Thursday, September 8, 2011

Dancing with the Stars

Some families have already decided against watching Dancing with the Stars because of the skimpy costumes and provocative dance routines, that was one of the main reasons I decided that me and my boys would no longer watch this once enjoyable show. DWTS decided to take it up a notch and cast Carson Kressley from Carson-Nation, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, and How to Look Good Naked, but also transgender Chastity-Chaz Bono- child to Sonny and Cher, (that's a mom who would be rather hard to live up to.) Both people are LGBT rights advocates and promote this destructive lifestyle. DWTS is helping them create visibility for the LGBT community.

This is completely unacceptable and quite frankly tired of this in your face attitude! Kressley will be paired up with a female dancer, and since Chasity, aka Chaz, after her sex change in 2009, will also be paired with a female dancer. Does anyone else find this a bit repulsive? Well, I do. And has anyone informed "Chaz" that no matter how much she mutilates her body she is still a woman? You cannot change your DNA, no matter how much you add or take away from your body. She is a woman and now, God bless her, a hideous looking one. What "Chaz" needed was a counselor not a scalpel. No, I am not saying these things to be ugly, but it concerns me how young impressionable minds are going to compute this.

She/he needed help from someone who has had success in helping people like her/him to get passed the confusion and realize they are beautiful they way God created them. God doesn't make mistakes.

What kind of mental chaos causes a person to mutilate and scar their bodies for life? That's NOT normal. She needed help and only got a scalpel to fix her problem.

However, I digress and to push the envelope even further for a program that could be a family show but is obviously not, Kressley is also author of the children's book You're Different and That's Super, a children's book promoting the homosexual lifestyle to children.

Bono is the show's first transgender contestant and has served as Entertainment Media Director for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). Herndon Graddick, senior director of programs for GLAAD, said in a statement, "At a time when transgender representation in the media is sorely lacking, Chaz Bono joining the cast is a tremendous step forward for the public to recognize that transgender people are another wonderful part of the fabric of American culture."

Okay, let's see how you feel about this whole Dancing with the Stars controversy.

39 comments:

Teresa said...

I didn't watch Dancing With The Stars before this whole controversy and surely won't start watching it now.

Homosexual acts are sinful and disordered. These acts and this lifestyle should not be encouraged. We should love the people but speak out against the lifestyle or acts, kind of like we do with alcoholism.

Why do liberals have to pervert or distort everything?

Most Rev. Gregori said...

The promotion of gayness is every where now, even in commercials. Good heavens, one would think that the whole damn world is queer the way it is being pushed. I just wish we could force them all back into the closet where they belong.

Silverfiddle said...

I don't watch much tv, and when I do its not some hollyweird show, usually reruns or MMA...

Debbie said...

We have no choice, these days (except to switch the channel) because the minority seems to rule these days. It isn't right, it isn't fair.

Debbie
Right truth
http://www.righttruth.typepad.com

jez said...

Everyone is a sinner, so of course everyone on TV is a sinner. Why should sexual orientation, uniquely, have the power to bar you from TV appearances? Every one of the ten commandments is regularly broken on TV, I don't get why this should have priority.

You, Gregori, are a beautiful, big-hearted man. Love your work.

"I just wish we could force them all back into the closet where they belong."

That's just classic. You don't often get that grade of bullshit bigotry these days, so it's nice to see it coming out again. It's like watching an elderly McCartney play through She Loves You one more time, or bumping in to an old friend you haven't seen since the early 70s. It warms my heart. It's total nonsense of course, but thanks for the hit of nostalgia.

Jersey McJones said...

Jeez. Talk about judgemental!

JMJ

Leticia said...

Teresa, I couldn't agree more.

Abouna, what all of them need is psychological help and even better, God Almighty.

Silver, like you I quit watching a lot of tv, most of the time I stay with shows I know are safe for me and boys to watch together. And the selections are slim.

Debbie, I hope many people will boycott the show and ABC programming, maybe they will get the message that many of us do NOT want to see that lifestyle flaunted in our faces.

Jez, I am not going to watch the show, and I have never, ever called anyone a "sinner" because I myself am one. I just don't appreciate how ABC or the media, in all its avenues, shoving it in my face. I truly feel sorry for Chastity/Chaz she needs help.

JMJ, no, not really. I would love to for her to get psychological and/or spiritual help. She mutilated her body, and no one should put themselves through that. I simply believe it is a mental disorder.

MK said...

We also have dancing with the stars out here, our own version though. I think i watched it once and never again. I just don't see the point of watching largely talented people do something they have no talent in.

I'd rather watch real dancers, irrespective of their sexual orientation. I know homos and liberals want to constantly scream and shout about their various sexual activities, but i don't want to see/hear about it.

"I just wish we could force them all back into the closet where they belong."

Amen to that bishop, where i work, there are couple of homos and perhaps there are lesbians and whatever else, but in my entire life, i've never witnessed any discrimination or bigotry directed at them or others. So no matter how shrill the cries and whining for acceptance i remain unconvinced that we all should know what they do in their private lives.

Perhaps what they're really after is to be the center of attention and superiority over the rest of us.

jez said...

I am aware that Gregori, MK and Leticia are or have engaged in heterosexual relations. None of you have not felt the need to keep this a secret. In fact each of you has broadcast this fact over the internet, I do not know any of you personally. Why would you demand that homosexuals keep their relationships secret?? Or do you mean something different by "we [should] force them back in the closet where they belong?"

MK said...

I don't remember coming to you jezebel and telling you about my sexual relationships.

If you didn't want to hear about my life then don't come to my blog or read my comments.

And by "keep it in the closet" i mean that i don't want homos or anyone else coming to me and waffling on about their sex life, if you want to discuss the intricacies of gay sex with your boyfriends, then by all means go ahead, i didn't mean to imply that you shouldn't do it, so please go ahead if you want to.

jez said...

MK: "I don't remember coming to you jezebel and telling you about my sexual relationships."

Indeed, that would have been comparatively less brazen. Instead you broadcast it over the internet, you attention-seeking whore. ;)

"i don't want homos or anyone else coming to me and waffling on about their sex life"

And that's not what's happened. They haven't come to anyone, they've just broadcast it on TV, just like you did over the internet. Like you, I have no interest in watching people who are skilled at one thing perform averagely at some other skill, so
I've simply not watched any of dancing with the stars. Therefore I was unaware of its gay contestants until Leticia brought it up.

If you're all so freaked out by gay relationships, wouldn't it help if you stopped talking about it? You talk about it more than I do, and I'm not the one who has any objection to it! Seems to me like we'd be happier if we swapped, and you talked about it less than I did!

Teresa said...

Jez,

You are one more example of a liberal who claims to be tolerant but is the most intolerant of all. You are one more example of a lib who claims that they don't want to offend but then offends 80% of the USA. You exemplify what is wrong with liberalism. You are the ones forcing your beliefs on us and not vice versa. In addition these beliefs are dangerous for our kids and society as a whole. First, you push sex, sex, sex down our throats and now its a perverted form of sex which you are shoving down our throats. The demoralization of America campaign by progressives has got to stop!

jez said...

Teresa: can you produce an example of my intolerance please?

"these beliefs [let's not persecute or ostracise homosexuals?] are dangerous for our kids and society as a whole."

There is not purely a matter of opinion, so there is room for argument if you want to make progress. I don't expect you want to.

"First, you push sex, sex, sex down our throats"

I do nothing of the sort. I'm not the one who brought the topic up. I'd much rather talk to you about fermentation.

Teresa said...

jez,

"I do nothing of the sort. I'm not the one who brought the topic up. I'd much rather talk to you about fermentation."

The fact that you think that its okay for children to view a gay person dancing in the show Dancing With The Stars is an example of offensive willful ignorance on your part to the harm that this perverse sexuality poses to kids and our society as a whole.


"can you produce an example of my intolerance please?"

Look at most of your comments here or at examples all over the internet but I don't think you have the capacity to recognize true immoral acts or true acts of intolerance even if an example was two inches in front of your face.

The fact that you DON'T think this topic is important or shouldn't have been brought up speaks volumes as to the immorality you adhere to and consistently defend.

[let's not persecute or ostracise homosexuals?] Why should we treat people who are sexually perverse as if their behavior is moral and good for the common good of society when their acts aren't? Why force acceptance of unacceptable acts?

jez said...

Teresa: "The fact that you think that its okay for children to view a gay person dancing in the show Dancing With The Stars is an example of offensive willful ignorance on your part..."

And the fact that you cannot entertain the idea that you are wrong is, at best, a failure of imagination on your part.

As I say, the dangers posed by not persecuting homosexuals is not purely a matter of opinion, so can be argued rationally. That would require more from you than a mere restatement of your opinion.

"Look at most of your comments here or at examples all over the internet"

Is that the same as "no, I don't have any examples?"
I'd like a concrete example please, if it's not too much trouble. I only want one.

"Why force acceptance of unacceptable acts?"
First, establish rationally that the "acts" are unacceptable. Also, what acts are you talking about? You're just complaining about a gay person showing up as the contestant on a light entertainment TV show. Is that an unacceptable act? They're not broadcasting anything intimate, they're just in view. (AFAIK, I haven't seen the show)

Leticia said...

Jez, in response to your first comment, I have never shared any of my intimate moments with my husband on this blog or anywhere else. Why? Because it is PRIVATE and should stay between the two of us.

And furthermore, marital sex is supposed to be private. The media, the LGBT movement,liberals, are the ones who have perverted this wonderful act of love between a married couple. We are not the ones that have turned it into some kind of perversion. The liberals did that.

I don't want my children to watch tv shows like "Friends" or any show that promotes sexual promiscuity and see it as acceptable, it is not. Heck, even the Golden Girls was all about sex out of marriage. But no one ever mentioned the emotional pain that accompanies those loose relationships not to mention, horrible diseases.

Liberals put us down because we want to protect our children from that, and I want to know why? Why do they want to destroy the innocence of children? Is it because they, themselves, cannot gain it back, did someone take it from them by force or coercion? Are they jealous of the innocence?

MK said...

Attention-seeking, hardly jezebel, i'm the very opposite of that.

"If you're all so freaked out by gay relationships, wouldn't it help if you stopped talking about it?""

Yes that would make a bit of sense if i was freaked out by it but 'freaked' is not the right word, speaking for myself, concerned and sort of disgusted is more my take on it.

It would help if the media refrained from pushing the homo lifestyle among the many programs on TV, but until then people like me won't watch their crappy programs and we'll keep criticizing them for it.

jez said...

Leticia, once again you brazenly announce that you have a husband. Why can't you keep your heterosexuality a private (which is code for "secret") matter?

As far as I can tell, your complaint is over the presence of openly gay people on tv, not gay activity on tv. Mentioning your husband isn't wrong, but it does make you overtly heterosexual. You'd complain about a gay person making the equivalent passing comment about his boyfriend. I don't see the good in forcing homosexuals to be furtive just to keep you happy; I think your happiness is your own burden.

jez said...

"Liberals put us down because we want to protect our children from that[background levels of promiscuity in the media]"

I don't recognise that liberals put you down for protecting your kids, that's what you're supposed to do; perhaps they put you down for trying to sanitise all broadcast output to your own specifications. There are things on TV that I don't like either (often the same things as you, I'm sure) but broadcast media is a bus, not a taxi. I don't expect it to deliver material exactly matched to my tastes and requirements. Especially the adverts -- which in my opinion is where the most dreadful sexual attitudes are delivered -- so my solution is not to have a television. I think this works out better than complaining impotently about American Idol or Friends.

Leticia said...

Jez, I, in know way flaunted or brazenly spoke about my husband, you brought up the subject with MK and myself. Any post I have ever written I have never, ever mentioned my husband. And probably after this, won't again.

Why are you so adversarial when it comes to this particular subject? Is it not worth it to you and anyone else with children to protect them from the harsh realities of life, at least for a while?

And, believe it or not, I agree completely with you about television, do really need them? No, but they can be wonderful, especially when I can watch Dr. Who, Eureka, Alphas and occasionally Star Trek shows.

My whole point is I want all children to keep their innocence as long as possible and if I can shelter them from topics that go against the Word of God, I will.

MK said...

"My whole point is I want all children to keep their innocence as long as possible and if I can shelter them from topics that go against the Word of God, I will."

Well said Leticia, we also need to shelter them from destructive and harmful behavior where we can.

Let me also add that if you hadn't brought this topic up in your post, i would not have known what's was happening in this show, I'm sure others now know as well thanks to you. Now we know not to let our children watch this program and neither will we. Some of us will tell others and spread the word.

Then maybe the shows producers will have to rely on the homo viewship and i have a feeling they'll find out the hard way that it's not really all that it's cracked up to be.

jez said...

"Jez, I, in know way flaunted or brazenly spoke about my husband,... Any post I have ever written I have never, ever mentioned my husband."

You certainly have mentioned him before now, and there's nothing wrong with that; all I'm pointing out is that the mere mention of a homosexual's relationship seems to be out of bounds to you. I want you to recognise that the "keep it private" demand you make of homosexuals is stricter than the standard of privacy you demand of heterosexuals and maintain for yourself.

"Why are you so adversarial when it comes to this particular subject?"

I object strongly to Gregori's wish to "force them back into the closet where they belong". It's a thoughtless selfish sentiment, expressed violently.

I'm unconvinced by your other commenters' claims that they are "concerned" for homosexuals, becuase it is a "disorder" like "alcoholism". I don't see them demanding that alcoholics not be allowed on any TV game shows. I don't see why you aren't complaining, first, about the tragic values espoused in commercials -- that's the bit of television that's actually trying to influence, persuade and tempt you, and it invariably goes about its work by appealing to your baser (sinful, if you like) instincts. Dancing with Stars is not, as far as I can tell, attempting to influence, persuade or tempt; they just have a few gays on the show. Breaking news: the gays like to dance!

Also, it annoys me that none of your commenters who claim that open homosexuality is so damaging refuse to say *why* they think that. It's almost as if they haven't thought about it and don't want to think about it, but they've got an opinion anyway. The word for that is "prejudice".

"Is it not worth it to you and anyone else with children to protect them from the harsh realities of life, at least for a while?"
I don't consider this reality at all harsh. Babies, if they're lucky enough to live with both parents, know from birth that humans like to live in pairs and show each other affection -- there's no hiding that from them. Personally, I'm pleased for anybody who has a relationship that works well for both parties, never mind what the combination of genders is.

"if I can shelter them from topics that go against the Word of God, I will."
I still think that you promote this gay issue above other IMO more egregious departures from the Word.

Teresa said...

Alcoholism is not being normalized in our culture as if its something "good" when it is clearly a disease. Homosexuality is disordered and being treated as if its "normal" when its not. Homosexuality is contrary to natural law. It is like trying to change a zebra into a horse. More specifically, transgender people are trying to play God by changing themselves from how God created them into some morphed distorted form of themselves. Instead of getting help with depression or other issues liberals think the answer is to blame the self and their bodies for their problems instead of the underlying issues which cause depression. Alcoholism is shown as something bad in our society in which the person should be receiving treatment. That is not the case with either homosexuality or transgender persons and their behavior.

jez said...

Why is homosexuality disordered? (ie, what is wrong with it?)
Why is it contrary to natural law? (ie, what is natural law and how do we know it?)
How is it like trying to change a zebra into a horse?
How are transgender people playing God more than any other patient born with a problem that needs surgical correction?

"Instead of getting help with depression or other issues liberals think the answer is to blame the self and their bodies for their problems instead of the underlying issues which cause depression."
I would presume to advise anyone in this matter, but you're the one who's ruling out possible underlying causes (the wrong gender).

"Alcoholism is shown as something bad in our society in which the person should be receiving treatment."
Sure, but you don't react against merely to seeing alcoholics, either portrayed in characters or as real members of the public, on television -- you save that for homosexuals.

Teresa said...

Instead of taking over Leticia's blog I will do a post which will answer your questions.

Leticia said...

Jez: Why is homosexuality disordered? (ie, what is wrong with it?)Me: I know I have given you verses from the bible so I won't repeat the scriptures. It's bad for the human body, because our bodies were not designed or geared for homosexual intimacy and relations, aka sex. And from what I have studied, there are physical injuries and STD's are more rampant in the homo. community.

Jez: Why is it contrary to natural law? (ie, what is natural law and how do we know it?)Me: As I stated above our bodies were not geared for that kind of sexual intimacy. They just aren't.

Jez: How is it like trying to change a zebra into a horse? Me: this question moot. These are two specific species of animals, and we are speaking of human beings.

Jez: How are transgender people playing God more than any other patient born with a problem that needs surgical correction? Me: Cutting and or removing the specific body parts and organs to change the sex of a person is not correction, it is self mutilation. It's not the same as a person being born without a leg or arm or with more fingers, those surgical procedures does not change the gender of a person. You are either born male or female and no amount of surgery can change your DNA.

Jez;"Instead of getting help with depression or other issues liberals think the answer is to blame the self and their bodies for their problems instead of the underlying issues which cause depression."
I would presume to advise anyone in this matter, but you're the one who's ruling out possible underlying causes (the wrong gender). Me: See my notes above on this one.

Jez:"Alcoholism is shown as something bad in our society in which the person should be receiving treatment." Sure, but you don't react against merely to seeing alcoholics, either portrayed in characters or as real members of the public, on television -- you save that for homosexuals. Me: Actually, I do. I am a child of an alcoholic and it pains me to see it portrayed on tv. It is an illness and it destroys lives.

Teresa said...

"Jez: How is it like trying to change a zebra into a horse? Me: this question moot. These are two specific species of animals, and we are speaking of human beings."

My main point with this is a zebra is born a zebra and we wouldn't think it acceptable, normal, or moral to change it into another being, or another animal. But a more apt example might be: could you imagine a male zebra having surgery to become female?

jez said...

"It's bad for the human body, because our bodies were not designed or geared for homosexual intimacy and relations, aka sex."

By which you mean anal sex -- which is not mandatory in homosexual sex, nor impossible in heterosexual sex. Even it's more prevalent among the homosexuals (it might well be, I wouldn't know and neither would you), what about lesbian sex? Does your argument have anything to say about that?
I don't think that any ordinary sex act could be as physically traumatic as child-birth, which I imagine you'd claim the human body is very much geared for. If it isn't, then doesn't your argument above say that we shouldn't give birth?

"STD's are more rampant in the homo. community."
Ah well, I think promiscuity is a highly important confounding factor here. IMO your demand for secrecy and subterfuge aggravates the rebelliously promiscuous sub-culture of homosexuality which gets all the attention.

"You are either born male or female and no amount of surgery can change your DNA."
It is surprisingly common for people to be born with ambiguous DNA. Ordinarily, males have and X and a Y chromosome, while females have 2 Y chromosomes. However, chromosomes don't always come in pairs, and more often than you think humans are born with a different combination, eg. 2Xs and a Y. This is unusual, but hardly rare.
I'm not suggesting that every trans-gender case has ambiguous sex chromosomes. My point is there's more to gender than the Y chromosome. I have an interesting example which demonstrates the importance of the womb environment, if you'd like to read it.

"Actually, I do. I am a child of an alcoholic and it pains me to see it portrayed on tv. It is an illness and it destroys lives."
I'm sorry to hear that. I don't treat alcoholism flippantly either, but I just don't think that hiding alcoholics and pretending they don't exist would improve matters in any way.
Most stories require their characters to have flaws. Movies portray gangsters, even the bible portrays sinners.
Even if you're right and homosexuality is damaging, you still haven't shown that hiding them and pretending they don't exist would help. I put it to you that the gay reaction to "forcing them back in the closet" would be greater levels of risky promiscuity, ie the result would be the opposite of good.

jez said...

correction: females have 2 X chromosomes, or course.

MK said...

"I'm unconvinced by your other commenters' claims that they are "concerned" for homosexuals, becuase it is a "disorder" like "alcoholism"."

Perhaps it's because they never set out to "convince" you jezebel.

"Also, it annoys me that none of your commenters who claim that open homosexuality is so damaging refuse to say *why* they think that."

Maybe they find amusement in seeing you irritated jezebel.

"It's almost as if they haven't thought about it and don't want to think about it, but they've got an opinion anyway. "

Do you want to force them to think about it? Would that help with the itch jezebel?

"IMO your demand for secrecy and subterfuge aggravates the rebelliously promiscuous sub-culture of homosexuality which gets all the attention."

Do you have any evidence that open homosexuality and the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle on TV is actually better for the prevention of STDs, HIV infections and such among them?

"I put it to you that the gay reaction to "forcing them back in the closet" would be greater levels of risky promiscuity, ie the result would be the opposite of good."

So if i told a couple of homos that i'm uninterested in their sex lives and they're all "faggots" or something, they'll go out that night in their sluttiest outfits begging for unprotected bum sex, just to show me? F*** you MK! Really? Note to all homophobes out there - here's easy way to thin the herd guys.

I'm unconvinced by your theory jezebel. To me, refusing to put them on tv just because they're homo and refusing to promote the homo lifestyle on tv doesn't seem like someone's physically beating them into a closet, persecuting them, pretending they don't exist or anything of the sort.

Leticia said...

Jez, off topic a bit. Alcoholism should be brought out into the open and dealt with promptly. When I was a child, we were taught that whatever happened in our homes stayed in our homes and no one was to know each other's dirty little secrets. That's a bunch of bologna and I am glad it has been brought out. Maybe my dad would have gotten the help he needed before he destroyed his life and damaging ours. I am just thankful to God that my mother had the fortitude and courage to leave him and make a life for herself and my sisters. That's about all I will share, some memories are just too painful for me, even now.

If anything, I would love to see LGBT's getting help and guidance. You cannot hide from a problem and pretend it doesn't exist. My mother's wisdom taught me that you deal with a problem head-on.

jez said...

Well I certainly haven't set out to convince *you* MK, since I don't have the time to put together the all the various teaching aids that would be required to get even the simplest ideas through to you. Normally I'd be happy to put together the various metaphors, analogies, animated diagrams, cartoons and glove puppets, but I'm just too busy. Sorry.

Leticia: I completely agree with you, except I'd go further and say that taboos in general cause more problems than they solve.

I suggest that the fact that we no longer execute or section homosexuals in asylums represents a considerable advancement over recent history. Hopefully you'd concur that any homosexual "cure" must be voluntary, and therefore, if you want homosexuals to take up the offer of it, it must be offered in combination with a convincing argument that it should be "cured". (This is also the first, frustratingly difficult step to helping an alcoholic.) Not to mention, I'm sure that MK and Gregori would bristle at the idea of publicly funded treatment of any kind, and would want the homosexual to pay for his own "cure"; a better sales pitch is needed!

Therefore, I think the likes of MK who see no reason to convince anybody of anything, but think that mere (silent, of course) majority opinion is sufficient license to "force" whoever they like into a closet, are wrong.

Leticia said...

Jez, yes, absolutely, they need to come voluntarily, just like anything else, a person must decide and come to the conclusion that they cannot manage without help. And that's for anyone, not just homosexuals. :)

MK said...

"Well I certainly haven't set out to convince *you* MK..."

Yes i know, i wasn't saying that *you* were, so no need to get so defensive. I was just reflecting that your theory failed to convince me seeing as how *you* put it out there.

"Normally I'd be happy to put together the various metaphors, analogies, animated diagrams, cartoons and glove puppets, but I'm just too busy. Sorry."

Really, animated diagrams and cartoons, you must be some teacher jezebel, is that what you are, a teacher?

You know all I asked for was some evidence of your claims, i wasn't asking for *you* to go out and do the research yourself and get it peer-reviewed or something. Nice insults though, top marks son, did you google those or get some help with it. Did it make you feel better, would it help if i told *you* that *you* hurt my feelings?

I'm surprised you reacted so evasively to my simple question and i don't buy the weasel words about being busy jezebel. You never seem too busy and apologetic when it's someone else on the receiving end of your questions. Never seen any piffle from you about teaching aids when you are the one full of questions.

Seeing as how you're always caterwauling for evidence from others, i thought you might have some of your own. Come on jezebel, it can't be that hard, you're supposed to be the brainiac here, come now, no need to be so coy boy.

"....I'm sure that MK and Gregori would bristle at the idea of publicly funded treatment of any kind, and would want the homosexual to pay for his own "cure"

Obviously i'd want homos to pay for their own health care, just like i'd want you to pay for your own. If we can pay for our own health care, why can't they, they are equals, yes?

"Therefore, I think the likes of MK who see no reason to convince anybody of anything...."

You keep whining about this, tell me, do you want to force us [through maybe a beating?] to try and convince *you* of our own personal beliefs? Would that help with the itch jezebel?

"....but think that mere (silent, of course) majority opinion is sufficient license to "force" whoever they like into a closet, are wrong."

Come now jezebel, don't be so stupid, i already told you i wasn't angling for some goon squad to literally beat homos into some sort of closet, that's just in your hysterical fantasies, so you can relax and go back to your sock/glove puppet acts, hearing aids, fancy diagrams, pretenses of being busy and whatever else.

I'll ask again, do you have any evidence that open homosexuality and the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle on TV is actually better for the prevention of STDs, HIV infections and such among them?

If you don't have any, just say so, i'll be disappointed [not irritated like you] but i'll understand.

jez said...

MK: the cost of my time right now is high, and the value of talking to you is historically low, so it's just not worth it. I might be more willing to fill in details another time.

I will part with this: haven't you noticed that you're treating banning a class of people from TV and game-shows as if it is the default position? "Not normal enough? We'd better hide you then." (And "force them all back into the closet" is the direct quote that I've been taking issue with all this time, sorry if you don't like it and wish you hadn't supported it.) Why isn't it the default that everyone gets equal opportunity to access everything, including TV appearances?

Teresa said...

Jez: You had questions concerning homosexuality and the natural law. I told you that I would cover those topics in a post. Here it is: http://teresamerica.blogspot.com/2011/09/dancing-with-stars-and-natural-law.html

MK said...

"MK: the cost of my time right now is high, and the value of talking to you is historically low, so it's just not worth it. I might be more willing to fill in details another time."

Again with the bleating about time and thinly veiled insults. jez, i say again jez, do you have any evidence that open homosexuality and the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle on TV is actually better for the prevention of STDs, HIV infections and such among them?

I wasn't asking you to sit down, hold my hand, prepare tea, scones, pie graphs and all that jez. It's a very simple question, *you* put forward a theory and i just want to know if it was based on anything concrete, that's all jez. No need for sock puppets, fancy flow diagrams and all that.

Did i mention that it's alright to have an opinion without having peer-reviewed evidence to back it up, i won't think any less of you, promise. I know *you* are highly irritated by that sort of thing, but i'm not. I was even trying to help you with that particular 'itch', being the nice guy that i am, perhaps when you're not so busy in the future.

"I will part with this...."

Followed by more questions. Funny how you have plenty of time for that eh. Strangely no need for a complex time-value-history calculation when *you* have questions and statements to ask/make.

"(And "force them all back into the closet" is the direct quote that I've been taking issue with all this time, sorry if you don't like it and wish you hadn't supported it.)"

I already clarified my statement, now i'm terribly sorry if you are too stupid to understand what i said, unfortunately i'm not as skilled as you are with the sock puppets, animated pixar cartoons and all that to explain it to you.

First you provide some evidence for your earlier statement or just say that you don't have any, maybe then i'll address your more recent shrill accusations.

"I told you that I would cover those topics in a post."

Sorry Teresa, jez is very busy right now, not even time to answer a really simple question. Perhaps if you didn't offer any lengthy explanations and peer-reviewed research to back up your post, he might mysteriously find the time to fire away many, many questions.

jez said...

"Again with the bleating about time and thinly veiled insults. jez"

They're not veiled.

MK said...

A rare moment of honesty jez, now how about that evidence boy?