PDA

View Full Version : kids of religious families are ‘target demographic’ of anti-‘gay bullying’ ad



megimoo
06-12-2011, 11:26 AM
June 10, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - After the broadcast of a homosexualist advertisement during the family-friendly Fox show American Idol prompted outrage, the founder of the ad campaign has confirmed that such advertisements are intended to promote the message of the gay rights lobby to young children in households that normally wouldn’t support it. One conservative leader has now demanded that Google, Fox, and Disney-Pixar sever their ties with the campaign.

Peggy Nance of Concerned Women for America expressed outrage that the Fox network aired an “anti-gay bullying” advertisement, part of the “It Gets Better” campaign, during the extremely popular competition show.

Doubling as an advertisement for Google Chrome, the ad features several Hollywood personalities, and even a character from the popular Disney-Pixar movie series Toy Story, who speak directly to and encourage an audience of young people identifying as homosexual, telling them that “It gets better.”

On her blog, Nance called Fox’s choice of ad placement a betrayal of trust of conservative households everywhere.

“Apparently, American Idol with the help of Woody from Disney’s Toy Story, thinks that my 4th grader needs to be fully aware of the plight of teens who view themselves as ‘gay.’ I am sorry, but he doesn’t even know about heterosexual sex yet. Can you give me some room here?” wrote Nance. “I am ticked because I feel tricked. Fox blew it last night.

“The point is parents felt secure in allowing our entire families watch this show. They lured us into a false sense of security and broke trust with us last night.”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/top-gay-rights-leader-kids-of-religious-families-are-target-demographic-of?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LifesitenewscomLatestHeadline s+%28LifeSiteNews.com+Latest+Headlines%29

Bailey
06-12-2011, 12:02 PM
Well the forces of the perverted and evil try to subvert the good and the innocent.

megimoo
06-12-2011, 12:35 PM
Well the forces of the perverted and evil try to subvert the good and the innocent.

That's what the battle for the Heart and Soul of America is all about !

wilbur
06-12-2011, 01:07 PM
I like this part:

"Now I don’t know if Nance’s son is gay, bi, or trans, but if he is, he needs to know more than most that it can get better for him too, that there’s hope for his future, and that the adult world isn’t entirely populated by hateful s***s like his mother,” he wrote, adding “here’s hoping” that “Nance’s son is gay.”

Well done sir!

wilbur
06-12-2011, 01:15 PM
And c'mon really?

American Idol... vapid depraved pop-culture obsessed celebrity worship ("idolatry", if you will), unreality-reality tv... is supposed to be some paragon of traditional american family values? :confused:

Here I was thinking it was a perfect symbol everything that is pathological about our values - we don't care about algebra, history, or science but we can rattle off all the names of the winners of Idol since its inception, and all the intimate details of their personal lives... and we don't have to care about that other crap, because one day we'll win the show and be famous and rich too - guess I was wrong!

Bailey
06-12-2011, 02:30 PM
I like this part:

"Now I don’t know if Nance’s son is gay, bi, or trans, but if he is, he needs to know more than most that it can get better for him too, that there’s hope for his future, and that the adult world isn’t entirely populated by hateful s***s like his mother,” he wrote, adding “here’s hoping” that “Nance’s son is gay.”

Well done sir!

If I was his father and he was gay I would dis-own him.

pyackog
06-12-2011, 07:05 PM
Hey Nance, get over it. Not that big of a deal.

Constitutionally Speaking
06-12-2011, 07:32 PM
I like this part:

"Now I don’t know if Nance’s son is gay, bi, or trans, but if he is, he needs to know more than most that it can get better for him too, that there’s hope for his future, and that the adult world isn’t entirely populated by hateful s***s like his mother,” he wrote, adding “here’s hoping” that “Nance’s son is gay.”

Well done sir!


The kid is in 4th GRADE!



Not well done at all, the person who wrote this is a hateful sob.

MrsSmith
06-12-2011, 09:32 PM
I like this part:

"Now I don’t know if Nance’s son is gay, bi, or trans, but if he is, he needs to know more than most that it can get better for him too, that there’s hope for his future, and that the adult world isn’t entirely populated by hateful s***s like his mother,” he wrote, adding “here’s hoping” that “Nance’s son is gay.”

Well done sir!


The “primary goal” of the campaign, he explained, is “to reach LGBT kids who are being bullied by their peers and their families.”

So, in response to this hypothetical bullying by "religious" people, they instead bully and offend the children of "religious" people with their intolerance...and pat themselves on the back for being so obnoxious. Well done...NOT. :rolleyes:

CueSi
06-12-2011, 09:36 PM
How about promoting respect of ALL kids. Why is that so hard?

~QC

Arroyo_Doble
06-12-2011, 10:07 PM
How about promoting respect of ALL kids. Why is that so hard?

~QC

We have run out of minorities that we can be openly bigoted toward (although Muslims seem to be a good candidate). Don't take away fags; God hates them, you know.

MrsSmith
06-12-2011, 10:17 PM
How about promoting respect of ALL kids. Why is that so hard?

~QC

It would be nice, but that would require the left to accept Christian kids. They have to have someone to hate, after all. They couldn't feel like they're better than other people without a target.

CueSi
06-12-2011, 11:08 PM
We have run out of minorities that we can be openly bigoted toward (although Muslims seem to be a good candidate). Don't take away fags; God hates them, you know.


It would be nice, but that would require the left to accept Christian kids. They have to have someone to hate, after all. They couldn't feel like they're better than other people without a target.

I think you're both right. Many liberals say they're not prejudiced, but that tends to end if their hierarchy of victimhood is questioned. For some, conservative principles includes being an asshole to people whose existence violates their worldview.

~QC

MrsSmith
06-12-2011, 11:59 PM
I think you're both right. Many liberals say they're not prejudiced, but that tends to end if their hierarchy of victimhood is questioned. For some, conservative principles includes being an asshole to people whose existence violates their worldview.

~QC

AD may have a point, but he is not "right." God hates no one, and all of His people know this. Of course, since Phelps is a Democrat, it's not unexpected that he doesn't know better.

CueSi
06-13-2011, 01:03 AM
AD may have a point, but he is not "right." God hates no one, and all of His people know this. Of course, since Phelps is a Democrat, it's not unexpected that he doesn't know better.

God may not hate anyone, but humans do. I try to dig through AD's snark and talking past the point to the heart of the matter. Some people on the right DO feel the need to hate certain people based on who they are. Some liberals hate people for what they believe.

Phelps was a misdirection on AD's part, to get you focus on that ancilliary issue instead of the fundamental one. . . respect. The fact that they're targeting a group of people like this just rubs me the wrong way and just makes it WORSE.

~QC

noonwitch
06-13-2011, 08:58 AM
I don't have a problem with the ads. I've seen them during a variety of programming, including soap operas.


I do have a problem with anyone wishing that the woman who complained's son is gay. Most gay men I know, no matter how comfortable they are with their sexuality, would not wish what they've been through on some poor kid.

Gingersnap
06-13-2011, 10:24 AM
As someone else noted, a simple message aimed at getting kids to either treat each other with some basic level of decency or to just leave each other alone would have been much better. Gayness represents a tiny fraction of the social problems American school children inflict on each other every day. There are way more fat, awkward, fearful, angry, victimized, shy, and attention-seeking kids out there.

And guess what? For a lot of them, it doesn't get any better.

linda22003
06-13-2011, 10:52 AM
I think all the Google Chrome ads are well done. :)

Odysseus
06-13-2011, 12:21 PM
We have run out of minorities that we can be openly bigoted toward (although Muslims seem to be a good candidate). Don't take away fags; God hates them, you know.
You and Wilbur seem more concerned with calling everyone here a bigot than with addressing a real problem. I don't particularly want to have to explain to my seven-year old about what homosexuality is (much less my three-year-old), for the same reason that I don't want to have to explain heterosexuality to her. She's too young to understand it, and it would confuse her. Consequently, I don't appreciate it when some network know-it-all decides that they have the right to jumpstart my kids' knowledge because they have an agenda. It's not bigotry to try to preserve a child's innocense until they are ready to grasp complex truths, although I can see how you would enjoy making it appear that way.

...There are way more fat, awkward, fearful, angry, victimized, shy, and attention-seeking kids out there.

And guess what? For a lot of them, it doesn't get any better.

I suddenly feel sorry for Wilbur and Arroyo. Buck up, guys, it might get better for you... >sniff< :(

linda22003
06-13-2011, 12:25 PM
I don't particularly want to have to explain to my seven-year old about what homosexuality is (much less my three-year-old), for the same reason that I don't want to have to explain heterosexuality to her. She's too young to understand it, and it would confuse her.

I can understand that, but Viagra ads are on all hours of the day (just as one example).

Arroyo_Doble
06-13-2011, 12:35 PM
You and Wilbur seem more concerned with calling everyone here a bigot than with addressing a real problem. I don't particularly want to have to explain to my seven-year old about what homosexuality is (much less my three-year-old), for the same reason that I don't want to have to explain heterosexuality to her. She's too young to understand it, and it would confuse her. Consequently, I don't appreciate it when some network know-it-all decides that they have the right to jumpstart my kids' knowledge because they have an agenda. It's not bigotry to try to preserve a child's innocense until they are ready to grasp complex truths, although I can see how you would enjoy making it appear that way.


I suddenly feel sorry for Wilbur and Arroyo. Buck up, guys, it might get better for you... >sniff< :(

Like I said Rock, fantasy constructs.

BTW Odie, Wilbur is gone. You have to find someone else to make up shit about.

Oh, and the guy that started that whole "it gets better" schtick owes me money.

Bailey
06-13-2011, 12:51 PM
Like I said Rock, fantasy constructs.

BTW Odie, Wilbur is gone. You have to find someone else to make up shit about.

Oh, and the guy that started that whole "it gets better" schtick owes me money.

Ok Make shit up = getting your ass handed to you, ok I just want to get the terminology right.:rolleyes:

Rebel Yell
06-13-2011, 01:09 PM
I think you're both right. Many liberals say they're not prejudiced, but that tends to end if their hierarchy of victimhood is questioned. For some, conservative principles includes being an asshole to people whose existence violates their worldview.

~QC

Your right, too. It's really simpler than that. It's called being human.

pyackog
06-13-2011, 01:16 PM
As someone else noted, a simple message aimed at getting kids to either treat each other with some basic level of decency or to just leave each other alone would have been much better. Gayness represents a tiny fraction of the social problems American school children inflict on each other every day. There are way more fat, awkward, fearful, angry, victimized, shy, and attention-seeking kids out there.

And guess what? For a lot of them, it doesn't get any better.

Well ads like that do exist also. Doing ads geared towards a specific subset does not mean that similar problems don't exist for other groups nor does it make it wrong to target a specific subset.

Novaheart
06-13-2011, 01:23 PM
June 10, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - After the broadcast of a homosexualist advertisement during the family-friendly Fox show American Idol prompted outrage, the founder of the ad campaign has confirmed that such advertisements are

LOL!

http://www.dailystab.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/steven-tyler-rehab.jpg

Novaheart
06-13-2011, 01:25 PM
If I was his father and he was gay I would dis-own him.

I always admire family values like yours.

Novaheart
06-13-2011, 01:31 PM
So, in response to this hypothetical bullying by "religious" people, they instead bully and offend the children of "religious" people with their intolerance...and pat themselves on the back for being so obnoxious. Well done...NOT. :rolleyes:

Gay children of religious people deserve comfort, support, and guidance to become happy and healthy gay adults.... just like straight kids. But they rarely get it, even in enlightened homes. All these people are asking is that people not be hostile.

Novaheart
06-13-2011, 01:33 PM
We have run out of minorities that we can be openly bigoted toward (although Muslims seem to be a good candidate). Don't take away fags; God hates them, you know.

I always suspected that 90% of the resistance to DADT (not simply the repeal) within the military was because we wouldn't let people use derogatory racial/ethnic or religious epithets anymore, and now we were taking away "faggot".

Rockntractor
06-13-2011, 01:33 PM
Like I said Rock, fantasy constructs.

BTW Odie, Wilbur is gone. You have to find someone else to make up shit about.

Oh, and the guy that started that whole "it gets better" schtick owes me money.

You've had too much doobie Dolby!:D

Bailey
06-13-2011, 01:47 PM
I always admire family values like yours.

Ok cup cake message noted and discarded. :rolleyes:

Bailey
06-13-2011, 01:48 PM
Gay children of religious people deserve comfort, support, and guidance to become happy and healthy gay adults.... just like straight kids. But they rarely get it, even in enlightened homes. All these people are asking is that people not be hostile.

They need to be sent somewhere were they will be re-educated into being straight or taught to keep it in the closet.

Zafod
06-13-2011, 02:39 PM
Don't take away fags; God hates them, you know.

God doesnt hate you......

Odysseus
06-13-2011, 05:28 PM
Like I said Rock, fantasy constructs.

BTW Odie, Wilbur is gone. You have to find someone else to make up shit about.

Oh, and the guy that started that whole "it gets better" schtick owes me money.
I never made anything up about Wilbur. The truth was bad enough.

I always suspected that 90% of the resistance to DADT (not simply the repeal) within the military was because we wouldn't let people use derogatory racial/ethnic or religious epithets anymore, and now we were taking away "faggot".

That is because you routinely ignored my arguments, which boiled down to unit cohesion, the logitistics of lifting the ban, the personal privacy issues and the concerns about sexual conduct in the barracks.

BTW, a group of senior officers was recently reprimanded for participating in a skit in which they mocked gays and DADT repeal. I happen to think that the officers in question got off light, and that the commanders among them should have been relieved, not because I think that the repeal is a good idea, but because every Soldier has a right to expect his/her chain of command to deal with them without prejudice, and that if they are accused of violating the UCMJ, that expectation becomes absolutely critical. What you have never understood is that many of us argue for the necessity of the policy, but have nothing against those who are subject to it beyond their not being in compliance.

BadCat
06-13-2011, 06:29 PM
Gay children of religious people deserve comfort, support, and guidance to become happy and healthy gay adults.... just like straight kids. But they rarely get it, even in enlightened homes. All these people are asking is that people not be hostile.

TFB.

CueSi
06-13-2011, 06:48 PM
Your right, too. It's really simpler than that. It's called being human.

You'd think. Some days, it's honestly not easy to be human. Trust me. If we had the power to kill someone and bring them back to life, some wouldn't make it out of bed to take a morning piss without keeling over twice.


Like I said Rock, fantasy constructs.
BTW Odie, Wilbur is gone. You have to find someone else to make up shit about.
Oh, and the guy that started that whole "it gets better" schtick owes me money.

Dude, you did imply in your own special way about bigotry with the "God hates fags" thing. Both Mrs. Smith and I called you out on it. Being willfully dense then accusing someone of making shit up just makes me want to find your DI and tell them to re train you again.

~QC

Novaheart
06-13-2011, 10:36 PM
That is because you routinely ignored my arguments, which boiled down to unit cohesion, the logitistics of lifting the ban, the personal privacy issues and the concerns about sexual conduct in the barracks.

We've heard this before and not the broken record we've listen to for the last 20 years. We heard it back in 1948. So answer me honestly: was this argument valid in 1948? Do our military personnel now serve in a defective military that is a poor remnant of its glorious past?


By mid-1948, President Truman had joined the forces for integration. He was determined to carry on the principle, solidified with Franklin D.Roosevelt’s New Deal administration, of positive government action to rehabilitate and preserve the dignity and human resources of the United States. Yet, Secretary of the Army Kenneth Royall; his successor, Gordon Gray; and advocates of segregation continued to maintain that integration would impair military efficiency and damage the morale of American troops.

second source for Gray and Royall:

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/


January 1948: President Truman decides to end segregation in the armed forces and the civil service through administrative action (executive order) rather than through legislation.

Army looks for workaround:

July 26, 1948: Army staff officers state anonymously to the press that Executive Order 9981 does not specifically forbid segregation in the Army.

July 27, 1948: Army Chief of Staff General Omar N. Bradley states that desegregation will come to the Army only when it becomes a fact in the rest of American society.

July 29, 1948: President Truman states in a press conference that the intent of Executive Order 9981 is to end segregation in the armed forces.


August 14, 1948: Secretary of the Army Kenneth Royall is reported in the press to have admitted that "segregation in the Army must go," but not immediately.

go Navy!

October 9, 1948: The Navy announces that it is extending the policy of integration that it had begun in the closing months of World War II.

Army drags feet

December 1948: Secretary of the Army Kenneth Royall proposes to the Secretary of Defense James V. Forrestal that the Army create an experimental integrated unit that would test how integration would affect the Army.

And if you ever wondered where you got this one, here it is when it was brand new!




March 28, 1949: The three service secretaries testify before the Fahy Committee. Secretary of the Air Force Stuart Symington and Secretary of the Navy John L. Sullivan both testify that they are opposed to segregation and are pursuing policies to integrate their services. Secretary of the Army Kenneth Royall argues in favor of maintaining segregation, saying that the Army "was not an instrument for social evolution."


Have a blesséd evening, and thanks for sharing.

Novaheart
06-13-2011, 10:40 PM
What you have never understood is that many of us argue for the necessity of the policy, but have nothing against those who are subject to it beyond their not being in compliance.

And I don't really care if you don't like the policy of nondiscrimination, I don't even care if you complain about it. Get this: I don't really care if you want to call some soldier a faggot as long as ranks are off and he can call you a fatass cracker or whatever else he thinks is appropriate.

Rockntractor
06-13-2011, 10:43 PM
Once again you think you are a race.:rolleyes:

Novaheart
06-13-2011, 11:13 PM
Once again you think you are an American

Fixed

Odysseus
06-13-2011, 11:58 PM
We've heard this before and not the broken record we've listen to for the last 20 years. We heard it back in 1948. So answer me honestly: was this argument valid in 1948? Do our military personnel now serve in a defective military that is a poor remnant of its glorious past?
In some ways, yes. But not the way that you think. The correct model isn't the integration of blacks, but the integration of women, which was done without any thought on the part of the civilian leadership about the circumstances. Black men and white men didn't have to worry about sexual attraction to each other in the ranks. Men and women did. We still haven't cracked the code on making that work, and we may never. Even now, commanders spend more time dealing with sexual misconduct than any other discipline problem, including drugs, alcohol abuse, domestic violence or racial issues. Sex is corrosive to unit cohesion, whether it is heterosexual or gay, but eliminating the last safe spaces for non-sexual conduct will only make it worse.


Have a blesséd evening, and thanks for sharing.
Spare me the condescension. I've been serving in the army since you were in diapers, and if you can't deal with what I tell you are the facts on the ground, then don't pretend to know better. It's not about you, it's about protecting the nation in the most effective way possible. Sorry if that interferes with your self-actualization, but I could care less about it.


And I don't really care if you don't like the policy of nondiscrimination, I don't even care if you complain about it. Get this: I don't really care if you want to call some soldier a faggot as long as ranks are off and he can call you a fatass cracker or whatever else he thinks is appropriate.

You really have no clue what the military is, do you? A subordinate Soldier who called me anything but "sir" would have a serious problem ahead of him, and any Soldier who I addressed in an unprofessional manner would have every right to take it up the chain. Spare me your pontifications and listen for once in your life. The only thing that matters to me is that any unit that I belong to can do its job in combat. Anything else is secondary. Everything that detracts from that is a waste of resources, including time, that can be spent preparing for war. I've asked you repeatedly to provide a compelling advantage that we get from repealing the policy, and you've failed every time. For you, it's about the rights of some theoretical gays (since nobody you know is actually chomping at the bit to sign up), but for me, it's about the survival of real Soldiers in real life or death situations. So until you can tell me what it is that I, as a commander, gain from this policy, that offsets the time lost, the morale issues that we will incur, and the disastrous consequences that will happen, you have nothing to say to me, and everything else is just noise.

megimoo
06-14-2011, 12:04 AM
Once again you think you are special.:rolleyes:
fixed again .

CueSi
06-14-2011, 12:09 AM
Spare me the condescension. I've been serving in the army since you were in diapers, and if you can't deal with what I tell you are the facts on the ground, then don't pretend to know better. It's not about you, it's about protecting the nation in the most effective way possible. Sorry if that interferes with your self-actualization, but I could care less about it.



Um... Nova is older than you, Ody. But other than that... I'm just here for the donuts. :p


http://cheltenhamchoirs.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/krispykreme.jpg

~QC

Novaheart
06-14-2011, 01:00 AM
I
Spare me the condescension. .

Anything you say, daddy.

Odysseus
06-14-2011, 01:03 AM
Um... Nova is older than you, Ody. But other than that... I'm just here for the donuts. :p


http://cheltenhamchoirs.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/krispykreme.jpg

~QC

I didn't say that he was younger than I am, I said that I was serving while he was still in diapers. Clearly, he wasn't housebroken until well into his forties.

Seriously, though, he's not some punk kid? He's actually been around longer than 49 years and he's still that clueless? I cut him some slack because I assumed that he was some snot-nosed college kid, but any adult who is that immature and self-absorbed needs to grow the hell up.

Novaheart
06-14-2011, 01:05 AM
Um... Nova is older than you, Ody. But other than that... I'm just here for the donuts. :p




~QC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM-tyLql1VM

CueSi
06-14-2011, 01:56 AM
I didn't say that he was younger than I am, I said that I was serving while he was still in diapers. Clearly, he wasn't housebroken until well into his forties.

Seriously, though, he's not some punk kid? He's actually been around longer than 49 years and he's still that clueless? I cut him some slack because I assumed that he was some snot-nosed college kid, but any adult who is that immature and self-absorbed needs to grow the hell up.

Nope, he's not some punk kid. Nova is almost old enough to be MY father. Almost. Not quite. But in another universe, he probably IS, ROFL!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM-tyLql1VM

That is the gayest proposition without intent I've ever recieved. I have tears in my eyes from laughing. Bytch, I'm a graffiti wall at this point. :p

And for that. . . I hate you so much right now. :mad:


~QC




I guess I'm here for the donuts and the inappropriate banter. I'm just trying to keep it light.:p

MrsSmith
06-14-2011, 07:17 AM
Gay children of religious people deserve comfort, support, and guidance to become happy and healthy gay adults.... just like straight kids. But they rarely get it, even in enlightened homes. All these people are asking is that people not be hostile.

Children of single parents deserve comfort, support and guidance from the parent of the opposite sex to become happy, healthy heterosexual adults...but they rarely get it. No ads on TV about that!

Children suffering from bullying for a thousands reasons besides their supposed sexual orientation deserve comfort, support, guidance and protection from bullies...yet seldom get it. Where are those ads?

Children of truly Christian parents are the most likely of all children to receive comfort, support and guidance from both parents, an education that does not include being bullied in the local public school, and the closest thing to an ideal childhood that exists upon this earth. The last thing most need is some pushy, loudmouthed, know-it-all on TV using their bigotry against Christians to damage the innocence of those children. A 30 second ad will not provide "comfort, support and guidance" to anyone, but it can certainly say enough to confuse the 98% of kid that will never be homosexual.

Of course, the attitudes and bigotry of the left and Hollywood are excellent reasons to turn off cable altogether...and many Christian parents are doing exactly that. There is no reason to spend money supporting the kind of bigots that will constantly bombard your children with the attitude that being a true Christian is somehow more shameful than all the sexual messages they broadcast.

Odysseus
06-14-2011, 10:27 AM
Anything you say, daddy.
Sorry, I really assumed that you were a kid. I guess Churchill was right.

Bailey
06-14-2011, 11:21 AM
Sorry, I really assumed that you were a kid. I guess Churchill was right.

Whats really sad is that he is older then a young adult and still doesn't know any better.

Odysseus
06-14-2011, 11:48 AM
Whats really sad is that he is older then a young adult and still doesn't know any better.

What's frustrating about him is that on a lot of other subjects, he's quite rational. He just completely loses it on the military and gay issues, the former because he doesn't have any experience, and the latter because he has too much.

Novaheart
06-14-2011, 12:08 PM
What's frustrating about him is that on a lot of other subjects, he's quite rational. He just completely loses it on the military and gay issues, the former because he doesn't have any experience, and the latter because he has too much.

Points for wit if not wisdom.

Odysseus
06-14-2011, 12:56 PM
Points for wit if not wisdom.

If you care to dispute the wisdom, feel free. But you don't have any military experience, and lack even a basic understanding of what we do and why we do it, and yet you feel that your grievances outweigh the necessity of our remaining fully mission capable. Your comment about not caring what I call a Soldier or what he calls me back reflects that ignorance. Even two persons of equal rank couldn't get away with that kind of insulting conduct, much less subordinates and seniors. It would be, as the saying goes, "contrary to good order and discipline", which is the most important aspect of the military culture. Without that, we are simply an armed mob in uniforms, and mobs lose wars.

CueSi
06-14-2011, 02:23 PM
Children of single parents deserve comfort, support and guidance from the parent of the opposite sex to become happy, healthy heterosexual adults...but they rarely get it. No ads on TV about that!

Children suffering from bullying for a thousands reasons besides their supposed sexual orientation deserve comfort, support, guidance and protection from bullies...yet seldom get it. Where are those ads?

<snip>

Actually there are ads about fatherhood. National Fatherhood initiative (http://www.fatherhood.org/).

But you are right about ads and support for non-gay bullied kids. It's like they don't exist from what I can tell. That's what makes me mad about this current ad campaign. It's like - - screw those kids, they aren't important. That's the message my 12-14y/o self would be getting. I'm not important because I'm not gay.

I didn't get as much support and guidance from my parents RE: burgeoning sexuality. . . I got room to be left alone, which is something I appreciate from the core of my being.

~QC

Bailey
06-14-2011, 02:28 PM
What's frustrating about him is that on a lot of other subjects, he's quite rational. He just completely loses it on the military and gay issues, the former because he doesn't have any experience, and the latter because he has too much.

I agree with you there.

Bailey
06-14-2011, 02:33 PM
If you care to dispute the wisdom, feel free. But you don't have any military experience, and lack even a basic understanding of what we do and why we do it, and yet you feel that your grievances outweigh the necessity of our remaining fully mission capable. Your comment about not caring what I call a Soldier or what he calls me back reflects that ignorance. Even two persons of equal rank couldn't get away with that kind of insulting conduct, much less subordinates and seniors. It would be, as the saying goes, "contrary to good order and discipline", which is the most important aspect of the military culture. Without that, we are simply an armed mob in uniforms, and mobs lose wars.


NH and other gays dont care about discipline or the mission all they care about is their gay agenda and ramming it down others throats and they dont care a wit about what they destroy to accomplish it. Thats why I cant really say what I'd do to them if I had a chance.