I think it is obvious they hope that by removing this protection they can get a lgbt student to go "postal" thus allowing a third party to demonise them and allow the further passage of anti lgbt legislation. Duh!
@lindoe79 Also be aware this just doesn't protect gay ppl, but str8 ppl who are often accused of being gay. Like a girl with short hair who plays sports or a boy considered to be feminine. Also regardless, who is anyone to tell another what they do in their personal lives? Should Republican teens be allowed to beat up or bully Democrats teens? Now political party is a choice!
I would at least understand the reasoning of repealing the entire law. I'm generally in favour of repealing laws, even the ones that sound like they should be doing something good (because they, more often than not, aren't). But, to only remove sexual orientation and gender identity from the law shows nothing other than bigotry.
This is really disturbing. No-one especially a child should be subjected to such an environment of hostility where their safety if literally at risk, let alone for something as okay as being gay. Saying there anything wrong with homosexuality is already going one step to far, and this is just reprehensible.
I emailed the senators and I really hope that they can get a great defense for what they're doing. I want them to have gay children, so they can understand why these protections are necessary. I wish people like this can walk a mile in the shoes of LGBT youth
@lindoe79 Because people who make a LIFESTYLE CHOICE based on personal religion are protected under the law. If you're going to argue that they don't deserve protection because they make a choice then obviously you think the same of religion, but you don't and therefore you are a hypocrite.
i hope those two bastards end up having gay kids. i'd love to hear what they say when little jason and matt jr come home after having been beaten up for holding hands with their boyfriends.
Once again, this is what your all caring, and loving god allows to happen, religious people. Every penny you give to your church is blood on the hands of freedom and safety of all of the LGBT community. I can't stand religion, the world would be so much better off without it "Make fun of people because they can love someone you can't, but don't make fun of their invisible space daddy or you'll go to jail" This is truly bullshit!
@Rawnesss In terms of sheer volumetric size, yeah. However, the actual neuro-*anatomy* is significantly more primitive (i.e., more nearly like Heidelberginsis and Erectus) than modern Homo Sapiens.
It's a very curious thing that you should know how the neuro-dynamic in a neanderhals looks. I'd like to know where the source for that is (it's intruiging)
@ Rawnesss Interestingly enough, there've been several books within the past few yrs on Neanthals. But the main source of the info is a superb 3-pt PBS program that initally aired about 6 or 8 (ish) weeks again called "Last Human Standing" (I think, or maybe that's the episode's name...). Anyway, one can certainly analyze intracranial castes of Neanderthal skulls an tell that, while slightly more elongated than ours, they're brains're nonetheless considerably more primitive.
@ Rawnesss My bad: I just looked it up: The program's name is *Becoming Human*. It's a superb 3-pt. series. Neanderthals were not much different from Heidelbergensis from which they developed. Sapiens developed from more-or-less Heidelbergensis also, but those that had remained in Africa, &, hence, were under different (& arguably more intense) environmental adaptation (selection) pressure. Slowly, from this stock of merely a few thousand (at most) came modern humans...
I have no proof of the idea, but the first thing I thought when I saw those ole boys is that they look like the sort who'd be interested in renting a boy...
While horrifying (and statistically somewhat unlikely), this is nonetheless not an especially implausible conjecture, if only due to the fact that politicians (being typically power-trippers) will oftentimes have closeted proclivities such as just this.
I sent these two fucking asshole a terse email asking them how they can face themselves in the morning after condemning lesbian, gay and transgendered children to potential horrific torment!!!
As I always seams to say when I hear this kind of things. What is wrong with People.!! Why is it so hard to understand that everyone have the right to the same right and obligations under law Regardless who you are or love or if you green, blue or whatever. Regards and have a skilful life. Pinge
I emailed the representatives and got a response from Windschitl.
He claims this change will not negatively impact anyone, and that the reason why he wants the language removed is to remove any references of LGBT people having special protections under the law so he can push his legislation to disallow gay marriage.
So, there's your motivation for you. They want to ban gay marriage and they don't care what kind of good laws they stomp on to get them there.
The world, the country and life itself is NOT PC. There is a HUGE difference between "verbal harassment" and physical violence. We need to teach kids when they are younger that the ONLY behavior you can honestly control (no matter what laws are in place) is your own. Bullies will be bullies. You can't stop that. Its your response that matters. If kids can be taught at earlier ages that jerks are jerks and how to deal with them then they will know that fact as adults.
The Bill of Rights clearly is not being enforced...taxation without representation is our nations motto! Time to rebel...all gay people, stop paying your taxes, politicians are like whores, when you don't pay them, they take notice, you get their attention, cut them off from the money supply and all of the sudden they listen.
Once in a while, one of them has a conscience, a moral compass. And it all comes to a point where they just can't perpetuate the intolerance and inequality any longer. Rare, but it happens.
Watch "Raw Video: San Diego Mayor Sanders Supports Gay Marriage"
It makes me cry every time I watch it, it's so beautiful and heartfelt.
Because everyone deserves equal protection under the law? Yes, even heterosexuals who "make a LIFESTYLE CHOICE based on SEXUAL GRATIFICATION". Oh no, people have sex because they like it? Better get rid of their fundamental civil rights!
I can't decide if my wish is that they'd all drop dead, or if, instead, they lived their pathetic hateful lives, but all their children turned out to be really happy, openly LGBT folks.
Let's just avoid the asinine assumptions that homosexuality is a choice or that it is only about sexual gratification and address what you said directly:
Why should people be bullied or harassed for any lifestyle choice, based on sexual gratification or not? I suppose you advocate stoning adulterers, swingers, fornicators, or even the slightly promiscuous?
Yes, schools already have rules against bullying/threats/assault.
The point is that, in addition, we specifically identify groups that historically have been oppressed, discriminated against for some status which they could not (LGBT, ethnicity) or could not easily (religion) change.
This specificity is especially helpful because it sends a clear message to teachers/principals who otherwise might let such bullying continue due their own personal prejudices.
In one case, a teacher is taking advantage of a child that is unable to consent to a sexual action. In the other case, a person is living their life without denying their attractions, wants, needs and desires (BEING GAY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SEXUAL CONTACT). I can totally see how they are equivalent...NOT!!!!
@galefan2004 You sidestepped the question. Let me try to dumb it down so you can understand. The average person living a homosexual lifestyle claims they cannot change. Most pedophiles make the same argument. Are both or either of them correct ? And why ? Here is another thought.... does a person who enjoys BDSM come out of his/her mothers womb craving whips & chains ? No? Well then I guess we just established that sexual attraction/gratification can be LEARNED.
You cannot force yourself to be unattracted or attracted to someone, you can only chose to act upon your desires or not. A pedosexual cannot change their sexuality & the majority of them never act out their sexual desires on children. But, homosexuals do not need to sexually represse themselves because the people they're attracted to can give informed consent, unlike a child. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not a fetish. Also, theres nothing wrong w/ BDSM. Analogy=FAIL
Discriminating against someone for their sexual preference, no matter what it is, is wrong. I'm not only sick of discrimination against homosexuals & bisexuals, I'm also sick of the discrimination against pedosexuals who have never touched a child; its a witch hunt.
On a side thought- the fetish for BDSM may be influenced with our genes since humans have the natural unconscious desire to dominate another & to be dominated. There is also a natural thrill to cause harm to others.
why do they have to specify what kids can't be harassed about anyway? Why not just say "they can't be harassed?" Isn't the issue bullying and not what they are bullied for?
"you an pick on kids as long as your jeers aren't referring to anything on this list. that is all."
They want it to be explicit so that judicial review doesn't constrain it. If they said "bullying" in general, then it is up to the judge to define what constitutes bullying, including constraining the reasons why it took place.
Usually laws like this that have a laundry list of items are -intended- to cover every conceivable scenario explicitly. Of course the other problem is that legislators can then capitalize on the explicit nature to weaken the law as well, as is happening here.
I disagree. These laws do not contain a "laundry list" to cover every conceivable scenario explicitly. In fact, people writing the text of such laws usually recognize that they simply can't cover everything explicitly, so they (try to) throw in additional catch-all language to make clear that these items are merely common examples, but that the scope of the law reaches beyond these. Whether the courts ultimately allow the language or declare it to be overly-vague is another matter.
I have come to expect anything from people, but it's still shocking that someone would actually go through the trouble of striking out two of the groups and not others. What is more worrisome is that there has to be an anti bullying clause in the first place for ADULTS.
I must be missing something. Why is any bullying allowed? I mean, instead of having a list of reason for which no one should be bullied, they should simply say "No bullying, for any reason."
By the way, it disgusts me that grown (?) men (?) would actually advocate bullying of children (or anyone, for that matter) for any reason.
What an absolute fuckface. Like, full-on. This is unbelievable. HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS are going to suffer because of these wankers' selfish homophobia T~T
No doubt the man was a monster, was just saying he didn't seem to persecute homosexuals. The comment was just to clarify that to people who might have read your comment and assumed otherwise.
Weirdly, I don't think Uncle Joe did send LGBT people to the camps, or not in any significant numers (if I'm wrong, please correct me, I just can't find any sources to back it up).
How about having equal laws against harassment of all people? I think people of different sexual orientation or gender identity should be treated as equals, and this is why i think this. I say that they should cut "hate crime" or "hate speech", and prohibit bullying against ALL people.
This brings me to one thing I have observed TWICE in my province already. High school students who are known to be RELATED in any way to convicted rapists or pedophiles are bullied.
No matter what, this is like calling a white kid born of white parents a "nigger" just because his dad has a black step-brother.
Just because one person is a "chester", it doesn't mean that his niece and nephew are also. Mother Nature selects at random who is a pedophile and who is not. And that's that.
Well I got my response from Matt Windschitl. He said that he doesn't support bullying any student and the bill is to remove "unnecessary language" as the law says "including but not limited to" such and such characteristics. Then he started talking about gay marriage... basically he wants to remove the language so that the state doesn't recognize the legitimacy of homosexuality or transgenderism, which was the reasoning of the Iowa courts to allow SS marriage. Well golly gee.
It quickly devolved into another braindead diatribe about marriage, where they''ll "first start by removing the argument that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle."
And, of course, where did it end?
"I merely disagree with the argument that it is an acceptable alternative to the way God designed humanity to function. Therefore I must be true to God, my constituents and myself and politely refuse to accept homosexuality as an appropriate lifestyle."
I've sent it in, although my letter has less weight as I am not an American nor do I live in America, but hopefully the fact that this sort of thing is seen from the outside may add pressure for them to repeal their decision.
How would that "confuse" anyone? What is confusing about that? If it's "about keeping sex out of the schools", why hasn't heterosexuality come under attack? How is discouraging anti-gay harassment encouraging anyone to be gay?
A corollary of that would be: "not discouraging anti-gay harassment would discourage anyone to be gay." Rewording it by swapping the negatives around often gets to the heart of the matter.
@bluemoon014; you mean like how schools force [oops! I meant "encourage"] you to engage with the opposite sex for breeder rituals like school fairs, kissing booths and dances? Shall we do away with those too? After all I don't want my gay children encouraged into a hetero lifestyle choice.
What strikes me with this case is that it's so damn BLATANT and SPECIFIC. How can one look at this move and see anything but bigotry? It's ridiculous.
They should strike out the whole "trait or characteristic" section. Bullying should not be tolerated for any motive including the enumeration of said section.
I don't necessarily think Schultz and Windschitl want LGBT's to be bullied at school but they are trying to stop these things from being seen as "Okay" in our culture. They may see any attempt to help gays and lesbians as legitimizing their existence in the eyes of the population.
Or maybe they're just pandering to their electorate.
newton, why want just state: bullying will not be tolerated period. No reason for bullying will be accepted. Why do different classes of people have to be in there? If one protected class is in there such as religion then sexual orientation should be in there also. Its all or none.
It their words are to be believed, they really think (if they "think" at all) that being gay is a "choice" and that it is fundamentally oppositional to their "God."
These people are delusional.
And scared.
And violent.
And they're looking for some answer (scapegoat) as to why their lives are falling apart. (hint: it's the economy.)
@fotomatt69 I don't *think* (I THINK? OMG!) that anyone should be the subject of ridicule. I don't care what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their home, or even that they "exist". I'm not scared or violent, and my life is not "falling apart". Now, with that being said, plz explain to me how what you are defending is natural.... as defined by Webster.
@nite0wl - Are you proposing to scrap the US constitution and decades of forging humanitarian laws, and adopt the Webster's Dictionary as moral arbitrator?
My partner is a public school teacher, and one of her students is beginning to transition (FtM). The official school stance is to refer to the individual as a she and just ignore the issue completely. I don't think it's any coincidence that HE has been missing school all year.
My point is it's not enough to keep legislation like this intact - we need to do *more* to make school work for our LGBT students!
I see what you mean, but I feel that it should be worded such that any kind of bullying is counted, being more generalized as opposed to trying to specify everything some one could be harassed by.
But, because we're not idiots, we can also see that there are some groups of folks at heightened risk for such abuse: those historically discriminated against for a status they can't (e.g., LGBT; ethnicity) or can't-easily (e.g., religion) change.
On the other hand, the boy with the bad haircut may get bullied, too, and that's bad. But his hair will grow back, or he'll choose to keep it that way, in spite of the assholes.
I see where your coming from but I still think in this case a more general definition would be better. If it were a more general definition they wouldn't have been able to remove the specified sections. If you were being bullied for your ethnicity or whatever it would still fall under the general harassment.
Sorry, It's really early and I'm not sure if I'm explaining that right, dose that make seance?
My reasoning for this sort of change to the wording in their bill is publicity. They do this sort of thing on many political levels in a somewhat concerted motion. Look at the Federal level and the change to the Don't ask don't tell policy for military. Political fad of the week or month. Just another way to skip the real issues and point fingers where they don't need pointing towards.
ZJ, I have a friend who considers herself "gender queer" which by all definitions she uses is "androgynous", something which I wholly condone and practice myself. In one of my vids, /watch?v=aSahGWutFog
I discuss how gender identity is a completely social fabrication which fragments parts of you into either male of female. It feels silly to me that she would tie her personality and worth to what she has in her pants she wishes to be called a he. I am wondering are you called a he or she?
Now this is work well done. calling out bad legislation will do more good than just rambling and arguing with Christians about gay marriage. This is what ZJ should spend more time doing. good luck to your cause!
I don't think so, I mean straight is still a sexual orientation, plus the language says " includes but not limited to", giving the school admin room to interpret the bill.
Anyway, this is actually really crazy... the only reason I can think these two Reps are doing what they are doing is gay hate, but what a subversive and cruel way to do it! They must be trying to allow straight kids to beat up on gay kids... that's fucked up.
This is seriously fucked up. Going through the trouble to remove 4 words from a law just to say that it's ok to beat the shit out of a faggot. These representatives need to have the shit beat out of them. Ignorant, hateful fucks.
It's sad too, cuz the right one is kinda cute. Isn't that terrible, when the person who's against you(and secretly in the closet) is the one you're attracted to? I think I'mma need some electro-shock therapy for this one.
Bravo ZJ - it makes no sense to exclude sexual orientation and gender identity from discrimination or harassment, and it frankly speaks of repulsive bigotry.
I'm not quite sure where these guys get off pretending they know something about the education system, but perhaps they need a little bullying. Obviously, anti-gay harrasment laws aren't needed AT ALL. Ahem, Lawrence King, ahem.
@YukiNekoPrincess Good point. ZJ always seems to have videos planned out ahead of time and doesn't ramble like some other vloggers. That's a mixed blessing because I would love to listen to that voice for a 10 minute rambling video.
wtf? So it's ok to harass and beat up this one particular group? Why stop there? Why not extend this out to it's logical conclusion and just have all gays publicly executed while we're at it? From their names they sound jewish. You'd think they'd know better!
Another great video. This made me so mad when I herd the news about it. I watched the protest video that interupted the basketball game and couldnt be any prouder of those students.
I don't think I can add anything to what has already been said here. The sheer brazen way they have done this is amazing to me. I am just speechless and stunned by the audacity. Perhaps I should send a couple emails.
It is not the anti gay part that does not make sense to me. Its that there is any reason at all for that to be allowed. This "thought police" if you will is a moot point. Why should it matter why something wrong was done if its still wrong? Why should the action for the crime be changed based on reason for it?
What about targeted graffiti with defamatory words like "faggot" or "nigger"? Isn't this different from regular graffiti?
What about formal membership policies which prohibit members of certain unwanted groups from joining?
Are these thought crimes or action crimes?
Why would these elected officials specifically target groups which need the protection the most, instead of removing all the group distinctions from the law?
I don't know how they could word a law that would make it acceptable to harrass or bully anyone because of sexual orietation. Surely if a protection of the law covers one, it applies to all.
I hear so many kids say "faggot" and "gay" that it's pretty much part of the douce-bag vocabulary. LGBT students NEED to be protected under school policy.
Very Good Video! You always seem to find issues that need to be brought to the public's attention. It's a terrible thing for anyone to be bullied including LGBT persons. Before I retired there was a male co-worker who got a sex change operation. It was disgusting how badly many people now treated her. In the cafeteria no one would sit at her table. I ate lunch with her several times and people picked on me. Women complained to management that they didn't want her using their bathroom.
Although I don't subscribe to this point of view, I think I know what compels them to remove the protection language. It's in the proposed amendment - they're taking away gender identity and sexual orientation because they think they're not 'characteristics of students'. In other words, a more highfalutin way of saying 'these things are choices and are not innate characteristics'.
In fact, what they done is pretty stupid. I mean, it does not change anything in the court of laws: the judge will say that bullying someone based on gender id is implicitly against the principles of this law. So, I do not understand what they are thinking: they make a change that does not change anything, pissing off a large number of voter, for damn good reasons, at the same time and losing some tax money on that.
do these men even realize that LGBT kids are already at an increased risk of suicide and taking them out of the anti-bullying laws (hence they get bullied more) would push more kids to their breaking point? The blood would be on their hands, is all I am saying.
A recent survey in the UK has shown that homophobic bullying is 10% more prevalent in faith schools than in non-faith state schools. Yet law makers in the House of Lords and religious leaders want exemption from the laws that protect gay people from discrimination. It seems that the rights of gay people aren't as important as the rights of bigots.
As for these two Iowa politicians - I would guess that they are Christians and that they are choosing to try and get protection for gay people removed because they can. If they tried to do something similar for a racial minority - they would be in for a rougher ride.
The only thing that makes any kind of sense at all about this whole thing is that they are homophobic bigots who teach their children to be like them and they don't want their little "angels" getting into trouble over it.
@BipedalHumanoid You think you're embarrassed? I live in the state! It probably boils down to something along the typical lines that students should receive protection for something that is their "choice." Which, of course, doesn't make sense because of the political preference protection.
they are not state representatives.....they are religions' puppets. No one tainted by religious psychosis should be working, they should be locked up with the other psychotics at the asylum.
Windschitl describes himself on Facebook as a 'very conservative Christian'. Go figure. I've just e-mailed them both, wonder if I'll get an answer! Dan (very concerned ZJ fan from the UK)
How can they possibly justify this bullshit? They're basically saying bulling LGBT students is not the same as bullying people of different creeds and colours.
what fking load. how could u post a bill to disagree with protecting a group from violience and bullying, that esp now, gets alot esp from their places of education.
i doubt this bill would pass,but then agian
the surpreme court did just pass that unlimited corp. funding bullshit so...off to my gmail account!
That may be the biggest slap in the face I've ever heard of, on a school level. To strike those two specific forms of discrimination is not only radical, it's showing their true disdain for members of that community, and as their example, is seen as OK by the students in the district. Crazy! I'm writing them. Screw this!
Good on you for posting the email addresses in the sidebar. Although, if you are not in their respective constituancies, they will most likely tell you (not in so many words) to go to hell. And, even if you are an Iowa resident, they still probably won't give so much as two shits. After all, they are right and you are wrong - don't you know - the bible says so! Please keep us posted as to how this turns out (curious to know if the average Iowan will pursue this or not). Thanks!
It probably comes down to the almighty dollar, as perhaps it is an issue that is a burden to enforce (at least in Iowa)...which would be an indication that exactly such protection is needed, though perhaps that is merely treating a symptom of the real issue. Rather than just protection, schools need to somehow teach awareness and tolerance for the diversity of life - and not just among people. And how do you fight religious "morality?"
I think it is obvious they hope that by removing this protection they can get a lgbt student to go "postal" thus allowing a third party to demonise them and allow the further passage of anti lgbt legislation. Duh!
way2jaded1 6 months ago
@lindoe79 Also be aware this just doesn't protect gay ppl, but str8 ppl who are often accused of being gay. Like a girl with short hair who plays sports or a boy considered to be feminine. Also regardless, who is anyone to tell another what they do in their personal lives? Should Republican teens be allowed to beat up or bully Democrats teens? Now political party is a choice!
Boudiga 6 months ago
With a name like Windschitl, what do you expect?
SuperNoahZark 7 months ago
I would at least understand the reasoning of repealing the entire law. I'm generally in favour of repealing laws, even the ones that sound like they should be doing something good (because they, more often than not, aren't). But, to only remove sexual orientation and gender identity from the law shows nothing other than bigotry.
TheCeejReturns 8 months ago
This is really disturbing. No-one especially a child should be subjected to such an environment of hostility where their safety if literally at risk, let alone for something as okay as being gay. Saying there anything wrong with homosexuality is already going one step to far, and this is just reprehensible.
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
I emailed the senators and I really hope that they can get a great defense for what they're doing. I want them to have gay children, so they can understand why these protections are necessary. I wish people like this can walk a mile in the shoes of LGBT youth
vidhead85 1 year ago
So you can call someone a faggot, but you can't call someone a fat faggot. Good job Iowa state representatives.
Ostrosozok 1 year ago
@lindoe79 Because people who make a LIFESTYLE CHOICE based on personal religion are protected under the law. If you're going to argue that they don't deserve protection because they make a choice then obviously you think the same of religion, but you don't and therefore you are a hypocrite.
supermanlypunch 1 year ago
As I always say, all of us should be treated equally.
spyder234567 2 years ago
@cholotara Precisely---which is, OF COURSE, why such a move is deplorable.
MCP2012 2 years ago
Your subscription to 'ZJemptv' has been added.
Win, ma'am.
kmgcatcousin 2 years ago
lol you're a dood that looks like a chick
Yyyyzyyy 2 years ago
i hope those two bastards end up having gay kids. i'd love to hear what they say when little jason and matt jr come home after having been beaten up for holding hands with their boyfriends.
senorchipotle 2 years ago 11
@senorchipotle A little unfair for the children tho..wouldnt u say?
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
Once again, this is what your all caring, and loving god allows to happen, religious people. Every penny you give to your church is blood on the hands of freedom and safety of all of the LGBT community. I can't stand religion, the world would be so much better off without it "Make fun of people because they can love someone you can't, but don't make fun of their invisible space daddy or you'll go to jail" This is truly bullshit!
CyanPrime 2 years ago
Redneck law makers.
But don't make fun of a student's invisible friends.
bigboy45454545 2 years ago 5
I'm off this planet.
smeeeches 2 years ago
if LGBT students are driven to suicide from bullying (if this legislation passes) the blood is on the hands of these two men.
RavenBlaze 2 years ago
I have sent the following E-mail to these two neanderthals:
"First, you should know that I am not gay.
What I am is an intelligent, moral, 21st century human being, a category in which neither of you two qualify.
The tragedy is that such as you get elected to public office.
William Goldsmith
BGEDGH 2 years ago
Actually neanderthals had 30% bigger brains than the average human.
And what you said wasn't witty, just haughty... :(
Rawnesss 2 years ago
@Rawnesss In terms of sheer volumetric size, yeah. However, the actual neuro-*anatomy* is significantly more primitive (i.e., more nearly like Heidelberginsis and Erectus) than modern Homo Sapiens.
MCP2012 2 years ago
It's a very curious thing that you should know how the neuro-dynamic in a neanderhals looks. I'd like to know where the source for that is (it's intruiging)
Rawnesss 2 years ago
@ Rawnesss Interestingly enough, there've been several books within the past few yrs on Neanthals. But the main source of the info is a superb 3-pt PBS program that initally aired about 6 or 8 (ish) weeks again called "Last Human Standing" (I think, or maybe that's the episode's name...). Anyway, one can certainly analyze intracranial castes of Neanderthal skulls an tell that, while slightly more elongated than ours, they're brains're nonetheless considerably more primitive.
MCP2012 2 years ago
@ Rawnesss My bad: I just looked it up: The program's name is *Becoming Human*. It's a superb 3-pt. series. Neanderthals were not much different from Heidelbergensis from which they developed. Sapiens developed from more-or-less Heidelbergensis also, but those that had remained in Africa, &, hence, were under different (& arguably more intense) environmental adaptation (selection) pressure. Slowly, from this stock of merely a few thousand (at most) came modern humans...
MCP2012 2 years ago
I have no proof of the idea, but the first thing I thought when I saw those ole boys is that they look like the sort who'd be interested in renting a boy...
TheSaturnalia 2 years ago 2
While horrifying (and statistically somewhat unlikely), this is nonetheless not an especially implausible conjecture, if only due to the fact that politicians (being typically power-trippers) will oftentimes have closeted proclivities such as just this.
MCP2012 2 years ago
I sent these two fucking asshole a terse email asking them how they can face themselves in the morning after condemning lesbian, gay and transgendered children to potential horrific torment!!!
Thanks for the heads-up!
alpeaston 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Watching this video all I can think is "you can put lipstick on a pig...."
nite0wl88 2 years ago
As I always seams to say when I hear this kind of things. What is wrong with People.!! Why is it so hard to understand that everyone have the right to the same right and obligations under law Regardless who you are or love or if you green, blue or whatever. Regards and have a skilful life. Pinge
PingeMusic 2 years ago
I emailed the representatives and got a response from Windschitl.
He claims this change will not negatively impact anyone, and that the reason why he wants the language removed is to remove any references of LGBT people having special protections under the law so he can push his legislation to disallow gay marriage.
So, there's your motivation for you. They want to ban gay marriage and they don't care what kind of good laws they stomp on to get them there.
Arkalius80 2 years ago
I'll bet he thinks it's okay for christians to have "special protections".
Felidaise 2 years ago
The world, the country and life itself is NOT PC. There is a HUGE difference between "verbal harassment" and physical violence. We need to teach kids when they are younger that the ONLY behavior you can honestly control (no matter what laws are in place) is your own. Bullies will be bullies. You can't stop that. Its your response that matters. If kids can be taught at earlier ages that jerks are jerks and how to deal with them then they will know that fact as adults.
galefan2004 2 years ago
The Bill of Rights clearly is not being enforced...taxation without representation is our nations motto! Time to rebel...all gay people, stop paying your taxes, politicians are like whores, when you don't pay them, they take notice, you get their attention, cut them off from the money supply and all of the sudden they listen.
JOHNINCOLUMBUS 2 years ago
Once in a while, one of them has a conscience, a moral compass. And it all comes to a point where they just can't perpetuate the intolerance and inequality any longer. Rare, but it happens.
Watch "Raw Video: San Diego Mayor Sanders Supports Gay Marriage"
It makes me cry every time I watch it, it's so beautiful and heartfelt.
fotomatt69 2 years ago
Because everyone deserves equal protection under the law? Yes, even heterosexuals who "make a LIFESTYLE CHOICE based on SEXUAL GRATIFICATION". Oh no, people have sex because they like it? Better get rid of their fundamental civil rights!
ZJemptv 2 years ago 8
being gay is not a choice neither is being straight. Why should ANYBODY be bullied or attacked because of their gender or orientation?
zoemills242 2 years ago 3
I can't decide if my wish is that they'd all drop dead, or if, instead, they lived their pathetic hateful lives, but all their children turned out to be really happy, openly LGBT folks.
Ignorance, prejudice and fear walk hand in hand.
fotomatt69 2 years ago
Let's just avoid the asinine assumptions that homosexuality is a choice or that it is only about sexual gratification and address what you said directly:
Why should people be bullied or harassed for any lifestyle choice, based on sexual gratification or not? I suppose you advocate stoning adulterers, swingers, fornicators, or even the slightly promiscuous?
lectricklightbulb 2 years ago
@lindoe79 You could make the same arguement in regards to heterosexuals.
BeekersSqueakers 2 years ago 2
I agree with IAteYourTV.
Why don't they just say "no bullying for whatever reason?"
Diasanti 2 years ago 2
Yes, schools already have rules against bullying/threats/assault.
The point is that, in addition, we specifically identify groups that historically have been oppressed, discriminated against for some status which they could not (LGBT, ethnicity) or could not easily (religion) change.
This specificity is especially helpful because it sends a clear message to teachers/principals who otherwise might let such bullying continue due their own personal prejudices.
fotomatt69 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@fotomatt69 Ya know pedophiles argue that they "can't change". Should we include language to protect pedo school teachers from discrimination ?
nite0wl88 2 years ago
In one case, a teacher is taking advantage of a child that is unable to consent to a sexual action. In the other case, a person is living their life without denying their attractions, wants, needs and desires (BEING GAY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SEXUAL CONTACT). I can totally see how they are equivalent...NOT!!!!
galefan2004 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@galefan2004 You sidestepped the question. Let me try to dumb it down so you can understand. The average person living a homosexual lifestyle claims they cannot change. Most pedophiles make the same argument. Are both or either of them correct ? And why ? Here is another thought.... does a person who enjoys BDSM come out of his/her mothers womb craving whips & chains ? No? Well then I guess we just established that sexual attraction/gratification can be LEARNED.
nite0wl88 2 years ago
You cannot force yourself to be unattracted or attracted to someone, you can only chose to act upon your desires or not. A pedosexual cannot change their sexuality & the majority of them never act out their sexual desires on children. But, homosexuals do not need to sexually represse themselves because the people they're attracted to can give informed consent, unlike a child. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not a fetish. Also, theres nothing wrong w/ BDSM. Analogy=FAIL
kiwisunshine5233 2 years ago 2
Discriminating against someone for their sexual preference, no matter what it is, is wrong. I'm not only sick of discrimination against homosexuals & bisexuals, I'm also sick of the discrimination against pedosexuals who have never touched a child; its a witch hunt.
On a side thought- the fetish for BDSM may be influenced with our genes since humans have the natural unconscious desire to dominate another & to be dominated. There is also a natural thrill to cause harm to others.
kiwisunshine5233 2 years ago
@nite0wl88:
Um, you're forgetting that pedophilia is illegal and homosexuality is not. You have no argument here.
akhan727 2 years ago
I like this. Straight to the point.
akhan727 2 years ago
why do they have to specify what kids can't be harassed about anyway? Why not just say "they can't be harassed?" Isn't the issue bullying and not what they are bullied for?
"you an pick on kids as long as your jeers aren't referring to anything on this list. that is all."
IAteYourTV 2 years ago 2
They want it to be explicit so that judicial review doesn't constrain it. If they said "bullying" in general, then it is up to the judge to define what constitutes bullying, including constraining the reasons why it took place.
Usually laws like this that have a laundry list of items are -intended- to cover every conceivable scenario explicitly. Of course the other problem is that legislators can then capitalize on the explicit nature to weaken the law as well, as is happening here.
lectricklightbulb 2 years ago
I disagree. These laws do not contain a "laundry list" to cover every conceivable scenario explicitly. In fact, people writing the text of such laws usually recognize that they simply can't cover everything explicitly, so they (try to) throw in additional catch-all language to make clear that these items are merely common examples, but that the scope of the law reaches beyond these. Whether the courts ultimately allow the language or declare it to be overly-vague is another matter.
fotomatt69 2 years ago
It's all about fear. Fear of what their peers will say, fear of what their god will do. YAY FEAR!!!
greenschmoodle 2 years ago
I have come to expect anything from people, but it's still shocking that someone would actually go through the trouble of striking out two of the groups and not others. What is more worrisome is that there has to be an anti bullying clause in the first place for ADULTS.
sweettater99 2 years ago
What a couple of scumbags. Gee, they wouldn't happen to have religious motives for this, would they??? Morally superior my ass.
moekelok 2 years ago
I must be missing something. Why is any bullying allowed? I mean, instead of having a list of reason for which no one should be bullied, they should simply say "No bullying, for any reason."
By the way, it disgusts me that grown (?) men (?) would actually advocate bullying of children (or anyone, for that matter) for any reason.
YY4Me133 2 years ago
Wtff.
So like, it's okay to bully the gay kids?
What an absolute fuckface. Like, full-on. This is unbelievable. HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS are going to suffer because of these wankers' selfish homophobia T~T
Serioslump 2 years ago
No doubt the man was a monster, was just saying he didn't seem to persecute homosexuals. The comment was just to clarify that to people who might have read your comment and assumed otherwise.
julestherat 2 years ago
Posting their emails? Asking us to email them?
...
Youtube is now ZJ's Personal Army! EMAIL! GO GO GO!
KaseyAkira 2 years ago
Is anyone surprised that both of these idiots are Republicans?
chrisose 2 years ago 3
Weirdly, I don't think Uncle Joe did send LGBT people to the camps, or not in any significant numers (if I'm wrong, please correct me, I just can't find any sources to back it up).
julestherat 2 years ago
How about having equal laws against harassment of all people? I think people of different sexual orientation or gender identity should be treated as equals, and this is why i think this. I say that they should cut "hate crime" or "hate speech", and prohibit bullying against ALL people.
DahStranger 2 years ago
This brings me to one thing I have observed TWICE in my province already. High school students who are known to be RELATED in any way to convicted rapists or pedophiles are bullied.
No matter what, this is like calling a white kid born of white parents a "nigger" just because his dad has a black step-brother.
Just because one person is a "chester", it doesn't mean that his niece and nephew are also. Mother Nature selects at random who is a pedophile and who is not. And that's that.
bearpaw72 2 years ago
Well I got my response from Matt Windschitl. He said that he doesn't support bullying any student and the bill is to remove "unnecessary language" as the law says "including but not limited to" such and such characteristics. Then he started talking about gay marriage... basically he wants to remove the language so that the state doesn't recognize the legitimacy of homosexuality or transgenderism, which was the reasoning of the Iowa courts to allow SS marriage. Well golly gee.
FerreThoughts 2 years ago 3
Yes, I got his reply, as well.
It quickly devolved into another braindead diatribe about marriage, where they''ll "first start by removing the argument that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle."
And, of course, where did it end?
"I merely disagree with the argument that it is an acceptable alternative to the way God designed humanity to function. Therefore I must be true to God, my constituents and myself and politely refuse to accept homosexuality as an appropriate lifestyle."
fotomatt69 2 years ago
Very well-said, ZJ. Thank you for continuing to speak up against blatant hate and idiocy.
LadyTigerLily 2 years ago
ZJ. I love this vlog. You do a great service to the LGBT community.
Cheers
Abby
Angelinaeldiablo 2 years ago
oh Iowa.
tmowlee 2 years ago
Schultz...lol
VulgarityDivine 2 years ago
I've sent it in, although my letter has less weight as I am not an American nor do I live in America, but hopefully the fact that this sort of thing is seen from the outside may add pressure for them to repeal their decision.
gigawebsurfer 2 years ago
Comment removed
bluemoon014 2 years ago
How would that "confuse" anyone? What is confusing about that? If it's "about keeping sex out of the schools", why hasn't heterosexuality come under attack? How is discouraging anti-gay harassment encouraging anyone to be gay?
ZJemptv 2 years ago
A corollary of that would be: "not discouraging anti-gay harassment would discourage anyone to be gay." Rewording it by swapping the negatives around often gets to the heart of the matter.
rotcafarg 2 years ago
bluemoon, confuse them?
jimbobubbadj 2 years ago
@bluemoon014; you mean like how schools force [oops! I meant "encourage"] you to engage with the opposite sex for breeder rituals like school fairs, kissing booths and dances? Shall we do away with those too? After all I don't want my gay children encouraged into a hetero lifestyle choice.
AtomicZero 2 years ago
It's probably because religious protection and gender identity / sexuality protection can sometimes come into conflict.
Still, very sad indeed.
Dyakki 2 years ago
What strikes me with this case is that it's so damn BLATANT and SPECIFIC. How can one look at this move and see anything but bigotry? It's ridiculous.
BornInAsphodelMeadow 2 years ago
They should strike out the whole "trait or characteristic" section. Bullying should not be tolerated for any motive including the enumeration of said section.
I don't necessarily think Schultz and Windschitl want LGBT's to be bullied at school but they are trying to stop these things from being seen as "Okay" in our culture. They may see any attempt to help gays and lesbians as legitimizing their existence in the eyes of the population.
Or maybe they're just pandering to their electorate.
Newtonip 2 years ago
newton, why want just state: bullying will not be tolerated period. No reason for bullying will be accepted. Why do different classes of people have to be in there? If one protected class is in there such as religion then sexual orientation should be in there also. Its all or none.
jimbobubbadj 2 years ago 3
Don't want them to be bullied?
These fucknuts don't want LGBT folk to exist!
It their words are to be believed, they really think (if they "think" at all) that being gay is a "choice" and that it is fundamentally oppositional to their "God."
These people are delusional.
And scared.
And violent.
And they're looking for some answer (scapegoat) as to why their lives are falling apart. (hint: it's the economy.)
fotomatt69 2 years ago
@fotomatt69 I don't *think* (I THINK? OMG!) that anyone should be the subject of ridicule. I don't care what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their home, or even that they "exist". I'm not scared or violent, and my life is not "falling apart". Now, with that being said, plz explain to me how what you are defending is natural.... as defined by Webster.
nite0wl88 2 years ago
@nite0wl - Are you proposing to scrap the US constitution and decades of forging humanitarian laws, and adopt the Webster's Dictionary as moral arbitrator?
Noisegator 2 years ago
My partner is a public school teacher, and one of her students is beginning to transition (FtM). The official school stance is to refer to the individual as a she and just ignore the issue completely. I don't think it's any coincidence that HE has been missing school all year.
My point is it's not enough to keep legislation like this intact - we need to do *more* to make school work for our LGBT students!
wrongheadedfool 2 years ago
It boggles the mind.
Christians & Muslims, 2 peas in a disgusting rotten pod. And the moderates, from the sidelines, acquiesce.
Pathetic!
LasraelLarson 2 years ago
I see what you mean, but I feel that it should be worded such that any kind of bullying is counted, being more generalized as opposed to trying to specify everything some one could be harassed by.
Disthron 2 years ago
Yes, any kind of bullying IS counted.
But, because we're not idiots, we can also see that there are some groups of folks at heightened risk for such abuse: those historically discriminated against for a status they can't (e.g., LGBT; ethnicity) or can't-easily (e.g., religion) change.
On the other hand, the boy with the bad haircut may get bullied, too, and that's bad. But his hair will grow back, or he'll choose to keep it that way, in spite of the assholes.
fotomatt69 2 years ago
I see where your coming from but I still think in this case a more general definition would be better. If it were a more general definition they wouldn't have been able to remove the specified sections. If you were being bullied for your ethnicity or whatever it would still fall under the general harassment.
Sorry, It's really early and I'm not sure if I'm explaining that right, dose that make seance?
Disthron 2 years ago
My reasoning for this sort of change to the wording in their bill is publicity. They do this sort of thing on many political levels in a somewhat concerted motion. Look at the Federal level and the change to the Don't ask don't tell policy for military. Political fad of the week or month. Just another way to skip the real issues and point fingers where they don't need pointing towards.
btwbrand 2 years ago
ZJ, I have a friend who considers herself "gender queer" which by all definitions she uses is "androgynous", something which I wholly condone and practice myself. In one of my vids, /watch?v=aSahGWutFog
I discuss how gender identity is a completely social fabrication which fragments parts of you into either male of female. It feels silly to me that she would tie her personality and worth to what she has in her pants she wishes to be called a he. I am wondering are you called a he or she?
anubis2814 2 years ago
Either is fine with me!
ZJemptv 2 years ago
good to know, glad you aren't tied to some stupid social construct!
anubis2814 2 years ago
Now this is work well done. calling out bad legislation will do more good than just rambling and arguing with Christians about gay marriage. This is what ZJ should spend more time doing. good luck to your cause!
archemedes314 2 years ago
Both are useful arguments : many lawmakers and influential people are christians arguing from a biblical standpoint (even if they dont say it aloud)
lothrazar 2 years ago
I don't think so, I mean straight is still a sexual orientation, plus the language says " includes but not limited to", giving the school admin room to interpret the bill.
Anyway, this is actually really crazy... the only reason I can think these two Reps are doing what they are doing is gay hate, but what a subversive and cruel way to do it! They must be trying to allow straight kids to beat up on gay kids... that's fucked up.
rolexxx11 2 years ago
What are they THINKING? Gays and lesbians and transgendered folks are probably bullied the most!!!! GRAH!
chromesthesia 2 years ago 2
This is seriously fucked up. Going through the trouble to remove 4 words from a law just to say that it's ok to beat the shit out of a faggot. These representatives need to have the shit beat out of them. Ignorant, hateful fucks.
DharmaLogos 2 years ago 3
It's sad too, cuz the right one is kinda cute. Isn't that terrible, when the person who's against you(and secretly in the closet) is the one you're attracted to? I think I'mma need some electro-shock therapy for this one.
greenschmoodle 2 years ago
Bravo ZJ - it makes no sense to exclude sexual orientation and gender identity from discrimination or harassment, and it frankly speaks of repulsive bigotry.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago 2
This is bull. This is such, fucking, BULL.
I'm not quite sure where these guys get off pretending they know something about the education system, but perhaps they need a little bullying. Obviously, anti-gay harrasment laws aren't needed AT ALL. Ahem, Lawrence King, ahem.
TheMetallicSharpie 2 years ago
I love the background music. You speak like a newsreader, I don't know if that's a good or a bad thing.
YukiNekoPrincess 2 years ago
@YukiNekoPrincess Good point. ZJ always seems to have videos planned out ahead of time and doesn't ramble like some other vloggers. That's a mixed blessing because I would love to listen to that voice for a 10 minute rambling video.
DharmaLogos 2 years ago
Yeah, that's what I meant. XD
YukiNekoPrincess 2 years ago
Translate Windschitl and you'll have your answer.
His cow-orker is just a blockhead chipped off the
same chunk.
Making it OK to beat up girls seems the height of
folly.
tyrbolo 2 years ago
anti-bullying laws dont do shit in high-schools anyways.
voldyshorcux 2 years ago
wtf? So it's ok to harass and beat up this one particular group? Why stop there? Why not extend this out to it's logical conclusion and just have all gays publicly executed while we're at it? From their names they sound jewish. You'd think they'd know better!
Arikiel 2 years ago
It's because they're fucking bigots.
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
Anyone ever tell you that you pick good background music?
Dislekseyuh 2 years ago
It amazes me how these people get through life without realizing that their ideas are wrong in every sense of the word.
jdf088 2 years ago
Another great video. This made me so mad when I herd the news about it. I watched the protest video that interupted the basketball game and couldnt be any prouder of those students.
depfox 2 years ago
That is it. I am starting a shit list and those two are going on it
pete975 2 years ago
Well-written letter: calm, clear, informative, direct.
I pretty much just C&P'd it. The only thing I added was one line at the end:
"I look forward to your prompt reply to this matter."
They may ignore it anyway, but it never hurts to explicitly request a reply (if you want one) when writing to politicians.
Thanks for all your efforts, ZJ. You're wonderful.
fotomatt69 2 years ago
We should refer to them as much as possible in public as "The Iowa Gay Bashers." Make it their online nickname.
SconeMason 2 years ago 2
I don't think I can add anything to what has already been said here. The sheer brazen way they have done this is amazing to me. I am just speechless and stunned by the audacity. Perhaps I should send a couple emails.
kelliko70 2 years ago
What century am I living in, again?
h8uall66 2 years ago 2
It is not the anti gay part that does not make sense to me. Its that there is any reason at all for that to be allowed. This "thought police" if you will is a moot point. Why should it matter why something wrong was done if its still wrong? Why should the action for the crime be changed based on reason for it?
LegendaryWolfX 2 years ago
What about targeted graffiti with defamatory words like "faggot" or "nigger"? Isn't this different from regular graffiti?
What about formal membership policies which prohibit members of certain unwanted groups from joining?
Are these thought crimes or action crimes?
Why would these elected officials specifically target groups which need the protection the most, instead of removing all the group distinctions from the law?
CBlargh 2 years ago
I don't know how they could word a law that would make it acceptable to harrass or bully anyone because of sexual orietation. Surely if a protection of the law covers one, it applies to all.
toelesshoe 2 years ago
What's the chances of this passing?
And I emailed them.
Azlaier 2 years ago
I can tell you why, they're afraid of being gay themselves. Simple.
greenschmoodle 2 years ago
I hear so many kids say "faggot" and "gay" that it's pretty much part of the douce-bag vocabulary. LGBT students NEED to be protected under school policy.
ginkiba3 2 years ago
That's disgusting, deplorable and dispicable.
What a couple of wankers.
korisx 2 years ago
Very Good Video! You always seem to find issues that need to be brought to the public's attention. It's a terrible thing for anyone to be bullied including LGBT persons. Before I retired there was a male co-worker who got a sex change operation. It was disgusting how badly many people now treated her. In the cafeteria no one would sit at her table. I ate lunch with her several times and people picked on me. Women complained to management that they didn't want her using their bathroom.
Ebal
ebaltrace 2 years ago
Don't hold your breath waiting to hear from these guys! Schultz and Windschitl? Maybe they met during their days together in the Hitler Youth!
RadarKat73080 2 years ago
Absolutely ridiculous! How did such ethically bankrupt people ever get to a position of power where they can cause serious harm?
DeusExNihilum 2 years ago
Because the ethically bankrupt majority vote them into power?
TheProf1988 2 years ago
Videos like this make me gay
XendmustMV2 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheProf1988 2 years ago
Figures. Anyone who is hateful and bigoted usually turns out to be a Christian or a Muslim.
thatgaybloke 2 years ago 2
i sent the email. lol i wanna hear this.
TheShakty1 2 years ago
@morodren Agreed.
FerreThoughts 2 years ago
I just send the emails. I included a picture of a gay classmate who killed himself last year. Too much?
FerreThoughts 2 years ago
No.
anotherphys 2 years ago
what a bunch of assholes
chefmarcgirard 2 years ago
what whores
mobby32 2 years ago
I know, I was joking :P
kanedertaker 2 years ago
Apparently, if you get raised right.
morodren 2 years ago
Although I don't subscribe to this point of view, I think I know what compels them to remove the protection language. It's in the proposed amendment - they're taking away gender identity and sexual orientation because they think they're not 'characteristics of students'. In other words, a more highfalutin way of saying 'these things are choices and are not innate characteristics'.
morodren 2 years ago
I just sent them emails. Thanks for the information, ZJ!
bijoukaiba 2 years ago
This mean are out of their men! GOD AMERICA YOU ARE GOING BACK INSTEAD OF GOING FORWARD!
celgaara 2 years ago
In fact, what they done is pretty stupid. I mean, it does not change anything in the court of laws: the judge will say that bullying someone based on gender id is implicitly against the principles of this law. So, I do not understand what they are thinking: they make a change that does not change anything, pissing off a large number of voter, for damn good reasons, at the same time and losing some tax money on that.
therrydicule 2 years ago
Because they're close-minded Bible thumping fucktards that don't realize that "gay people" are people, too.
MrSarcasm2 2 years ago 6
do these men even realize that LGBT kids are already at an increased risk of suicide and taking them out of the anti-bullying laws (hence they get bullied more) would push more kids to their breaking point? The blood would be on their hands, is all I am saying.
RavenBlaze 2 years ago
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Imma write them such a passive-aggressive email they won't even know what hit them.
FerreThoughts 2 years ago
A recent survey in the UK has shown that homophobic bullying is 10% more prevalent in faith schools than in non-faith state schools. Yet law makers in the House of Lords and religious leaders want exemption from the laws that protect gay people from discrimination. It seems that the rights of gay people aren't as important as the rights of bigots.
thatgaybloke 2 years ago 2
As for these two Iowa politicians - I would guess that they are Christians and that they are choosing to try and get protection for gay people removed because they can. If they tried to do something similar for a racial minority - they would be in for a rougher ride.
thatgaybloke 2 years ago
Five stars!!
DesertLaser 2 years ago
Hey, not all Iowans are totally backwards bible thumping hillbillies. V.V Just most of us.
kanedertaker 2 years ago
That is unbelievable, and completely unacceptable in this day and age. I did send the first guy a civil email, and I hope to receive a response.
lordwindowlicker 2 years ago
The only thing that makes any kind of sense at all about this whole thing is that they are homophobic bigots who teach their children to be like them and they don't want their little "angels" getting into trouble over it.
jdf088 2 years ago
if this goes through and kids start committing suicide from the harassment the blood will be on his hands.
Lets hope it does not go through.
RavenBlaze 2 years ago
I just Googled their 2 names and this video was the first link it gave me. Already!
Well done ZJ.
RONLAST 2 years ago
As a fellow Iowan I agree totally with you BipedalHumanoid.
kanedertaker 2 years ago
How could you go out of your way like that to okay discrimination and hate?
Anti-LGBT arguments are based on hate and fear of what's different. If they can keep kids hating on GLBT in school, they can maintain power.
wetterdew 2 years ago
@BipedalHumanoid You think you're embarrassed? I live in the state! It probably boils down to something along the typical lines that students should receive protection for something that is their "choice." Which, of course, doesn't make sense because of the political preference protection.
Fortunately, he's not my representative.
landfillpoet 2 years ago
they are not state representatives.....they are religions' puppets. No one tainted by religious psychosis should be working, they should be locked up with the other psychotics at the asylum.
fantasy0coach 2 years ago
What a couple of jackasses!
papafox 2 years ago 2
Windschitl describes himself on Facebook as a 'very conservative Christian'. Go figure. I've just e-mailed them both, wonder if I'll get an answer! Dan (very concerned ZJ fan from the UK)
cymraegambyth 2 years ago
How can they possibly justify this bullshit? They're basically saying bulling LGBT students is not the same as bullying people of different creeds and colours.
StanMarsh1 2 years ago
They are religious bigoted idiots... Bullying should not be allowed, no matter what it is about.
Dwaithy 2 years ago
*sings* Soome Ol' bullshiit */singing*
what fking load. how could u post a bill to disagree with protecting a group from violience and bullying, that esp now, gets alot esp from their places of education.
i doubt this bill would pass,but then agian
the surpreme court did just pass that unlimited corp. funding bullshit so...off to my gmail account!
0Gimmick 2 years ago
That may be the biggest slap in the face I've ever heard of, on a school level. To strike those two specific forms of discrimination is not only radical, it's showing their true disdain for members of that community, and as their example, is seen as OK by the students in the district. Crazy! I'm writing them. Screw this!
ProportionalResponse 2 years ago
Interesting situation. Looks like we have a long way to go before there's an end to all the bad politics.
Chuloloc 2 years ago
Oh, cmon...you know the answer!
"Because faggots are WEIRD."
...that's the answer.
BionicDance 2 years ago
What about all those "rabid, screaming" lesbians running around? Yeah, you know the type I'm referring to.:)
FreeThoughtCrime 2 years ago
Strangely, we lesbians seem to be rather more acceptable to these types...
Cuz, you know...we're HAWT. ;)
BionicDance 2 years ago 3
Ah. :D So that fucking hammering stopped?
AntiJonasZone 2 years ago
Good on you for posting the email addresses in the sidebar. Although, if you are not in their respective constituancies, they will most likely tell you (not in so many words) to go to hell. And, even if you are an Iowa resident, they still probably won't give so much as two shits. After all, they are right and you are wrong - don't you know - the bible says so! Please keep us posted as to how this turns out (curious to know if the average Iowan will pursue this or not). Thanks!
M0US3P0T4TO 2 years ago 2
This is the most ridiculous thing. They'll probably get it passed too. I don't even know what else to type. This is just so sick.
prettyxpinkxbows 2 years ago 2
It probably comes down to the almighty dollar, as perhaps it is an issue that is a burden to enforce (at least in Iowa)...which would be an indication that exactly such protection is needed, though perhaps that is merely treating a symptom of the real issue. Rather than just protection, schools need to somehow teach awareness and tolerance for the diversity of life - and not just among people. And how do you fight religious "morality?"
JamesMorlan 2 years ago 2