Hi Tammy. I wanted Danny to go for the same reason that you did. He was disrespectful. And it is interesting that you bring up the "gay' issue because I didn't assume he was gay even when I said he was "one of the girls". I have known so many men whose persona was similar to Danny's and they were not gay. I don't even know how to classify them except to say that they acted like women. The principle of my kid's Elementary school was so effeminate that at first it shocked me. After a few months of observing him, it was apparent he was an outstanding principle and his school was rated (Texas standard) "Exemplary". He was married and he had a great rapport with children. Several months ago all of us parents got a letter telling us he had been put on administrative leave- no explaination. Then something was leaked about his attempt to get funding for a blind child in special education. Apparently he broke some kind of administative protocol and he was finally fired. No on knows the whole story yet but I am almost certain it had more to do with his persona because a group of parents were behind the dismissal. Fair? I don't have the facts. I just have my suspicions.

Why even use the term "Gay"? I have caught my own kids saying stuff, "Oh that's so gay" or "your so gay". I call them on it and they get a lecture. I guess I liked it better back in the 60's when nobody talked about it or flaunted it. I know for a fact that the so called gay men community was outrageously promiscuous in the seventies when I was in college. I don't know how many times I was approached by men in bathrooms or at night on the track field (I use to run the 800 meters and often practiced after dark). I was always shocked and offended by their boldness. So my stand today is that I am skeptical of the "gay agenda". I think at its core, it is hedonic- but I will defend their civil rights.

I got into a lot of trouble once in the ninties when the people in my department at the University of Oregon started handing out pink buttons with the phrase "practice diversity" on them. When I refused to wear the hutton, I was singled out as being intolerant and I defended my stand with a joke when I said in a small group, "Maybe it should say "practice perversity". A woman in that group heard the comment and other comments in that group and wrote a letter to the president of the University and filed a harrasssment grievance- not against me but my boss who was present and clearly sympathized with my position and had stated even more vigorously than me his position. He was later fired. I was protected by "free speech". The woman claimed that the converstation had made her uncomfortable.

So here you had a case of activist actually trying to coerce a department (a whole campus really) into endorsing not just tolerance, but the "practice" of something some of us personally felt was intrusive if not immoral. Tell me what is worse, to state that you don't approve of a behavior or actually being approached by someone who is trying to get you to DO the behavior? Clearly, something is out of whack with this picture. Having said that, and what probably kept me from getting fired, was that in the same conversation the woman cited, I stated that while I didn't condone homosexuality, I would defend a homosexual against agressive physical or verbal attacks just as I would any other human being whose civil rights have been violated. I still feel that way today but today I don't ask and I don't want to know- and, as in the case of Danny, I don't even assume he is gay because he may not be and if he is, it is none of my business.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Albert Einstein