On Speaking Without Knowing
The First Amendment Center recently relased some guidelines for the development of a public school curriculum on sexual orientation. That's handy, because we're developing a curriculum like that right now.
After the release of the guidelines, one of the authors of the document, Charles Haynes of the First Amendment Center, made some statements to Regina Griggs, the Executive Director of PFOX, which PFOX reported as being supportive of their mission. Some of the comments have been dealt with here already in previous posts.
One other thing he said to her was really pretty serious, it seemed to me:
To tell you the truth, this got on my nerves. The problem last year was not that the process was flawed. In fact, the process did all it could to involve diverse viewpoints and it was as fair as it could possibly have been. The problem was that the losers couldn't accept that they'd been outvoted. It had nothing to do with the process, or with First Amendment principles.
So why was this guy saying these things? This morning I emailed him and asked him what MCPS should have done differently, exactly. He wrote back:
Well, yes, that's good. He does admit that he doesn't know what happened here.
I wrote him again and explained that, since PFOX was using his statement to advance their agenda, "your comment has the potential to become pivotal in this event, but, as you yourself note, you don't really know what actually happened here." I asked him if he would like to issue a retraction or explanation.
In response, he explained how he had come to make that statement, and then added:
OK, that sounds right.
Charles Haynes did not know if the process used in Montgomery County was consistent with the guidelines they recommend, or not.
That means he doesn't know if anything would have been different if MCPS had had the First Amendment Center's consensus guidelines.
That really means he is admitting that he didn't know what he was talking about when he said that the "incident" might have been avoided if guidelines like these had been in place.
I appreciate that he owns up to it. We all say things sometimes without full knowledge of what we're talking about.
It appears that PFOX may want to exploit Dr. Haynes' statements in order to promote their view that sexual orientation is a choice. Let me list off a few summary points here:
I do thank Dr. Haynes for communicating these details to us.
After the release of the guidelines, one of the authors of the document, Charles Haynes of the First Amendment Center, made some statements to Regina Griggs, the Executive Director of PFOX, which PFOX reported as being supportive of their mission. Some of the comments have been dealt with here already in previous posts.
One other thing he said to her was really pretty serious, it seemed to me:
"...incidents such as the one last year in Montgomery County, Maryland, might have been avoided had guidelines like these been in place."
To tell you the truth, this got on my nerves. The problem last year was not that the process was flawed. In fact, the process did all it could to involve diverse viewpoints and it was as fair as it could possibly have been. The problem was that the losers couldn't accept that they'd been outvoted. It had nothing to do with the process, or with First Amendment principles.
So why was this guy saying these things? This morning I emailed him and asked him what MCPS should have done differently, exactly. He wrote back:
We recommend a process of developing civic ground rules and ways to include all stakeholders. From what I gathered, that may have been missing. But you know better than I... After reading the guidelines, you may feel that you did all of that -- and still had the conflict. If so, I stand corrected. I based my "might have been avoided" comment on news reports and conversations with a few people who were familiar with the conflict (but were not key players). So... perhaps all of the civic ground rules were in place, all of the voices were included, etc. and a lawsuit still resulted. That does happen...
Well, yes, that's good. He does admit that he doesn't know what happened here.
I wrote him again and explained that, since PFOX was using his statement to advance their agenda, "your comment has the potential to become pivotal in this event, but, as you yourself note, you don't really know what actually happened here." I asked him if he would like to issue a retraction or explanation.
In response, he explained how he had come to make that statement, and then added:
But as you say, I wasn't there. So, if it would be helpful, you can quote me as saying that I don't know if the process used in Montgomery County was consistent with the guidelines we recommend. My comment was in response to news reports, the lawsuit, and statements by several people who followed the controversy but were not directly involved. So my comment was intended to suggest that any community that uses the ground rules and the process we describe is more likely to find common ground and avoid lawsuits.
OK, that sounds right.
Charles Haynes did not know if the process used in Montgomery County was consistent with the guidelines they recommend, or not.
That means he doesn't know if anything would have been different if MCPS had had the First Amendment Center's consensus guidelines.
That really means he is admitting that he didn't know what he was talking about when he said that the "incident" might have been avoided if guidelines like these had been in place.
I appreciate that he owns up to it. We all say things sometimes without full knowledge of what we're talking about.
It appears that PFOX may want to exploit Dr. Haynes' statements in order to promote their view that sexual orientation is a choice. Let me list off a few summary points here:
- The consensus guidelines say nothing at all about "ex-gays"
- Dr. Haynes' comment that "ex-gays should be included" has been explained, by him, to mean that "ex-gays" should be included in the process of developing the curriculum; he has expressed no opinion about whether the subject should be part of the curriculum or not
- While Dr. Haynes said that "incidents such as the one last year in Montgomery County, Maryland, might have been avoided had guidelines like these been in place," now he admits he did not know what had actually happened in Montgomery County, or whether the process used here actually did conform to the guidelines
I do thank Dr. Haynes for communicating these details to us.
posted by JimK at 5:40 PM
25 Comments:
The end result was flawed. The sore losers were right. Jim, a liberal federal judge said there was a first amendment problem. Dr. Weast agreed and the medical team said it was insufficient. End of story.
But let us go forward and hope the future curriculum will be legally and factually correct and not biased this time around. Hopefully all on the new CAC will look at it this way.
I'm sorry precious, you'll have to help me out. I am trying to connect your comments to a wish to insert exgay comments into the curricula.
The judge was willing to give a stay because several of the background resources for teachers presented a one-sided view about religion. I completely agree with him on that. Religion had no place there, from any direction.
However, the judge categorically rejected the exgay (or rather, anti-gay) arguments put to him by CRC/PFOX and could find no basis. The First Amend. was violated on religious grounds, but not on anything CRC/PFOX wished regards including their exgay material.
The medical team recently said there should be even more material presented, but CRC/PFOX has said that they wanted less.
Are you saying you would have been OK -- legally -- with the first revised curricula provided the religion-based comments in the teachers resources had simply been removed?
That sounds like a 5 minute job to me, so I'm therefore struggling to understand what has been holding up the introduction of a new curricula...
Grantdale,
The Judge also mentions a concept called "viewpoint discrimination" in addition to the violation of kids' constitutional religious freedom. Someone needs to recognize that while peer-reviewed scientific papers properly qualify findings, the pronouncements of professional organizations can be, and are, subject to socio-political influences. The pronouncements aren't peer-reviewed.
Also, the religious material in the teacher resources could have been removed but they indicated a bias on the part of the curriculum designers that colored their selection of other "facts" for inclusion.
As we're seeing now, five minutes of touch-up would be, in the words of the medical advisory panel, insufficient.
...the religious material in the teacher resources could have been removed but they indicated a bias on the part of the curriculum designers that colored their selection of other "facts" for inclusion.
Alright, hey. This rule eliminates every scrap of written material about exgays.
PB
"The pronouncements aren't peer-reviewed."
You're kidding, right?
I suppose it is technically correct to say the "pronouncments aren't peer-reviewed," but it completely misses the point. It is the members of the medical and mental health professional organizations...the peers themselves...who make the pronouncements.
Sam
Sam
Not necessarily. These associations have internal political structures. Those who've been reading this blog the last few months, we've seen evidence that the APA made pronouncements in the 70s not supported by its membership (not to mention, any evidence).
Where are all these new TTfers coming from of a sudden? It's nice to hear from some new voices.
"I suppose it is technically correct to say the "pronouncments aren't peer-reviewed," but it completely misses the point."
One other thing, Sam. The pronouncements don't match the conclusions in the papers. So it's not missing the point to say this. The point is the associations are not subject to the same standard of precision in their public pronouncements as they are in peer-reviewed papers.
Wyatt,
Keep up with your deceptive pronouncements. As Jim has said, we couldn't have created a straw man as effective as you if we tried.
David has already responded to the nonsense about "viewpoint discrimination," so I will leave that to the legal experts.
The pronouncements of medical organizations are not peer-reviewed. Correct. But they are based on the results of peer-reviewed studies that have accumulated and create the need for new policies.
You tried to sneak in the "any evidence" phrase, but failed once again. There is zero evidence of any sort to back up your bigotry. Just a long, very long history of prejudice.
These are opinions on selective papers. It is the old story. In order to convey a particular thought, one uses only the papers that support this particular theory. I'm not suggesting that this doesn't happen on both sides.
Also there is the interpretation and opinions of work other people have done. They can be as bias as you want to make it.
Gay affirming viewpoint is just that, only one of several on this controversial issue and to try and keep this point a secret will not work in our free society. Mind control will not work. There may be problems with both however let's tell the children about the above average mental and physical health problems with the gay affirming viewpoint instead of hiding them or pretending that they are not there.
By the way, Dana, why do you have to constantly end your comments with this type of rhetoric?
“There is zero evidence of any sort to back up your bigotry. Just a long, very long history of prejudice”
It shows a lack of tolerance and respect that you so want people to show to you. “Tearing down” some one else’s thoughts only shows your lack of tolerance for others.
Anonymous, the "viewpoint discrimination" was because of those religious and morality-based statements in the teacher's resources together with the instruction that "no additional information, interpretation or examples are to be provided by the teacher." The judge was quite clear:
Viewpoint discrimination consists of state action in which "there is no ban on a general subject matter, but only on one ore more prohibited perspectives." ... In this case, Defendants open up the classroom to the subject of homosexuality, and specifically, the moral rightness of the homosexual lifestyle. However, the Revised Curriculum presents only one view on the subject - that homosexuality is a natural and morally correct lifestyle - to the exclusion of other perspectives.
(I have already said that I see no place for any such comments in a health class or sex-ed, from anyone.)
The viewpoint discrimination had nothing to do with the selection of materials based on the recommendations of the professional and medical bodies, such as the APA, or a decision to exclude extraneous materials from advocacy groups such as NARTH or the Family Research Council etc. The judge specifically rejected that non-inclusion as grounds for the stay.
And while all the professional organisations are subject to attempts to use them to promote particular "socio-political influences" I am unaware of any statements made by the medical and scientific bodies that could be described as based on religion or morality. (Other than, I guess, basic commitments to non-discrimination and individual liberty.)
Statements that refer to the unproved practice of sexual orientation conversion (which is potentially dangerous for many), or that gay and lesbian people can display good parenting, or that gay couples function best when their relationships are open and supported are not making moral comment. Those statements could be equally made about heterosexuals (and perhaps should). Individual members of the APA, of course, hold a wide range of personal religious opinions about sexuality; but those personal beliefs have not determined the pronouncements made by the professional bodies in recent decades.
You seen unsure about how such statements are arrived at. They are not prepared by outside pressure groups, but by expert committees drawn from the membership. The committees are "peer reviewed" in that wide canvassing and comment occurs during the policy creation, and their deliberations are widely and freely discussed via the letters pages etc of the professional publications. Certainly, individual members often have a personal wish that particular issues are not discussed (much less put into policy), but those wishes do not determine what is good policy or whether the policy has overwhelming support of the membership.
I'm imaginng here that your comment about the "APA made pronouncements in the 70s not supported by its membership (not to mention, any evidence)" refers to the dropping of homosexuality as a declared mental illness.
While there are many non-professionals who wish that it had remained so, the removal occured because there was no evidence it should have been in the DSM in the first place. The original inclusion reflected "socio-political influences" in the 1940s, and no supporting evidence was provided at that time. The position became impossible to continue to support when it became clear from the 1950s onwards that there were indeed gay men and women who displayed no signs of mental illness (meaning homosexuality cannot be, of itself). Support for the current position has increased as the original generation of therapists has "died off", and very few think the policy is incorrect today -- largely because homosexuality is less of a mystery than it once was.
And without reading the entire letter sent by the paediatricians, I'm unable to know why they thought that the revised curricula was "insufficient". That sounds as if they wanted more, not less.
Personally I believe more could have been said, and that it could have been more straight-forward. For example, the condom video should used a realistic rubber model instead of a cucumber. I am against use of such euphamism because it reinforces an idea that human sexuality is something either embarassing or unmentionable, and therefore doesn't support good understanding of the facts. (Frankly, but condoms are not meant to be put onto a cucumber! They work best when placed on a man, and at the right time.)
However, I'm also aware that any class-based lessons compete with valuable time and effort that could be otherwise used. I wasn't involved in the revision committee, so I have no idea what balance was eventually struck.
The paediatricians may well feel that more subject matter could be covered, but that balance of time and effort still needs to be considered. (Equally, it wouldn't surprise me to find that maths teachers or English teachers etc feel that more time and effort could be directed to their own subject areas.) There was nothing in the revised curricula that was "dead wrong" with regards to what it did mention -- apart from the 5 minutes needed to remove the moral and religious comments in the teachers reseources -- which always a good place to start.
What I do know is that the revised lessons included more than the current ones. So I presume the paediatricains would be very much against continued use of the current curriculum, and therefore disagree with the position taken by CRC/PFOX.
precious, you said:
There may be problems with both however let's tell the children about the above average mental and physical health problems with the gay affirming viewpoint instead of hiding them or pretending that they are not there.
I'm unaware of any "above average" mental and physical health issues with gay affirmative therapy itself. Could you suggest where I may read this?
There are many gay men and women who face considerable conflict over their sexuality, but GAT is designed to counter that conflict.
I assume that because you'd like the subject of internal conflict etc raised, you also would agree that the reasons for that conflict would also be discussed?
Overwhelming, the stressors are regarded as a completely normal response to widespread social prejudice combined with a lack of family/peer support that could counteract that prejudice.
And while much continues to be discussed about any elevated averages, this also does not negate the fact that the majority of gay men and lesbians successfully negotiate their way into adulthood with no mental or physical health problems.
While particular issues faced by minority groups are well worth discussing -- mainly, to help identify who may be at risk within those groups -- it would be both bigotted and wrong to use that information to present the entire group as mentally or physically unhealthy etc. I presume you'd agree with that?
(I'm thinking here how badly a discussion could go if, as example, elevated crime rates among certain racial minorities were to be discussed without any proper context etc.)
Retta,
Yes, I'm sorry, I can sound a bit harsh at times. But the context for my harshness is the repeated posting of lies by Wyatt and others like him. Saying something over and over again, and saying it loudly, doesn't make it so. The science is quite clear on this issue, as everyone else seems to be aware. Saying it isn't, and saying that there is science supporting your position, is palinly wrong. I believe it is simply a cover for bigotry, and I have a right to say that. Give me a reason to not believe Wyatt is a bigot, and I will consider it and retract my statement.
Grantdale has repeated what I have been saying from the beginning of this blog -- not only is there valid, statistically significant and peer-reviewed science to back up the teachthefacts positions on gender identity and sexual orientation, there is none, nor has there ever been, any science to back up your beliefs. You are certainly entitled to your opinions, and you can derive them from the Bible or natural law or whatever source you choose. But don't try to deceive the public about the science, which is what PFOX and CRC try to do all the time.
I think we can agree, as per the teacher resources of the restrained curriculum of 2004, that there are religious communities that believe homosexuality is a sin, and there are others that don't believe so. And the issue of inclusion of any discussion of religion into the curriculum aside, I wonder why, if we can agree on that, your side felt it worth going to court over. It's obviusly factually true. Your entire position is based on your reading of Biblical morality. So what is the problem with stating so? And then leaving it at that?
As for the medical consequences of sex, you will, once again, get no argument from our side that we should encourage safe sex practices. For gays and straights, for vaginal, oral and anal intercourse. But you insist on demonizing one subgroup of the population which cannot engage in vaginal intercourse, rather than simply educating people how to practice safe sex. And we know most anal sex occurs in straight pairings anyway.
Grantdale
My problem is that the associations seem to speak of certainty on an issue where any individual studies they may have based their position on seem to qualify their conclusions. So basing an opinion on a peer-reviewed study doesn't mean you've drawn the correct conclusion from that study. Their is no scientific certainty, at least that I'm aware of, that sexual orientation is beyond choice in a any but an aesthetic way. It could be that you really have no choice about whether to prefer checkers over rummy or hot chocolate over tea. The pronouncements seem to go beyond that and say that, what seems to me a mostly aesthetic choice, is somehow innate. Can you point to one study or a combined group of studies that indicate that sexual orientation is innate in a way that other preferences aren't?
As for the viewpoint discrimination, saying that "same-sex orientation is not a disease" is a value judgment because disease is the inability to function normally in society. You have to agree on what constitutes normal functioning to agree on what the inability to achieve it constitutes.
Also, by discussing whether or not orientation is a disease, you are implicitly conceding that it its not chosen but an irresistable impulse which, as stated above, has not been scientifically established.
Personally, I'd be fine if my tax dollars paid for a curriculum that:
1. Said no one knows what causes same sex attraction but here's what some people think and why, including all widely held viewpoints.
2. Did not address whether or not same sex orientation is a disease.
3. Pointed out the potential consequences that accrue from choosing to pursue a homosexual relationship.
Wyatt,
I don't have the time to respond to each of your claims and insinuations, so I'll pick on just one. A "disease" has nothing to do with functioning in a society. It is an impairment of the normal fucntioning of an organism. Some diagnoses in the mental health field require an "inabilty to function" to qualify as a disability, but that's it. People with diseases like MS, Crohn's CF, transverse myelitis -- all function quite nicely in society, thank you. As do LGBT folks.
Now, if you were to put up barricades so that a paraplegic person couldn't get around and therefore couldn't function in society, then that person wouldn't be the one with the disease. You would be.
The same holds for gay people. YOU are the one trying to limit their functioning in society.
Anon said, As for the viewpoint discrimination, saying that "same-sex orientation is not a disease" is a value judgment because disease is the inability to function normally in society.
The revised curriculum didn't make the statement you quoted. It stated, "All major professional mental health organizations affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder."
You disagree with "all major professional mental health associations" and have your own personal opinions about what is "normal." If that's what you want your public school students to learn, then by all means, opt them out of MCPS health classes and teach them that your own personal views are correct and that all major professional mental health associations are wrong.
Just don't expect MCPS health classes to accept and disseminate your personal views over the views of "all professional mental health associations."
Christine
Christine
As we've discussed before, I think the public schools should teach facts not opinions. That would be real facts- not just the fact that someone has an opinion.
Wyatt,
Obviously what you consider to be a fact differs from what most people consider to be a fact. For instance, you consider it a fact that God exists, and Jesus is God. I don't. You have your opinion, I have mine.
Sexual orientation is a testable, biological phenomenon, whether you like it or not. Beliefs in religions are not.
Anon said, "I think the public schools should teach facts not opinions. That would be real facts- not just the fact that someone has an opinion."
The revised curriculum did not include the opinion of "someone." It included the consensus opinion of "all mental health associations."
Anon said, "My problem is that the associations seem to speak of certainty on an issue where any individual studies they may have based their position on seem to qualify their conclusions. So basing an opinion on a peer-reviewed study doesn't mean you've drawn the correct conclusion from that study."
I agree that you are having a problem with this single statement in the revised curriculum so I will try to explain it to you one more way.
The revised curriculum did not include an opinion of all mental health associations that was based on the conclusion from "a peer-reviewed study." It included the consensus opinion of all mental health associations based on their members' interpretations and analyses of an entire field of study.
Christine
Anonymous (I understand you are actually "Wyatt"?)
Can you point to one study or a combined group of studies that indicate that sexual orientation is innate...
I cannot prove a negative. I will, however, suggest you answer the question by refering to your own sexual orientation. And then just ask other people at random about their own. The answer is plain.
The entire medical World is also equally clueless about what causes opposite sex attraction. I assume you did not wait on an answer before being very sure of your own attractions,or acting on them?
What I am picking up is that you want homosexuality to be presented as something divorced from human sexuality per se. But it's not. To present homosexuality in that way is to decide to stigmatize. You may believe that to be a correct thing to do, but I'd suggest that a school board must instead accomodate all students in a fair and equal manner. That includes those who are not exclusively heterosexual.
Gay men and women certainly function normally in society. They also vote, work, pay taxes, contribute to their communities, etc etc...
Whether you personally think they are functioning normally as a sexual couple is another matter. And not, I'd suggest, any of your business -- any more than your adult intimate relationships are any business of ours.
And I really have no idea what "potential consequences that accrue from choosing to pursue a homosexual relationship" you may be refering to.
Other than, I suppose, the exact same sorts of "consequences" that can accrue from choosing to pursue a heterosexual relationship -- with the exception of pregnancy.
And, of course, those "consequences" include all the positives of companionship, support, love, happiness.. and, yes, the delights of sex.
I assume those consequences are also included in what you want discussed in a sex ed. class?
Or is your aim just to frighten some people?
"Anonymous (I understand you are actually "Wyatt"?)"
I'm an anonymous poster.
"Can you point to one study or a combined group of studies that indicate that sexual orientation is innate...
I cannot prove a negative."
Grantdale, your comment might be applicable to the mental disease assertion. It doesn't make sense here. The un-TTFers say that we don't know. TTF says there is evidence.
"I will, however, suggest you answer the question by refering to your own sexual orientation. And then just ask other people at random about their own. The answer is plain."
I think it partly depends on an individual's perception of availability. Prisoners, for example, become attracted to those of the same gender for a time.
"The entire medical World is also equally clueless about what causes opposite sex attraction. I assume you did not wait on an answer before being very sure of your own attractions,or acting on them?"
I'm glad you concede science is clueless on same sex attraction. Why can't we tell this to the kids?
"What I am picking up is that you want homosexuality to be presented as something divorced from human sexuality per se. But it's not. To present homosexuality in that way is to decide to stigmatize. You may believe that to be a correct thing to do, but I'd suggest that a school board must instead accomodate all students in a fair and equal manner. That includes those who are not exclusively heterosexual."
Why limit ourselves to gender variations? Wouldn't your logic apply to any sexual desire an individual might have?
"Gay men and women certainly function normally in society. They also vote, work, pay taxes, contribute to their communities, etc etc...
Whether you personally think they are functioning normally as a sexual couple is another matter. And not, I'd suggest, any of your business -- any more than your adult intimate relationships are any business of ours."
I agree. It's also not the business of the public school. As I said, the public school does not have defining normality as its mission.
Whether the inability to relate to the opposite gender in a sexual way constitutes a mental disorder is a value judgment and should not be addressed by the school system.
"And I really have no idea what "potential consequences that accrue from choosing to pursue a homosexual relationship" you may be refering to."
So, do you think if a high school student decides to pursue a homosexual relationship, there would be no potential negative effects?
"Other than, I suppose, the exact same sorts of "consequences" that can accrue from choosing to pursue a heterosexual relationship -- with the exception of pregnancy.
And, of course, those "consequences" include all the positives of companionship, support, love, happiness.. and, yes, the delights of sex.
I assume those consequences are also included in what you want discussed in a sex ed. class?
Or is your aim just to frighten some people?"
If the topic is to be brought up, the kids should be given all relevant information. It probably would frighten them but that speaks for itself.
"Can you point to one study or a combined group of studies that indicate that sexual orientation is innate."
I already have. Dr. Wertsch's presentation at the Teachthefacts.org educational forum last fall included many of the studies that together indicate that sexual orientation has a biological basis. Readers can find his powerpoint presentation on the RESOURCES page of this website. (Click on RESOURCES above, and then on "Our September 2005 Forum")
There are human studies that show differences in the interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus and cochlear functioning of heterosexuals and homosexuals. There are human studies that show different reactions to human pheromones by heterosexuals and homosexuals. There are twin studies that show increased incidents of same-sex attraction within families. There are animal studies which have documented 450 different species that exhibit same-sex mating behaviors and 10% of Canadian geese nests with same sex pairs.
Christine
Living organisms, from the lowliest virus to the most complex multicellular beings, have one absolutely essential function. That is to reproduce. Not every organism must do so for the species to survive, but enough have to.
Do you honestly believe that this most essential of biological functions is not hardwired into every living organism? Do you truly imagine that humans are unique, and have somehow eradicated their neurological programming to become utterly dependent on what, exactly? Parental modeling? Peer group pressure?
Do you really believe that your sense of being male or female, and your desire for sexual coupling with either males or females, is a matter of choice? That nature would allow this? That our species would have survived to this point?
Do we know how this system works? No, we do not. We know very little about the brain. Do we know that it is a biological function? Yes, we do. Should we learn more? Of course. Are you willing to call your congressperson and demand more money for research in human sexuality? I doubt it.
Prisoners do not become attracted to other prisoners -- they make do with other prisoners because they have no choice. Their need for sex, any kind of sexual relationship, overcomes their natural orientation.
And, yes, all the consequences of sexual relationships, positive and negative, are discussed in sex-ed classes.
CRCPrecious (Retta Brown wrote)on CRC message board
When will they be able to marry their dog?
« on: March 17, 2006, 05:43:30 PM »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is PETA when you want them?
H819 [Judiciary Committee] -- Decriminalize bestiality, sodomy, and other perversions. Repeal of sections of Ch 272. Would repeal the law against bestiality -- also laws against sodomy, "unnatural and lascivious acts", and other things. Part of the homosexual movement's ongoing attempt to erase all morality from the legal system.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/ht00/ht00819.htm
These are other versions of H819 above -- apparently to attempt to accomplish the same thing in stages, rather than all at once.
H818 [Judiciary Committee] -- Would overturn laws against fornication, human- human sodomy, and "unnatural and lascivious acts," but keep bestiality a crime http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/ht00/ht00818.htm
H976 [Judiciary Committee] -- Would overturn law against human-to-human sodomy and "unnatural and lascivious acts," but keep bestiality a crime http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/ht00/ht00976.htm
S938 [Judiciary Committee] -- Would overturn law against human-to-human sodomy, and reduce penalties for bestiality crimes http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/st00/st00938.htm
AAAhhh Retta wasn't Johnny Garza fixated on animals and marriage a few months back too?
freebird
Retta, in this thrread:
"It shows a lack of tolerance and respect that you so want people to show to you. “Tearing down” some one else’s thoughts only shows your lack of tolerance for others.
March 19, 2006 2:57 PM"
Then, two days later:
"CRCPrecious (Retta Brown wrote)on CRC message board:
When will they be able to marry their dog?
« on: March 17, 2006, 05:43:30 PM »"
Where, Retta dear, is your tolerance and respect for others?
Vietnamese citizens commonly kill and eat dogs.
Would marrying one be less preferable?
Has anyone asked the dog?
Homosexuality gets partnered with beastiality because those who viscerally object to it equate it to all things personally repugnant as if doing so reinforces their point. It simply describes the set of behaviors the subjectively self-important person finds repulsive. In a nutshell, gay sex, to them, is "icky."
More pious people might lump in all things sexual not involving the missionary position. They would readily label most of the population as "immoral" and "perverted" and by logicical application of their subjective views, they would be right.
This emphasizes to me that law must be based on criteria other than moral "gut feelings". Those gut feelings include those that feel that the Bible is the word of God.
My personal preference would be to dispose of all religious works Talmud, Bible, and Koran as bases for law. I would sooner use Libertarian principles. This is a subjective preference no more justifiable than using dogma except that the use of dogma in the construction of law is prohibited by our constitution; which was, in turn, a preference of government designed by a group of men 200+ years ago, no more valid than a theocracy or Libertarian democracy.
How bad do we wish to impose our feelings on others? How bad do we wish to escape oppression by those who would tell us what we cannot do because they think it's wrong?
Post a Comment
<< Home