 pm

Another major point would be including the fact that during the 1980's HIV was the leading cause of death in the United States, and that it is still considered a panepidemic. Nearly one million people in the United States have died from AIDS since the disease was detected. Furthermore more than one million people in the United States are now HIV positive, and 1 in 5 people, do not even know that they are infeceted. Although male homosexuals represent less than 1% of the US population, they account for 53% of the HIV transmissions, and still more when you consider the number of females infected by their male bi-sexual partner, a statistic borne out by the fact that 75% of the HIV cases in the United States are male.

The homosexual history curriculum should therefore not overlook the point that the gay culture is based upon unhealthy and disease-riden sexual activity. A million deaths, and over a million HIV infections. A rather significant piece of homosexual (gay) history that must definitely be taught.

Source: CDC

Posted by SteveP, a resident of Parkside
on Apr 19, 2011 at 8:40 am

SteveP is a registered user.

Common Sense II-of all the posts above, your's really gets to the heart of the matter and why the gay lifestyle (chosen or not) is unhealthy and perverse. Along with all those 'great' gays that joanna admires, she should add the published reports of infected gay people who intentionally infected their partners with HIV. That's part of gay history too, so if you really want to be 'inclusive' cover that side of the history as well. Or is the agenda to indoctrinate kids about how deviancy is now accepted as the norm and can't be criticized?

Posted by Jill, a resident of Mission Park
on Apr 19, 2011 at 9:24 am

"Common Sense II" and "SteveP",

Sounds like you are both advocates of the lesbian lifestyle, based on your objection to specific acts. Let me also please remind you that specific acts are not practiced by everyone in a group, so I think you are overgeneralizing. I believe that if two people love each other and want to build a family based on love and respect, I think it is their business how they want to express that love to each other.

Posted by Julie, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 19, 2011 at 9:29 am

Julie is a registered user.

"Another major point would be including the fact that during the 1980's HIV was the leading cause of death in the United States,"

Huh? First of all, you do not die from HIV. Second, if your point is that HIV/AIDS is a "gay disease", how could it have been the "leading cause of death in the U.S." in any year? You yourself state that homosexual men account for less than 1% of the US population. I'm betting that heart disease and cancer are the past and current "leading causes of death" in this country. I went to the CDC website and didn't see anything about the "leading cause of death in the 1980's". I must have missed it, could you post the link?

What I find "perverse" are some of the views expressed here. I find it interesting that all some of you think about in regards to gay people is how they have sex. We discuss heterosexual people all the time without any reference to how they have sex. It's like you all are obsessed with that. Sex is only a part of the lives we lead. Yes, I am attracted to men, but there is a lot more to me than that. It's the same with gay people. They are simply attracted to the same gender. There is a lot more to them than that. There are plenty of sexually transmitted diseases among heteros...and I'm sure many who have knowingly transmitted them. Yes, the stakes are higher with AIDS, you can die (previously it was syphilis, thankfully there are antibiotics for that now). The fact that there is a deadly disease that can result from sex does not make the sex itself "perverse" or "unhealthy". Some of you are using that as an excuse to vent your hatred of homosexuality. If tomorrow we no longer had antibiotics for the other STDs, would hetero sex then become "unhealthy", "perverse"? And, I have news for you...there are straight people who follow the same sexual practices as gay people. Is it perverse when straight people have sex that way or only when gay people do it?

I will agree on this: the curriculum for *older* students should include information on HIV and all STDs. I think it already does.

I get it - you guys don't like gays. The fact that you find the lifestyle offensive isn't going to make it go away. It's exactly for people like you that we need tolerance curricula.

Posted by Common Sense II, a resident of Downtown
on Apr 19, 2011 at 4:28 pm

Leading cause of death for Americans between the age of 25-44 years old.

Web Link

Within the next 25 years AIDS is to become the 3rd leading cause of death worldwide behind heart disease and stroke.

Web Link

Homosexuality is an eventual death sentence, I am sure you can find even more disturbing statistics on CDC, yourself.

Posted by Jill, a resident of Mission Park
on Apr 19, 2011 at 10:14 pm

"Common Sense II"

What you posted proves the opposite of what you said. HIV/AIDS was not the leading cause of death in any age group or any time. Can you even read what you wrote?

Posted by Julie, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 19, 2011 at 10:36 pm

Julie is a registered user.

I didn't check every year, but in 2005, 2006, 2007 AIDS did not make the top 15 "leading causes of death" in the US.

Homosexuality is not an "eventual death sentence". There you go obsessing about sex again. Being attracted to a member of the same gender will not kill you. Unprotected sex with an infected partner may get you a disease...whether you are gay or straight. I think it's time better spent to advise people not to be drug addicts/needle users.

Posted by Common Sense II, a resident of Downtown
on Apr 19, 2011 at 10:59 pm


(Portions of post removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff as inappropriate for Town Square forum.) 1,000,0000 AIDS deaths in the United States already, over 1,000,0000 people currently infected.

Homosexuals seem to be in denial regarding the facts. If you want to override the sensitivities of your olfactory glands to pursue your pleasure that is certainly your business, but to blame drug users for AIDS, that is ridiculous.

Posted by Common Sense II, a resident of Downtown
on Apr 19, 2011 at 11:43 pm

By human evolution or human design, our noses (olfactory glands) have the ability to detect smells that are harmful to our own well being. We all can attest that we are equipped with the ability to detect spoiled foods such as rancid milk or putrid meats. One good whiff and we know immediately to stay away from the product, and to dispose of it properly. Although smell is a subjective sense, the human body somehow universally senses and signals to the brain that these poor smelling products are harmful to us.

A caring parent would never willingly allow their child to knowingly eat or drink poor smelling food or drink. Therefore would a caring parent really promote or allow their own child to play or make contact with poor smelling waste product?

One must seriously override their olfactory gland sensitivities.

Posted by Julie, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 20, 2011 at 4:42 pm

Julie is a registered user.

I see you are done debating the actual point. The last two posts are simply weird and disturbing.

I don't "blame" anyone for AIDS. What's ridiculous is blaming anal sex on 1,000,000 deaths. By the way, all those deaths and all those infected are not just gay men, though I'm sure that is the largest group. Needle users make up a percentage as do heteros, women, children.

Posted by Common Sense II, a resident of Downtown
on Apr 21, 2011 at 4:30 am

Homosexuality, "weird and disturbing", I think Julie is beginning to see the light.

(Portions of post removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff as inappropriate for Town Square forum.)

It is weird and disturbing, but people do have the right, and they certainly should not be discriminated against for it.

Posted by Common Sense II, a resident of Downtown
on Apr 21, 2011 at 6:38 am

Male homosexuality is so disturbing that even a mild, cleansed, watered-down description of it must be removed by the Pleasanton Weekly Online Staff.

Thank you PW Staff for proving and demonstrating the point.

Posted by Julie, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2011 at 7:21 pm

Julie is a registered user.

CSII, I will never see things your way. I guess we have to agree to disagree.

I find your posts disturbing; I do NOT find homosexuality disturbing. You are obsessed with how **some** homosexuals engage in sexual relations. I'm going to bet that the part of your post that was removed was NOT a description of "male homosexuality", but merely of a specific sex *act*. By the way, you do realize that heterosexuals engage in anal sex, don't you? It is not a sex act only for gay men. Perhaps your neighbors, cousins, friends do it!! If you find "anal sex" gross, that's your business...don't do it. However, the way your mind processes that "Homosexuality = Anal Sex"...that is weird.

Posted by late opinion, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 24, 2011 at 1:42 am

Thanks to Julie for setting the record straight about sexual orientation equals/or-not-equals certain kinds of sex act.

What probably should also be pointed out is that the disturbing kinds of posts we routinely get from CSII suggests a good deal of obsessed and repressed retentiveness. Olfactory this and olfactory that indicates an inordinate fascination with the act, which is "barred" from enactment by his zealously repeated and misdirected condemnations of the act itself as performed by a targeted other. CCII probably cannot allow himself to envision himself engaging in the act, so strong is the fear and prohibition; and he must continue to lambast those who do as an active effort to fend off what probably is an exceedingly strong urge that he manifests within himself.

We can only hope that future generations will not have their lives ruined on account of such fear, prohibition, unrealized exploration of relational/sexual possibility, and unfulfilled potential of self.

Posted by Sick of It, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 25, 2011 at 8:10 am

People like Common Sense II, Craig and SteveP, who are so obsessed with homosexuals, must be closeted cases. They like saying all these things in public, but when they are alone they like going after guys.

Posted by Mandatory ? ? ? ? ? ?, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 25, 2011 at 5:27 pm

Mandatory curriculum ? Really ? and does it does it come with additional funding ? WHICH class is suppose to be tossed aside to accommodate this valuable addition? I THOUGHT teachers consider themselves overworked as it is. Did the teacher's union TRY to stop this, or will we be adding TIME to the schedule ? THEY should have stopped this. No matter the subject, I don't think the reading, writing, math and science have been fully mastered,, HOW dare these slimy political &@%+*@ intrude into our already full day ! How can we ever pay back our loans from China if we can't keep up with them....Taxpayers are just suppose to pay up for can we be competitive in the world ?? as we ease out the basics.

Posted by latebird, a resident of Birdland
on Apr 25, 2011 at 9:06 pm

As Freud was fond of saying, one of the most visible indicators of repression-related neurosis is glaring grammatical deficiency. See Mandatory????? above. Whence the neurosis? In the case of Mandatory????, most likely it stems from an inability to step outside of the closet and admit that one is gay. The angst within the tortured grammar is palpable.

Exclusion of contributions of gays from the curriculum contributes to the kind of repression-related psychological malady exhibited by CS11, whose neurosis is manifested by an obsession with germs. Poor guy can't shake someone's hands for fear of contracting something; can't kiss a partner without quickly grabbing for the mouthwash; has trouble with relational partners because of his fixation on how dirty they are. Probably has difficulty pronouncing the word 'bathroom'.

Posted by Social Agenda, a resident of another community
on Apr 25, 2011 at 9:53 pm

It is not possible that people find homosexuality disgusting without having to be called homophobes, or closeted latent gays? This name calling argument and line of reasoning to defend male homosexuality is becoming awfully old and tired.

Posted by nightowl, a resident of Birdland
on Apr 25, 2011 at 11:00 pm

Is it not possible that people find interracial marriage and sexual practices disgusting without having to be called racists, or closeted desirers of engagement in interracial sexual practice?

Nice try. You may want to deflect from being called homophobic or racist by terming this name-calling. But ugliness = ugliness. There's no sugarcoating it.

Posted by Earlybird, a resident of Birdland
on Apr 26, 2011 at 12:14 am

Homosexuality between people of two different races is just as disgusting as homosexuality is betwen two people of similar race. I do not understand your point. It is not the race or the person themself, it is the act itself. It is filthy and spreads disease.

The person themself need not be disgusting or filthy, just the act.

Don't be so sensitive.

Posted by nightowl, a resident of Birdland
on Apr 26, 2011 at 12:43 am

CS11 the homophobe -- posing as earlybird (so badly does he desire to comingle with him) -- is so repressed that the noise within his head doesn't allow him to understand a basic analogy between racism and homophobia.

'Themself'? Is this a consequence of bad schooling? Or is it grammatical confusion brought about by surplus repression? More than likely, it is both.

So utterly repressed that he can't bear even kissing someone else because it is 'filthy and spreads disease'. Wears a protective face-mask when in the grocery store for fear of contracting others' germs.

Incapable of grasping how the act that he claims is homosexual-defining is in fact practiced today by most heterosexuals as well. All in all, simply a very repressed, fearful, and messed up human being. Wouldn't want him babysitting my kids, if you know what I mean; and I bet his relatives think the same way about him.

If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Understanding Early Decision in College Admissions
By Elizabeth LaScala | 1 comment | 882 views

Sentinels of Freedom Newsletter
By Roz Rogoff | 0 comments | 868 views

When those covering the news become the news
By Gina Channell-Allen | 2 comments | 596 views

New heights for NIMBYs
By Tim Hunt | 10 comments | 553 views