So it's Ok then if others wear a T-shirt that says "Heterosexuals are Superior"?

I'm glad the school took issue with this, but we all know where this is headed and how it will end up. Any "minority group" seems to now feel authorized to promote themselves and their views without fear of retribution, and in fact, will have the POTUS and mainstream media come to their side. But any "majority" view must be squelched and silenced or suffer the wrath of a liberal media attack.

I really dont have a problem with it, im wondering if christians and other groups are allowed to be wearing shirts. That promote their religion or whatever they support? My guess is probably not, since some kid in Cali got detention for wearing a shirt with the USA flag..

Sorry, Bill, but "I hate faggots" is no longer an excuse for anything. Get over it, you're done. Just like those who stood in the way of interracial marriage and women voting.

Stop being so hateful, just because he airs is thoughts. Your type are the scariest since you would be cheering and fully supporting re-education camps.

Bill, I think that it is more moral to accept people for who and what they are than hate them for what they do in the bedroom. :)

STexan, it's as okay as wearing this t-shirt is. Just expect a lot of people to disagree with your sentiments.

Guess what, folks? You can disagree with someone and not hate them. Just because I don't agree or support you and your "lifestyle choice" doesn't mean that I hate anyone. It is possible to disagree with someone and still like/love them, just don't approve of what I view as wrong. You can make rules to govern behavior, but you can't legislate my view of morality.

I look at this current controversy, and accept it...yes, the kids can wear what they want...WHY? well, I remember coming home from V. Nam in 69 and then again off my second tour in 71...what did I see? STOP the war, the war is @!$%#ed, screw the veterans, peace, peace, smoke dope not cigarettes, etc etc. You know, I grew hardened to the this kind of bullcrap...shoots, free speech is one of our founding father's assets...let the kids wear what they want...I wear my Sgt stripes, my tiger stripe BDU's, my tiger stripe jungle hat...proud...so at this time in my life, I say, let the kids wear what they want...more power to them!

In the brilliant words of A. Wilkow ... "Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you"

@Viking59 - I agree with your sentiment but the problem is that this free speech thing is becoming very one-sided, very fast. Anyone voicing and supporting a moral or virtue that was regarded as "the norm, and expected behavior" 50 years ago is hauled out of town on a rail, today for expressing those same thoughts.

This country is going down the tubes before our very eyes because the perverts and baby-killers are running the shop.

Actually this country is going down the tubes because while you're distracted by non stories like this you're getting sold out by the 'people' (corporations) that have the real power (money).

Foreclosures aren't caused by homosexuality any more than you losing your job was caused by a woman having an abortion.

When Rome fell I'm pretty sure it wasn't because of any of the above social issues.

You condone gay and lesbian rights but if a hetero wore a similar shirt they would be called a bigot by you.

Yeah, because we all know how the heterosexual people have had sooo much oppression.

HandyMan: your assumption that those posting in favor of this young lady's free speech rights have not read the Bible is inaccurate in at least my case.

Obviously have a lot of sick people as indicated by the above posts.

Let me break this down for Lynard Sky point by point:

"All you liberal idiots love this hype. You condone gay and lesbian rights but if a hetero wore a similar shirt they would be called a bigot by you."

The girl was not being asked not to wear the shirt because it said she was cooler than someone else. She was asked not to wear the shirt because it had the word 'lesbian' on it, which the school thought was inappropriate.

"As you all sit here bitching about clothing and all are created equal all you need to do is look around and see this is not so. In fact it is a communistic belief."

What are you even talking about, was this stream of consciousness or an actual thought?

"All this does is keeps us fighting amongst ourselves and keeps a non issue on the surface. We never see any real issues discussed by the powers that be."

The reason your favorite GOP candidates are talking about social issues now is because they can't go after Obama on the economy, their original game plan, because the economy is clearly improving.

"If is disagree with our current President it is almost always construed as a race issue because that is where you liberal like to keep it."

No, it's racial when conservative morons, especially in the privacy of their own homes, say racists things, or like when that conservative Federal Judge in Montana forwarded a racist email about our current President, saying the email 'touched his heart'. Classy.

"See you like to give special rights and privileges to the few the minorities no matter the majority, you condone restricting our second amendment on a t-shirt but cheer a shirt about sexuality that is not the norm of most of society but you all wish to make it seem and appear normal."

Not the 'norm of society'? Do you realize how closed minded and antiquated you sound? Of course we want to make these things appear normal to society, if we didn't, then gay bashing, violence, burning crosses, every other disgusting thing the human race is capable of, these things will continue if we promote that being gay or a minority is 'abnormal'.

"And how many of you are concerned that this has become an issue in our educational system as we dumb our younger generation down. Have any of you libs looked at the grading scales in most public schools? Do you see a problem with getting 60% and still passing as ok?"

If you are so concerned with the education system in this country, then you should make sure you support funding education and getting the best teachers for our children. I have a feeling the party you support probably does the exact opposite.

"Do you see such a strong focus on sports over learning as not a real issue?"

Where I live (New York) this isn't a problem. I think perhaps that's more of a problem for the states that made 'Friday Night Lights' popular, Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, AKA, red states.

"But hey what ever you want just remember this generation is the one that will not take care of us because they will be too stupid to do so. We are doomed as a nation until we focus on things that really matter."

No, my generation (the x) and the younger generation (y and z) are the ones who will living in a polluted world with crappy healthcare and no social security leftover when your generation is dead. Hopefully, we will change the direction of this country so that we are more responsible than you are. More responsible to each other as equals, more responsible to the environment, and more responsible to your own children.

Sorry, you have just been destroyed.

atheist, I have a feeling that was a fantastic rebuttal that was ruined by a serious affliction of tl;dr

Was the "CREATORS" son a liberal idiot?

Toasty, please, don't even try that lame-ass argument. However, with today's current crop of high-school age males, it's no wonder they (females) are getting turned off by men and looking to women for sexual satisfaction. The traits and "qualities" in many of today's young male generation is making it hard for them to attract female attention ... and thus we have the results of that phenomenon in the form of men turning gay because no woman will have them. It's funny when you think about it.

We are one sick country!

So the poll sits at 44%, 50%, and 7%.... that's 101%. WTF?

So many straw men so little time.

Her shirt said: All the cool girls are lesbians.

It is offensive, it implies one can only be part of the "cool" crowd if they are of a certain sexual orientation. ALL the cool girls are lesbians. That is a message of exclusion, none of the cool girls are straight, or bi, or transgender.

Sorry folks, its a pretty nasty message no matter what group is the class of cool kids.

It is offensive, it is disruptive, and the school policy doesn't have to say it covers gender issues because it says:

The school's dress code prohibits ... anything considered disruptive

If the message is considered disruptive it's banned.

And lets assume for a moment that sexuality is an immutable characteristic, something that you are simply born with, with no chance to change. That is the often heard assumption, yes?

Then how about this:

• All the cool kids are White, or
• All the cool boys are Hispanic, or
• All the cool boys are Black, or
• All the cool kids are Asian

Anyone NOT understand why it is considered disruptive yet?

Jake: What exactly was disruptive here, the shirt or the teacher's response to it? Did kids giggle or fight or refuse to sit still because she had the shirt on????????

dslsca

What would be disruptive is if someone argued with her expressed point of view and then the school had to intervene. If we can't agree here why expect teenagers to do better?

Jake - I was thinking the same thing. It would be acceptable if it said Lesbians are cool, but with it pertaining to "cool girls" thats what, in my mind, makes it inappropriate.

I have seen someone wear a shirt with 2 nuts (squirrels) with the caption that said "They aint going to lick themselves, and was considered appropriate. LOL

Jake makes a great point. The shirt is offensive because it places one group above the rest. It is making the statement that only girls who are lesbians are cool. Since a person doesn't have a choice in their sexuality it is exactly the same as saying only members of a certain race are cool. I understand that she is wearing the shirt to display her pride in being homosexual and I wouldn't discourage it, except that, ultimately, it is an inappropriate expression of that pride.

However, the motives behind the administration are what we need to be examining. Most likely they were concerned over the use of the word "lesbian". In which case it is not a violation of the dress code. This however doesn't make Jake's point less true - the administration turns out to be right in not letting her wear the shirt, but only by accident.

^No, bob-1008224, Christianity is NOT a hate group. Some Christians are.

As to this shirt... saying that "all the cool ___— are" something isn't right. Saying Lesbians are Cool is fine, but saying that you have to be a lesbian to be cool is... well, it's sort of demeaning, isn't it? Turning sexuality into a status symbol doesn't seem quite right to me. But I'd have been okay if someone had had a t-shirt saying "Lesbians are cool." It's not implying that you have to be one to be cool. But this shirt implied that you had to be a lesbian to be a cool girl. Not cool.

Which hate group do you belong to, Bob?

Yes, one would probably find shirts that say "All the cool kids are Christians." No, one could not do anything about it because it is a "joke." A comic shirt, and this one is clearly comic because of the image, is something that usually has to be permitted.

The conservative evangelical Christian kids can, and do, wear messages that are similar. One kid wore a shirt that said "Be Happy, Not Gay." He got reprimanded, took it to court, and won.

Some t-shirts are allowed--particularly those which are light-hearted--while others are found to be disruptive of the school atmosphere or mission. The administrator was right, however, that the (very conservative) Supreme Court was likely to find this one inoffensive and permissible.

But, yes, the conservative kids wear similar shirts all the time--and sometimes, they are encouraged to do so by administrators. Not all schools are "liberal," you know.

I have nothing against gays/lesbians. I think they should be allowed to get married, adopted children etc. BUT like most schools, this one probably has a "no distracting clothing" policy. So the principal was probably just following that.

I think most of you are completely missing what is really wrong with this...if we switched it around and the shirt said "all heterosexuals girls are cool", oh my goodness...all of you would be crying FOUL! Shame on you and your agenda. It's okay for you as long as it promotes your message of hate.

HChris,PeachWookie, Jake, et al: Your points are not only valid but make the most sense. TOO MANY posts here show that they haven't thought it through... from the context and setting it was taken (impressionable High School).

"All" of any type is putting ALL other types down.

Controversial topics cause commotions and problems...kids don't need any more unnecessary distractions from learning what they need. Our system is in enough trouble, thanks.

HChris:

Where do you get your information that homosexuality is not a choice?

happy42xxx,

I came to that conclusion by drawing information from many sources.

First, homosexuals themselves. I don't believe there is a massive conspiracy being perpetuated by homosexuals. Homosexuals say they don't have a choice, I take them at their word.

Second, myself. I did not choose to be heterosexual. I do not constantly choose NOT to be homosexual. Assuming, for the most part, that other people are like me, homosexuals must have a similar experience.

The third reason is more complicated. I know some homosexuals who trace the 'cause' of their homosexuality back to sexual abuse as children. We would be making a great mistake in saying that because there is a 'cause' that means there is a choice. These people insist that they do not have a choice. Physical intimacy with a member of the opposite gender is impossible for them because of the abuse. It is not a choice.

These, for the most part, are my reasons. Not exactly a scientific study, no. However, I believe they are compelling reasons.

HandyMan... although I'm not a lesbian, I'm pretty sure that vast majority of lesbians aren't sodomites. I could be wrong, but with all the parts the play with, I doubt that one is high on the list of "must diddle"

My, what a bunch of whiners. What ever happened to that old saying? "Live and let Live." I am also willing to bet that at least half(probably more) of you condemning what the shirt said, have fantasized about having two women or watching two women. You can deny it, or lie to yourself all you want, but I have known people just like you, and all you are doing is trying to kid yourself, to make your self for righteous, get over it already.

Bill – Sorry but you are not making any sense. On the one hand you seem to be against what the shirt says and what it stands for, but on the other hand you are blaming political correctness. You said "The politically-correct idiots in this country are teaching our children and grand-children that anything goes". The problem with that statement is that political correctness actually means that nothing goes. It means that we can’t do anything that anyone anywhere might find offensive for fear of being sued. The girl cannot wear the shirt you find offensive because of political correctness in other words. Anyway from now on if you want to make a point get your head out of your @ss and get your facts straight.

Ohh and by the way, you cannot teach someone to become a gay or lesbian - you either are or you are not. They can choose not to have sex at all of course but I know I could never do that I doubt if you could either.

No government school has the right to undermine the student's freedom of speech and expression. It isn't about the specific message. It is about the child's freedom.

If you inverse the logic that says "All cool girls are lesbians" then you get "Not being lesbian is uncool." I believe that this t-shirt wasn't meant to be dead-serious, but it still carries the wrong message.

I think "Lesbians are cool" would be all right. To imply that non-lesbians are inferior is a problem.

All the smart people are white.

I am undoubtedly considered a liberal, by haters and the progressives alike, HOWEVER...imo, a tshirt discussing sexuality is a distraction...but then hey, I think that school uniforms should be implemented...problems solved...when everybody has to wear the same thing, and are required to have clothing that FITS them, and covers enuf of their body to take cleavage and ass cracks out of the teaching environments...I don't see how this is a bad thing...if you want to express yourself, do so in verse, in art, etc. and wear whatever the hell your parents will allow you to wear at home.

I have taught in public schools, and frankly, the manners and motivation of students is sickening, and their parents are worse than the kids, if possible. There are some great kids out there, and even overall I don't think the majority are intentionally evil, they are just spoiled as American kids, and intentional stupidity seems to be cultivated...

Just for contextual reference, sodomites is a reference to the people of Sodom. Sodom was destroyed for violating the most revered law of God, showing hospitality to strangers.

Exodus 22:

21 Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
22 Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child.
23 If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry;
24 And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.

Ecclesiasticus 16:8 "He did not spare the people among whom Lot was living, whom he detested for their pride."

Ezekiel 16:49 "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."

It wasn't until much later in history that sodomy was named for the act of anal intercourse (which many heterosexuals enjoy.)

Sorry to poke holes in your inaccurate bible teachings, but, the facts are what they are and you are wrong.

Actually.......they should have let her wear her T shirt.......and then, when the "Mean Girls" (every school has them) got her alone in the restroom/locker room and beat her senseless (of course, it wouldn't be "disruptive") they could then wear T shirts the next day that said, "All the cool lesbians are in the ER." No doubt Kennedy would defend their right to do so.

The word is in the Bible try reading one.

The bible talks about how to treat your slave. I guess that makes slavery moral then.

Bill, this is the US - anything and everything goes. It was why the nation was founded upon, why our ancestors came here, and what truly males us a Great Nation. Anyone can say what they want, practice any religion (or none), and so long as no one is physically injured, the Gov't can't do a thing about it. Now if you want the US to look like Syria, Israel or Afghanistan where people are arrested for "moral" violation and even killed - I suggest you head there and let us who believe in the Freedoms granted us by the Constitution live our lives without people ramming their own "morality" down our throats.

Should this girl have worn this shirt to school? Probably not, as we are all equal, thus it is disruptive. Anyplace else, and I have no problem with the shirt. It is an opinion shirt, in that it expresses an opinion. If my wife and I saw her walking down the street wearing it we'd chuckle, but neither of us would be offended. Then again we are mature adults who don't see something like a shirt as a big issue. I see shirts, car stickers and even signs that are pro-GOP, and as much as they (and the GOP-lite aka the Democrats) sicken me, the people with those shirts and stickers have a right to have them, regardless of how much I detest them. Pointing fingers has never solved any issue, ever.

So everyone, grow up. It was a humorous T-shirt that probably shouldn't have been worn to school in light of its dress code, but it is just a shirt!

We had an issue similar to this when I was in high school with the clothing line Dixie Outfitters. Students were not allowed to wear the clothing because it had the rebel flag all over the different designs. They were not allowed to wear this because it was distracting to some other students. There was a small stink only amoungst the hardest rednecks at the school. I wasn't sure how I felt about it at the time.(This was 10+ years ago.) I know a lot more now than I did then and I agree with the school for what they did then and I agree with this school in Massachusets. It doesn't really matter what the subject matter is of a t-shirt, it matters as to whether or not the students can learn with out being disrupted by what another students t-shirt says. This would be a good lead in as to why school uniforms are so productive because it takes that ability to try to be "different" or "non-conforming" away and makes students focus on what the reason they are at school to begin with is. To learn.

I've read the bible... it's what "sealed the deal" on my atheism.. The church can lure you with santa and the easter bunny, but after age 8, it's all just foolish.

Kennedy is a moron. Any reference to sex, whether it be gay, lesbian, or straight is not appropiate. We would get in trouble for Big Johnsons and Co-Ed shirts because it implied things with sexual references, not sexual orrentations. This was someone looking for attention and now they are getting it. The only reason Kennedy is getting involved is because the shirt said lesbian. This is a kid trying to exploit this situation.

A kid would get introuble if they wore a shirt that said I like sex with the opposite sex as well. SO GET OVER YOUR SELF. THIS IS NOT ABOUT GAY OR LESBIAN RIGHTS. This is about shirts being appropiate for school.

Relgious shirts would get the same treatment and so would straight shirts.

it's funny that all the republicans are screaming it's not PC when they would normally complain about everything having to be politically correct.

The school's dress code prohibits clothing that depicts weapons, drugs or alcohol, or anything considered disruptive, but it doesn't specify gender issues....

Well then maybe the school needs to change their policy and include prohibiting clothing about gender issues. If a kid can't wear a US flag t-shirt then why should kids be allowed to wear a type of t-shirt that separates people. We're are going backwards in this country.

She can wear that shirt on her own time.. Sorry but if I wore a shirt that said, "All the Cool Girls are Straight" I would've been labeled as 'Homophobic.' I have no problem with gays, however, I do hate the fact that when someone disagrees with homosexuality, it's because they're homophobic. And no, you can't mix Politics with Religion. Either way, nice shirt, wear it on your own time not at school.

ANYTHING religious is not allowed in public schools, so one can only assume that would go for t-@!$%#s with religious symbols also. I have read where crucifixes were not allowed to be worn as pins or necklaces. A Catholic University was made to shroud religious symbols hanging inside thier own buildings when the President visited there for a speech. What happend to "live and let live" in those instances?

What the hell is wrong with the mayor of that goofy town? She agrees with the lesbian who is purposely bashing normal girls? WOW!

Poor little baby doesn't get to wear the stupid t-shirt to school. Well I'll just cry about that. First off t-shirts should not be allowed in school. Secondly free speech comes with responsibility. All this crying by everyone about free speech gives me the flux. Idiots in every venue crying, but failing to take responsibility for their actions. FREE SPEECH DOES NOT MEAN YOU SAY ANYTHING AT ANYTIME. And, only a lowbrow would think otherwise.

The lesbian was out of the line, she was indicating that lesbian girls are superior in coolness than heterosexual girls. It would be OK if her T-Shirt would have said "Lesbians are cool", I would still disagree, not because sexual orientation, but because nobody is cool just because they are part of a group or have a specific characteristic; to be cool you must have charisma. Particularly I think many of those T-Shirts shouldn't be allowed in school, I like uniforms.

The ironic part of this whole discussion is that the reasons lesbians are considered "cool" is because all the STRAIGHT BOYS think it's "cool"... no arguments here.

So for all the gay-bashing you see on this site from the hateful Christians, all their misdirected rage, all their anger over the thought that "lesbians are cool"... it ALL started because STRAIGHT BOYS think it's hot when two girls kiss.

Go to a college bar, go to Cancun for spring break. Listen to the cheers from STRAIGHT GUYS when two girls start to kiss. You want to know where the "cool" reputation came from? All of us straight guys cheering the girls on.

I swear, conservatives are so far removed from reality it is like they are living in a fantasy world. Go check the website history on your son's computer... see all those porn sites? Ya, that's because he was watching girl-on-girl action. But keep living in your fantasy world, because if you don't think about it, it doesn't exist, right?

Still waiting on that peer-reviewed evidence there, Tex.

It is offensive, it implies one can only be part of the "cool" crowd if they are of a certain sexual orientation. ALL the cool girls are lesbians. That is a message of exclusion, none of the cool girls are straight, or bi, or transgender.

Wait, so it's outrageous now to express an opinion?

I bet you if someone had a shirt that said Jesus Saves everyone would be cool with that, but I'm excluded because I'm an atheist so I'm not saved.

If I asked the girl to not wear that shirt, people would claim that Christianity was being oppressed. If Jesus saves then lesbians are cool.

You ALL are missing the point.
The point is not whether homosexuality is right or wrong, the point is whether a child has the right to dictate to a school what she can and cannot do.
And the answer is no, she does not.

Dick,

Although I would really like to sink to your level of wordsmanship, I wont and reply like a civil human being.

School is for getting educated not exercising your sexual agenda

I'm sick to death of people like you calling it an "agenda." There is no memo, no publication, there is no one sending out flyers. It's an "agenda" because you don't like gay people. Was it an "agenda" when black boys dated white girls or even the other way around? Was it an agenda when kids of different faiths began dating? Was there a conspiracy and someone plotting to make all the white girls want black boyfriends? You are stooping to a level of low because you simply don't like where liberty is heading. Too bad for you!

Part of school is learning how to express ones self. I hate to break this to you, but, this is where people learn to socialize and where people learn to fit in within society. When I went to high school, the religious kids were wearing their "Jesus Loves You" T-shirts and were trying to convert kids to their individual brand of faith. That is an agenda! Which, good for them. We live in this country called America. Maybe you have heard of it. We have this thing called freedom of speech. It's fairly nifty. People with agendas and without agendas are able to speak their minds. Apparently, they don't have this where you are from?

@Tina

You ALL are missing the point.
The point is not whether homosexuality is right or wrong, the point is whether a child has the right to dictate to a school what she can and cannot do.
And the answer is no, she does not.

I think you missed the point as she is not dictating to the school what she can and can not do. She wore something she thought was within the dress code guidelines and the teacher and Vice Principal punished her not because the shirt was a violation of the dress code or caused a distraction in class but because they thought the shirt was "political and offensive to some people". The girl contacted the head of the school committee who is also town mayor and basically told her understanding was correct. In short, it was the teacher who created a disruption in the classroom by sending her to the vice principal (it doesn't sound as though the shirt created a significant issue with other students to warrant being classified as something that negatively impacted the learning environment).

There can be no doubt that certain people have an agenda here in America!

GrouchyD: Not sure what you mean by "certain people have an agenda here in America." As far as I know, EVERYONE has an agenda.

No, this is not about political correctness. All the cool girls are_______! Fill in the blank with any word Straight, white, black, hispanic, this, that? It takes any controvercial subject and makes it worse because it deals with it insensitively. High school is about learning, and distractions must be minimized.

New Mexicans are cool (until the green chili is way too hot)!

That T-shirt has no place in a school. This just makes the argument for uniforms stronger. Is she insinuating that everyone else is uncool? I believe in free speech, but come on, our educational system is 43rd in the world and needs work. They go to school to learn, not express themselves. Let's get back to basics. If it means uniforms, so be it.

pig - what would be your opinion if she were wearing a shirt that promoted Christianity? I guess the "ignorant, fearful" left wingers would go crazy on that one. I wonder when the President will call her to support her right to wear a t-shirt in the face of these "haters"?

I agree Bob,

When I was in school the ultra-religious kids always wore "Jesus is Lord" t-shirts or other Christian garb but the reason it wasn't made a big deal is because nobody cared. I would be willing to bet if you look at the person who originally thought this was offensive I would put money on it that they themselves are anti-gay to begin with. Honestly, if this is too "distractive" for your children to get any work done at school then your kids are done for. Everybody points to the person wearing the shirt as being disruptive but I think the disruptiveness is coming from the person who can't stop staring at and commenting on someones shirt. I just can't figure out why people have such a hard time minding their own business.

Any message t-shirt should not be aloud in school because it will always annoy someone. I may be called old fashioned but I don't think t-shirts are school attire. I'm all for comfortable clothes but t-shirts are after school wear.

Where's the equal rights..Just girls T-Shirt? Should be for both..girls and guys....the school should have it like..BE HAPPY BE GAY..as a T-shirt. Then lets see if the school likes that!

So if another kid wears a T - Shirt that says "All the Cool Girls aren't Lesbians" that would certainly be OK too right............. No, you would have public outcry from the Gay community that it sends a hate message. It's amazing how 5% of the population gets to dictate what's acceptable to the rest of us.

I'm thinking about having a t - shirt that says, "All sick girls are lesbians". Think it'll fly?

One thing wrong with our society is that too many people are "offended" by practically everything! What a bunch of panty - waist whiny babies!

"Lesbians are going to Hell"

"Lesbians have a mental disorder"

"All the cool girls like boys"

"Lesbians don't like lollipops"

"All the cool boys like girls"

"Lesbians don't enter beauty contests"

"Be a man date a girl"

It's time to start making T-shirts!!! it's all about freedom of speech apparently.

One should wonder how cool it gets in hell. Even on a good day. Satan say's, "If you are queer, I'll see you here!"

ANYTHING religious is not allowed in public schools, so one can only assume that would go for t-shirts with religious symbols also. I have read where crucifixes were not allowed to be worn as pins or necklaces. A Catholic University was made to shroud religious symbols hanging inside thier own buildings when the President visited there for a speech. What happend to "live and let live" in those instances?

@ Steve W.-747922 Point well made, except one small factor that Lesbians do enter beauty contests. But I do have to agree with some others here as well, if the shirt said something regarding religion it wouldnt have been made an issue. This shirt wasnt offensive. It wasnt made to diss anyone. It was made to be funny. Has anyone ever seen some of the shirts sold at places like Spencers? I think because it is a gay issue everyone is throwing in an opinion about it. If it were anything else it wouldnt be a big deal. I cant wait until the day that these things are not a daily subject anymore and everyone learns not to judge and keep their beliefs to themselves.

Wonder what would happen if the shirt said lesbians are immoral.

@ GEO, EXACTLY.............We would have public outcry from the Gay Community because it's not a 2 way street for them when it comes to the 1st amendment............

Just so sick and tired of the anything goes crowd shoving everything in my face. I think the hunting population at 45 million should just start posting millions of pictures of their kills all over the web and news and see how the liberals like that. I think they outnumber the few with the most attention.

The part that bothers me is that if the t-shirt had said 'all the cool girls are straight' there would be people here screaming their heads off about how it was anti-gay bigotry, and that the shirt should be banned and destroyed.

I don't have anything against gays (of any flavor), and as far as I'm concerned what you do in your private life is your own damn business and nobody else's, but there are certain thick headed individuals who need to learn what equality really means.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Well put, stonedog.

The part that bothers me is that all of us are thinking about high school girls having sex with each other.

Don't deny it.

Now you're talkin.

What do we do now with the students who wear shirts that say "brown pride" "black pride" "asian pride" and things of that sort? These shirts are actually worn out of racism and prejudice, but we let them do this?

I'll be here all night.

What do we do now with the students who wear shirts that say "brown pride" "black pride" "asian pride" and things of that sort? These shirts are actually worn out of racism and prejudice, but we let them do this?

I'm going to be f--king terrified when little people start wearing "midget pride" shirts and ganging up on us. I mean, they're hilarious when they're alone, but in packs, I bet they're dangerous.

Bakuo -

If her shirt had said "Gay Pride" it wouldn't be an issue. But it didn't say that, it said "All cool girls are lesbians." That is a completely different story. Stonedog34 is absolutely right.

Although one could debate the logic of being proud of something you had nothing to do with (ex: being born a certain race) there is nothing wrong in being proud of one's heritage.

But Bakuo, now you're saying that wearing a Washington "racist name deleted" is not offensive? But wearing a Native Pride t-shirt is? Native Americans invented a "Fighting Whities" mascot to bring attention to the whole racism issue but apparently 'angry White Americans' loved it. Only a paranoid individual is scared of a t-shirt.

Billthepill: You're missing the point. We are not discussing FEAR of anything here. Please re-read Stonedog's post @ #3.2 above, which is the clearest one on the subject in this area.

People need to READ and think more these days! Reading comprehension reinforcemet is something that is direly needed in school especially nowadays...and NOT wasting time with this distracting and DISRUPTIVE stuff..citing one example.

All the cool girls are straight.

AG99, that was very well put. No need to add to it. It gets the results desired by The Right, and appeals to the thinking of The Left. I hope your opinion spreads.

There is something terribly wrong with the exchange of posts between #3.4-3.7, it is implying the self-proclaimed 'gay guy' is thinking about underage boys wrestling in the gym shower.

The part that bothers me is that if the t-shirt had said 'all the cool girls are straight' there would be people here screaming their heads off about how it was anti-gay bigotry

if the school's actions would not have been equal and the same, it would be bigotry; if the school's actions would have been the same, there would be people screaming their heads off about religious persecution

Public school's that allow T-shirts/sweat shirts with symbols and logo's have to have a clear cut policy and unbiased policy, and must apply that policy equally across the religio-political spectrum. To be honest, in most cases (such as this one), the teacher's and principal are usually the ones who cause the classroom distraction in how they handle these cases and draw attention to the potentially offensive/distracting garb.

In reality, all the cool girls are bisexual. But it's just a t-shirt, so who cares? If the teacher and principle hadn't made a big deal of it, she'd have worn it as often as her other t-shirts. I just think it's funny that it is pink. Isn't that color more popular with gay guys than gay women? Then again, my fashion sense leaves me still wearing LEVIs, I could well be mistaken. She should get one that says"I'm with stupid ->", and stand next to the teacher who started the whole thing.

Everybody keeps saying it's bad because it says "the cool kids are", WHO CARES! Maybe your kids and apparently many of you need to get a grip on the fact that being cool doesn't matter. I swear, anybody on here saying it's because it makes straight kids feel less cool need to get a life. You know when the last time I was worried about being cool? High School. After that I got a life and realized that the supposed "cool" kids were all dorks to begin with. And it's fine for a High School, these kids are 16, 17 and 18 yrs old. It's time for them to grow up and not be distracted by a t-shirt. It's not as if it depicts lesbian sex. And for the person who said "what if the shirt said "All cool kids wear condoms"" Why is that a bad thing? At least it promotes safe sex and who cares about the virgins, if they chose to be a virgin, no shirt will change their view and if they didn't choose to be a virgin then they are trying to lose it anyway so might as well promote safety. Reading comments on here is why I have zero faith in people. Everybody's so damn worried about what everybody else is doing.

Great comment. The tee shirt says nothing obscene, is not religious, and is not true. A very intelligent teacher told the staff not to comment on our basketball team's Mohawk haircuts way back when because it would just call attention to us and create attention to us. Ignore it and the hair would grow out soon and would be forgotten. They did and it was.

anybody on here saying it's because it makes straight kids feel less cool need to get a life.

I agree. I say the same thing when we talk about "gay bashing". What is this garbarge just because it makes them feel less cool.

ANYTHING religious is not allowed in public schools, so one can only assume that would go for t-shirts with religious symbols also. I have read where crucifixes were not allowed to be worn as pins or necklaces. A Catholic University was made to shroud religious symbols hanging inside thier own buildings when the President visited there for a speech. What happend to "live and let live" in those instances?

Unless schools want to constantly deal with these fine lines between what is and what isn't acceptable to whoever, the wiser choice would be to ban all clothing with writing or logos at all in their dress code. Obvious exceptions would be school and school team branding and names of the clothes themselves if not too blatant (A&F, and Love Pink come to mind). That makes the dress code issue so much simpler to enforce with very few cases falling into a gray area.

Uniforms, end of story and end of problem.

I don't think anyone seriously believes that this girl thinks lesbians are better than straight people, whereas a shirt that said, "all the cool people straight," is more likely to seem like an attack, primarily because heterosexuality is widely accepted and homosexuality is not.

That said, as a gay person, I don't think the shirt is appropriate for a normal schoolday. If she wants to wear it one day a year on the "day of silence" or whatever, as principal I'd probably let it slide. But being purposely in your face isn't appropriate for anyone at school on a normal day.

On the other hand, though, after the first time wearing this shirt, most teachers and students would likely ignore it. Maybe making a big deal out of it is exactly the wrong thing to do.

I'm going to be f--king terrified when little people start wearing "midget pride" shirts and ganging up on us. I mean, they're hilarious when they're alone, but in packs, I bet they're dangerous.

Let's not forget ginger kids.

The point of watching and regulating what they wear is summed up in one word. DISRUPTION

Now we see here on MSNBC that a 12 year old in Minnesota is not allowed to talk about her school or people at school on Facebook. They humiliated this little girl. As a parent, they would have regretted that decision. THIS IS NOT A SCHOOL MATTER. However,

Wearing a shirt like this she was making a statement, drawing attention, disrupting. This IS a school matter. NOT OKAY. However, as a parent I would have gone out and had a straight girls are cool shirt made and double dog dare them to say a word!!

Aggie-345886

ANYTHING religious is not allowed in public schools, so one can only assume that would go for t-shirts with religious symbols also. I have read where crucifixes were not allowed to be worn as pins or necklaces. A Catholic University was made to shroud religious symbols hanging inside thier own buildings when the President visited there for a speech. What happend to "live and let live" in those instances?

What? When did this happen? If it's on the catholic schools grounds, they shouldnt have to shroud their symbols. That's bull@!$%#!

I do not think it is an appropriate shirt for school. It implies "all the cool girls" are sexually active, which is not what anyone in the schools needs to be concentrating on.

I want a t-shirt that say, "God Hates Cotton-Poly Blends" on the front. And on the back I want it to say, "Well, I guess I'm screwed".

Get it??? Because the t-shirt would be a cotton-poly blend, and God called mixing fabrics an abomination!

But anyway, the key here isn't what would be going on or what people would be saying if you substituted "Lesbian" for another class of people. It's about whether the word lesbian constitutes a big enough distraction that the school then has a right to infringe on her expression.

It doesn't. It's a word. End of story. And if kids chose to bully/harrass her for it, then THEY should be the one's facing the consequences. No one has ever been injured by a t-shirt, the same can not be said about bullying. I mean, what's the greater crime, wearing an expressive t-shirt, or disrupting class over it?

Prohibiting her wearing of it, because some might freak out is putting the onus on the wrong person. We live in a society with free speech, the little poop heads that would cause a ruckus over the word, need to learn that the same freedom they have is also endowed in lesbians, gays, blacks, asians, whites, males, latinos...

if this shirt is ok what happens when someone wears a shirt "all cool girls like big peckers" ?

Well after reading this again, I think the local christians should make a charge:

The school's dress code prohibits clothing that depicts weapons, drugs or alcohol, or anything considered disruptive, but it doesn't specify gender issues.

Not disruptive? It has national attention. Apparently if this shirt is NOT disruptive, then I can think of a lot of things I would bring to bear on this school.

Aggie-345886

ANYTHING religious is not allowed in public schools, so one can only assume that would go for t-shirts with religious symbols also. I have read where crucifixes were not allowed to be worn as pins or necklaces. A Catholic University was made to shroud religious symbols hanging inside thier own buildings when the President visited there for a speech. What happend to "live and let live" in those instances?

It's not that ANYTHING religious is not allowed in public schools, it's that the public schools are not allowed to "promote" any religion. Teachers can't lead their students in prayer, or hang a cross or a star of David in their classroom, etc. Students are allowed to wear clothes with religious imagery or symbolism or messages. They are allowed to gather and pray if it's not done on school time, i.e. before school, after school or during lunch. It's not a matter of keeping the students as individuals or groups from any religious activity, it's a matter of keeping the school out of it. Like the prayer banner issue in Cranston, PA recently. If a student wore a shirt with the prayer on it, there is no First Amendment issue. If the school hangs a prayer on the wall of the auditorium, there is a First Amendment issue.

Also, I'd like to see some info about a catholic university having to cover religious symbols because the President came around.

All the cool kids are white.

All the cool kids are hetrosexual.

Are you all OK with that?

Now think about the word equality.

Not disruptive? It has national attention. Apparently if this shirt is NOT disruptive, then I can think of a lot of things I would bring to bear on this school.

Um, no, wrong. The overblown response to the t-shirt and the intolerance behind the thinking that the word "lesbian" constitutes a disruption so great that freedom of expression needs to be infringed upon and that children can not even handle reading it on a t-shirt, has national attention, not the t-shirt per se.

Ryan,

Please, don't try to play the "poor straight white guy" card. Straight, white people have had equality since the concept began. This has nothing to do with equality. This is about freedom of expression. Words on t-shirts don't hurt people, whether the t-shirt says "All Cool Kids are Straight", or "All Cool Kids are Gay".

Now, imagine how many people would be ranting about us being too "PC" if the t-shirt did say "All Cool Kids are Straight".

Freedom, is freedom, and those expressing themselves shouldn't be held hostage to the idiots that would ACT on their own expressions in negative ways.

@Aggie-345886

ANYTHING religious is not allowed in public schools, so one can only assume that would go for t-shirts with religious symbols also. I have read where crucifixes were not allowed to be worn as pins or necklaces.

that is patently false, and it's disingenuous (at best) for the religious right to keep spreading these sorts of lies and for people like you to just believe them. Public school students can wear religious jewelry/clothing as long as it's in line with the rest of the dress code (i.e., if it says no earrings, then crucifix earrings would not be OK). Public school students can also carry their bibles and read them during free time, they can say grace at their lunch tables, etc. It's when they cross the boundaries to forcing someone else to participate even passively (i.e., a bunch of kids surround a kid at a lunch table and start praying) that they can run into trouble.

I'd also like you to provide a link to a verified news organization (as opposed to one like WND which routinely reports lies as fact) to show where a religious institution was mandated to cover up religious symbols/icons for a visit &speech by the POTUS

Sarah, you confuse school with the mall and as ususal, you speak out of both sides of your mouth.

It doesn't. It's a word. End of story. And if kids chose to bully/harrass her for it, then THEY should be the one's facing the consequences. No one has ever been injured by a t-shirt, the same can not be said about bullying. I mean, what's the greater crime, wearing an expressive t-shirt, or disrupting class over it?

Prohibiting her wearing of it, because some might freak out is putting the onus on the wrong person. We live in a society with free speech , the little poop heads that would cause a ruckus over the word, need to learn that the same freedom they have is also endowed in lesbians, gays, blacks, asians, whites, males, latinos...

I noticed you left christians out of your list..........???? Jesus is just a word. Gun, pistol, Conferderacy, Sex, etc. etc. All just words right and a t-shirt has never hurt anyone. Right? By the way, the kid that might cause a rukus as you call it, has rights too!!

Schools have dress codes for a reason. Just because you and one other think it is okay does not give you the right to trample on my childs rights.

man, i'm complaining....this is anti-straight bigotry!

I noticed you left christians out of your list..........????

Yeah, because I don't have time to type every demographic. I also left off Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Native Americans, mentally impaired, Hindus, Europeans...

See???

Jesus is just a word. By the way, the kid that might cause a rukus as you call it, has rights too!!

Yes, and kids can wear all the Jesus t-shirts and jewelry they want. They can hang pictures of him in their lockers, they can pray to him before tests. Their rights, just like this kid's rights, end where their actions begin. Express away, but you don't get to disrupt class or someones life because you're in disagreement with THEIR harmless expressions.

Sarah, you confuse school with the mall and as ususal, you speak out of both sides of your mouth.

How exactly did I do this? Expression, is just that, expression. You can love it or hate it. What you don't always get to do is ACT on that love or hatred.

The t-shirt and word harmed no one. It didn't target or single out anyone, it was a blanket, pithy, statement on a t-shirt. Merely an expression. Any disruption caused by it would be based in the intolerance of those doing the disruption. Those that would cause a disruption or target the girl because of the word are ACTING, ergo the onus should be on them.

Schools have dress codes for a reason. Just because you and one other think it is okay does not give you the right to trample on my childs rights.

Please explain how allowing this kid to wear this t-shirt, tramples your kid's rights.

Please, explain what harmful effects this t-shirt/word could have?

I'm not saying whether a T-shirt like that is appropriate or not or if the school admin had the right to ban the girl from wearing that. However, the doors were opened a long time ago when schools started allowing any clothing that had writing on it. Now, the only appropriate way of stopping this and future happenings of this sort is to simply have a required dress code or prescribed uniform. You can't have your cake and eat it too in cicumstances such as this. If no one had said anything about the girl's shirt, she may have never worn it again. Can't wait to hear Rush Limphead's take on this one...

Can't wait to hear Rush Limphead's take on this one...

Probably something like "She's a slut who has so much sex that she has to wear a shirt about it. Oh yea, she's a prostitute, too. And if she's going to wear shirt that talks about being a lesbian, she needs to make video tapes of her sexual escapades so we can all watch them."

Hrm...maybe I shouldn't say stuff like that about a HS student, even if I'm being facetious....

BH,

I wouldn't call facetious, so much as honest. And that's what's really terrifying. That most of the people who are ridiculing this t-shirt and infringing on this child's, harmless, expression, are the same ones who cry "Free Speech" when Rush's sponsors pull out or the nation pushes back against something he said.

As much as I hate to admitt it, that abhorrent, vile, blowhard is ALSO protected, but to defend him while infringing on the harmless expression of a kid...

Barf.

Prohibiting her wearing of it, because some might freak out is putting the onus on the wrong person. We live in a society with free speech, the little poop heads that would cause a ruckus over the word, need to learn that the same freedom they have is also endowed in lesbians, gays, blacks, asians, whites, males, latinos.

Okay, we will have to agree to disagree, but my actual point is this. The school's dress policy basically has rules against shirts with guns, alcohol, smoking or anything disruptive. This shirt I think we can say is and has been quite disruptive. If we all have the same rights, then so be it.

Whether you are the disruptor or the disputee, disrption by its very nature is disruptive, which is against their stated rules. Whether you punish the disruptor or the disruptee, either or both have been disrupted. Again, against their written rules. BUT, because this has to do with "gay rights" or at least certainly seems so, they have run backwards on their own rules.

BTW, I have a child in High School and no they can't were "christian" shirts or slogans.

I actually don't have a problem with a person who choses to be gay or live that lifestyle. I do however, get tired of the double standards. For example: what happens if my son wears a confederate flag shirt to school? Does your model still fit him then? (not that he would, but for examples sake)?

Sarah,

You say the words on the shirt are harmless, I have to disagree.

You say there is a big difference between expression and bullying. I agree.

No one has ever been injured by a t-shirt, the same can not be said about bullying. I mean, what's the greater crime, wearing an expressive t-shirt, or disrupting class over it?

I know it may be a stretch to say that the shirt constitutes bullying, but the message is definitely not a good one. As has been posted a hundred times before, it is exactly the same as someone wearing a shirt that says, "All the cool kids are black" or "white" or "whatever." If someone wore a shirt that said, "All the cool kids are white" how is that not bullying? They are bullying anyone who is not white. I know she didn't wear the shirt with the intent to bully, but the message is what it is. I feel like there is a lot of logical gymnastics going on to try to excuse why the shirt is ok to wear. If it's not ok for one group of people, it's not ok for any group of people.

I agree with you that the administration probably thought the word "lesbian" was inappropriate and that was the main motivation behind their decision to not let her wear the shirt. Their motive was wrong. However, ultimately, their decision was, in my opinion, correct.

PROHIBITION... ....From L.A. Times-April, 2009

Obama White House ordered coverup of religious symbols for Georgetown speech

"In coordinating the logistical arrangements for the event, Georgetown honored the White House staff's request to cover all of the Georgetown University signage and symbols behind the Gaston Hall stage in order to accommodate a backdrop of American flags, consistent with other policy speeches," said university spokeswoman Julie Green Bataille in a statement.

Obama's office called it standard protocol and said there was no specific effort against religious symbols. "Decisions made about the backdrop for the speech were made to have a consistent background of American flags, which is standard for many presidential events," said spokesman Shin Inouye. "Any suggestions to the contrary are simply false."

was having problems getting the LA Times to open so I've included the quote from Georgetown's spokesperson on the issue that appeared in WaPo and other unbiased sources. Please note, all university signage & symbols were covered to provide a US Flag back drop for the speech, so it wasn't just religious symbols covered for the back drop. If you wonder why I keep referring to the back drop is because no other symbols or signage were covered in Gaston Hall and there were 26 other religious symbols in Gaston Hall that were not covered and that were visible in some pictures taken at the speech []

The school's dress policy basically has rules against shirts with guns, alcohol, smoking or anything disruptive. This shirt I think we can say is and has been quite disruptive. If we all have the same rights, then so be it

Guns, alcohol, and drugs are all illegal for children that age, it's understandable why the school can and should prohibit them or the glorifying of them. Kids are too, shall we say stupid, to fully grasp the harmful effects and negative impacts of those things, and too immature to handle them smartly. Lesbian is not illegal, nor is it harmful. Society has no stake, no claim in getting it's collective panties in a bunch over "lesbian".

Again, against their written rules. BUT, because this has to do with "gay rights" or at least certainly seems so, they have run backwards on their own rules

They need to apply the rules to the people who are breaking them. What, lesbian causes a disruption, so are you going to make a rule stating none of the students can be gay? When we start holding the people doing the disrupting accountable, instead of the people being targeted by the disruption, we fixing the source of the problem, instead of hiding the problem out of fear that some may be disruptive.

And if your kid really can't wear a Jesus t-shirt to school, I would highly suggest suing the sh** out of the school district.

Chris,

If someone wore a shirt that said, "All the cool kids are white" how is that not bullying? They are bullying anyone who is not white

Bullying constitutes more than a mere saying on a t-shirt. Threat of harm, egregious insults, targeted, prolonged attacks, humiliation. Only those with the most delicate sensibilities would consider a t-shirt a bully. What's next, no more bumber stickers? No more signs hanging in lockers? Our society values sarcasm over sensitivity. You need to do more than wear a t-shirt to be a bully.

SAICS...I really don't have a problem with the religious Muslim clothing, we have freedom of religion, no matter what it may be. Nor did I focus my attention on that "background" more than I focused on the words he was speaking. Yes, I noticed, but, so what? People notice lots of things. Didn't make me feel threatened or coerced in any way. That being said, why would the WH not keep the background "religion neutral" and "consistent" during that speech and others I've watched given by Obama? There were undoubtedly American Flags flanking Obama during those speeches, what would prevent having one or more flanking him at GU without having to shroud the religious symbol? Not only that, but I read and saw videos of them taking Muslim women from the general audience and seating them directly behind Obama in camera views. I'm not saying Obama IS a Muslim..just strange that they are sought out to appear, pandering if you will, where at GU things had to be "religion neutral" and "kept consistent"...

Also Saics...I beg to differ about religious jewelry. There have been incidents in schools here when students wearing crucifix necklaces were told they had to put them inside their clothing, not hanging on the outside. That may just be SOME public schools, not all, as I see my comment did imply. Also some students whose t-shirts displayed bible verses were made to turn the shirts inside out. Hard to imagine kids wearing shirts with verses...I know my kids wouldn't have...just SO "lame". :)

hat being said, why would the WH not keep the background "religion neutral" and "consistent" during that speech and others I've watched given by Obama?

I would not be surprised to hear that other Presidents had a standard flag (or other "patriotic") background when giving a televised public policy speech. My guess is that, prior to politicians deciding to out Christian one another, this was probably standard practice. Plus, it was just the area right behind him that was covered with the flags - the other religious icons & symbols were not hidden and were visibly in some of the televised shots. Had this been a speech specifically to Georgetown students I would say there was a legitimate reason to raise an eyebrow at this as but this appears to have been a regular public policy speech that was done at a remote location (which happened to be a Catholic University).

Also Saics...I beg to differ about religious jewelry. There have been incidents in schools here when students wearing crucifix necklaces were told they had to put them inside their clothing, not hanging on the outside. That may just be SOME public schools, not all, as I see my comment did imply. Also some students whose t-shirts displayed bible verses were made to turn the shirts inside out. Hard to imagine kids wearing shirts with verses...I know my kids wouldn't have...just SO "lame". :)

Some schools have policies about jewelry hanging out because it can present a safety issue (kids will grab at a necklace in an attempt to hurt someone). As for bible verses on T-shirts - what was the school policy on wearing T-shirts was sayings/logos (other than school one) on them? I reiterate, public schools are not devoid of personal religious observance by students, bibles are not prohibited from school grounds (you can read them on your free time during the school day) and students can wear small religious tokens/jewelry. Liberals and the ACLU have supported students who sued because of overzealous school boards in the same way we support the kids who sue when public schools do establish religion as part of their school day, allow overt proselytizing/harassment on religious grounds and use taxpayer dollars to pay to send the good Christian kids to religious instruction in the middle of the school day saying it was OK because the other kids could just opt to stay in the classroom (that was a school in Delaware - you'd be surprised at the stuff that goes on at public schools along the DelMarVa line).

I get what you're saying about "out Christianing" one another. That still doesn't explain, and you don't address why the Muslim women in thier Islam religion's traditional symbolic dress of hijabs were escorted from the general audience and placed directly behind Obama...as a "backdrop".... I know you are not privvy to any motive, any more than am I, just point out that in that case it was not "religion neutral" as they say is thier policy. Since there are always American Flags displayed, I would imagine there were also flags displayed in the scenario.

As far as the neckwear being required to be put out of sight, it was ONLY the crucifixes, in this instance, as reported, that were required to be put inside, no costume necklaces or chains, or whatever. Ditto for the t-shirts. Of course the school's policy would include obscene, and/or disruptive sayings to be censored. I totally agree that anyone, of any age, or in any place who is preaching audibly and prostelitizing (sp?) or "recruiting" for any religion, I would find it extremely annoying and intrusive. But for as much as I've read on these types of "vines" how Christians are "shoving their religion down people's throats", I've never personally witnessed, seen or heard that anywhere. Discounting the loonie Westboro sickos disgraceful protests on TV, who are nowheres NEAR what Christianity is or embraces.

Anyway, at least you and I have had a civilized discussion, which is often not the case in these boards. We have, perhaps, had different observations, experiences and information, and that's all good. Whatever, it is what it is.

LOVING this gorgeous unseasonably warm weather...actually inspired me to get out.....and wash windows!

@Aggie - I don't recall the event so I have no idea why Muslim women were moved from the general audience, whether there other people seated with them?

As far as the neckwear being required to be put out of sight, it was ONLY the crucifixes, in this instance, as reported, that were required to be put inside, no costume necklaces or chains, or whatever.

that's one I can't explain but the school is out of line. I did hear there was a problem with rosaries at one school and they were banned because of something to do with gangs using them (therefor making it unsafe) - I'm not sure if there was any veracity to it or the argument held any weight in court. I wonder if that's the same school. Regardless, the religious right is terribly inaccurate to say religion, let alone personal expressions of religion like wearing a cross, are not permitted in public schools because they are. Additionally, it's pretty hard to discuss European history without referencing religion because the church was pretty central to the political landscape back in the day and the protestant reformation had a pretty big impact . . .

. . . Christians are "shoving their religion down people's throats", I've never personally witnessed, seen or heard that anywhere.

When they (and I) reference the Christians shoving their religion down our throats we are referring to the religious right (Christian religious orthodoxy that includes the fundamentalist movements and, lately, the Vatican) not all Christians. The majority of progressives are actually "people of faith" that include non-fundamentalist Christian denominations, Jews, agnostics/atheists, Muslims, Taoists, etc. and, when we see/hear leaders of religious organizations, republican legislators and conservative pundits and their followers saying that public officials have to be "Christian" and that civil law should match biblical law, and/or we are criticized because we think an overt religious expression of putting a nativity scene on school or other government grounds is wrong, and/or we're told to "suck it up, it's a Christian country" when our children are lead in religious Christmas carols which include lyrics declaring a belief in Jesus as savior, and/or are told our very personal health decisions must pass muster with the doctrine of a church to which we do not belong, and/or we see others being denied equal protections/rights under the law because the bible or G-d says it's an abomination, we're pretty sure that's a case of "Christians" shoving not only their religion, but their personal understanding of religion down our throats.

Anyway, at least you and I have had a civilized discussion, which is often not the case in these boards. We have, perhaps, had different observations, experiences and information, and that's all good. Whatever, it is what it is.

Civil discourse is always nice and helps cut out a lot of unnecessary BS that occurs when you see someone with whom you disagree as "the evil other". I think the latter, which has been expertly manipulated by the talking heads and politicians (who profit greatly from this mess so they don't want people to see their opponent as a human being who has a right to an opinion) has taken us from a position in which there was some degree of consensus to work together on issues and achieve goals both sides agree on (e.g., decrease the # of unplanned pregnancies to decrease the # of abortions) to one in which those of us in the middle of the extremes are tired of banging our heads against the wall.

Weather is lovely, I don't suppose you want to swing by Philly to do my windows (I made some soup for lunch)? :)

Saichs...Still trying to keep this a civil discussion, but I'm wondering if by saying that the Vatican is shoving the Catholic religion down people's throats, is in reference to the recent Constitutional issue whereby the government has mandated that Catholic employers must pay for contraception coverage for employees. It upsets me to see how this issue has mushroomed into a liberal political campaign issue. It has zero to do with politics, Republicans, women's "health",even birth control. It IS a CONSTITUTIONAL issue. Let me just ask you how you or the American people in general would feel if the government stepped in and forced Muslim business owners and employers to not allow the Muslim practice of several prayer breaks which are the practices and tradition of the Islam religion. Or if the government would mandate that Jewish deli owners purchase pork and pork products to serve to non-Jewish clientele, or even Muslim restaurant owners. None of the places I mention are owned or run by the Government, which is also the case with Catholic organizations. It is and would be against the Constitution to interfer with their Muslim and Jewish religious beliefs. The Constitution holds that there can be no one religion mandated, nor can the government interfer in the guaranteed freedom of religious practices and traditions and beliefs. The Catholic Church does not force their belief on non Catholic employees. Those people are not being forbidden to do as they choose. But for the govt. to FORCE ANY religion to go against their conscience, and be forced to pay for it no less, is in direct opposition of the guarantees set forth in our Constitutional Rights. Also the Church is not standing in the way of one getting whatever they choose, free of charge at Planned Parenthood and at Government clinics all over the country or at their own expense, which is minimal. And FYI, if a woman needs these type of meds for health reasons, i.e. polyps, endometriosis or to regulate thier cycle, etc. the doctor dispensing the prescription need only give those patients written verification that then can be given to their employer, and the meds will be covered. So, again, it's not a Republican thing, nor a women's health thing, nor a conservative thing, not even a birth control thing. The government is acting, in direct opposition to the guarantees and freedoms layed out in the Constitution, whih is the law of the land.

I have never heard any Republican or conservative pundit say that all public officials must be Christian. If theat were so, how do they explain the variety of religions, and possibly athiests represented in the Republican party...elected by Republican supporters. Probably some evangelicals, but I'd bet there are some Christian evangelicals in both parties. That is simply another politically motivated smear. Some of the GOP candidates have, when asked, answered honestly as to what THEY espouse in THEIR personal life, but have said that they would not even consider nor do they intend to make their convictions the law. Couldn't even if they wanted to.

As you can see, this issue does make me want to bang my head against the wall, because it seems people or so easily swayed, it's frustrating. Sorry for the rant....

Philly, huh? Been years since I've been there, but it was a beautiful city with an inspiring historic atmosphere. I'm a bit up north..Michigan. My fingers are still all prunie from my marathon widow washing yesterday, and even a good bowl of homemade soup doesn't entice me to do more. (Darn, now I'm craving soup!) .

good heavens, I've typed up a response twice and my stupid browser keeps doing weird things to lose them.

The church is mandating that all employers and individuals be allowed to inject their personal religious views in any and all workplaces via benefits and refusal of service (and yet would scream if a liberal employer fired or refused to hire someone who refused to do their job based on moral objection) - that's about as hypocritical as it gets. The church openly acknowledges that Obama's work around exempts them form involvement regarding contraception but if fighting it because they feel they are indirectly involved and forced to facilitate use of contraception even if the employee pays for a supplemental plan to cover these services (because the employee would need more than a supplemental plan if they weren't provided a basic policy). Technically they could argue that they are forced to facilitate an employees use of contraceptives if the employee uses the income they earn from working for the offended employer (and in Arizona that employer may well have the right to fire an employee for using contraception). Tell me honestly, would you support an employer who based on religious/moral belief would cover pregnancy related costs and insure dependent children only if the parents were married to each other but refuse coverage for any pregnancy related costs if the woman is not married and deny coverage for dependent children in non-marital relationships? How about an employer that has a deep-seeded moral objection to overpopulation who would limit coverage to adoption, contraception and abortion while refusing coverage for pregnancy or dependents? If you can carve out employee benefits based on your personal morals you should also be allowed to treat employees differently based on them and, since this is all based on the government not being able to have a mandate that offends your religious sensibilities I guess short-term disability and FMLA should be able to be based on employer's religious beliefs too. Do you see what a slippery slope this is? The religious right likes this because it's a way they can use their church based lobby groups to impose religion into legislation (WI is working on a bill to outlaw private insurers covering abortion and, some folks have a religious belief that hormonal contraceptives are abortifacients and their religious beliefs should trump science - just ask Pa state rep Tim Murphy; AZ is working on a bill that would actually allow an employer to fire an employee for using birth control).

And FYI, if a woman needs these type of meds for health reasons, i.e. polyps, endometriosis or to regulate thier cycle, etc. the doctor dispensing the prescription need only give those patients written verification that then can be given to their employer, and the meds will be covered.

So now a women must forgo rights granted her under HIPAA to provide her boss access to her personal health information that has no bearing on her job AND the employer gets to decide if he accepts the physician's diagnosis and considers it legitimate? Can we make the same mandate for anti-infectives - you may be treating a STI and I object to that. . .

So, again, it's not a Republican thing, nor a women's health thing, nor a conservative thing, not even a birth control thing

I agree that it's not just a women's health or birth control thing; this is just an easy start for the religious right and works in favor of the GOPs broader plan which is to absolve big business from providing any benefits to employees and limit protections for employees. That said, it is telling that the only health issues that are impacted and scrutinized here are ones limited to GYN care. Does that not seem odd to you?

I'm not even going to dignify the food analogy with an answer, it is patently offensive to equate health care and it's not an equal argument. The government is not mandating was services the church has to provide to its customers so your argument would be more on target if you were defending a kosher deli complaining about it's employees eating pork elsewhere.

Outside of healthcare, there is the issue of the reason the church is fighting a battle against SSM. They acknowledge that the church does not have to provide religious sacrament or even allow gays in their church but that their problem is that if gays marry civilly they are, under the 14th amendment, entitled to the same civil rights as heterosexuals who are married and the church finds it objectionable even though it has nothing to do with the church:

"By a single stroke, every law WHERE RIGHTS DEPEND ON MARITAL STATUS - on, employment benefits, adoption, education, healthcare, elder care, housing, property, and taxation—will change so that same-sex sexual relationships must be treated as if they were marriage."

This isn't isn't about a religious conservative having to be gay, go to a gay wedding or violate any church doctrine at all. They not only want the ability for their supporters to inject their beliefs in a way to directly interfere in someone else having equal protections under the 14th amendment, they don't want those who disagree with them to even have the option to support those they oppose (i.e., they have not limited their argument to a "Christian" civil servant refusing to file a marriage certificate for a couple they find morally objectionable they're demanding the state not issue the licenses because they think they are somehow involved by default).

The government is acting, in direct opposition to the guarantees and freedoms layed out in the Constitution, whih is the law of the land.

Quite the opposite, the government is actually working to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals from unwanted and unnecessary coercion. FYI - WI working on a law to ban private insurers from covering abortion (and some folks, state rep Tim Murphy to name one, label hormonal contraceptives as abortifacient because it's his "religious belief" and to reference science is somehow a violation of his religious beliefs).

I'm reposting this for when the original thread gets collapsed.

All the cool kids are white.

All the cool kids are hetrosexual.

Are you cool with them wearing that?

It's a good thing most lesbian arn't hot, otherwise I'm cool with what ever hot chicks wears. Now if the the shirt had said, all the hot chicks are lesbian, then I will have a problem with it.

babyfinnsta, wouldn't that be the same as leaving this t-shirt at home? Neither of them need to be said, or both of them. If we don't want to be subjected to Bill, well you get the picture.

"that being said"

This cliche was worn out long ago.

All it really shows anyone is that the one who uses it is pompous ass.

If you're going to use that phrase it would come off better if you had provided some evidence, logic or argument that proved a point, not just express your shallow opinion.

The point is this...if it would have said that "all heterosexual girls are cool" it would have been completely unacceptable to you and many on here. You would find it "UN-Constitutional"!

babyfinnsta

If people left their morals at home like you say, all of us would have to think twice before going out our doors for fear of being shot or robbed or raped, depending on who we are, You seem to forget the laws we had up until recently were biblical based. You know the 10 commandments, and Leviticus 18:22. Wearing that statement on shirt is as offensive to me as someone having homosexual bashing slogans are to homosexuals. So leave the political agenda at home also. I don't want my daughter seeing that static, Leave your agendas at home they have no place in a public school setting!!!!!!

Voice of Reason-4784236

"that being said"

This cliche was worn out long ago.

All it really shows anyone is that the one who uses it is pompous ass.

I would say your comment in reference to the use of a legitimate phrase to connect what may appear to be inconsistent thoughts (but, put into context, are not) is the sign of pomposity. I wonder if you would have called someone out as a pompous ass for saying they personally disagreed with an act while recognizing the right for the person to do it under the circumstances if you had agreed with them.

mountainstateboy-4512562 - the funny thing is, if your daughter is in high school, she is exposed to that sort of stuff without someone actually wearing it on a tee shirt. If you think she isn't, you're very niave. My daughter graduated from HS several years ago, and she knew of many gay kids at her school. It isn't as much of a stigma anymore, so more and more kids are "out", especially around their friends. And I for one think that is great.

The person who said to leave their morals at home was right, but phrased it wrong. Leave your religious intollerance at home. Most of us who are open minded are very moral, very good and loving toward each other and don't need religion to know and not want to break laws or go around killing people.

The simple fact that no one beat the crap out of her says we have come a long way in 10 years.

As for religious intolerance Sally, they have the same right to their beliefs that you do. You are another one that speaks out of both sides of your mouth. When you start your sentence with "Most of US WHO are open minded and then show how closed minded you are; are hypocrites. Not that this will surpirse anyone. I AM OPEN MINDED as long as you don't say or do anything that I don't like.

BTW his HS student is exposed to christian kids too, they just can't advertise it on a shirt. NOW you tell me who is INTOLERANT?? Is this girl not trying to push HER belief system?

i think the school was completely logical about it all.
it wasnt a rush to judgement and i feel it was handled correctly. straight or gay shirt, it wasnt right.

My sister in the mid 90's wore a shirt with a dixie flag on it that read you wear your X and ill wear mine, it was to protest the malcom x movement. she was asked to turn it inside out also.

after i graduated the school said collared shirts had to be worn.

a kid wore a plain t shirt, no grafix or writing, and he was sent HOME for no collar.

so, yes this shirt would be out of line in most schools.

wow, and the hate keeps chugging along. Why is this national news anyways?

mountainstateboy-4512562

If people left their morals at home like you say, all of us would have to think twice before going out our doors for fear of being shot or robbed or raped, depending on who we are, You seem to forget the laws we had up until recently were biblical based. You know the 10 commandments, and Leviticus 18:22. Wearing that statement on shirt is as offensive to me as someone having homosexual bashing slogans are to homosexuals. So leave the political agenda at home also. I don't want my daughter seeing that static, Leave your agendas at home they have no place in a public school setting!!!!!!

1. We're free to worship any god we choose (or none at all)
2. We're free to make idols
3. We're free to misuse the name of god
4. We're free to not keep the sabbath holy
5. We're free to not honor our mother and father
6. We are not free to commit murder
7. We're free to commit adultery*
8. We are not free to steal
9. We're free to lie (some exceptions apply)
10. We're free to covet

I think it's pretty plain to see that our laws are not biblically based. Our laws are common sense based. There are only 2 of the 10 commandments that are the same as our laws (3 if you count not lying, but that only applies in specific circumstances, e.g. under oath). Murder and theft are the only two that are the same, and those have been laws in pretty much every civilization ever.

*Adultery is illegal in some states, but those "blue laws" are rarely enforced.

If you want to point to specific scriptures, let's see what else we can find... How about Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (kill unruly children), Leviticus 25:44-46 (slavery is a-ok), Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (punishment for rape is 50 silver shekels and marry the victim), or Deuteronomy 22:23-24 (punishment for being raped is to be stoned to death), Exodus 13:2 (firstborn Israelites are to be sacrificed to god). I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Also, to clear up any confusion, you can read the Treaty of Tripoli from 1796, particularly article 11

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

I have a bad feeling you are not going to like the next gen republicans. Nope.

U of Chi student once you matriculate and go on to crush the inferiors around you your liberal days will be long behind you. About the time you make your first million in your first venture capital private equity middle class destroying deal. Just like mommy and daddy.

I have a 53% gallup poll that begs to differ.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx

Wow, dizzyme just came out against Dick Cheney's daughter, Darth is gonna get you.

dizzyme, would you agree that a tee reading "all the cool lesbians are girls" would be acceptable?

and the majority is always right or is the majority only always right when you're in that majority?

Pedantic religious imperialism is terribly uncool

So you are now the spokesperson for "the majority", Dizzy? I wonder what sort of data you have used to reach your conclusion.

Dizzy, while I don't agree with your comment, I do agree with the sentiment that the "Majority rules". Unfortunately though that doesn't fly in todays world. The Majority of the people in this country are Christian to some degree or another but if it offends ONE person who doesn't believe in it, then the statue, decorations, etc. must go. So much for Majority rules.

I have nothing against the gay/lesbian community. What people do is up to them. But that shirt does not belong in a public school. If someone came in with "Straights are cool" on their t-shirt then there would be an uproar.

Yeah, you can't have majority rule. WHY ON EARTH would we want to do what the MAJORITY of people wish? I mean for goodness sake, how does that make any sense at all? If we do that then I don't get to do whatever I want? (throws doll down and crosses arms)

Someone might not like that.............Geez!!

Lesbians, not so cool. Bi-sexual chicks, now that's hot.

Janine-1645002

Dizzy, while I don't agree with your comment, I do agree with the sentiment that the "Majority rules". Unfortunately though that doesn't fly in todays world. The Majority of the people in this country are Christian to some degree or another but if it offends ONE person who doesn't believe in it, then the statue, decorations, etc. must go. So much for Majority rules.

I have nothing against the gay/lesbian community. What people do is up to them. But that shirt does not belong in a public school. If someone came in with "Straights are cool" on their t-shirt then there would be an uproar.

Janine, am I correct to infer from your post that you are a christian? If you are in favor of majority rules, would you still be in favor if christians weren't the majority? I have a feeling you'd be singing a different tune.

Also, the USA is a republic. In a republic, the rights of the individual are not subject to the will of the majority. You say that "if it offends ONE person who doesn't believe in it, then the statue, decorations, etc. must go. So much for Majority rules." If this is in reference to courthouses displaying the 10 commandments, or city hall displaying a nativity scene, or similar cases, this isn't a majority vs. minority issue, it's a Constitutional issue. It's an issue of government property being used to promote a specific religion over others, and by extension religion over non-religion.

I had a few lesbian friends in high school that were pretty cool. Except for the more "manly" ones that wore trucker hats. They look like they could kick my A$$.

Sorry Barb, but these days girls play football and boys are on the cheer squad.

Is that the best you've got? Pathetic.

Don't forget all those queer band geeks, what with their blowing on cylindrical objects and tonguing notes rapidly. I mean, what's more phallic than a guy with a big black clarinet in his mouth? How gay. We should outlaw any school activity that bears even the slightest resemblance to sexual activity that our own sick perverted minds can come up with. You know, because inconveniencing the many as long as it makes a few old people feel more comfortable is what America is all about.

Barb......Errrr Bob you're pathetic.

In olden days a glimpse of stocking

Was looked on as something shocking.

Now heaven knows, anything goes.

Danged newfangled PC advocates.

Actually, JoJo, you might want to do a little research before posting such an idiotic and bigoted response. If you had, you would know that back in the late 19th century when cheerleading started, there were ONLY boys on the "yell team". Watch a few old movies and you'll see. It's a Wonderful Life, Cheaper by the Dozen (the one about the real family not the Steve Martin version) had male cheerleaders, not female. Girls didn't start joining the squads until WWII, when women took over many traditional male jobs because the men were overseas. Remember A League of Their Own? Girls were playing traditionally male sports long before today, and if they can, why shouldn't they? Of course, the boys soon found the girls were easier to lift for stunts. I'm not sure when boys stopped joining the squads because there were no male cheerleaders when I was going to school, but they seem to be the norm again. Perhaps they started up again because the girls realized boys could throw them higher. At any rate, please try to gather your facts before you type, please.

How was my comment bigoted? It was a response to Barb's comments about funding big husky boys and the girls cheering them. One little sentence. Seem to me it only complements your statement. There was no mention of who should or shouldn't play the sport. No comment of who should or shouldn't wear the t-shirt. You people are so paranoid of somebody disagreeing with you, you make it up. Fact gathering was not necessary to say that these days boys are on the cheer squad and girls play football. So you call me a bigot and Barb calls me pathetic...for what?

Nah, the coolest people would wear a "I'm a trisexual" t-shirt.

Crop duster kid---Exactly! I challenge ANYONE to tell me the difference...Hmmmm, no takers?? Didn't think so....a bunch of buffoons on here that are blind to their own discrimination. I am sorry but if it was so cool to be a lesbian you wouldn't have to wear a shirt to tell people that.

Jeez, it's like people completely lack cultural sensitivity and understanding on issues like this. Saying "I should be able to wear a shirt that says all the cool kids are heterosexual if the gay kids can wear their shirts" is like saying, "if that black kid can say the N-word then I should be able to say it." Racism, sexism, and bigotry against gays as well as other minority groups is still with us in the 21st century. What you're witnessing isn't a threat to the majority, namely those who are white, male, Christian, and heterosexual, but rather a sort of transition from feeling marginalized by their identity to flaunting it as a source of pride.

The shirt is cheeky and humorous. If you didn't laugh when you saw the shirt then you might want to lighten up. Blame the asymmetry if you want but minority groups of any kind just aren't capable of marginalizing majority groups. Wearing a shirt like that is no different than a girl wearing a shirt proclaiming "All the best engineers are girls." Should I stand up and claim victimhood because wearing a shirt saying "All the best engineers are men" will probably be interpreted as marginalizing women, despite not being all that funny? I'm not so sure.

These minority groups have had a long history of being attacked, hated on, and alienated because of their identities. Finding the beauty in those differences rather viewing it as a source of shame is extremely empowering. And using humor can make it fun, too.

Then if this shirt is Humorous and cheeky, then why wouldn't a shirt that said "All heterosexual girls are cool" be funny? Do you not see the double standard? I have no problem with it myself except for the fact that intolerance is being taught against White, Christian, Straight people.

This is exactly what is wrong with this country today!!! That this is even an issue, never mind tolerated. This offended little girl SHOULD BE SUSPENDED!!! The fact that the shirt said "ALL", factually makes it a lie & wrong!!! I'm sure there are plenty of girls that feel they are just as cool as any lesbian, dating the quarterback of their football team, assuming the quarterback is male!!! You're in school to learn, not make statements based on sexual preference!!!

Excellent point -- and we all know exactly how far anyone would get if we wore a shirt like that!

I have no problem with it myself except for the fact that intolerance is being taught against White, Christian, Straight people.

I assert that the bulk of intolerance of gays and homophobia in this country is perpetuated by white, Christian, straight people. And yes, I am aware that it is a double standard that restricts what we may wear or say in public. But to be perfectly honest, dealing with bigotry, racism, and homophobia is a much bigger problem here than the restrictions of being politically correct. I'm not convinced that in a society the majority should be entitled to its de facto privileges until it can treat all minorities with equal respect and tolerance. For the record, I am white, male, and straight, although I am not Christian.

Right on Noah R! Thank you for a well-thought out response to these knee-jerk reaction posts. I am a white, heterosexual Jew. It kills me that White, hetero Christians have the nerve to even utter the words discrimination, when referring to a supposed atrocity brought down upon them. This group of people has NEVER been in danger of having their rights marginalized; but it is a convenient defense mechanism to use, when they don't like the fact that minorities that have long been discriminated against and marginalized, by this very same group of people, begin to assert themselves and make their voices heard. When they say that this country is going down the tubes because we have to pander to the interests of minorities; what they really mean is that they are threatened by true equality and liberty.

As an example, we live in a small Southern community. Hence, it is 99% Christian. These are good, well-intentioned people, in my community. Yet, it is ok for kids to wear crosses around their neck to school; and nobody could ever say a word. But, my daughter gets harassed by students and teachers, for the Wiccan necklace she wore to school.

However, I am all for school uniforms. I wish they would institute them here. :)

wiccans are arrogant little potheads who watch too much buffy...they arent as cool as lesbians,however I know a very uncool lesbian

Obviously wiccan hunter your knowledge of wiccans is based on Charmed. For the most part they are more tolerant of other people than you are since there are jerks in all religions.

Funny story: working as a nurse, we had a temporary nurse come to work with us, and under her scrub top she was wearing a tshirt that said, "I love boobies." So all the young girls kept whispering that she was a lesbian. Over and over, I was amazed at how often it came up. Finally talking to this temp nurse, I asked her about her "Pink shirt with a pink ribbon that said, "I love boobies." She got the Tshirt from her sister who was a Mammogram tech. Its a Komen foundation Tshirt against breast cancer. LOL

Willow, where do I get one of them shirt that says "I love boobies"?

Can't wear those here. Someones already been there and done that!

There are some things that will be Bush's fault 40 years from now. But I don't see how this issue is. Care to explain?

There are some things that will be Bush's fault 40 years from now. But I don't see how this issue is. Care to explain?

The university owes you a refund.

Sorry Chris, but the damage that man did may last well over 40 years if we're not careful.

Well duh, but c'mon, where's the fun in deadpanning a serious answer to a Bush joke on a lesbian article? Way to drop the ball.

For example, I would have replied, "I agree, he never should have carpet bombed all those countries."

YUK YUK YUK!

C'mon guys - gderk is joking/laughing/baiting you, and you bit. :) Any comment thread on here can have a random ''it's Bush's fault'' or ''it's Clinton's fault'' thrown into it, and SOMEONE will jump up to agree or argue. :) I'm pretty sure gderk was just tongue-in-cheek joking, to see if he can get a rise outta someone, and he did. ;)

Damn striaght it's bush's fault. Need to shave that bush, bare is better. No more carpet munching.

I agree, I think her intentions were in the right place, but the wording of the shirt is not quite right.

"the wording is not quite right" ??? Please, you are completely blind if you don't see the intent that was behind wearing that shirt to school. There was an agenda for sure and it has nothing to do with good intentions...please do not assume this.

I disagree. If the statement had been worded, "Lesbians are cool" I would not have an issue with the shirt.

I don't think the girl was actually trying to say straight girls are not cool. I will continue to assume her intentions are good because I'm not that cynical. I would encourage you to let go of some of your cynicism.

All the cool people are just people.

Unfortunately, I can only vote for dragonmaster's comment once. You NAILED it my friend.

Well, Todd, allow me to assist you!

Here we go. Let's speculate on what this young lady meant to express.

How many of us would be allowed to where this kind of shirt in the workplace?

The City Hall is a Federal Funded Building, would be alright to wear a shirt that says " I F#*K, There for I am". I agree it would be funny, but I think I would be asked to leave.

All I was trying to do is pay my properity taxes. Oh Well.

What's immoral about being born a certain way? I thought morality was about actions.

The thing is Toasty when you start telling impressionable kids it is cool to be ANYTHING you mess with the whole "born that way" thing. After all if saying it is cool to do something won't have an effect on kids why don't we allow the advertising of alcohol and smoking in schools? There is nothing more insecure than a teenager and they ARE easy to sway. Why advertise for them to make a lifestyle choice in a public school?

as far as saying 'its cool to be a lesbian' causing kids to want to be lesbians is rather thin on logic. i was raised by and fully around straight people. i was immersed in straight culture. i wanted to be straight more than anything. a t-shirt wouldnt have made me be straight if i saw something that said 'its cool to be straight'..... the whole world around me was already saying that it was cool to be straight.

and as far as making kids who are wanting desperately to be cool... a tshirt that says it is cool to be part of a reviled group isnt going to make a lot of kids envious, nor, i doubt suddenly be something that they are not.

is it fair? i dont know or care - it just is.

tanya,

I agree to a point, but think about all the homosexual people who DO get married and have kids just so they can fit in. Can it not go the other way?

You know, I think this is just an example of old people not getting the humor of young people today. I honestly think that most of you guys just don't recognize tee shirt humor these days.

Toasty,

Maybe it was funny in an ironic way?

yeah i do think it was being ironic..... cause how cool is it to be denied access to your spouse (it happens) or other crap that still happens more to gay ppl? not saying life is all roses if you are not gay and that life is @!$%# if you are gay - only saying that there are extra hurdles if you are outside of 'social acceptable norms'...... i think the shirt is totally ironic..... and i dont think gay people who get married and have kids are doing it to be accepted normal so much as they fall in love and want kids like a great many humans want to do...... marriage and kids do not equal anything but being married with kids...... and of course there are people who are going to choose to not get married and have kids - but i dont see what that has to do exclusively with being accepted in society (there are many ways to be accepted)

and it makes me wonder about childless straight couples - does this mean they are not acceptable? no - it just means that they are childless. Getting married and having babies shouldnt be a standard to judge ppl is all. (((if i was getting your meaning right - i might have mistaken what you were saying - if so i am sorry)))

I think you make great points about injustices that homosexual couples face.

I admit I was being a bit disingenuous when I asked if the humor was ironic. My point was that, if the shirt was meant to be ironic, it could still be considered humor and yet have the exact opposite meaning. "All the cool girls are lesbians" would, in meaning, become "No lesbians are cool girls." Some people might find that funny, yet it is still inappropriate. In the same way, some people might find the original shirt funny, but that doesn't make it any less appropriate. Humor has no effect on whether or not the shirt is appropriate.

I'm a bit confused by what you wrote,

and i dont think gay people who get married and have kids are doing it to be accepted normal so much as they fall in love and want kids like a great many humans want to do

My understanding of homosexuality is that a homosexual person is not attracted to the opposite sex. Why would a person who is not attracted to the opposite sex fall in love, get married and have sex with a member of the opposite sex to create children?

I wasn't talking about a surrogate mother or father or something like that, I mean homosexuals who have been in a heterosexual relationship for years without their partner knowing about it. Why would they do that, except to try to conform to what society expects of them?

In the same way, if homosexuals live false lives in order to conform, then heterosexuals can also live false lives in order to conform. Now I know that there is much more pressure for homosexuals to conform than for heterosexuals in society at large, but what about a young, impressionable person in a relatively small environment (school) who might already have trouble fitting in? Might they not decide to live a false life in order to be accepted? I don't think it is beyond the realm of possibility that this could happen.

Well, it's just one of those tee shirts that uses retro images to say things that retro people would never say. That's just the latest tee shirt trend.

I interact with middle school and high school age youth for my job. This age group is highly attuned to social trends and what is perceived as 'cool.' These youth are also very insecure and impressionable. Their desire to fit in and be liked supersedes their common sense. Hence why peer pressure at this age is so effective for drugs, sex, gossip, eating disorders and all kinds of other things.

It is my opinion that to dismiss the negative message from this tee shirt or any source would be a mistake. Not because of the message that homosexuality is OK, but because of the message that says, "You are not good enough."

PJ not allowing advertising in schools is working so well ? seems underage drinking and teenage smoking is rampant now with these bans in place for decades. i am glad i do not live in the fear zone you appear to. i went thru a similar situation with my son in 1999 when he wore an ICP t-shirt that had violent j written on it with a picture of the performer on it. when i went to school the principal was named hasselhoff. when discussing the situation i was told the word violent promoted violence. to which i replied , based on this line of thinking when i see your name (hasselhoff) i think of large breasted women in orange bathing suits jiggling/running down the beach. i then took the box of tissues off his desk and excused myself to go to the restroom. the principal then said he understood. i then asked him about a shirt of marilyn manson to which he said that manson was a negative figure. i then explained that the song turn off your god was in reference to turning off your electronic devices not your religious beliefs. he said he didn't realize this. i also followed up with, what if it was a picture of christ with the crown of thorns that were so popular at the time. he said that was ok as christ is a positive figure. i replied i didn't think jewish, muslim, hindu, buddhist, or many others would agree. as a matter of fact many of those groups thought he was a majician or rabble rouser. i did assure him as did my son that my son would not wear the shirt again but i also told him it would be much better if teachers and school officials spent more time on explaining why the shirt would be offensive and less time censoring it. remember the last time school uniforms were required nationwide the country was speaking german. lastly, my son went on to be the student willing to place the classes time capsule as he graduated in 2000, he has served several tours in iraq & afghanistan, qatar, & UAE. he is in his 12th year in the military. he moved up through the ranks so fast that upon getting promotions he has to wait for time in service or time in grade to catch up with his promotion. he has many medals and awards to his name. he also has a great friend and mentor that has always been gay. i may have liberal views now but started out as a registered republican decades ago only to become disgusted as many have with the latest incarnation of the hate filled conservative movement. so much for believing in the love fest that our religious friends lied to us about. as long as you practice their beliefs you are good to go. kind of reminds me of the time period for the christians until about 400 AD when the emporer finally accepted christianity as his religion. learn from history folks or we will be doomed to relive it.

@ The Troll,

As another military mom I want to thank you for what you and also your son sacrificed for our country. This is the first time in what seems like eons when none of mine are deployed and I have not been on the boat ride as long as you have so PLEASE do not think I am trying to insult your son or anyone else who is gay and serving. My boys are medics and infantry and serve with people they know are gay who they say are excellent soldiers, they also serve with some who are not. Then again they serve with lots of straight guys who are at either end of the spectrum. My boys are all straight but I tried to raise them to be sensable about the issue. Lets face it, when they are taking fire the ONLY thing that matters is the quality of the man / soldier not who he wants to go home to at night when the war is over.

My comment is specifically about the T-shirt being a cause for controversy. In my opinion Toasty was applying poor logic when he made the point about sexual orientation being about genetics only. As the parent of someone who is gay and active duty you cannot deny that it IS harder for homosexuals in our society due to prejudice. Why would any parent want their child to have a harder life? Accept their life and love them if they are gay - YES! but lets be honest when your son came out you know as well as I do that a part of your mind was very aware of how much harder his life would be and you had to feel pain for what he would face.

I am assuming you handled the matter well because you seem very supportive of your son but for some people it would be emotionally devastating for any number of reasons. Kids in high school try on new personalities almost as fast as new T-shirts. Frequently their choices have nothing to do with who they ultimately end up being or who they would have been under different circumstances. They are extremely malliable and lets face it they do a lot of things just to tick off their parents to prove they can make their own decisions. The T-shirt is just one more thing to add to the mix. I am just trying to be fair.

Think of it this way... if the T-shirt doesn't have any effect on who the other kids turn out to be then why bother. If it does consider the flip side - if it does have an effect and we want to live up to what I think you are saying about tolerance then shouldn't we tolerate ALL views? That would mean not just putting up the 10 Commandments again for the sake of Christians but also tolerating the extreme version of Christianity (you know those FREAKS who protest at dead soldiers funerals because they don't like gays - do you want them to be able to put up signs with their BS too) To be truly fair we would have to put up ALL views no matter how extreme. Hate goes two ways. I see a lot of hate on the part of liberals regarding conservatives too. Civil disagreement is not our strong point these days.

I personally like the idea of the 10 Commandments being displayed and personally thought the T-shirt was sort of cute under the right circumstances BUT not everyone would agree on either point and that is the issue and my personal opinion is not more valid than that of any other person. We can't pick and choose what we personally want up in a shared building. Who gets the right to dictate? We are in the middle of a cultural war and we need to be realistic about what part each of us play in it. If we as supposedly mature adults cannot exercise more self control how can we expect children and teenagers to do better?

There is really only one workable model for tolerance and it involves keeping our noses out of each others business AND avoiding the urge to show our own personal views down the throats of those who disagree. One cannot happen without the other. The closest analogy I can think of for that T-shirt is a kid poking a wasp nest with a stick to see if something happens. Sooner or later if he does it enough something will happen and it won't be good. The same is true here. Someone will disagree strongly with the message and sooner or later it will cause conflict. When the kid poking the wasp nest is stung is it his fault of the wasps? What if he is doing it in an enclosed space and other kids get hurt too? Where does his right to poke the wasp nest end and their right not to be stung begin. When some kid says something anti gay in response to the T-shirt is the kid who wears the t-shirt not also partially responsible for the comment since the T-shirt was the reason for the conversation to start in the first place. Suddenly EVERYONE is caught up in it. When you are talking about high school students that can include some pretty vulnerable people both gay and straight. What about the kid who IS struggling with their own sexuality and is insecure? Is it really helpful to them to make this a CAUSE vs just letting them decide in peace. What about the kid who would have ended up being more tolerant but ended up sticking with the intolerant views of their friends because they are friends?

We don't have to have school uniforms but why not say NO T-shirts with writing or images on them? Sure it might curtail expression a little but with the math scores these days it might be a good idea if they spent a little more time studying and a little less time expressing themselves.

HChris - i didnt know you meant closeted gay people getting married and having kids - i thought you meant gay couples getting married and having kids. sorry about that, as it makes a difference in what was said....

of course people try to fit in (((latent homophobia is the worst and most dangerous kind - it causes murder and suicide regularly)))... dear gods i dont know any gay person in my life, including me, who didnt try to fit in - didnt 'try and be straight'. i was influenced by a HELL of a lot more than one tshirt that said i wasnt cool.... i was influenced by nearly 100% of every image, sound and thought that hit my head. but, yes, i will concede i tried to "fit in".

while i dont think one tshirt will make the impact that the full force of society can make - i will also concede i cant possibly ever speak on behalf of every impressionable kid out there. So thank you for that reminder, sincerely, thank you.

i will admit to something not changing in my core.... kids expressing themselves (and yes even if the shirt said "all cool girls are...straight") i know there is always a risk of hurting that very vulnerable kid. and we should be watching out for that kid too, however this gets too close to censorship for my heart to endorse. i just cant.

for example:

i love heavy metal - and was told it would make me some sort of baby killer. i am not. does that mean NO ONE is? - naaaa - there is some sick idiot out there who would have found a way to be a baby killer whether metal existed or not.... listening to Chopin for example.

i hear what you are saying - i just cannot condone further abridement to any of our Amendments - we give up too much already.

Toasty have you lost your mind??

You know, I think this is just an example of old people not getting the humor of young people today. I honestly think that most of you guys just don't recognize tee shirt humor these days.

So to promote your agenda you make "old people" an intolerant class of people. Maybe your just not old enough and experienced enough to understand WHY we think as we do. Disguise it as you will, this is the obvious promotion of a gay lifestyle.

PJ, I never said genetics.

And TX, but I'm right on this one. Old folks are just out of touch these days, and so when something comes around that they don't understand they panic. I'll probably be like that when I get old, too, sad to say. It just comes with the territory.

What don't they understand? The gay agenda has been shoved down their throats and mine for well over a decade now.

I don't mind that someone is gay, but I do mind that they must constantly tell me and more importantly my teens about it. However, they don't want to hear MY christian stance.

BTW Don't judge people unless they are old and then it is okay?? IF anyone has earned a right to an opinion it is the old who have paid their dues!!!

If my son (and he wouldn't, but let's just say) wore a conferderte flag shirt to school, they would send him home. Why? Now don't use a different argument. The shirt she wore is a statement of her perfered sexuallity, not a joke.

"the Gay Agenda" - i never got a plan of attack memo or brochure.... i DID however grow up in a country that cherishes the words Equality - so i was "foolishly" raised to believe i could be, say and express myself as i wish. i gotta let others do the same - these are the rules as i know em.

over a decade? - LOL well obviously we have failed to be loud enough - cause i have heard about the "straight agenda" the entirety of my 42 years.

and dont disrespect our elders - TXHorseman is right about having earned his right to respect. i have no problem with people who dont agree with me. it is one of the wonderful things about this country really.

TXHorse: when you write, "However, they don't want to hear MY [C]hristian stance," you ignore the fact that our culture is absolutely saturated with Christianity and that, by the time they've got to you, they've heard the Christian stance repeatedly for their whole lives. Do you honestly think you can encounter anyone over about the age of four in the US who could possibly be hearing about Christianity for the first time from you??

Well, then I question your gayness. Just kidding. No one needs directions for "Spread, then lick."

dslca,

Does nothing to change the point now does it?

SC Lowcountry!! Cackle - love it. a brochure woulda helped tho. but i will admit that all those slumber parties did a good job too.

So basically I tell you that old people don't get these jokes... And then you prove me right.

lol Toasty your posts have made me smile today!

tanya,

I think we definitely agree that a person should be able to express themselves. I have no problem if a person wants to have pride in who they are or enjoy a certain type of music.

However, that pride should not be at the expense of other people. I know this shirt is a relatively minor incident, but it is in the same vein as "White Pride." The White Pride movement is not the same as the Gay Pride movement. Homosexuals tend to celebrate themselves for who they are. White Pride tends to celebrate themselves and denigrate every other group. In this case the shirt does exactly that, if all the cool girls are of one group then the other groups don't have any cool girls.

I know it's not meant to be taken that way, but that is what the shirt says.

HChris - i hear ya - i really do.

i know why there is controversy - just dont want people to rush to attack only the method of communication, without reading into it all the backfacts that are really there, and ignoring the statement it is trying to make. it opens a discussion and that is good.

tanya,

I agree, discussion is good. Thanks for being a part! :)

So sorry for the misspell, as my keys are sticking, but how typical, if you can't fight substance, you attack the person. Why do you assume what I look like? Says so much more about you than me. (I happen to be 5' 10", slender, and very attractive. And you?) I happen to also know that Christians are not permitted to wear clothing that reflects their beliefs, but other groups (muslims, gays, ect.) can. Funny how you want "equal rights" but not equal for everyone.

Bullpucky, crop! Christians wear crosses all the time. And what about the insipid bracelets that ask, "What Would Jesus Do?"

Give me a freakin' break, you narcissistic neophyte! LOL!

Gotta say I agree on the whole attacking looks thing. Funny how those who jump on the pc band wagon are so quick to be insulting if it isn't their pet issue. What if cropdusterkid were fat (oops excuse me weight challenged) or had some physical deformity he could not help? In short what if your remarks struck home and caused him pain? Would you care? Would you be glad because he disagrees with you and you want to hurt him? THAT is why the T-shirt doesn't belong. Kids (theoretically) are less careful of social niceties and are more inclined to bully each other. Why allow a shirt that could make one more opportunity for disagreement. Lesbian / gay / transgendered / straight IS a hot button topic and does NOT belong in a school.

It really doesn't matter what you or I say. Homosexuality is as old as the earth, and is as natural as anything else in nature. Peace.

natural, where were you born, not of gay parents

Civilization is founded upon a social compact to restrain various "natural" instincts and desires. Neither nature nor unrestrained natural instincts yield "peace"!

Homosexuality is as old as the earth, and is as natural as anything else in nature. Peace.

It is most certainly not as old as the earth. It is likely not even as old as humanity (since procreation is necessary to continue the species).

As for it being natural, well sure, but that argument is slippery. "Natural" is not synonymous with "Good." I'm not saying being homosexual isn't 'good' I'm just saying that not all things that are in nature are good. It is quite obvious, since everything that happens, happens in nature and is therefore "natural" your logic would mean everything that happens is "good." I think we can safely say that everything that happens is not always "good" therefore everything that is "natural" is not always "good."

HChris

I, fail to see in the Quote you pasted, anything equating Nature to Good...

Well Barb it can't be too natural, especially since the beginning of time or we all wouldn't be here to argue about it. Most obvious case and point the parents of the gay people.

Whether you believe in God or Jesus or christianity or otherwise is irrelevant. Boy parts were made to go into girl parts for making more boys and girls. That is how we get more tigers, cows, horses, monkeys and people. Your way can't be natural or all living things would become extinct!!

It is most certainly not as old as the earth. It is likely not even as old as humanity (since procreation is necessary to continue the species).

WRONG, HChris. Homosexuality is "as old as the earth," as homosexuals existed since humankind has existed. Your ASSumption about continuation of the species is based on EVERYONE being homosexual, which is not the case -- and here we are.

As for it being natural, well sure, but that argument is slippery. "Natural" is not synonymous with "Good." I'm not saying being homosexual isn't 'good' I'm just saying that not all things that are in nature are good.

So what makes homosexuality "bad" or "harmful" to nature?

TXHorse: your statement is so filled with junk I don't know where to begin. You write, "whether you believe in God or Jesus or [C]hristianity or otherwise is irrelevant. Boy parts are made to go into girl parts for making more boys and girls." Well, without a belief in some supernatural Creator, the parts weren't "made" at all; they evolved. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the lone purpose of "parts" is reproduction. I'll be willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of the times you've used your "parts," you were not only not trying to make "more boys and girls," but actively trying NOT to do so. Under your logic, masturbation can't be natural because if that's all people did, we'd become extinct. "Parts" evolved to suit lots of purposes: reproduction, pleasure, comfort, bonding, power, beautry, etc. To say they were "made" and only for one purpose is an ideological statement and not a biological one.

What they are MADE for and what they are used for are TWO different things!!

Reproduction IS what they are for.

But for your sake, my statement is BOTH ideological AND biological. Whether you believe we were created or evolved doesn't change anything.

I'll be willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of the times you've used your "parts," you were not only not trying to make "more boys and girls," but actively trying NOT to do so.

Thank you for proving my point!!!! That is exactly what the parts are for even when we are not trying to do so.

TXHorse: as any teenage boy can readily tell you, boy parts were made for pleasure.

ErinNJ,

I specifically said homosexuality wasn't bad. I just had an issue with the logic. I could excuse all kinds of horrible things by saying they were natural because they happen in nature.

As for it being as old as the earth, I stand by my argument. The earth existed for many, many years before humans graced its surface and if there had been homosexuals among the first few humans it could have been a major disruption to the gene pool.

You can disagree with me, of course! I am just using my own reasoning, I have no evidence to back up my claim, but that is what I would expect to be true. I think homosexuality developed later in the species through genetic mutation. Please don't be offended that I said it is a genetic mutation, each of us has quite a few genetic mutations in our genes.

LarBear,

It was quite clearly implied. Homosexuality is natural, as is anything in nature. Genocide is natural, as is anything in nature. Rape is natural, as is anything in nature.

It's poor logic. She was using its naturalness to defend homosexuality as a practice. I could then defend genocide as a practice because of its naturalness. It's a bad defense.

Pedophiles have been among us forever also; do we now accept them?

Just don't accept their candy. Trust me.

A little education is needed here: Pedophiles are adults who prey on children. Gay people are folks who were born liking the opposite gender and who typically have sex with other consenting adults upon reaching adulthood.

Apparently the Roman Catholic church accepted pedophiles for at least the last 5o years. That said, the majority of clear thinking adults like me do not condone pedophilia. We do however accept the fact that gay people exist and we support their wanting to find a partner to love and build a life with...

Guess what? Heterosexuals have been around longer than homosexuals...do you see a bunch of people wearing shirts that say all heterosexual girls are cool?? Actually, have you seen any? LOL!

I agree K, that pedophiles are not exactly comparable to homosexuals.

But let me posit these questions: How should we treat someone who is attracted to prepubescent children? Are they mentally ill? If so, why?

How about just "All the cool girls are XX"...ah, but that might offend transgendered girls. Back to the drawing board :(

How about (like dragonmaster said above) ''All the cool girls are just people''. :) That would be a confusing and non-controversial shirt.

Ben Birdsey

QUOTE: "All the cool girls are XXXX"....

After consulting with the Flying Spahgetti Monster and lQQking in the Pastafarian Ribald Wholey Book,

the answer is, wait for it...... XXXX = COOL... Doesn't that make you want to thump your Noodle???

cestcibon, hahaha! That is a good one.

dslsca---I hope that all the heterosexual girls at that school don't decide to wear shirts that say "all heterosexual girls are cool" because we all know what would happen to them. The unfortunate souls would be expelled for being discriminatory! What a double standard! Down with the ACLU...they will be the downfall of this country! That's right...sue the school for doing what's right and protecting the rights of all instead of just one girl!

dslsca
That's the answer to everything, isn't it?
Sue Sue Sue!
That attitude is why our country is in such a mess.

Hi Tina: No, sue, sue, sue isn't the answer to everything. It IS, however, the answer to having your rights violated. As the story clearly states, the Chairman of the School Committee said the t-shirt did not violate the dress code. I'd be less eager for her to sue if the teacher and assistant principal involved issued public profound apologies to the girl involved.

Gee, Professor Ken, would you like to cite your medical credentials for us?

Being green eyed is not normal. Being left handed is not normal. Being 6'6" isn't normal. Having an IQ of 150 isn't normal.

Your point?

Being green eyed is not normal. Being left handed is not normal. Being 6'6" isn't normal. Having an IQ of 150 isn't normal.

Your point?

Green-eyed six-foot-six left-handed geniuses are the threat? POGROM!!!

You say same sex kissing in public makes you ill? Nothing else you have seen in public makes you ill? In my experience heterosexual displays in public go way over the top more often than any I've seen from gay/ lesbian couples. You don't like it? Don't watch. Why would gay/ lesbian couples have any less right to public affection just because it makes the narrow minded ill?

Seeing morbidly obese men and women kiss, on TV and in real life, makes me ill. Can we ban them, too, Ken?

Gee Toasty & Eng,

You two seem to be very poignant about spelling out how homosexuality is not a personal choice. People are just born that way? Where's the medical and psychological documentation proving that? I want to read it and the details behind it. Were such assumptions true, it would stand to reason that everyone would have some degree of homosexual attraction and thus such behavior would not be relegated to any specific portion of the population and be met with even less opposition. But you and I know, based on our naturally ingrained instincts, this is not the case.

As it stands, the thought of two men kissing in public would disgust more people than charm. The thought of two women going at it with each other is equally met with recoil. It's hard to prove against the facts that these lifestyles are normal as they don't fall with the natural element of existence; if this behavior is as "natural" as many say, why do so many require professional counseling to "support" and make them feel "positive" in their personal choices? Why do they need other people to tell them that it's okay? Seems to me they know their feelings are misguided, but personal pride takes precedence over correction of such emotions of conscience through collectively positive reinforcement.

My money is on the fact that it is the more natural feeling for men to be attracted to women and vice versa, and for men and women to perceive such expressions of affection between them as natural, not perverted. However, there is an appropriate time and place for immense affection - publicly is not it.

In the case of argumentation against my points to explain how it is possible that children with no personal relationship history could possibly possess homosexual tendencies, my point is founded on the fact that many broken single-parent homes foster children in an environment where the estranged parent's sex is demonized, i.e. unwed single moms instructing their daughters, "This is why you never want to get involved with a man," and burned unwed single men exhorting their sons on how getting attached to a woman will ruin their life. You know stuff like that goes on. Plain and simple - no need for mental gymnastics.

I'm sorry, but being gay goes against Nature's law, has nothing to do with religion! The day two of the same sex can procreate NATURALLY, THEN it will be considered normal!

Hate to tell you this Carrie, but nature doesn't have laws (unless you are talking about Newton's laws). The only thing that matters in nature is survival, and obviously gay people continue to flourish.

EngEsq,

The only thing that matters in nature is survival

Although I disagree with Carrie's sentiments, this is not exactly true. "Survival of the fittest" means nothing unless the reason to survive is to procreate. A better chance of survival means better chance to procreate and pass on the genes.

Evolution is as much a law of nature as general relativity.

However, if we were to agree with Carrie, we would be forced to say that sex between people who are infertile or past their childbearing years is also unnatural. Sex with condoms or any contraception is unnatural. Pulling out, is unnatural. Masturbation, is unnatural. We would also be forced to say that rape is natural, since it would increase one's chances of procreating, and that our laws against rape are unnatural.

Thankfully, we have reasons other than procreation that guide our actions and so we have laws which protect people from rape and also from persecution based on sexual orientation.

the laws that protect homosexuals are earthly, keep this in mind Leviticus 18:22 God's law, and there is no escape from what he says.

Sorry OT, but it's an accepted medical fact. YOU have to prove it's a choice, since you are making the claim that goes against scientific fact.

Maybe so mountainstateboy.

However I have decided that since I am in no way tempted to homosexual acts then I will also refrain from judging those who are. I will leave it between them and God. Not only that, but God calls us to submit to earthly authority. Therefore, the laws protecting homosexuals still stand. And if we are going to talk about laws and commandments I will follow the greatest commandments.

³⁰ Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’^{[f] 31} The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’^[g] There is no commandment greater than these.”

Moreover, there IS an escape for He has provided one. The grace of God provided by the redemptive death of his Son, Jesus, provides an escape for ALL who believe. Good News, indeed.

Everyone should try it at least once, then come back and post your opinions, but not before you have that which to talk of.

Challenge gladly accepted, Toasty. The most effective way to prove my point is through finding a lack of credible information proving genetic homosexuality is indeed scientific fact. By simple means of elimination, all that's left amounts it to being either personal choice or the result of early abuse.

Strike 1: That my Google search on the key words, Homosexuality: Genetic or Choice, yields no documentation from any respected medical journal is the first strike against your statement that homosexuality inbred through genetics is any accepted medical fact. The research remains ongoing in this department.

Strike 2: In that same search, many sites derive themselves from sources of uneducated opinion, limited studies, and speculation in the course of scientific study. In other words, there are theories based on inconclusive differences which seem to occur in neurological analysis between homosexual men and "normal" men, similarities between homosexual men and "normal" women, similarities between lesbian women and "normal" men, common traits between gay men, etc. There are vague commonalities, but the information remains inconclusive with nothing to pinpoint exactly the connection between these observations.

Strike 3: One source called queerbychoice (dot) com. It's a site in no way biased against homosexuality if you must ask, as it certainly has a vested interest to validate their claim that homosexuality is simply by choice and not strictly by nature. Among their FAQs is one asking whether queerness (sic) has been proven genetic. The keyword here is "proven". I thought for sure they would have some source I could follow to read up on what you are trying to claim. Below is an excerpt from their response:

"...no professional scientist in the last 40 years has even claimed to have found any evidence that queerness (sic) is always genetic in all cases."

- queerbychoice (dot) com (slash) provengenetic (dot) html

Ah! No professional scientist in the last 40 years has even CLAIMED to have found any evidence that [it] is always genetic in all cases. What that means is that genetic claims are non-conclusive, which means there is insufficient proof for it to be accepted scientific fact. It means they're still looking into it, but nothing proven as yet. All of which is consistent with my own findings in a 45 minute research session.

Just one more for good measure, here is an excerpt from the Journal of the American Medical Association as posted at borngay (dot) com (dot) procon (dot) org:

Name:
Journal of the American Medical Association

Position:
None Found to the question "Is sexual orientation determined at birth?"

Reasoning:

No position found as of Jan. 2005

Theoretical Expertise Ranking:
Government Reports and Peer-Reviewed Studies
Official vetted reports from international government bodies (such as the United Nations and the European Union), foreign governments (federal level agencies such as France’s Ministry of Justice, South Africa’s Ministry of Health, or Japan’s office of the Prime Minister), and US government agencies (state, federal, and quasi-government agencies including the Smithsonian Institution, the National Academy of Sciences, and Legal Services Corporation) and peer-reviewed studies from academic journals (such as Science, Nature, New England Journal of Medicine,etc.) tend to have multiple editorial and ideological filters, and they normally receive rigorous review from experts before being formally issued.

So there you go. We're looking for conclusive, consistent proof in support of either of our arguments as they both can't be correct. I have found none supporting yours so far. Maybe you have sources which prove different, they had better be better than mine. Since your argument veers heavily from nature, common opinion, and broad acceptance, your credibility is heavily reliant on if you can provide solid proof supporting it. We all want to see it. Things needn't be complicated to make sense, Toasty.

You really should post a link to the medical journal AND correlating studies which state conclusively that a specific gene has been discovered which proves the connection of homosexuality as early as human neonatal development to later sexual development and the predominance of sexual predisposition. Such articles must be free of terms like consensus, opinion, suggest, likelihood, coincidence, etc.

Original Thinker,

If there is no definitive scientific data about the nature of homosexuality, wouldn't it be prudent to ask people who are homosexuals? After all, they are the most knowledgeable people on the subject. You could ask, "Did you have a choice?" They would reply, "No."

Maybe it isn't genetic (although I do think it does ultimately manifest itself as a result of genetics - though not necessarily a specific gene, as you have shown I could be wrong). However, just because it isn't genetic, doesn't mean they have a choice. It is very easy to tell if you have a choice in something. Many homosexuals I know wish they weren't gay. In fact they long to have a 'normal' relationship. Yet, the power of choice is not in them. We don't need scientific evidence to prove it. The mere fact they can't live the lifestyle they want means they don't have a choice.

The alternative is to say either A) All homosexuals are delusional and can choose, but delude themselves into thinking they can't; or B) There is a vast conspiracy among homosexuals to perpetuate the lie that it is not a choice. Option B is so unlikely that it is false, for if they are all lying it means they are actually attracted to the opposite gender, but choose to lie about it and perform sexual acts with a people they are not attracted to. There is no clear benefit or advantage to being gay, and quite a few disadvantages. This option makes no sense.

So we are left with option A or we must believe they are telling the truth. There is no evidence that all homosexuals are delusional. They are productive members of society. They do not act delusional. So I assume they are telling the truth. Weirdly, as I was writing this I realized this was the same argument that C.S. Lewis used to argue that Jesus was who he said he was (Son of God) and not just a moral teacher.

"...no professional scientist in the last 40 years has even claimed to have found any evidence that queerness (sic) is always genetic in all cases."

I don't think that homosexuality has to be proven to be "always genetic in all cases." There are tests where gay men are shown images of naked men and the areas of the brain that signal arousal are triggered. Are they choosing to trigger that brain signal and do they choose to suppress it when naked women are shown? Doubtful.

"Men exhibit much higher levels of genital and subjective arousal to sexual stimuli containing theirpreferred sex than they do to stimuli containing only the nonpreferred sex. This study used event-relatedfunctional magnetic resonance imaging to investigate how this category-specific pattern would bereflected in the brains of homosexual men."

"Both homosexual and heterosexual men exhibited category-specific arousal in brain activity."

- "Neural Correlates of Sexual Arousal in Homosexual and Heterosexual Men." Adam Safron, Bennett Barch, J. Michael Bailey, Darren R. Gitelman, Todd B. Parrish, and Paul J. Reber. Northwestern University

Behavioral Neuroscience Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association2007, Vol. 121, No. 2, 237–248 0735-7044/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0735-7044.121.2.237

A non-genetic cause of homosexuality does not prove that choice is involved. As you have said, child abuse could be a cause of homosexuality. And I agree, however, not every instance of child abuse results in the abused 'becoming' homosexual. So what does that tell us? If some people are abused and are homosexual and others are abused and are not, then perhaps there is a genetic component we don't know about? Is that beyond the realm of possibility? Perhaps they were always genetically predisposed to be gay or straight and the child abuse had only a perceived effect? Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?

Regardless, I feel it is appropriate to take homosexuality at face value. Homosexuals claim they do not have a choice and there is not sufficient evidence to prove that is not the truth.

When I hear people wield the old testament it chagrins me. That's because it's so full of harsh standards that at the least seem a touch unloving. For example this from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah--Lot, a man of God, is besieged at his home by a mob of rapists demanding he turn over his two angel house guests so as the mob of men might have their way with them. But Lot refuses and instead, offers his two virgin daughters to the rapist mob to do with as they like. Why angels can't take care of themselves, I don't know. But what kind of man would turn his daughters over to be viciously gang raped in order to save strangers claiming to god's emissaries? And Lot is supposed to be righteous? What a load of hooey. That examples and others are why it is sadly laughable to me when Leviticus or other old testament teachings are trotted out as proof of what is righteous or not.

I think that t-shirts with slogans are not appropriate for school anyway. I hate the pecking order of school, and while I don't believe in specific "uniforms," I do advocate for an advertisement-free zone.
All the cool girls are not lesbians. All girls are cool in some ways. And kids have enough pressure figuring out who they are without extra advertising in school.

I know this post will be criticized for flying in the face of freedom of speech. But I hold firm that school is not the place for slogans on! This kind of thing happens all the time!

Toasty;

Psychological opinion is not medical fact. Most Psychologists and Psychiatrists have more deep seated neurosis' than the people they treat. IF as you maintain being gay is based in physiological differences, why is there no medical tests to substantiate this claim? Why is there no genetically identifying markers? Point to the published studies that establish these physiological and Genetic differences. As far as I'm aware, these "differences" are just theory at this point.

But do you really want a "gay" gene identified? Could not then, such a gene be used to justify terminating said pregnancy? Or would you then demand laws to force a woman to carry this pregnancy to term? Would that not be exactly what pro-life people are accused of? My what a can of worms that would open, Be careful what you wish for.

Don't confuse pseudo science and PC nonsense, with medical fact.

For Original Thinker and Nicodemus:

US researchers find evidence that homosexuality linked to genetics

Such findings would further the debate over whether homosexuality is innate or a choice

• McClatchy newspapers
• guardian.co.uk, Monday 1 December 2008 13.14 EST

Compared to straight men, gay men are more likely to be left-handed, to be the younger siblings of older brothers, and to have hair that whorls in a counterclockwise direction.

US researchers are finding common biological traits among gay men, feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born.

Such findings - including a highly anticipated study this winter - would further inform the debate over whether homosexuality is innate or a choice, an undercurrent of California's recent Proposition 8 campaign in which television commercials warned that "schools would begin teaching second-graders that boys could marry boys", suggesting homosexuality would then spread.

Some scientists say the political and moral debate over same-sex marriage frequently strayed from established scientific evidence, including comments by Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin that homosexuality is "a choice" and "a decision".

Until 2007, CNN polls had found that a majority of Americans believed gay people could change their sexual orientation if they chose to; it was only last year that a majority for the first time said homosexuality was an inborn trait.

Christian groups such as Exodus International argue "that homosexuals who desire to change can do so". One prominent psychiatrist, Dr Robert Spitzer of Columbia University, found controversial evidence that therapy can cause some gay people to change to a heterosexual orientation, although the study concluded that a "complete change" was uncommon.

While sexual behaviour may be chosen, the preponderance of researchers say attraction is dictated by biology, with no demonstrated contribution from social factors such as parenting or other factors after birth.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa

Homosexual behavior due to genetics and environmental factors
Published: Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 17:21 in Psychology & Sociology

Homosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors, according to findings from the world's largest study of twins. Writing in the scientific journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, researchers from Queen Mary's School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, and Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm report that genetics and environmental factors (which are specific to an individual, and may include biological processes such as different hormone exposure in the womb), are important determinants of homosexual behaviour.

Dr Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, explains: "This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single 'gay gene' or a single environmental variable which could be used to 'select out' homosexuality - the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here - heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.

The team led by Dr Niklas Långström at Karolinska Institutet conducted the first truly population-based survey of all adult (20-47 years old) twins in Sweden. Studies of identical twins and non-identical, or fraternal, twins are often used to untangle the genetic and environmental factors responsible for a trait. While identical twins share all of their genes and their entire environment, fraternal twins share only half of their genes and their entire environment. Therefore, greater similarity in a trait between identical twins compared to fraternal twins shows that genetic factors are partly responsible for the trait.

This study looked at 3,826 same-gender twin pairs (7,652 individuals), who were asked about the total numbers of opposite sex and same sex partners they had ever had. The findings showed that 35 per cent of the differences between men in same-sex behaviour (that is, that some men have no same sex partners, and some have one or more) is accounted for by genetics. Rahman explains:

"Overall, genetics accounted for around 35 per cent of the differences between men in homosexual behaviour and other individual-specific environmental factors (that is, not societal attitudes, family or parenting which are shared by twins) accounted for around 64 per cent. In other words, men become gay or straight because of different developmental pathways, not just one pathway."

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/06/28/homosexual.behavior.due.genetics.and.environmental.factors

But it really doesn't matter if sexual orientation WERE a choice, as we are constitutionally protected in our choices, such as our choice of religion, and whether or not we worship at all.

Erin;

This is all speculation at this point. All the UK studies, as if they aren't slanted, are just theory without specific genetic markers. You know, like the ones identifying certain genetic disorders and disease.

So basically... "Sorry Toasty, I have no evidence."

Pretty much what I expected. Truth be told, I honestly wasn't planning on getting ANY response, so at least you tried.

Nicodemus,

I don't understand. I quoted a study published in 2007 about brain stimulation in homosexual and heterosexual men. It's not about genetics true, but it still shows that their brains were triggered by their preferred gender. I doubt they could control their brain stimulation just to pull some hoax on all of us.

What do you think is the cause, if not genetics?

Toasty wrote:

So basically... "Sorry Toasty, I have no evidence."

Pretty much what I expected. Truth be told, I honestly wasn't planning on getting ANY response, so at least you tried.

Composed like a true defeatist - Toasty, your lack of education and willpower to sustain a mature debate is quite obvious.

What other evidence exists besides my proving that:

Toasty wrote:

it's an accepted medical fact. YOU have to prove it's a choice, since you are making the claim that goes against scientific fact.

is nothing more than your own unfounded hooey? It's not just my own claim - The Journal of the American Medical Association agrees with my statement. If you are as intelligent as you hold yourself to be, how can you ignore a source rigorously verified by experts and referenced by professionals around the world?

Prove me wrong. In fact, I DARE you to find anything doing so. If you're right, you should have no problem laying out solid citations to back you up.

I'm beginning to suspect that you are just some acne-faced middleschooler in a school library parroting nonsense off the keyboard like some self-appointed expert on matters of which you have no knowledge. All you have answered with is typical know-nothing armchair banter, i.e. it's all up to me to prove both that my point stands and prove yours does not, then it's further up to me to convince you beyond any shadow of a doubt that my facts supersede yours. Well, so far I have.

In view of all that, as magnificently demonstrated by your disarmed, stand-offish reply, your only response is to utilize the first chapter from the "Defeatism 101" handbook: "When faced with absolute certainty of losing an argument, disregard what your opponent says as being exactly what you expected of him and do not make any attempt at verifying your side of the debate. By maintaining a discretionary silence, you protect yourself from further humiliation and discredit."

You haven't put forth any effort to prove otherwise - are you sure you can afford to be so dismissive? Research is not hard if one knows how to go about it; you have a clear template of mine to follow IF you still believe you have a chance in this argument.

Suit up, pull your chest into the table and play your cards through.

This is all speculation at this point. All the UK studies, as if they aren't slanted, are just theory without specific genetic markers. You know, like the ones identifying certain genetic disorders and disease.

And you have no proof that: a) they are slanted; b) that there are no "specific genetic markers". It seems that there was quite a lot more than speculation, if those scientists were willing to go public with their findings.

If you have any proof to the contrary, provide it -- or YOU'RE just speculating, and without any credibility.

It's not just my own claim - The Journal of the American Medical Association agrees with my statement. If you are as intelligent as you hold yourself to be, how can you ignore a source rigorously verified by experts and referenced by professionals around the world?

Prove me wrong. In fact, I DARE you to find anything doing so. If you're right, you should have no problem laying out solid citations to back you up.

I proved you wrong, with just TWO studies cited above, but there are many more.

I read both of the articles you posted, ErinNJ, and discovered that you omitted a very important bit of information from your post:

Dr Rahman adds: "The study is not without its limitations - we used a behavioural measure of sexual orientation which might be ok to use for men (men's psychological orientation, sexual behaviour, and sexual responses are highly related) but less so for women (who show a clearer separation between these elements of sexuality). Despite this, our study provides the most unbiased estimates presented so far of genetic and non-genetic contributions to sexual orientation."

In case you are unaware, this is what's known as a disclaimer. In all reality there is nothing very genetic in nature in what they found aside from the fact they studied the sexual behavior of identical and fraternal twins. What he means by it is that the findings of these studies present interesting information which aids in some way the search to establish whether homosexuality is genetically determined or not, but renders nothing conclusive. Dr. Rahman recognizes these studies present more questions than answers, and even goes so far as to state that these studies provide estimates into the genetic or non-genetic contributions to sexual orientation. Estimates do not amount to facts, Erin.

There needs to be official documentation stating that some thing or things have been discovered which can be directly linked, and it must be linked consistently before it can be given official recognition by some reputable body, upon which it can then be introduced as scientific and medical fact. It would be big news if it were. It would be found at the top of any Google search performed on the topic. But as of yet the only things found at the top of my searches for "genetic homosexuality" are scholarly articles, Wikipedia, godandscience (dot) org, the Guardian, and genetic theory from slate (dot) com - none of which contributed to my own citations.

As it stands, you haven't proven me wrong, yet.

Oh, but I have, Original Thinker, whether you care to admit it or not. The fact that YOU presented an excerpt from the Journal of the American Medical Association which only states that, as of 2005, they had no position on whether sexual orientation is genetic, does not mean that there are no genetic causes, either. The studies I quoted -- from 2008 -- at least present credible, unbiased evidence that there are genetic causes for sexual orientation.

There is also this study:

Sexual orientation is genetic

Friday, 08 July 2011

Story Source

Image credit

Sexual orientation and 'gender conformity' in women are both genetic traits, according to new research from Queen Mary, University of London.

It is well recognised that there consistent differences in the psychological characteristics of boys and girls; for example, boys engage in more 'rough and tumble' play than girls do.

Studies also show that children who become gay or lesbian adults differ in such traits from those who become heterosexual – so-called gender nonconformity. Research which follows these children to adulthood shows that between 50 to 80 per cent of gender nonconforming boys become gay, and about one third of such girls become lesbian.

Writing in the journal PLoS One, Dr Andrea Burri and Dr Qazi Rahman from Queen Mary's School of Biological and Chemical Sciences report that a shared set of genes and shared set of random environmental factors is partially responsible both for gender nonconformity and female sexual orientation.

http://machineslikeus.com/news/sexual-orientation-genetic

I would also like to point out that YOU have not cited ANY studies that show any definitive proof to the contrary.

And, as I have stated before, whether it is inborn or chosen (and the overwhelming preponderance of evidence indicates that sexual orientation is inborn) is irrelevant, as we are constitutionally protected in our choices, such as which religion we follow, or whether we worship at all.

OT, all you've provided is an article that says we don't know what specifically causes sexual orientation, not proof that it's a choice. It's undisputed that it most definitely isn't a choice, we just don't know the exact mechanisms that cause it yet.

Put your big boy pants on and actually do your homework.

I have thoroughly done my homework. Toasty, you have no dog in this fight because you can't post a single thing to prove your claims. So far all you have put in is to let someone else do your talking for you, which I find to be a lack of intestinal fortitude and knowledge on your part. You're like the little #2 man behind the big boss. You'd rather follow blindly what other people tell you and not venture to find the truth out for yourself.

All the information in my posts is the fruit of my own research and posted here for your enlightenment. I can cite more voluminous studies if either of you have the time and capability to understand the more complex languages involved. For a start:

BORN OR BRED? Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality Is Genetic

By Robert Knight

The debate over homosexual “marriage” often becomes focused on whether homosexuality is a learned behavior or a genetic trait. Many homosexual activists insist that “science” has shown that homosexuality is inborn, cannot be changed, and that therefore they should have the “rightto marry” each other

Beginning in the early 1990s, activists began arguing that scientific research has proven that homosexuality has a genetic or hormonal cause. A handful of studies, none of them replicated and all exposed as methodologically unsound or misrepresented, have linked sexual orientation to everything from differences in portions of the brain,1,2, to genes,3 finger length,4 inner ear differences,5 eye-blinking,6 and “neuro-hormonal differentiation.”7

----

Other recent developments also suggest that homosexuality is not genetically determined. The Washington Post reported that bisexuality is fashionable among many young teen girls, who goback and forth from being “straight” to “gay” to “bi” to “straight” again.10 Post reporter Laura Sessions Stepp writes: Recent studies among women suggest that female homosexuality may be grounded more in social interaction, may present itself as an emotional attraction in addition to or inplace of a physical one, and may change over time.11 She cites one such study by Lisa M. Diamond, assistant professor of psychology and genderstudies at the University of Utah, who in 1994 began studying a group of females aged 16 to 23 who were attracted to other females.12 Over the course of the study, “almost two-thirds have changed labels,” Stepp reports. Against increasing evidence that homosexual behavior is neither inevitable nor impossible toresist, a number of studies have been widely publicized as “proof” of a genetic component. But they are either poorly constructed or misreported as to their significance.

In 1993, Columbia University psychiatry professors Drs. William Byne and Bruce Parsons examined the most prominent “gay gene” studies on brain structure and on identical twins, and published the results in the Archives of General Psychiatry. They found numerous methodological flaws in all of the studies, and concluded that:

There is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory. … [T]he appeal of current biologic explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body ofexperimental data.13 After he was roundly attacked by homosexual activists, who accused him of providing ammunition for conservatives to challenge the gay rights/civil rights comparison based on immutability, Byne denounced the “false dichotomy: Biology or Choice?” and stated that he was also skeptical of environmental theories of sexual orientation. He wrote: “There is no compelling evidence to support any singular psychosocial explanation,” and that he would never “imply that one consciously decides one’s sexual orientation.”14 But the fact remains that Dr. Byne has poked gaping holes in the most influential studies purporting to prove that homosexuality is inborn. In May 2000, the American Psychiatric Association issued a Fact Sheet, “Gay, Lesbian andBisexual Issues,” which includes this statement: “Currently, there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biologicaletiology for homosexuality. ”Beyond the false comfort that homosexuals need not seek to alter their behavior in any way, there may be another motive behind the release and enthusiastic reporting of these studies:political advantage. As Natalie Angier wrote in The New York Times on September 1, 1991: [P]roof of an inborn difference between gay and heterosexual men could provide further ammunition in the battle against discrimination. If homosexuality were viewed legally as a biological phenomenon, rather than a fuzzier matter of “choice” or “preference,” then gay people could no more rightfully be kept out of the military, a housing complex or ateaching job than could, say blacks.15

The first widely publicized claim for a “gay gene” came in 1991 when Salk Institute researcher Dr. Simon LeVay published a study in the journal Science noting a difference in a brain structure called the hypothalamus when evaluating 35 men – 19 homosexuals and 16 heterosexuals.21 LeVay found that the hypothalamus was generally larger in heterosexual men than in homosexual men. He concluded that the findings “suggest that sexual orientation has a biologic substrate.”22 The media splashed the study on front pages and TV and radio broadcasts from coast to coast, despite the fact that LeVay himself cautioned:“It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. …Since I looked at adult brains, we don’t know if the differences I found were there at birth, or if they appeared later.”23 The study also had major problems, which LeVay himself readily admits. First, all 19 of his homosexual subjects died of complications associated with AIDS. The difference in the hypothalamus might have been caused by chemical changes in the brain as a response to AIDS. Dr. Byne argued in Scientific American that “[LeVay’s] inclusion of a few brains from heterosexual men with AIDS did not adequately address the fact that at the time of death virtually all men with AIDS have decreased testosterone levels as the result of the disease itself or the side effects of particular treatments. … Thus it is possible that the effects on the size of the INAH3 [hypothalamus] that he attributed to sexual orientation were actually caused by thehormonal abnormalities associated with AIDS.”24

---

There is plenty more, if you wish to read all 13 pages you may follow the link at the top of the excerpts.

And now from an article posted in 2007 on your very beloved site here, MSNBC.

(#.T2DL9sWPVvB)

Julio and Mauricio Cabrera are gay brothers who are convinced their sexual orientation is as deeply rooted as their Mexican ancestry.

They are among 1,000 pairs of gay brothers taking part in the largest study to date seeking genes that may influence whether people are gay. The Cabreras hope the findings will help silence critics who say homosexuality is an immoral choice.

If fresh evidence is found suggesting genes are involved, perhaps homosexuality will be viewed as no different than other genetic traits like height and hair color, said Julio, a student at DePaul University in Chicago.

Adds his brother, “I think it would help a lot of folks understand us better.”

The federally funded study, led by Chicago area researchers, will rely on blood or saliva samples to help scientists search for genetic clues to the origins of homosexuality. Parents and straight brothers also are being recruited.

While initial results aren’t expected until next year — and won’t provide a final answer — skeptics are already attacking the methods and disputing the presumed results.

Previous studies have shown that sexual orientation tends to cluster in families, though that doesn’t prove genetics is involved. Extended families may share similar child-rearing practices, religion and other beliefs that could also influence sexual orientation.

Research involving identical twins, often used to study genetics since they share the same DNA, has had mixed results.

One widely cited study in the 1990s found that if one member of a pair of identical twins was gay, the other had a 52 percent chance of being gay. In contrast, the result for pairs of non-twin brothers, was 9 percent. A 2000 study of Australian identical twins found a much lower chance.

No single 'gay gene'
Dr. Alan Sanders of Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Research Institute, the lead researcher of the new study, said he suspects there isn’t one so-called “gay gene.”

It is more likely there are several genes that interact with nongenetic factors, including psychological and social influences, to determine sexual orientation, said Sanders, a psychiatrist.

Still, he said, “If there’s one gene that makes a sizable contribution, we have a pretty good chance” of finding it.

Many gays fear that if gay genes are identified, it could result in discrimination, prenatal testing and even abortions to eliminate homosexuals, said Joel Ginsberg of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association.

However, he added, “If we confirm that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic, we are much more likely to get the courts to rule against discrimination.”

There is less research on lesbians, Sanders said, although some studies suggest that male and female sexual orientation may have different genetic influences.

His new research is an attempt to duplicate and expand on a study published in 1993 involving 40 pairs of gay brothers. That hotly debated study, wrongly touted as locating “the gay gene,” found that gay brothers shared genetic markers in a region on the X chromosome, which men inherit from their mothers.

That implies that any genes influencing sexual orientation lie somewhere in that region.

Previous attempts to duplicate those results failed. But Sanders said that with so many participants, his study has a better chance of finding the same markers and perhaps others on different chromosomes.

If these markers appear in gay brothers but not their straight brothers or parents, that would suggest a link to sexual orientation. The study is designed to find genetic markers, not to explain any genetic role in behavior.

And Sanders said even if he finds no evidence, that won’t mean genetics play no role; it may simply mean that individual genes have a smaller effect.

Skeptics include Stanton Jones, a psychology professor and provost at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Ill. An evangelical Christian, Jones last month announced results of a study he co-authored that says it’s possible for gays to “convert” — changing their sexual orientation without harm.

Jones said his results suggest biology plays only a minor role in sexual orientation, and that researchers seeking genetic clues generally have a pro-gay agenda that will produce biased results.

Sanders disputed that criticism.

“We do not have a predetermined point we are trying to prove,” he said. “We are trying to pry some of nature’s secrets loose with respect to a fundamental human trait.”

Jones acknowledged that he’s not a neutral observer. His study involved 98 gays “seeking help” from Exodus International, a Christian group that believes homosexuals can become straight through prayer and counseling. Exodus International funded Jones’ study.

---

Determining whether something has a biological cause is difficult, and locating a specifically genetic link is even more so. The handful of studies that purportedly add up to incontestable“proof” that homosexuals are “born that way” are inconclusive at best and, as Dr. Rahman notes,“largely correlational in nature.” In some cases, such as the twins studies, the evidence stronglyindicates that early environment is more likely the dominant factor to have produced homosexual desires.

The "studies" you posted, Erin, and the nothing you posted, Toasty, are not conclusive studies to the contrary that homosexuality is a combination of sociological and personal factors. They are merely "searching for" and "hoping to find something" traceable between homosexual twins and the like. None of them cross-reference or dovetail with the previous studies like the ones I am linking to above.

Studies highlighting the theory that genetics could play a role is still in its infancy. Just because one study proclaims, "Oh! We found yet another key in the search," does not mean that the lock is open.

As for discrediting the JAMA's assessment weakly based on their position being current only up until 2005, it is because there has been no new breakthroughs in the search for "genetic homosexuality" that they need to bring it current. There is no need for them to update their position until something new is presented. Obviously, it hasn't happened yet.

Just because there is evidence suggesting a connection, you guys prematurely break out the banners, champagne and confetti yelling from the rooftops "SEE!!! It's genetic!! It's genetic!! YAHOO!!!"

Little do you realize how foolish that makes you appear to everyone else, including the researchers involved with these studies. That's why they are so quick to claim nothing conclusive as yet, even recognizing the flaws in their own research, in the hopes of keeping any misinformation from being spread as fact.

Rather, it is you who really need to do your homework.

You haven't "thoroughly" done anything, except visit sites that are anti-gay. And the "studies" you've posted are hardly from reliable, credible, unbiased sources, OT.

You actually quoted one from 1993, which has been debunked.

(BTW, you are not supposed to publish the articles in their entirety, especially without citations.)

Another point: JAMA's "position" is that they had no position -- at that time. Which, by the way, is the same position many of the other doctors whose "studies" you quoted are taking: they are neither pro nor con that homosexuality is genetically based.

I would say you not only need to do your homework, but you need to learn how to do research first -- your number-one priority should be learning to evaluate sources, at which you have obviously failed already.

OriginalThin: Though I don't agree with your "presentation" here, I don't see what difference it makes how one comes to have one's sexuality. It seems to me that there are three potential routes leading to sexuality, but none of these origins would justify discrimination on the basis of the origin of sexuality. One might be born one way or the other, or one might acquire one's sexuality, or one might choose it; in parallels to any of these routes, we can clearly see that discrimination on this basis would not be tenable. You wouldn't discriminate against someone who was born redheaded or left-handed. You wouldn't discriminate against someone who had acquired a knowledge of German or an amputation. You wouldn't discriminate against someone who had chosen to be a vegetarian or a Christian. So, why would you discriminate against gay people regardless of whether they were born that way, acquired their sexuality, or chose it?

Original-Thinker
War and Peace wasn't THAT long...
(Just messing with you)

My goodness, Erin, you are really grasping at straws here. First off, I know full well how to cite my sources - the chat blog didn't display the cited links for some reason. Hence my resort to long-hand typing before so one can easily track them down online.

Second of all, you just let something slip which indicates to me you haven't read my posts thoroughly at all.

You haven't "thoroughly" done anything, except visit sites that are anti-gay

Oh, really? IF you had read my posts through you would certainly have noticed that at least half of my cited sources are either openly, proudly gay or non-partisan. :-)

Here's the list since you missed it so badly:

• queerbychoice (dot) com
• queerbychoice (dot) com (slash) provengenetic (dot) html
• borngay (dot) com (dot) procon (dot) org

What's so anti-gay about them?

And the ones that didn't show in my previous post for some reason, let's see if this works:

• cwfa (dot) org (slash) images (slash) content (slash) bornorbred (dot) pdf
• #.T2DL9sWPVvB

You need to take a course on what makes research factually sound. The fact that I am able to draw like conclusions from a wide variety of sources, both on the side of homosexuality and among others, is what gives my stance credibility. There is coherence to my argument across the support spectrum.

And of course I bring you again to Dr. Rahman's own statement regarding one of your posted studies:

Dr Rahman adds: "The study is not without its limitations - we used a behavioural measure of sexual orientation which might be ok to use for men (men's psychological orientation, sexual behaviour, and sexual responses are highly related) but less so for women (who show a clearer separation between these elements of sexuality). Despite this, our study provides the most unbiased estimates presented so far of genetic and non-genetic contributions to sexual orientation."

The antithesis of that study is found within the statements, "The study is not without its limitations -we used a behavioural measure of sexual orientation which might be ok to use for men...but less so for women," and "estimates". If homosexuality is indeed tied genetically, there should be very little if any disparity between genders, being that genetics are such an innate trait among normal people. As such, there remains nothing definite within this study, as much as you and Toasty would like to claim. There is a fundamental difference between issuing a statement along the lines of "We have found THE root cause, or root causes, and received independent approval of it" and one stating that "We have given some of the most unbiased estimations into the genetic or non-genetic contributions of sexual orientation." Again, "some of the most unbiased estimations" are not facts.

As per your second Guardian article, here are some buzz lines which cause me to question the details within it:

• Compared to straight men, gay men are more likely to be...
• ...feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors...
• Such findings...would further inform the debate
• ...the preponderance of researchers say attraction is dictated by biology...
• The likelihood that if one identical twin is gay, the other will be also be gay is much higher than the "concordance" of homosexuality between fraternal twins...

The terms "more likely", "consensus", "would", "preponderance", "likelihood", are all terms engendering hypothesis and supposition during research as opposed to concrete outcomes. To top it off, the researchers were still in the process of delivering a completed DNA study from a test group the time that article was written. It seems the article's author was rather hasty to publish such "news" before it even had time to dry.

Explain to me why a Google search for "Homosexuality proven genetic" yields NOundisputed study verified through an independent body? Why is there no world news article publishing such a fact you deem so well established? Sounds like it would be the biggest news yet since the production of the first DNA molecule made almost entirely of artificial parts. I'll tell you why: in lieu of the existence of such an article, the only conclusion one can draw from its absence is that there...is...nothing...conclusive...whatsoever. Unless of course you decide to put in something that really isn't there in the first place.

Here is another interesting excerpt which you can find listed in the "pro" column, not "con", at:

Simon LeVay, PhD, neurologist and Co-Founder of the Institute of Gay and Lesbian Education, wrote the following on his website SimonLevay.com (accessed Feb. 2006):

"Although quite a few of the findings [on studies regarding the basis of sexual orientation] are inconsistent between studies or await independent replication, my general conclusion is that biological processes, especially the prenatal, hormonally-controlled sexual differentiation of the brain, are likely to influence a person’s ultimate sexual orientation."
"The Biology of Sexual Orientation," www.simonlevay.com, updated Apr. 2009

Even the Co-Founder of the Institute of Gay and Lesbian Foundation says that the findings are inconsistent between studies or even awaiting independent replication, as late as 2009, placing it later than your articles from the Guardian and EScienceNews.com. Apparently that is just enough for him to ascribe his general conclusion (i.e. the adjective "general" in this case as it describes the conclusion as not specific or definite) with reasonable comfort. His selection of words exude little confidence that such findings won't be proven wrong, and as such his position remains subject to change.

As for Dr. Rahman's statements in the machineslikeus article dated July '11, he still implements the same phrasebook from your previous articles. In other words, nothing has changed in the past 3 years of study, no new data to provide. According to him, the answer still lies somewhere around the "common biological drivers" and psychological traits of sexual orientation. Those are rather abstract descriptions. In other words, they still don't know what they're looking for exactly.

So going back to my original contention Erin, Toasty and you claim that genetic homosexuality is undisputed as well as scientific and medical fact. According Dr. LeVay, there remains a good deal of dispute to be settled.

We need to see evidence of these three quantities approving genetic homosexuality is indeed an UNDISPUTED, SCIENTIFIC, and MEDICALLY established fact. Posts from the Guardian Newspaper illustrating sensational journalism (i.e. articles slanted by the opinions of their respective authors) partway during the course of a study is not what anyone would call grounded in this case.

Studies with disclaimers attached do not provide airtight documentation that something is indeed so, in this case, entirely genetic. You and Toasty claim homosexuals are born not made. Where's the undisputed proof of that? The only thing undisputed so far is that homosexuality has yet to be traced unerringly to normal genetic differences.

You will find more interesting details here as well, of which I have included the final paragraph of the report:

allpsych (dot) com (slash) journal (slash) homosexuality (dot) html

We have examined many causes for homosexuality in the preceding pages, both biological and social. And although an interesting topic of debate, no one theory or experiment leads to a definitive answer. Some believe that the characters found on Xq28 are the Holy Grail of homosexuality research, the elusive 'gay gene'. Others may place stock in the theories of Foucault and Halperin. Perhaps Simon LeVay did reveal to us that anatomy is the key to understanding the difference in sexual orientation. Perhaps there is no one answer, that sexual orientation, whether homosexual or heterosexual; gay, straight, lesbian, or bisexual, all are a cause of a complex interaction between environmental, cognitive, and anatomical factors, shaping the individual at an early age.

Now are we on the same page? I get the feeling you have not read through my posts at all and don't understand the point I have made all along. The only common thing in all the studies you have posted so far is that nothing derived from them is common.

You and Toasty say there are indisputably concrete facts, so let's see 'em.

Second of all, you just let something slip which indicates to me you haven't read my posts thoroughly at all.

You haven't "thoroughly" done anything, except visit sites that are anti-gay

Oh, really? IF you had read my posts through you would certainly have noticed that at least half of my cited sources are either openly, proudly gay or non-partisan. :-)

Here's the list since you missed it so badly:

• queerbychoice (dot) com
• queerbychoice (dot) com (slash) provengenetic (dot) html
• borngay (dot) com (dot) procon (dot) org

What's so anti-gay about them?

And the ones that didn't show in my previous post for some reason, let's see if this works:

• cwfa (dot) org (slash) images (slash) content (slash) bornorbred (dot) pdf
• msnbc (dot) msn (dot) com (slash) id (slash) 21309724/ns/health-health_care/t/gay-brothers-may-hold-genetic-clues/#.T2DL9sWPVvB<<

You need to take a course on what makes research factually sound. The fact that I am able to draw like conclusions from a wide variety of sources, both on the side of homosexuality and among others, is what gives my stance credibility. There is coherence to my argument across the support spectrum.

And of course I bring you again to Dr. Rahman's own statement regarding one of your posted studies:

Dr Rahman adds: "The study is not without its limitations - we used a behavioural measure of sexual orientation which might be ok to use for men (men's psychological orientation, sexual behaviour, and sexual responses are highly related) but less so for women (who show a clearer separation between these elements of sexuality). Despite this, our study provides the most unbiased estimates presented so far of genetic and non-genetic contributions to sexual orientation."

The antithesis of that study is found within the statements, "The study is not without its limitations -we used a behavioural measure of sexual orientation which might be ok to use for men...but less so for women," and "estimates". If homosexuality is indeed tied genetically, there should be very little if any disparity between genders, being that genetics are such an innate trait among normal people. As such, there remains nothing definite within this study, as much as you and Toasty would like to claim. There is a fundamental difference between issuing a statement along the lines of "We have found THE root cause, or root causes, and received independent approval of it" and one stating that "We have given some of the most unbiased estimations into the genetic or non-genetic contributions of sexual orientation." Again, "some of the most unbiased estimations" are not facts.

As per your second Guardian article, here are some buzz lines which cause me to question the details within it:

• Compared to straight men, gay men are more likely to be...
• ...feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors...
• Such findings...would further inform the debate
• ...the preponderance of researchers say attraction is dictated by biology...
• The likelihood that if one identical twin is gay, the other will be also be gay is much higher than the "concordance" of homosexuality between fraternal twins...

The terms "more likely", "consensus", "would", "preponderance", "likelihood", are all terms engendering hypothesis and supposition during research as opposed to concrete outcomes. To top it off, the researchers were still in the process of delivering a completed DNA study from a test group the time that article was written. It seems the article's author was rather hasty to publish such "news" before it even had time to dry.

Explain to me why a Google search for "Homosexuality proven genetic" yields NOundisputed study verified through an independent body? Why is there no world news article publishing such a fact you deem so well established? Sounds like it would be the biggest news yet since the production of the first DNA molecule made almost entirely of artificial parts. I'll tell you why: in lieu of the existence of such an article, the only conclusion one can draw from its absence is that there...is...nothing...conclusive...whatsoever. Unless of course you decide to put in something that really isn't there in the first place.

Here is another interesting excerpt which you can find listed in the "pro" column, not "con", at:

Simon LeVay, PhD, neurologist and Co-Founder of the Institute of Gay and Lesbian Education, wrote the following on his website SimonLevay.com (accessed Feb. 2006):

"Although quite a few of the findings [on studies regarding the basis of sexual orientation] are inconsistent between studies or await independent replication, my general conclusion is that biological processes, especially the prenatal, hormonally-controlled sexual differentiation of the brain, are likely to influence a person’s ultimate sexual orientation."
"The Biology of Sexual Orientation," www.simonlevay.com, updated Apr. 2009

Even the Co-Founder of the Institute of Gay and Lesbian Foundation says that the findings are inconsistent between studies or even awaiting independent replication, as late as 2009, placing it later than your articles from the Guardian and EScienceNews.com. Apparently that is just enough for him to ascribe his general conclusion (i.e. the adjective "general" in this case as it describes the conclusion as not specific or definite) with reasonable comfort. His selection of words exude little confidence that such findings won't be proven wrong, and as such his position remains subject to change.

As for Dr. Rahman's statements in the machineslikeus article dated July '11, he still implements the same phrasebook from your previous articles. In other words, nothing has changed in the past 3 years of study, no new data to provide. According to him, the answer still lies somewhere around the "common biological drivers" and psychological traits of sexual orientation. Those are rather abstract descriptions. In other words, they still don't know what they're looking for exactly.

So going back to my original contention Erin, Toasty and you claim that genetic homosexuality is undisputed as well as scientific and medical fact. According Dr. LeVay, there remains a good deal of dispute to be settled.

We need to see evidence of these three quantities approving genetic homosexuality is indeed an UNDISPUTED, SCIENTIFIC, and MEDICALLY established fact. Posts from the Guardian Newspaper illustrating sensational journalism (i.e. articles slanted by the opinions of their respective authors) partway during the course of a study is not what anyone would call grounded in this case.

Studies with disclaimers attached do not provide airtight documentation that something is indeed so, in this case, entirely genetic. You and Toasty claim homosexuals are born not made. Where's the undisputed proof of that? The only thing undisputed so far is that homosexuality has yet to be traced unerringly to normal genetic differences.

You will find more interesting details here as well, of which I have included the final paragraph of the report:

allpsych (dot) com (slash) journal (slash) homosexuality (dot) html

We have examined many causes for homosexuality in the preceding pages, both biological and social. And although an interesting topic of debate, no one theory or experiment leads to a definitive answer. Some believe that the characters found on Xq28 are the Holy Grail of homosexuality research, the elusive 'gay gene'. Others may place stock in the theories of Foucault and Halperin. Perhaps Simon LeVay did reveal to us that anatomy is the key to understanding the difference in sexual orientation. Perhaps there is no one answer, that sexual orientation, whether homosexual or heterosexual; gay, straight, lesbian, or bisexual, all are a cause of a complex interaction between environmental, cognitive, and anatomical factors, shaping the individual at an early age.

Now are we on the same page? I get the feeling you have not read through my posts at all and don't understand the point I have made all along. The only common thing in all the studies you have posted so far is that nothing derived from them is common.

You and Toasty say there are indisputably concrete facts, so let's see 'em.

My apologies, the formatting is really bad on that last one, I almost had it all straightened out before the post was indelibly saved. Please ignore the text roll proceeding the first occurrence of:

"You and Toasty say there are indisputably concrete facts, so let's see 'em."

;-)

OT, YOU'RE the one grasping at straws -- you keep quoting "facts" from known anti-gay websites, like CWFA (Concerned Women for America) and queerbychoice.com. Any information from such sites is suspect at best, as they are known for opposing gay equality in general, and gay marriage in particular -- so OF COURSE they are only going to publish "information" that supports their bias. It also taints any so-called "studies" they sponsor or publish.

THAT is why I don't bother to read your posts -- as soon as I see your sources, I know what they are going to say (believe me, you are not the first person who has tried to quote their bull@!$%#).

THAT is what I meant by learning how to do research, as well as learning to evaluate your sources. We will never be on the "same page" until you learn such basic necessities of garnering information. If you only want to get your data from such sources, then you deserve to be as misinformed as you clearly are. I might also point out that, since those sources are weak at best, your "facts" are nowhere near "indisputably concrete".

Orig: You still haven't said why the origin of sexuality matters in terms of constitutional rights.

Again, OT, the best you can do is put up articles suggesting that we don't know the cause of homosexual sexual orientation, not proof that it's a choice. You've clearly put in a lot of effort to find these articles, but you haven't bothered to think through what they actually mean to your argument. Erin is right, research is more than just finding an article that makes your argument look good. You actually have to read and understand the hypothesis and findings. You have to think for yourself and look at the facts and data objectively.

Finally, someone who gets it!!! Thank you rzabel for the correct insight. We are talking about kids or teens that everyday is a challenge of books, peer pressure, and wondering what's for dinner that day! I know I'm insulting many of the great kids that are out there and they amaze us all every day but it is a prooven fact that children do not and can not determine consequences of there actions. There are exceptions everywhere but most are just worrying about being considered cool and what's for lunch! The school did the right thing!

I have to agree. School is a place to learn the most basic of skills. Reading, writing and 'rithmatic as it were. Most schools in this nation are graduating children that are functionally illiterate and have to depend on a machine to know how much change to give back. But you can take comfort in the fact that they know what kind of shirts they can wear and how to get their "15 minutes". For years now education has been all about #s and the kind of money the schools can get because of those #s. Way to go NEA and all the collective BOEs.

Most teens, especially girls, dress to draw attention. Why else spend all that time getting dressed? How else are they gonna attract the attention of "their heart's desire?" And the school's superintendent agreed the t-shirt in question did not violate the dress code.

Yea, but would anyone here tolerate a shirt that said "all the cool girls are straight?"

good point, probably not. she'd be labelled a homophobe, the ACL-Ueberclowns would come galloping in and the games would begin. I have no issue with the i heart lez t-shirt, so long as all sides could express their opinions without terroristic far left or right wing assaults. This the 21st cent and the religious police are not an entity here. Yet.

there's a 40 y/o lady at the hospital that dresses like her second job is on a pole.

rzabel

QUOTE: "The wearer of this shirt was intentionaly seeking attention and to create distraction."

And, YOU know the persons intent, how? Mind reader??? YOU know they didn't just grab a Tee and slip it

on giving little attention to the Message, HOW??? YOU know she didn't stay over at a friends place and HE

didn't have time to drive to her place, for a change of clothes, just HOW?

LarBear;

If not for attention, what other purpose could there be for wearing clothing that is brightly colored or contains such messages? If this young woman is a lesbian I doubt a HE would be driving her home in the morning. Perhaps a little closer attention to the subject? If your high school age girl is staying out all night, I think you have more serious things to deal with than her tee shirt.

I agree that this student was probably seeking attention. Otherwise, why would she even have a T-shirt like this? I also wonder what the reaction would have been from the LGBT crowd if a student wore a T-shirt that said "All the cool girls are heterosexual". Most people have absolutely no interest in a person's sexual orientation, we just don't want it constantly in our faces. Do your thing without forcing the rest of us to validate who you are. This just shows how the politically correct bullies have taken over our society.

It's just a @!$%#ing TEE SHIRT. It gets its humor from using retro-themed images to say things that retro people wouldn't have normally said. That's just how tee shirt humor is these days. It's not a statement, it's not someone trying to "get attention," it's a JOKE. You aren't being persecuted by someone wearing this tee shirt. I've explained it several times already. What aren't all these old folks getting about this?

Toasty, quit criticizing "old folks." It has little to do with a person's age.
We "old folks" do get what you are saying: the shirt reminds me of the shirts we used to wear. I for one "get it."
But we "old folks" also realize that there is a time and place for everything, and school is not the place to display a tee shirt with a saying that she HAD to know would offend some people.
Schools would save everyone a lot of time and energy if they would simply ban shirts with sayings on them.