There's a couple (as you'll see, no pun intended) of problems. The first is that spinors don't naturally couple (ha! genius!) to curved space, you have to use things like vierbeins and spin connections.
I remember briefly learning about vierbeins, I remember it has something to do with locally transforming coordinates to simplify the metric, and that there's a bunch of algebra you crunch through in order to guarantee results equivalent to the normal Christoffel symbol method. Then I promptly forgot most of it after turning in the homework
So, what's the deal with spinors? I figured something would come up with them and was just re-reading Srednicki's derivation of the finite group representations for SU(2)XSU(2). I suppose then there's no obvious way to define their general transformation rules without vierbeins? I never thought about this too much until recently, as everything I've seen in GR involves strictly scalars, vectors and generalizations thereof.
Not to mention the fact expressions like $$p^{a}p^{b}g_{ab} = -m^{2}$$ are made more complicated and the energy-mass-momentum relationship of SR is regularly used to simplify integrals, such as how $$\frac{d^{3}p}{2E}$$ is Lorentz invariant (if memory serves).
Well on the first point, $$p_\mu p^{\mu}+m^2=0$$ being more complicated to solve, that doesn't on its own stop you from generalizing QFT coordinates, does it? But when you mention integrals of the form $$\int\frac{d^{3}p}{2E_p}$$, in Peskin & Schroeder (and probably Srednicki too) they re-express it in the form:
$$\int d^4p\delta(p^2-m^2)$$
I believe the delta function portion of the integral is a scalar under any coordinate transformation, but I'm pretty sure the volume elemental d^4p doesn't stay constant for general transformations. I suppose that could make the whole quantization procedure pretty complicated... One of these days I'm gonna start learning about quantum gravity, probably within the next two years.
Spin, for instance, can be dealt with as long as we can construct a suitable spin bundle over the underlying spacetime. There are plenty of classification theorems for manifolds that admit such structures (I don't have my copy of Penrose and Rindler to hand, but I'm sure the relevant results will be in there somewhere).
I Gotta learn some topology too, that's the only well-known area of math I haven't touched yet (although I do know Euler's formula for planar figures)...
Aside from all this. I feel daft replying to this thread. The OP is an idiot and a fraud, as has been demonstrated over and over again. Each time he posts a thread on "X", he gets to play pretend for that thread and will no doubt reply to responses with "thanks, I'll start looking into that...".
Yeah I don't buy Green Destiny's claims to be ready for any of this stuff either, based on what I've seen so far, but I figure it's still good to reply and have the real truth out there for everyone to see, with references and justifications. I don't think any of the real scientists here came for the sake of attention or admiration, we just have a huge driving passion in common and love to share and trade our nuggets of wisdom, however much we might have. I'm not in a race to see who's smarter than who or who knows more in what subject, or who has the biggest... Few of the knowledgeable people here really are. Faking credentials just makes a person look stupid, and it'll show more and more over time if it keeps happening, like in Green Destiny's case.