We have ours.
http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2009/09/28/conservative-calendar#slide=1
Posted on 12/06/2010 5:16:24 AM PST by Abathar
Interesting observations. Thanks.
Mrs WBill has a number of gay friends. For the most part, they're all nice, well-adjusted, stable guys. Largely, their attitude is "I'm Gay. So What."
However - there are two of them that are nothing but attention-seeking drama whores. They portray themselves as the worst of all gay stereotypes - dressing in drag, lots of promiscuous sex (that they brag loudly about), and so on.
I'm convinced that these two (which, interestingly enough, are *not* and have never been a couple, from what little interaction I've had with them) are only "gay" because of two things:
1) the gay culture tolerates their personality traits. When was the last time one of the guys you hang around with had a fit over what you wore to the football game? Yeah, me either.
2) Being "gay" (and indulging in the worst of the stereotypes) gets them just that much more attention. I'm convinced that if there were some other, more "edgy" attention-getting culture type, that would still allow them to maintain their societal status...... they'd drop the whole gay thing like a hot rock.
Driving while gay bump.
I work out in a gym that has lot's of gay members(it's close to where I work). I see the same attitude as you posted. Very few are the feminate gays and most just want to be left alone in life. The few outspoken ones give the rest a bad image. As a matter of fact many of the gays don't like the drag queen, promiscous types but as one told me they can't do anything about them just like I can't dso anything about straight promiscous people such as hollywood types (Paris Hiltons, Lyndsay Lohans).
I don't agree with their lifestyle but as long as they don't bother me I don't have a problem with them.
I have become workout partners with a small group of gays and like them as friends.
They have chosen to make themselves social pariahs, to thumb their noses at convention and natural order and to live outside of the mainstream.
People who take similar paths are quick to offend and even quicker to take offense.
Think about other individuals who elect to be part of an extreme minority group or movement. They generally exhibit anti-social behavior and claim victimhood as a defense.
In some ways these people are like members of outlaw biker groups - they chose to become outcasts or to live outside the mainstream. Then they take offense because they are not viewed as part of the mainstream.
Gaydar traps?
Yep. Live and Let Live is pretty much my philosophy too.
I do take issue with studies like this - I think that it's posing for more "special rights" for gays, under the false pretense of "Studies Show that....."
Yes.
Labeling oneself as “gay” and then deliberately (or at least volitionally) courting all the biggest of the big societal reactions one can get is a tip-off that the person has a much bigger personal and/or political agenda.
The types of individuals who are NOT “I’m gay, so what” are often what I call homosexualists. The -ist comes from the
-ism: homosexualism, which is what I call the ideology and political agenda based on, or utilizing, homosexuality as its vehicle.
Obviously, heterosexual individuals can be homosexualists, even as they can be feminists, socialists, environmentalists, etc.
What homosexualists want the rest of society to accept is homosexualism, which is a whole conglomeration of Leftist garbage made even more virulent by a huge commitment to utter moral nihlism.
The military’s DADT and the Vatican’s Vatican II policies were attempts to separate the individuals who preferred homosexual sex from the homosexualists, those who used sexuality as a basis for their personal and political agendas.
God forbade they are punished for acting up.
I think this is not worth any attention except to say “so what.” A person living a deviant lifestyle tend to be trouble makers anyway. So, it wouldn’t surprise me at all that they draw fire from authority figures....they are intrinsically anti-authoritarian.
In other words, they found that people who hid their personal same-sex attractions were still more likely to be punished. I guess there is a magical "gaydar" that allows police to know that the person driving the car they are about to pull over is secretly gay, or the jury to determine that a defendent who has been accused of a crime harbors a secret attraction to them, which repulses them to vote for conviction.
Much more likely that the same issues that drive them to misplaced sexual attraction also drives them to other anti-social behaviors, which leads to them being punished.
It's not like it's hard to get thrown out of school -- my daughter received a 5-day suspension for writing the words "Mass Murder" on an in-class assignment where they were asked to hypothetically pick something they might do if they knew nobody would get hurt and no consequences would ensue. Apparently the correct answer was "commit armed robbery".
Well, it is a little hard to commit mass murder w/o anyone getting hurt...armed robbery, too, for that matter (depending upon the definition of “hurt”).
But I will say getting a 5-day suspension for that is just odd. Is there more to the story?
There is quite a story behind it. It’s all wrapped up in the school’s “threat assessment” policy. Some student in class told their parent who decided the post-it note was a “threat” to other students, and the school responded by invoking a threat assessment (despite the fact the teacher had already determined that there was nothing wrong with the answer, given in a AP psychology course).
They completed the assessment the next day after suspending her, and lifted the suspension, so she was only out 1 day plus part of the 1st day. They then excused the part-day absense, but charged her with “inappropriate behavior” and levied a retroactive 1-day suspension, I suspect because they felt it necessary to justify their stupid suspension.
Several appeals later, we were able to get them to agree to put the charge “in abeyance”, and to agree to wipe the record and close the case if nothing more happens.
Meanwhile, the police officer who interviewed us as part of the threat assessment (yes, a police officer talked to friends and classmates, and got hold of old homework, and wanted to inspect her room but I said no way), told me that he’s only known of one case where an assessment led to a finding of threat, and he thought that one was wrongly decided. He found no evidence of threat of course — and worse, while he was interviewing us, the school called and said they had finished their “threat assessment”, meaning they acted without his report. They knew they had screwed up.
Someday I’ll be writing a column about this — probably after the end of the school year, when they can no longer retaliate against her.
AHHHHH!!!
That was mean.
Wow - this zero-tolerance crap is for the birds. Good for you for saying “no way” to the room search. That’s ridiculous.
We have ours.
http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2009/09/28/conservative-calendar#slide=1
We laughed about that, because on her door she has a hand-painted poster that says “Keep out — Murder in Progress”.
We figured that, plus all the John Saul books, could leave the wrong impression. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.