Candidate Forum Monday
Teach the Facts is working with two other groups, Equality Montgomery County and the Interfaith Fairness Coalition, to put on a Montgomery County candidate forum this coming Monday, August 28th. Most of the candidates for County Executive, County Council at large, and Board of Education have RSVPed, and it looks like it will be a big night to learn where they stand on some issues of interest to us.
Our group exists to support an honest and accurate sex-education curriculum, and the other two groups mainly represent gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) interests, and so it is likely that the discussion will focus on those kinds of issues. Of course, the education we're interested in has to do in part with sexual orientation, and so we want a lot of the same things as the other groups, basically. That's how some of us get referred to as "gay activists," even without being gay.
Candidates will give a short speech, answer a couple of prepared questions, and then, after all have spoken, they will get some questions from the audience. I imagine there will be a nice schmooze session afterwards, where you can collar your candidate and pick their brain. I think it will be a real good chance to find out how these people feel about some difficult issues -- are they willing to stick their necks out to do what's right? Let's find out.
Here's who'll be there, as of Friday afternoon:
County Executive candidates (all of them):
Robin Ficker, Chuck Floyd, Robert Fustero, Ike Legett and Steve Silverman
Board of Education candidates (all but 2 candidates will be there):
Shirley Brandman, Dana Gassaway, Tommy Le, Judy Docca, Michael Ibanez, Patricia O'Neill, Philip Kauffman, Nancy Navarro, and Susie Scofield.
County Council At Large:
Hugh Bailey, Reggie Felton, Nancy Floreen, Bill Jacobs, Marc Elrich, Cary Lamari, and Duchy Trachtenberg
The forum will be held next Monday August 28, at 6:30 PM, in the Town of Kensington Community Center, 3710 Mitchell Street, Kensington.
(go to www.tok.org for directions)
Our group exists to support an honest and accurate sex-education curriculum, and the other two groups mainly represent gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) interests, and so it is likely that the discussion will focus on those kinds of issues. Of course, the education we're interested in has to do in part with sexual orientation, and so we want a lot of the same things as the other groups, basically. That's how some of us get referred to as "gay activists," even without being gay.
Candidates will give a short speech, answer a couple of prepared questions, and then, after all have spoken, they will get some questions from the audience. I imagine there will be a nice schmooze session afterwards, where you can collar your candidate and pick their brain. I think it will be a real good chance to find out how these people feel about some difficult issues -- are they willing to stick their necks out to do what's right? Let's find out.
Here's who'll be there, as of Friday afternoon:
County Executive candidates (all of them):
Robin Ficker, Chuck Floyd, Robert Fustero, Ike Legett and Steve Silverman
Board of Education candidates (all but 2 candidates will be there):
Shirley Brandman, Dana Gassaway, Tommy Le, Judy Docca, Michael Ibanez, Patricia O'Neill, Philip Kauffman, Nancy Navarro, and Susie Scofield.
County Council At Large:
Hugh Bailey, Reggie Felton, Nancy Floreen, Bill Jacobs, Marc Elrich, Cary Lamari, and Duchy Trachtenberg
The forum will be held next Monday August 28, at 6:30 PM, in the Town of Kensington Community Center, 3710 Mitchell Street, Kensington.
(go to www.tok.org for directions)
posted by JimK at 1:33 PM
45 Comments:
*
"Our group exists to support an honest and accurate sex-education curriculum,"
Well, you've got a funny way of going about it. I thought the Blade called you a gay advocate last month and you agreed. To be totally honest, you'd have to admit to the students how little is known. It seems to the objective observer that TTF advocates for gay issues.
Anyway, which of the school board candidates does TTF favor?
As far as the gay activist thing, that's pretty fun being a straight gay activist.
And as for the school board candidates, if you want to know which ones we support, try giving them the secret Teach the Facts handshake. If they know it, you'll know ... they're the one.
You can also find out by looking at this web site with the special Teach the Facts Decryption Glasses, which all TTF members own. We keep them in a special pocket in our Teach the Facts secret underwear.
Oh. Have I revealed too much?
JimK
Actually, I should probably go back to this comment: It seems to the objective observer that TTF advocates for gay issues.
That's because the "objective observer" expects other people to be homophobes like themselves.
Truth is, I don't give a damn about "gay issues." Never did, never will. I'd be just as happy if everybody would just shut up about it. There are so many more interesting topics, what is it with this obsession with gay people? Would it be so hard to just let them live their lives without judging them and treating them badly?
Gay people are people. They're not going to go away. They're not inherently different from the rest of us, except for who they are romantically attracted to. You make such a big deal out of it, like somebody has to be "for" it or "against" it. I'm not for it or against it, it just isn't any of my business who somebody else goes out with.
I am "for" two things: telling the truth about people, and being fair. And for that, I end up being a straight gay activist.
To someone like you, that position may seem extremely "pro-homosexual" (to use Peter Sprigg's term). But actually, I'm neutral on the issue. I just want the schools to teach the facts.
JimK
Jim writes,
Truth is, I don't give a damn about "gay issues." Never did, never will.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now THAT is funny! Yeah, and Santa Claus and the Easter really do exist.
I'd be just as happy if everybody would just shut up about it.
Would that include homosexualist groups? Or just us mean people on the "TheoCon" right?
There are so many more interesting topics, what is it with this obsession with gay people?
Here, here!!! I couldn't agree more...I just started reading David Grene's translation of Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War.
Would it be so hard to just let them live their lives without judging them and treating them badly?
Once again...I could not agree more...but is that what we are REALLY talking about here? It is not after all Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, the Religious Right or any nasty wanna-be Theocrats that keeps pushing a radical redefinition of marriage. I know of a gay couple that live less than a block away...they walk their dogs, go to work, etc. None of us in my neighborhood has the least interest in treating them in anything other than a neighborly way (for my part, I gave them some strawberry freezer jam; they returned the gesture by dropping off some fresh squash).
You should show your gay neighbors the comments you post here and see how they react.
The reason TTF exists is because Liberty Council out of Florida and PFOX out of Virginia came into our Montgomery County, Maryland community and tried to tell us how and what to teach our our public school children. We want our public school students to learn facts. We'll teach them whatever dogma we choose at home.
Two people fall in love and want to marry, what's the problem with that? The question is, why do the Family Blah Blah groups feel it's their job to tell certain people they can't?
Oh, and as for the "homosexualist groups." There are groups of course that represent every interest and subpopulation. Gay groups will always exist. But the groups that fight for gay people to have the same rights as everyone else, what I think you are calling the "homosexualist groups," yeah, I'd like to see them shut up, too, I'd like to see the day they are entirely unnecessary.
JimK
Anon, TTF existed a long time before Liberty Counsel came to town. We formed in December 2005 in reaction to the RecallMontgomerySchoolBoard.com group who attacked the school district for approving a moderate and fact-based curriculum.
I'm not sure what you are saying about my gay neighbors.
JimK
Anonymous writes,
You should show your gay neighbors the comments you post here and see how they react.
And the purpose of that would be? Sorry, that does not strike me as very neighborly...
Look, this issue will come up serveral times on the Colorado ballot and I have decided out of respect to these neighbors and in an effort to tone things down, I will not be posting a sign on my lawn, nor will I put a bumper sticker. It is not that I am ashamed or embarassed to support marriage as a one man/one woman union; rather, I will limit myself to venues where I can make an argument in support of marriage and give those in the middle reasons to side with me on election day.
The reason TTF exists is because Liberty Council out of Florida and PFOX out of Virginia came into our Montgomery County, Maryland community and tried to tell us how and what to teach our our public school children. We want our public school students to learn facts. We'll teach them whatever dogma we choose at home.
The reason Liberty Council, PFOX, et al came to town is because members of your community fundamentally disagree with the direction that Teach the Fiction wants to take sexuality advocacy...err, I mean, sex education. Just as TTF looks to national organizations to support their POV, so do those of us parents that want to continue to direct the moral, ethical, and (if we so choose) religious training of our children without having that training undermined by the public schools. It is an issue in the public schools only because both sides on this issue know that we are dealing with a captive audience.
Jim writes,
Two people fall in love and want to marry, what's the problem with that?
Sigh...love is a necessary, but not sufficient rationale for marriage.
Not enough, you say? Well, you can check out this link here and it gives the basic arguments for marriage as a man & woman union (WARNING! this link will take to one of those dreaded TheoCon websites...you know, the Family blah blah group),
http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi
/marriage/faqs/a0026916.cfm
Now, I include this realizing that those inclined to the TTF POV will not likely be persuaded. Just keep this in mind: minds are like parachutes, they only work when you open them.
The question is, why do the Family Blah Blah groups feel it's their job to tell certain people they can't?
Why does that question sound so much like one I would expect to hear from my 13 or 17 year-old? I suspect that it has much to do with not wanting to follow the rules, and absent not being able to do that, rewriting the rules so as to accomodate the few with a societally destructive inclination.
Oh, and as for the "homosexualist groups." There are groups of course that represent every interest and subpopulation. Gay groups will always exist.
The error here is in thinking that homosexual rights groups speak for gays as a whole; point of fact, they don't. In this way groups like Human Rights Watch and the Lambda Legal Defense Fund no more speak for gays and lesbians as a group than the NAACP speaks for black Americans.
But the groups that fight for gay people to have the same rights as everyone else, what I think you are calling the "homosexualist groups," yeah, I'd like to see them shut up, too, I'd like to see the day they are entirely unnecessary.
Gays and lesbians do have the same right to marry as everyone else does on the terms that society offers: one man and one woman.
Any other combination in present day American society is increasingly just fine. However, do not expect American civil society to give its approval to such unions (and that is what the "right" of marriage per force is). I read where there is a man that is married to one woman, but lives with two (it is Washington State if I recall correctly; in fact, I think I learned about it from TTF). It is clear that this man, and the two women he shares his life with are very happy together, as is the teenage son of his second "wife". They lead quiet lives of contentment and mutual support. Would I think to tell them that they should live any differently? No...though if I moved in next door I probably would pester them with any number of fattening deserts or freshly baked bread I would share, not to mention my freezer jam.
The difference, you ask? Simple. They are not seeking societal approval for the way they live.
The same applies to gays and lesbians (as it also applies to polygamists living in Utah, Arizona and elsewhere). What will gays and lesbians say to women wanting to marry more than one man, or men wanting to marry more than one woman? Or will anything be said at all? How about a father wanting to divorce his wife and marry his adult daughter? Do not kid yourselves or anyone else it, this will adversely impact what marriage means, especially to future generations.
Marriage is about more, much more than the here and now, or the people that are involved in it. It is about future generations, and we tamper with it at our own risk.
"The reason TTF exists is because Liberty Council out of Florida and PFOX out of Virginia came into our Montgomery County, Maryland community and tried to tell us how and what to teach our our public school children. We want our public school students to learn facts."
Who is "we"? There was no great outcry among Montgomery County parents seeking to have the school board change the sex-ed curriculum. Most of "we" like things just the way they are. "We"'re grateful Liberty Counsel provided the resources "we" needed to fight the wealthy and powerful MCPS.
Hey, did the CAC hear about this?:
"APA President Signals Policy Change on Homosexuality
by Pete Winn, associate editor
The message that gays can change may finally be getting through.
Ex-gay groups and organizations that counsel people with unwanted same-sex attractions say they are pleased, but puzzled, by recent remarks by the top official of the American Psychological Association.
At a town-hall meeting during the APA's convention in New Orleans, APA President Gerald P. Koocher responded to questions about the organization's pro-homosexual positions — and its lack of recognition of former homosexuals and their therapists.
Koocher's response was simple: "APA has no conflict with psychologists who help those distressed by unwanted homosexual attraction."
Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, a network of ministries for those struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction, said it was an unexpected turn of events.
"Given the APA's track record of the last two years," Chambers told CitizenLink, "it is very unusual that the president would come out and state our case for us, that people have a right to self-determination — to determine their own path for their mental-health status."
Chambers said he believes a protest organized by ex-gays and their therapists outside the convention hall had an impact.
"We protested because the APA hasn't been very solid on these issues," he said. "They haven’t respected a psychologist's right to help patients that want help in overcoming their same-sex attraction.
"They have written position papers and made it very public that they're opposed to people being able to choose the path that I, and hundreds of thousands of other people like me, have chosen, and that is to overcome their homosexuality."
He also said change is coming about because of pressure from within the APA.
"What we found at the protest, is that 80 percent of the attendees — people that were coming off of the buses and walking into the convention center — were supportive of what we said," he added. "I believe that it is through the ongoing efforts of groups like Exodus and NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, that the board of the APA is realizing it is out of step with its membership."
Research by Dr. Robert Spitzer has also helped the cause. Spitzer, a New York-based psychiatrist who helped to convince the APA in 1973 to remove homosexuality from the list of psychological disorders, found that some people who are highly motivated to leave homosexuality may return to heterosexuality.
"I think Dr. Spitzer has helped our cause a great deal by being someone who isn't pro-faith or pro-change, but who is someone who respects the rights of clients," Chambers said.
"I think that we got their attention," Chambers said. "It is hopeful that they are now talking and corresponding with us and that President Koocher felt the need to respond to the members about the right of individuals to seek treatment."
Even more astounding was a statement by Clinton Anderson, director of the APA's Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns Office, who acknowledged that people can change from being homosexual to being straight, since they can change the opposite way.
"This is the first time we've heard from someone in that type of position acknowledge that sexual orientation can change," Pruden said. "It's a pretty dramatic change in the official position of the association."
Recognition that change is possible is the goal, Pruden said. Ex-gay groups will continue to put pressure on the APA for a place at the table.
"They need to do everything they can to encourage sound scientific research, discussion and exploration of these type of issues," he added. "They need to get out of the business of trying to shape policy and mold science to fit political agendas.""
For a little background on this NARTH statement, see my blog HERE.
After NARTH's tiny protest at the APA convention earlier this month, the APA released this statement:
“For over three decades the consensus of the mental health community has been that homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure. The APA’s concern about the positions espoused by NARTH and so-called conversation therapy is that they are not supported by the science. There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Our further concern is that the positions espoused by NARTH and Focus on the Family create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.”
Now, somebody pasted a Focus on the Family newsletter article that spun this a hundred eighty degrees. I'd say ... good luck with that, man.
JimK
Jim,
I was on vacation and didn't see your report on the APA convention. Anyway, after looking at it, I don't see where Focus on the Family did any spin at all. They noted they were puzzled by about how certain statements made by APA officials contradicted APA policy statement positions. The fact that you can quote one of those contradictory statements is irrelevant.
It sounds to me that the APA is trying to find a compromise position because their current position is unreasonable politically. They are, after all, a political entity. What they seem to be moving to is the position that a conflict between one's religious convinctions and the focus of one's sexual attraction is an impairment for which therapy is appropriate. That way they can appease the gay advocates by saying that homosexuality is not disfunctional and still acquiesce in conversion therapy.
Their whole routine about scientific support is a laugh riot by the way. Psychological therapies rarely have substantial scientific support. What's the necessity here? It's all political.
Another good laugh riot is your mediation on the linked post about how unless a study is peer reviewed, it's just anecdotal. Truth is, so are peer reviewed papers. Peer review, which is only as objective as the peer reviewer, does not check data or replicate results. It's a check on internal consistency of logic but assumes the data is not falsified. An anecdotal study could easily pass peer review.
I looked at the APA website for reports on their convention and found some interesting stuff there. They have some guidelines listed for the psychiatric treatment of gays. One interesting item is that the guidelines say gays seek psychiatric treatment at a higher rate than gays. **conflict of interest alert: APA members make more money off gays than straights!** The second interesting item is that it says these guidelines are necessary because practitioners often think sexual orientation is the problem when gays seek psychiatric treatment. So contrary to TTF claims, there is not a consensus among practitioners that homosexuality is not an illness- many of them assume it's the cause of any psychiatric problems manifested by gays.
Finally, APA's website is filled with statements supporting gay positions like gay marriage, gay adoption, gay discrimination problems, yada yada yada. One wonders why they don't just present facts and not involve themselves with all these political pronouncements.
I know. The field of psychiatry doesn't have a whole bunch o' facts.
I got a mailing from Dr D's campaign today with an endorsement from another TTF exec, Cillygoose. It was a pretty slick piece of campaign material pushing the right buttons about the need for health care reform. Who could argue with a need like that? My only real objection is listing what synagogue the Dr attends, implying that the Dr is a believer. On the other hand, the Dr wouldn't be the first cynical politician to exploit religion.
I have also been impressed by the stylish campaign signs with the slogan, "Let's put a doctor in the house." They were all over my neighborhood for a while but now seem to be outnumbered by the vaguely patriotic looking Al Carr signs. Dr, you need to get more signs out. Little subliminal perception things count in these local races.
I have a couple of questions for the Dr:
1. I notice some national gay advocacy groups have been soliciting their supporters to send you contributions. Have you been getting much out-of-state money?
2. Will you be in the Kensington Labor Day parade? I know Carr will be.
I'm a little surprised that the Dr's campaign hasn't drawn more attention since there aren't any transgender state legislators in the country right now.
I'm a registered Democrat still from my younger days but I usually try to vote for whoever I think will be easier for the Republicans to beat. In this district, it's a moot point though. If Dr D wins the primary, we've got a delegate.
Bad timing for the debate. First day of school around these parts and there will probably be alot of other things to be taken care of.
CRC and PFOX won the injuction and would have one the lawsuite. this is a fact that TTF just cannot except. I wonder why? can't handle the truth?
OK, Anon, so you live in Kensington and you'll be at the Labor Day parade. Will you have the courage to come up to me and introduce yourself?
Just so you know, I will be honored to represent you in the legislature this coming winter. I recognize that I will representing Independents, Greens and Republicans as well as Democrats. Feel free to drop by my office in Annapolis and share your views.
Your comment about my religious affiliation is typical Republican gutter language. How dare you insult me like that? You should be ashamed of yourself.
I'm sorry you've been missing my signs, but they did serve their purpose -- even you noticed and remember the slogan. That must gall you. I can't help it that as the front runner one of my competitors has been stealing them. As for Al, he's a good man, far better than you.
I've received support and contributions from all over.
I've had a huge amount of media coverage for a district campaign, nine stories at last count with the Wash Post due in the next few days. No other candidate has had any. I guess you just didn't notice since you're so busy reading Dobson.
As for the forum date, that was the best we could do considering all the other commitments the candidates had and the necessity to find a large, affordable venue.
Why don't you come and ask some of your questions of the candidates? I'm sure it will liven things up a bit. You can even say hello to Cilly and Jim, as well as me.
Oh, and Orin, your statement about "to accomodate the few with a societally destructive inclination." is also demeaning and insulting, and you, too, should be ashamed. There are just some days when you can't seem to rise above your fear, either.
anon said, My only real objection is listing what synagogue the Dr attends, implying that the Dr is a believer.
Anon are you going to spend time trying to prove Dana does not believe?
How silly and like it should matter to you. Show up Monday night and ask her to her face.
Instead of spending time on that silliness how about talking about the situation for young lady in the mailing. That is where the care should lie.
Anne
"OK, Anon, so you live in Kensington and you'll be at the Labor Day parade. Will you have the courage to come up to me and introduce yourself?"
Well, I'll be there. After reading this, I doubt I'll introduce myself though. I'd be afraid you might go apoplectic and cause a scene.
"Just so you know, I will be honored to represent you in the legislature this coming winter. I recognize that I will representing Independents, Greens and Republicans as well as Democrats. Feel free to drop by my office in Annapolis and share your views."
You sound pretty sure you'll win. I don't have any idea what your chances are although I did read one of the national advocacy organizations imploring supporters to send you money because of the tough opposition you face.
"Your comment about my religious affiliation is typical Republican gutter language. How dare you insult me like that? You should be ashamed of yourself."
Look, you've insulted religious beliefs here many times. If I've gotten the wrong idea feel free to set the record straight.
"I'm sorry you've been missing my signs, but they did serve their purpose -- even you noticed and remember the slogan."
I've twice said I thought they were clever. What's your gripe?
"That must gall you."
Not really. I don't see you as much different from state legislators that usually come out of this district. It's about as liberal as they come. I'm only here for the trees.
"I can't help it that as the front runner one of my competitors has been stealing them. As for Al, he's a good man, far better than you."
There were a bunch of them on St Paul which are all gone and replaced with Carr signs. There is one house that has both signs though. As for the "good man" comment, I'll have to defer to your judgment. Who am I to argue with a connoisseur?
"I've received support and contributions from all over."
Well, I don't think there's anything wrong with that but it's interesting because of the ruckus TTF has always raised about CRC's assistance from Liberty Counsel.
"I've had a huge amount of media coverage for a district campaign, nine stories at last count with the Wash Post due in the next few days."
Cool, I'll look for it.
"No other candidate has had any."
I not surprised by that. I just thought your unique situation might draw more interest than it has.
"I guess you just didn't notice since you're so busy reading Dobson."
I actually don't read much Dobson. One of his groups sends me a daily e-mail but unless the title of e-mail grabs me I usually delete it without reading it. The only regular things I read are the Post and the Wall Street Journal.
"As for the forum date, that was the best we could do considering all the other commitments the candidates had and the necessity to find a large, affordable venue.
Why don't you come and ask some of your questions of the candidates? I'm sure it will liven things up a bit. You can even say hello to Cilly and Jim, as well as me."
I'd like to. Not sure what will be going on Monday evening though.
*****
I sign your signs a couple of weeks back, looked at your website a couple of days ago and got your mailing today. Although we obviously have different points of view, I only wrote the post earlier today with the intention of complementing you on a professional campaign.
"Anon are you going to spend time trying to prove Dana does not believe?"
No. There is ample documentation of that in the comments that have been posted here over many months.
"How silly and like it should matter to you."
If it doesn't matter, why is it in the campaign mailing?
"Show up Monday night and ask her to her face."
Ask what? I don't have a question.
Look, Anon, I am proudly liberal, progressive, socially libertarian, fiscally conservative. I know that doesn't set me apart from many people here in the district, which is how it is and I'm fine with it.
As for the lawn signs, well, no one to my knowledge has uprooted mine and replaced it with another because they've decided to vote for Al and not for me. To the best of my knowledge those folks will be voting for both of us, which suits me just fine. Keep in mind that lawn signs don't vote; people do. The signs are to provide name recognition, and they've more than served their purpose for me. And not just in Kensington, either, mind you.
As for belief, you may have missed it, but being Jewish is far more than being about belief. The tradition is an incredibly rich one, which you should examine some day, if only to better understand the roots of your faith. I didn't mention my synagogue to project that I'm a believer (the idea of any politician doing so makes me very uncomfortable, and is a major part of what's wrong with this country today), but to fill out my personal profile as a member of this community. Btw, all the new candidates in this race are Jewish or close to it.
The point was well made, however, that it's kind of sad that you read my latest mailing on Chris and her daughter and completely ignored her personal tragedy. It would have been decent of you to acknowledge the difficult time her family is going through right now, both from the perspective of Mel having a very trying diagnosis as well as the family having to face bankruptcy. I do appreciate, however, that you don't oppose the concept of universal health care. I have found that a good number of Republicans in the district agree with you.
And I will thank you for your compliment about the professionalism of my campaign. That was my intention, and will remain so for the remainder of the campaign and into my public service. I do intend to win, and the feedback that I have been receiving is exceedingly positive. Of course, time will tell, as there are no polls at this level. So I will just continue what I've been doing all summer -- knock on doors from 10:00-8:00, and meet as many people as I can.
will dr dana be posting her medical records? I know it is required for the president and some congressmen and governers.
Dana writes,
Oh, and Orin, your statement about "to accomodate the few with a societally destructive inclination." is also demeaning and insulting, and you, too, should be ashamed. There are just some days when you can't seem to rise above your fear, either.
How is it demeaning? How is it insulting? And why should I be ashamed of affirming that children deserve a father and a mother that ought to be protected by normative societal standards? Rather than hurling insults, advocates of same-sex marriage will need to do better making a case for so radical a social experiment as they (and you) seem to propose.
Cultivating, nurturing, and protecting the next generation is a serious endeavor, and a healthy dose of fear to maintain clarity and sobriety about human nature is in order.
Orin,
You have absolutely no evidence that same-sex couples are inacapable of rearing children as well (or as poorly) as opposite-sex couples. None whatsoever. Maybe in an era when sex roles were rigidly proscribed and labor divided and the sexes segregated, but today? On what possible basis can you make that claim? You just threw it out there as if it's a given, and that is what is insulting and demeaning.
And, Anon, sorry, I will not be making my medical records available until I'm President. Enjoy the wait.
I agree with you Dr D. No one, including politicians, is obligated to release their medical records.
By the way, I got a flyer from Jeff Wald-something. I would never vote for him because he's involved with NARAL. Still, I appreciated that you can go to his website without inheriting a cookie- unlike the sites for you and Carr.
Dana writes,
Orin,
You have absolutely no evidence that same-sex couples are inacapable of rearing children as well (or as poorly) as opposite-sex couples. None whatsoever.
Nice try...take a look at this,
http://www.marriagewatch.org/
publications/nobasis.htm
(I did a word count on the executive summary, and it is only 331 words long).
Oh, and by the way, I did not say "incapable" since I did not say it, write it, nor (truth be told) do I believe it. Please let me speak for myself...
Maybe in an era when sex roles were rigidly proscribed and labor divided and the sexes segregated, but today?
First off, the word you are looking for here is PREscribe, not PROscribe (and yes, there is a difference; cf. A Dictionary of Modern American Usage, by Bryan A. Garner: Oxford University Press; New York, 1998)...
And secondly, human nature over time remains fairly consistent, that is, while fashions change, who we ARE stays the same. Now this is a belief...yes, belief...and it is I suspect one of the principle areas that divides conservatives from liberals (liberalism believing that human nature is perfectible, hence changeable).
On what possible basis can you make that claim? You just threw it out there as if it's a given, and that is what is insulting and demeaning.
Good question...and I think I gave you (and anyone else following this discussion) enough for the moment. I understand that you are busy at the moment...
From Dana Beyer's website (under Moral Values, which apparently means that everyone is guided by their own set of individualistic and highly subjective set of "moral values"),
It's a very big secret, but most Americans are actually liberals. Yes, the "L Word."
And that would be the reason that E.J. Dione wrote this column (in the Washington Post, 8/22/06, p.A15),
Why are liberals the way liberals are? What is it about the L-word that has become so offensive to so many? It has become such a turnoff that countless liberals dare not admit to their own label.
I suspect that it is because a majority of Americans (contrary to Dana's "red" meat assertions) do not believe,
...as recognized by the Founding Fathers, there is no single religious moral code that can be applied to this state or this country, only the American moral code.
Clever...very clever...most Americans affirm a moral code that is informed in part (contrary to the ignorant assertions of Katherine Harris) by the Judeo-Christian ethic. This drives secular extremists to great lengths in attempting to deny, and where that is simply not possible, REVISE (you know, as in Historical Revisionism).
Liberalism has become a political slur because liberals have made it so. That is unfortunate since the great advances in civil rights in this country have historically taken place as a result of liberals.
Orin Ryssman said... the great advances in civil rights in this country have historically taken place as a result of liberals.
I would disagree I think you are talking about Christian fundamentals who are not liberals
One additional comment with regard to Dana's comment on my view of gender roles...
I was a stay-at-home dad for the first 5 years of my now 17 year-olds' life. That is, once the wife was out the door and off to work, I was the one who changed diapers (cloth...and yes, I cleaned them also), did the feeding, put down for naps, took (on a minimum of 1 to 2 times a week) to any number of parks in the area, took to the movies (we saw Beauty and the Beast 5 times at the discount theater), etc, etc, etc.
Even now, I do at least half of the household chores...laundry, dishes, yard work, painting, auto maintenance, baking (the wife is a better cook than I...or should I say faster), after school car-pool pick-up...and I even took my two daughters and their friends to a concert in Denver (something the Mrs. will not do as she can't stand loud sounds). About the only I do not do is the family finances since the Mrs. is far more competent than I.
To even imply that I advocate rigid sex/gender roles is to know nothing of the life that I live.
Dana Now I can understand that you may want to keep your medical records a secret if you have something to hide. Something that the voters might not like or that would be embarrassing to you. Don’t worry about me. It’s not like I live in your district and I am not a democrat so I will not be voting in your primary. Besides this is just a stunt you are pulling for publicity. You just needed some attention.
Orin quoted Dana "You have absolutely no evidence that same-sex couples are inacapable of rearing children as well (or as poorly) as opposite-sex couples. None whatsoever."
Orin replied Nice try...take a look at this,
http://www.marriagewatch.org/
publications/nobasis.htm
According to Orin, that paper is supposed to contain evidence "that same sex-couples are incapable of rearing children as well (or poorly) as opposite sex couples." Orin has (once again) pointed to this single review paper written in 2001 and published on line by Marriage Watch.org.
First, here's what we learn about Marriage Watch.org from their website:
"Marriage Watch.org: A service of the Marriage Law Project
What is the Marriage Law Project?
The Marriage Law Project is a public interest legal assistance program that seeks to reaffirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman..."
Unbiased? Hardly.
Second, this paper is supposed to support Orin's belief that "children deserve a father and a mother," however it does not. Instead, it is a review of 49 studies that found no differences between children raised by heterosexual or homosexual couples. Each of the 49 papers was found by Marriage Law's analysts to have a research flaw.
Finding research flaws in numerous studies that reach one conclusion (e.g., gender of parents doesn't effect childrens' outcomes) does not in any way scienfically support the opposite conclusion (e.g., gender of parents does effect them).
Nice try though Orin.
Aunt Bea
Ah, yes, if I'd followed that link I would have commented. We have written about this paper several times. Bob and Althea are neighbors and friends of mine -- I just bought a discount card from their kid, this weekend, to benefit the high school. Their paper is fine, but, as the last commentor noted, it only shows that there are problems with the research -- it doesn't reverse the conclusions.
I have blogged about it, several times, I think, but have to run... no time to chat...
JimK
Anon,
I'm sorry about the cookie, but that's just the way it is when you use Flash, to the best of my knowledge. I'm not the webmistress. Nobody's deliberating targetting anyone with a cookie, if that's what is worrying you.
The way that Inane-Anon talks of my medical records he makes it seem as if I am going to morph into an alien once elected. That's pretty sad. I don't think I can pull that off.
And Orin, I don't have the time to provide you with an answer you deserve, but to say that all children "deserve" a father and a mother is a value judgment on your part, and not a fact. I do agree that the Judeo-Christian historical experience informed the founders of this country, but so what? At least the Judeo part has continued to evolve. It wasn't the same one hundred years before 1776, nor the same one hundred years after. And don't go off the deep end by taking seriously that anyone in those days ever affixed the prefix "Judeo" to Christian. That's a very recent phenomenon in general discourse in this country.
And you're right about prescribe vs. proscribe. Nobody was interested in outlawing sex roles in those days; quite the contrary. My father would be proud of you, Orin!
Dana I think we can agree you have done more morphing than most people. I think that elected leaders should have there medical records made public. Not just yours. Though you act as if you are being singled out. The public has the right to know if they are fit for the job.
I have never heard of a study that says that being raised in a family with a mother and father living as husband and wife is no better than being raised in a single family or same sex family or for that matter being raised by grandparents. I am sure that some kids come out just fine but most do not. This is not a value judgment this is the design of nature. It is what works best for the devolvement of the child. If we were all thinking about what was best for the child. Than we would not be having this conversation. Your baseless contradiction to this well understood fact is meaningless.
"The public has the right to know if they are fit for the job."
This argument may have some validity in the executive branch, especially at the national level but it's a dubious rationale for harassing someone running for a state legislature. Even where it has some basis, the rigors of a campaign should weed out high risk candidates.
All canidates should be forthcomming.
All canidates should be forthcomming.
Does anyone else find it odd that one who blogs as Anonymous is now making daily demands for public disclosures?
What a hypocrite!
Maybe Anon should put his/her medical and/or psychiatric records out for us to see.
Anne
Anne said
Maybe Anon should put his/her medical and/or psychiatric records out for us to see.
Anne I am not running for office, big differance. not that you understand.
Oh Anon, we understand exactly who on this blog does not understand. How does it feel to be permanently confused?
Anne
I agree with Anne. Most everyone here understands the hypocrite quite well.
Unlike those who want to serve their community, the hypocrite would rather hide in the shadows and kick sand in people's faces because as he stated a couple of days ago on another thread, "I am in this for the attention."
In contrast, most of us are here to help bring all portions of the diverse Montgomery County community together.
Anon said, "Don’t worry about me. It’s not like I live in your district and I am not a democrat so I will not be voting in your primary."
___
So Anon why do you care so much about medical records or for that fact Dr. Dana?
Anne
hentai addicts hentai addicts hentai addicts hentai addicts
This a good link's !
Posted by Admin
Auto show
Detroit Auto_Show
Car Insurance Agent
Car Insuranc _Agent
Great Drives
In Gear
Car New Models
Racing
CONVERTIBLES
COUPES
MINIVANS
PICKUPS
SEDANS
SUVs
WAGONS HATCHBACKS
Video Galleries
Post a Comment
<< Home