News and Events => Opinions & Editorials => Topic started by: Natasha on December 15, 1999, 04:19:51 PM Return to Full Version
Title: Against bullying: Opponents to school-violence bill may put kids at greater risk
Post by: Natasha on December 15, 1999, 04:19:51 PM
Post by: Natasha on December 15, 1999, 04:19:51 PM
Against bullying: Opponents to school-violence bill may put kids at greater risk.
http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=299375
7/17/2008
Those who believe homosexuality, bisexuality, transgender, cross-dressing and the like are issues of morality are free to continue to address them. But they should not be free to pave another slippery slope, one that leads to tacit approval of violence against people because of their sexual identity. We need to protect our children, not mark them for violence.
http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=299375
7/17/2008
Those who believe homosexuality, bisexuality, transgender, cross-dressing and the like are issues of morality are free to continue to address them. But they should not be free to pave another slippery slope, one that leads to tacit approval of violence against people because of their sexual identity. We need to protect our children, not mark them for violence.
Title: Re: Against bullying: Opponents to school-violence bill may put kids at greater
Post by: NicholeW. on December 15, 1999, 08:29:38 PM
Post by: NicholeW. on December 15, 1999, 08:29:38 PM
QuoteBut there's another slippery slope in some statements about the Fayetteville Democrat's bill that is indeed worrisome — the implication that it's OK if kids get beaten up because they're homosexual.
The House bill Glazier authored spelled out some triggers for bullying — race, religion, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, masculinity or femininity, among others.
Under pressure from some conservative religious groups, the Senate removed the list of characteristics. House proponents of the bill are struggling to keep it in the legislation.
Why the controversy? What's wrong with spelling out typical reasons for physical or emotional abuse? Don't we want our laws to be specific? Not, apparently, if they protect homosexuals.
Yep, wouldn't want to protect ho'-mo-sekshools, or anyone we know is one of 'em. Beat it out of 'em!! That's what we did when I was in skool, afore I knowed I dint need no more of it after thurd-gradel!!
And why shudn't people beat-up other people to teach 'em true real'-idgun as well? And everyone knows if ya beat hell outta some poor kid, why, you'll make him grow up to be rich!! And that thar black, spic, and ai-zhun stuff, why when I was a kid we changd em folks to whaite just 'cause they dint wanna get beatin's. Em wuz the good ole days when people knowed how to act raight!!
What's the matter with this darned legislature anyhow?! We need to go git ar guns and do some target-practice, sos we can eee-lekt some raight thinkin' folks to that place! And while we're at it, we shud head-on-down to that newspaper and teach em what's raight and not too!
Nick-ul