Oh. Kay!
BTW, gays already own huge swaths of real estate in that area, and could easily form apartments for their own elderly without expecting the taxpayers to make a special set-aside. But that's not the point, is it? The point is this:
Posted on 11/18/2012 10:27:16 AM PST by Steelfish
Primary School Teachers 'Could Face Sack' For Refusing To Promote Gay Marriage
By John Bingham 18 Nov 2012 Liz Truss, an education minister, refused to rule out the possibility that teachers, even in faith schools, could face disciplinary action for objecting on grounds of conscience.
Miss Truss said simply that it was impossible to know what the impact of the legislation would be at this stage.
Her admission came in a letter to a fellow Conservative MP, David Burrowes, last month.
Mr Burrowes, a practising Christian, originally wrote to Maria Miller, the equalities minister, raising concerns about the impact on schools of the Coalition’s plans to change the marriage laws.
It followed the publication of a legal opinion by Aidan O’Neill QC, a barrister in the same London chambers as Cherie Blair, commissioned by the Coalition for Marriage, which campaigns against same-sex unions.
Mr O’Neill, an expert on human rights, was asked to advise on the impact redefining marriage to include same-sex couples could have on schools, churches, hospitals, foster carers and public buildings. Among his conclusions was that schools could be within their statutory rights to dismiss staff who wilfully fail to use stories or textbooks promoting same-sex weddings.
Parents who object to gay marriage being taught to their children would also have no right to withdraw their child from lessons, he argued. And, in theory, the fact that a school was a faith school would make no difference, he added.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Dun?
Methinks the meaning escapes my chase of understanding.
Oh. Kay!
BTW, gays already own huge swaths of real estate in that area, and could easily form apartments for their own elderly without expecting the taxpayers to make a special set-aside. But that's not the point, is it? The point is this:
These heterosexuals have long since adopted the underlying value system of gay marriage: adult gratification via sterile sex.
This is what millions, tens of millions of straight couples achieve via hormones, spaying, and the suction curette.
That's why the LGBT agenda is supported by straight voting constituencies. Straights have been practicing gay marriage for over 40 years.
That reminds me (by way of analogy) of a cartoon I saw decades ago in Punch, the British humor magazine. Two conservatively-dressed Anglican clerics are looking on as myriads of devotees, half-naked and glowing with drug-induced enthusiasm , are prostrating themselves before a huge horned idol, offering It huge braziers of smoking incense, gyrating about in a frenzy, copulating with cult priestesses, and otherwise exhibiting various orgiastic excesses.
The one cleric says to the other, "One more thing, and I'm leaving the Church of England. I swear, just one more thing..."
I'll give you credit for one thing: saying that one should take a principled stand against morality is certainly good for a laugh. Woo hoo! And I'll take a moral stand against principles!
It's like the old joke, "Morality aside, Senator Kennedy, what are your views on ethics?"
“I’ve seen really $(*@(*( language around FR lately and it seems to be more tolerated.”
I noticed right after the election that the number of swear words increased! (In my house as well!)
It's possible to acknowledge the existence of such things --- adultery, sexual kidnapping, servile pederasty --- but only with students mature enough to analyze tragedy and recognize disorder as such, without implying that it is decent and honorable behavior.
It can be observed, acknowledged as a factor in human suffering, and allowed to inspire its natural reactions: horror and pity. Most of of us think it ought not to be presented without comment as if it were acceptable: we don't want it taught to our children as a "perverse normal".
Grazie mille.
I agree, but there are some who prefer to forget the abuse ever happened, or that it played any role in their later behavior.
Actually the figure 80% has been found among homosexuals in studies, from reading articles a few years ago. Of course, homosexuals who “like” being one, often think fondly of the older homosexual who “initiated” them into the gay life.
The abuse often involves grooming, gaining the trust of the child/adolescent, use of drugs and/or alcohol, and “gay” porn.
It’s sick, sick stuff.
Yes indeed.
Why are hets putting up with it? Because they keep getting these cockamamie promises from homs that they won’t do something... until they do do it. Charlie Brown, Lucy, football.
Do they raise kids to recruit? Dunno. I think they’re too egotistical about their own selves really to care. They might grow up het by accident.
What is the underlying premise here? That the purpose of marriage is for the satisfaction of the emotional and sexual needs of two adults who are committed to each other. And of course the presumption that their sexual connection will be invariably sterile. (For straights, make that "almost" invariably sterile.)
It's egotism for two. In that respect, "spayed" marriages are indistinguishable from gay marriages.
That's why contracepted straights have no problems with the LGBT agenda. They've been living it most of their lives.
I agree. Where did the 70% statistic come from? My homosexual brother was 100% molested by a priest, may God forgive the priest and rest my brother’s soul.
A couple of lesbians made a pass at me when I was 19. Ewwwww!
Well, I was more polite than that when I turned them down, but they must have been dang tired of each other if they were willing to cheat in each others faces.
Dun is a brownish color, dun breasts would probably mean that she is tanned, or it is a black woman.
Dun has a LOT of meanings on Dictionary.com.
Cheat, what’s that?
The more the merrier, is my guess as to what was going on in their beady little brains.
Also, Shakespeare might pen verses intended for an actor portraying a woman to speak, as well as those intended to be spoken to a man by way of advice. Just because they address a man does not necessarily imply hanky panky.
Also, Shakespeare might pen verses intended for an actor portraying a woman to speak, as well as those intended to be spoken by a man to another man by way of advice. (Hey buddy, here’s how to win the chick.) Just because they address a man does not necessarily imply hanky panky.
Yeah, I wouldn’t know. All I know is that their moves on me held absolutely no attraction, and they left me cold, grossed out, and disgusted at their lack of exclusivity to each other.
I was getting ready to marry Hubby 1.0 at the time.
So that whole situation was one excellent decision about them, and one mistake.
However, my current Hubby and I have been happy together for 33 years now.
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.