« ObamaCare Land: Where Facts Are Fantasy | Main | Prince Charles Wants Everybody Else to Give Up Their Cars »
September 22, 2009
Schools Still Staging Rent
Moonbat educrats continue to combine drama with sex ed and social engineering by having teenagers perform Rent, a Broadway musical that wallows in corruption and depravity, as part of a campaign to mainstream homosexuality among youth. Appallingly, it will be staged by Judge Memorial Catholic High School in Salt Lake City. We've got our backs to the wall if kids aren't safe from degenerate brainwashing at a Catholic school in conservative Utah.
Over the weekend the cast and crew were to participate in an AIDS Foundation event in hopes of generating publicity. Needless to say, anyone who really wanted to fight AIDS would stop encouraging children to experiment with homosexuality.
If you would like to help promote Rent, drama director Darin Hathaway wants to hear from you at email@example.com.
No word yet on when high schools will start staging productions of The 120 Days of Sodom.
On a tip from James.
Posted by Van Helsing at September 22, 2009 7:23 AM
Its interesting that RENT also means "To tear or rip apart".
Posted by: Anonymous at September 22, 2009 7:47 AM
Just another reason why my wife homeschools our children.
Posted by: Paul H at September 22, 2009 7:56 AM
ANNON YOU LIBERAL IGNORAMUS THE WORD IS REND and the NEA is nothing but a left-wing bunch of brainwashing propeganda artists
Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at September 22, 2009 7:57 AM
ROTFLMAO!!!! Owned him Spurwing ;-)
The left push corruption and depravity so they don't stick out, they're just trying to make it the norm. All that jail time is getting them down.
Posted by: TED at September 22, 2009 8:01 AM
God forbid these poor gay kids feel some understanding and sympathy.
And don't you remember being young? There's just no way someone's going to put on friggin' play that's going to make me want to bang dudes now - forget about in high school! What's wrong with you guys? Don't you remember how chick crazy you were back then (sorry ladies - can't speak to your experience).
Being gay may or may not be genetic, but it's certainly inborn. The numbers of physio differences are just too many to be explained by socialization. So why don't you people leave them alone?
Hate, more hate and a rejection of science. Welcome to the extreme right.
Posted by: brs at September 22, 2009 8:06 AM
brs - "Inborn"? Rubbish.
Homosexuals do not reproduce if they are truly 'wired that way' only that makes it rather hard to transfer that 'genetic material', don't you think? Sorta creates a problem, don't you think?
You call it "hate" but look to the outfall from the democratic vote in California last year to see how 'tolerant' the gays are. ROFL.
Ah yes, hate, hate, hate. It's a bit like, racist, racist, racist.
Sorry, but your power with that word is also fading fast.
Ex-gays exist. And it takes just one to explode your 'inborn' myth.
Posted by: Stephan at September 22, 2009 8:17 AM
brs is flashing back to those tormented nights in high school, all alone in his room, lip-synching to ABBA before crying himself to sleep.
Some plays and some subject matters are just inappropriate for high school. And there are plenty of musicals out there that don't glorify drug use, AIDS, and dirty sex.
Posted by: V the K at September 22, 2009 8:50 AM
Not only is the play being staged at a Catholic school, but it's in Utah as well. The Mormon Church doesn't have any homosexual affirmative action programs, nor do they have openly homosexual clergy. As with most religions, the "lifestyle" is not accepted.
BRS writes about hate? So, brs, what about gays home of the conservative Mormon faith? That's OK to shove homosexuality in the faces of those who don't want it?
What about the nutjobs in San Francisco who entered a Catholic church and during Communion, defiled the sanctity of the ritual by taking the host? That's OK because as a gay, you're allowed to shove your attitudes in the faces of those who disagree with you.
These are just a few of the tactics used by the homosexual thugs who are not winning friends and influencing people in a positive way. It's not about hate. If it wasn't for the activists of the 1970s demanding homosexuality being taken from the list of psychological impairments, gays could receive help instead of being "hated" as you say.
Posted by: Son of Taz at September 22, 2009 8:55 AM
"Homosexuals do not reproduce if they are truly 'wired that way' only that makes it rather hard to transfer that 'genetic material', don't you think? Sorta creates a problem, don't you think?"
1. Do you have trouble reading (I said inborn while expressing skepticism of a genetic explanation), or do you not know that everything that's inborn is not necessarily genetic? And if you are so ignorant as to not undertsand that very basic distinction, how can you have much of an informed opinion one way or another?
2. Do you really think gay people never reproduce (untrue)? Or that if the phenotype for a potential gene is not binary (i.e., gay or not), someone who's bi may "carry" and pass on a potential gene or genetic predisposition? There are many, many ways that a gay gene could be passed on.
How can you have an opinion on something you clearly know next-to-nothing about? It really astonishes me.
Posted by: brs at September 22, 2009 1:11 PM
Son of Taz:
The hateful treatment directed at them is simply bigotry. It's not the prerogative of you or anyone else to decide that certain groups need to cater to your insanity, any more than I think you can say the blacks should stay on their side of town or we should have a no-Asian wednesdays at the Dairy Queen.
MAybe if y'all treated them like humans (or better yet just ignored then and let them live their lives), they wouldn't feel so marginalized as to pull these sorts of stunts.
Put another way: Tough fucking shit, Taz. That's what living in a pluralistic society is all about.
Posted by: brs at September 22, 2009 1:19 PM
bras what you don't seem to understand is most of us would gladly leave gays alone if they would quit trying to shove their CHOICE of lifestyle down everyone's throat. I for one would love for them to keep their sexlives to themselves because believe it or not we don't care what your sexuality choice is.
Posted by: Harry Canyon at September 22, 2009 1:25 PM
Fine Harry. Let 'em live as you do, and leave 'em alone.
Seems simple to me. But the right is far, far away from that. I mean, if you want to repudiate some of the rightwing obsession with limiting gays' rights, good for you.
Posted by: brs at September 22, 2009 1:30 PM
MAybe if y'all treated them like humans (or better yet just ignored then and let them live their lives), they wouldn't feel so marginalized as to pull these sorts of stunts.
You have to be kidding me... We do ignore them and it is these people we ignore that continue to demand we accept them as normal. They bring attention upon themselves and want to be more equal (being equal isn't enough). If they would just stop getting my damn face, I wouldn't care abou their actions but it's them that continue to confront us, demanding acceptance as opposed to being accepted (by ignoring them, you're treating them equally, no special attention).
You apparently don't understand the concept of equal.
Posted by: AmericanToTheCore at September 22, 2009 1:50 PM
Marriage is not a right. It's a privilege for doing as nature intended, by forming a union defined by reproductive capability.
We don't have problems with them being in relationships but we do have a problem with them continuously forcing their lifestyle choice on us... demanding normalcy means that it's not normal (plus, biologically, it just isn't normal).
Explain the limited rights portions that you mentioned because I have a feeling that you're going to use the "zomg this is a right (insert whatever the hell it is that you want that someone else has)" and expect us to fold to your every whim.
Is having a toilet a right? Air to breathe? Wristwatch? Job? Free money? 2 of every animal? Healthcare? Rainbows? Car to drive? Citizenship?
Posted by: AmericanToTheCore at September 22, 2009 1:57 PM
"God forbid these poor gay kids feel some understanding and sympathy."
brs, have you even seen 'Rent'?
The fact of the matter is, it is a pretty graphic play which deals with mature subject matter and is simply inappropriate to put on at a school (And a Catholic school, to boot).
Having seen the movie, I actually thought it was also rather overrated, the only song which was rather catchy to listen to was "Out Tonight."
Posted by: Adam at September 22, 2009 2:03 PM
Brs: "inborn" means present from birth. Its other sense is inherited in the sense of 'genetic'
Don't thank me. Glad to set you straight.
Posted by: Jim at September 22, 2009 2:44 PM
I'd been away but I find it funny that you have to explain to this person something equivalent to the fact that the sky is up and the ground is down... all the while as they seem to think they are monumentally cleverer than you.
Posted by: Stephan at September 22, 2009 3:46 PM
If as you say "2. Do you really think gay people never reproduce (untrue)?" then explain to me how that is possible.
Since you equate behaviour with intrinsic identity, it seems to me on the one hand you want to assign a set of 'rights' equated with something like skin colour on that basis, yet your argument effectively admits that they can 'step out' of that so-called intrinsic identity to reproduce. Last I heard, black people can't 'step out' of their intrinsic skin colour to be white for a day or something.
Sorry, but the whole 'gay rights' agenda is a load of tripe. Sexual behaviour is just that - behaviour, and can be chosen or not chosen. We are born male and female, not hetero and homo or any other dumb invention. The fact that some men get into the habit of shoving their erect penis into another man's anus and find that habit hard to break does not empower them to force good people and children to validate their depraved choice.
Also, FYI, everybody already has the same rights to marry. Find a partner of the opposite sex, unrelated, and assuming you're both old enough and not already hitched, and - guess what? - you're qualified! But since you want to do away with those qualifications, you might want to get busy explaining why then a man can't marry his 3 brothers, one of them underage. What's that you say? They can't get married? But they LURVVVVVV each other!! How bigoted and hateful of you, brs!
Posted by: Stephan at September 22, 2009 4:11 PM
"Brs: "inborn" means present from birth. Its other sense is inherited in the sense of 'genetic'"
This is actually what I'm saying. There us no "sense". All genetic traits are inborn, but not all inborn traits are genetic.
Gestational influence are an example of a non-genetic factor that can physiological effects. I think this is a likely cause. IOW, Inborn w/o genetic influence. There's no "Sense" of anything or any other such BS-speak in this possibility.
Anyway, the physio differences seen in gays cannot be explained easily by socialization. YOu don't need the mechanism to conclude with a reasonable degree of certainty that the condition is present from birth.
Posted by: brs at September 22, 2009 6:37 PM
"I'd been away but I find it funny that you have to explain to this person something equivalent to the fact that the sky is up and the ground is down... all the while as they seem to think they are monumentally cleverer than you."
Sorry Stephan - you're the one that conflated inborn and genetic, saying they're the same thing. I explained it a little better for you above. THis is sort of funny becasue I'm actually a biologist, and I can tell you guys aren't even vaguely familiar with what you're talking about. I think you know that though.
Posted by: brs at September 22, 2009 6:41 PM
YOur argument that genes have nothing to do with behavior is one of the most scientifically illiterate notions that I've ever heard. I'm not sure how to respond to this, because there's about a million papers one could site that behavior is in large part influenced by genetics, and that no exceptional behavior, ipso facto, can refute this.
That someone CAN behave in a way that might seem at odds with a predisposition doesn't make genetic influence any less credible. Almost all behavior is an interaction between inborn and environment, so this is to be expected. Not to mention that neither genotypes nor phenotypes work in a binary fashion or independently.
If I were you I'd try and fault the individual studies showing gay physio differences, because the idea that any behavior that runs contrary to a genetic predisposition discredits the idea that genes help determine behavior is sort of insane.
Posted by: brs at September 22, 2009 6:50 PM
Excuse me, but you are putting words into my mouth. I am fully aware that there are three things that shape us in variable ways - genes, environment and our choices. I simply maintain that your argument in no way makes the case for 'equal rights'.
To make the case for 'rights' you have to show that it is not just a 'predisposition', but that the particular characteristic cannot be altered by the individual in a similar way to skin or eye color. These are intrinsic traits, not behavior. Do you understand? And I couldn't help but notice that you are already committed to the conclusion without finding the "mechanism". That's just an intellectual-sounding obfuscation for "I don't have any evidence right now, but you're a bigot for believing that gay sex is depraved."
You have already admitted that homosexuals can choose to reproduce (which makes no sense if it was 'inborn' unable to be altered) and you now go even further to start talking about predispositions which further erodes the arguments for 'rights'. Why do I need to bother spending time refuting the studies you claim support your conclusions, when based upon the points already being discussed you are so brilliantly shooting yourself in the foot? What are your qualifications worth when you cannot even see this gaping hole in your own argument?
You think that making a distinction between inborn and genetic is a big deal. Yawn. OK, have that point if you want, unfortunately for you it doesn't change much because it's hardly of any importance. What is important is that if homosexual behavior can be attributed to a genetic predisposition that can be altered by environmental factors, then the case for 'equal rights' is dead. For example, one study I heard found that if a male lived in an urban area in his early adolescent years he was about 3 times more likely to identify as homosexual when he became an adult. As I pointed out before, ex-gays exist (a fact you didn't even acknowledge) so a study like this is quite plausible. But I am not surprised that you did not even admit that ex-gays exist - they are like kryptonite to the gay rights agenda. Physiological differences? Even if they exist (which I doubt) - big deal. Still doesn't make the case for 'equal rights'.
What I don't get is how someone who claims to be so smart can attempt to argue for the forcible institutionalization of depraved behavior, especially upon children so they can grow up to be at higher risk for sexual predators and AIDS. And don't claim that won't happen - moonbats have no shame in giving us wonderful picture books like 'King and King'. Sickos. And you just wallow in your pseudo-intellectualism thinking how great 'equal rights' would be. Your studies appear to have been a waste of time. You are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
Posted by: Stephan at September 22, 2009 8:28 PM
A couple of thoughts:
Judge memorial's production of Rent is the "educational version" which is very different from the broadway musical. Just like the educational version of the beloved Les Miserable ( which also deals with prostitution, ethics, violence, suicide, etc.-- why not bad talk that one as well...), certain things are omitted that are too "mature" for HS. However, I can dare bet your kids have seen, heard or even participated in much worse. Also, I don't know which Rent you saw, but the one I saw does not "glorify" aids, homosexuality, or drug use, and in fact, paints a very bleak picture of the bohemian lifestyle. Finally, the AIDS epidemic is not limited to homosexuals-- recent studies have shown heterosexual women are contracting the illness at an alarming rate. So I think any "publicity stunt" that brings the issue out into the open is very important-- especially when your children are probably becoming sexually active while you all squabble on this site. I applaud Mr. Hathaway and Judge Memorial for being progessive.
Posted by: Zargoz at September 26, 2009 11:38 PM
This article epitomizes the ignorance that hate mongers like you spew out every day. Topics like homosexuality, drug abuse, and aids are everpresent in society today that effect us all. So why censor our almost adults from such topics? Also, homosexuality is not a bad thing and being a biological preferance can't be forced on kids even if that was anyone's intent, which it isn't. Its people like you that impede the advance of society.
Posted by: alex at October 2, 2009 10:19 AM
Honestly how many of you have met a homosexual I know quite a fewand they are all very normal,it's just you bigots that give them a bad name. I agree 100% with alex's post. Quit degrading homosexuals.
Posted by: doug at October 2, 2009 10:29 AM
Man, you guys make Glenn Beck look sane.
Posted by: Sean at October 2, 2009 10:51 AM
And by "you guys", I mean everybody excluding Alex, Doug, Zargoz.
The fact that "you guys" are playing on prejudices, misinformation and made up facts, is fallacy that voids everything that you have said. When you start looking things up and stop using your emotions to guide your actions and thoughts then you might not look as ignorant.
Posted by: Sean at October 2, 2009 10:58 AM
hey there guys, everyone but alex, doug, and zargoz are idiots
Posted by: greg at October 2, 2009 11:34 AM
and Stephan too.
Posted by: Greg at October 2, 2009 11:37 AM