MCPS Slams the Suers
Back at the end of July, several groups filed papers in state court to review the decision by the Maryland State Board of Education to allow implementation of the new Montgomery County, Maryland, sex-ed curriculum for eighth and tenth grades. In early September they filed the actual petition. You can read their whining complaint HERE. This week, Montgomery County Public Schools responded to the appeal with a filing of their own: see it HERE.
The school district gets right to the point:
Good one. CRC asked for a stay. A stay maintains the status quo, it prevents a change. The status quo is that the curriculum is adopted. Hey, win-win, our favorite. CRC gets the status quo, we get our new classes.
Like I said, I'm no lawyer, but this sounds pretty good to me.
This 22-page document does the usual thing, reviews the facts of the case, and then lays out the argument. I will follow their outline, but omit a lot of the stuff that takes up space (you know, the important stuff). Hopefully I leave enough for you to make sense out of it.
There are then sections titled A. Petitioners Ignore the Deferential Standard of Review of State Board Decisions and B. A Stay is Unnecessary to Preserve the Status Quo Prior to Issuance of the State Board's Decision. These sections have text supporting the title statements.
Then, I guess to cover their bases, they have address the CRC'swhining complaints anyway:
And then there is more explanation.
I love that Heloise's helpful hints thing. Sounds like these rule are not something to ignore.
Under this heading there are several sections, titled A. Petitioners Fails to Demonstrate Irreparable Harm from the Revised Lessons, B. The Balance of Harms Weighs Strongly in Favor of MCPS, C. Petitioners Have Little Chance of Success on the Merits of Their Administrative Appeal, and D. A Stay Would Be Detrimental to the Public Interest.
Importantly, under part A:
They also make this argument (and we thank them for it):
with explanation about how the opt-in/opt-out works,
and this one:
Mmm, yes, because we remember last time, when they did wait till the last second. Let's defuse that idea right from the start.
And under part B:
Remember, I'm leaving out the bulk of it, this is the Reader's Digest version. But I like it.
Here's another nice chunk from B:
Hey, didn't I just say exactly that, like, yesterday? They must have read this blog, ran right back to their office, typed out everything I said, and ran to the courthouse with it. Man, I am feeling powerful.
Or, maybe ... great minds think alike.
Or -- maybe this is common sense.
The discussion under this section is substantial. For instance, petitioners have to show a real probability and not just a remote possibility of winning on the merits of the case. MCPS tears apart the Establishment Clause argument, extensively quoting the State Board's own opinion.
Here's a good part in section C:
Next they go through the errors that CRC et al. made in interpreting the laws. Again, I am abbreviating:
Why, you could knock me over with a feather -- you mean, the CRC misconstrued and took something out of context? I am flabbergasted. Don't know what to say, never dreamed of such a thing.
I for one am glad that they addressed the challenges on the basis of content as they did, succinctly, directly, and lethally. It's fine for a lawyer to argue on the basis of the law, but it's good to have these things on the record -- not only should CRC be thrown out of court for not knowing what a "stay" is, but if they aren't, they'll lose.
Under D, they make a good case:
I am hoping some legal minds will say something in our comments section about this. To my mind it appears comprehensive and devastating. Not only does CRC et al. not have any basis for asking for maintenance of the status quo, but all their complaints are baseless, too.
Remember, I'm an idiot when it comes to law, I only know what I've seen on TV -- don't trust my judgment on this subject, in other words. But I like the way this sounds.
The school district gets right to the point:
There is a fundamental flaw in Petitioners' motion for a stay pursuant to Md. Rule 7-205. That Rule does not authorize the remedy that Petitioners seek. Md. Rule 7-205 grants this Court the discretion to stay the decision of the Maryland State Board of Education ("State Board"); it does not grant this Court the power to enjoin the Montgomery County Board of Education ("County Board") from implementing revisions to its health education curriculum (the "Revised Lessons"). Cf. Motion for Stay at 1.
A stay is intended to maintain the status quo as it existed prior to the agency decision under review in this Court. The County Board approved implementation of the Revised Lessons before the State Board ruled, and the State Board upheld the County Board. Therefore, a stay to maintain the status quo is unnecessary.
Petitioners effectively are asking this Court to use Md. Rule 7-205 to alter the status quo and enjoin the County Board because their view of good educational policy differs from that of the elected members of the County Board, who are statutorily authorized to adopt curriculum, and from that of the State Board, which the General Assembly has vested with the last word on educational policy. This Court should reject Petitioners' attempt to employ Md. Rule 7-205 in a way that is not authorized and for a purpose that is unavailing.
Good one. CRC asked for a stay. A stay maintains the status quo, it prevents a change. The status quo is that the curriculum is adopted. Hey, win-win, our favorite. CRC gets the status quo, we get our new classes.
Like I said, I'm no lawyer, but this sounds pretty good to me.
This 22-page document does the usual thing, reviews the facts of the case, and then lays out the argument. I will follow their outline, but omit a lot of the stuff that takes up space (you know, the important stuff). Hopefully I leave enough for you to make sense out of it.
I. A STAY OF THE STATE BOARD'S DECISION IS UNAUTHORIZED AND UNNECESSARY
This Court should deny the requested stay of the State Board decision on two grounds. First, decisions of the State Board are entitled to heightened deference, particularly where the agency upholds a quasi-legislative policy judgment of a local board of education. Second, a stay is not necessary to maintain the status quo prior to issuance of the State Board's decision.
There are then sections titled A. Petitioners Ignore the Deferential Standard of Review of State Board Decisions and B. A Stay is Unnecessary to Preserve the Status Quo Prior to Issuance of the State Board's Decision. These sections have text supporting the title statements.
Then, I guess to cover their bases, they have address the CRC's
II. PETITITIONERS HAVE NOT DEMONSTRATED A COMPELLING CASE FOR A STAY OF THE COUNTY BOARD'S DECISION
Petitioners effectively request that this Court use Md. Rule 7-205 to alter the status quo as it existed at the time that the State Board ruled and instead stop implementation of the Revised Lessons by the County Board. Md. Rule 7-205, however, does not authorize such relief, and Maryland courts do not permit expansive readings of the state's Rules of Civil Procedure. See Colonial Carpets, Inc. v. Carpet Fair, 36 Md. App. 583, 584 (1977) (Maryland Rules "are not to be considered as mere guides or Heloise's helpful hints to the practice of law but rather precise rules that are to be read and followed[.]"). Md. Rule 7-205 authorizes only a stay of the "order or action of the administrative agency" under review. Here, the order of the administrative agency under review is neither the County Board's decision on January 9, 2007 to field test the Revised Lessons nor the County Board's decision on June 12, 2007 to approve system-wide implementation of the Revised Lessons. Petitioners' administrative appeal solely concerns the decision of the State Board on June 27, 2007 to "uphold[ ] the decision of the local board to adopt the three additional lessons." State Bd. Op. at 16. Md. Rule 7-205 is, thus, an improper vehicle for enjoining any action by the County Board regarding the Revised Lessons.
And then there is more explanation.
I love that Heloise's helpful hints thing. Sounds like these rule are not something to ignore.
Under this heading there are several sections, titled A. Petitioners Fails to Demonstrate Irreparable Harm from the Revised Lessons, B. The Balance of Harms Weighs Strongly in Favor of MCPS, C. Petitioners Have Little Chance of Success on the Merits of Their Administrative Appeal, and D. A Stay Would Be Detrimental to the Public Interest.
Importantly, under part A:
the opt-in structure of the health education curriculum undercuts any claim of irreparable harm. Parental consent is required before any student enters a class where the Revised Lessons will be taught. See COMAR 13A.04.18.03(B)(3)(b). Any parent who objects to the content of the lesson for any reason can simply decline to provide written consent and their children are not exposed to these lessons. Courts have declined to find an educational, much less a constitutional, harm where a school offers students such an opportunity to forego participation in courses to which they object.
They also make this argument (and we thank them for it):
Petitioners also exaggerate any alleged harm by overestimating the length of time that students who do not opt-in will be out of their regular classroom...
with explanation about how the opt-in/opt-out works,
and this one:
If the harm is so great, why didn't Petitioners ask this Court for a stay when it filed its notice for judicial review on July 26, 2007, instead of waiting until September 4, 2007? Such an unexplained delay by the moving party weakens a claim of irreparable harm because it demonstrates a lack of urgency to the request for relief.
Mmm, yes, because we remember last time, when they did wait till the last second. Let's defuse that idea right from the start.
And under part B:
If the Court employs the preliminary injunction factors to guide its decision on whether to grant a stay, it should find that the balance of harm prong favors Respondent. While there is no harm to Petitioners, halting implementation of the Revised Lessons undermines the statutory authority of the County Board to determine curriculum, ignores the deference to be accorded State Board approval of the material, places little value on the extensive curricular development process, and denies the vast majority of students whose parents decided to opt-in the right to receive important information about the need for tolerance and protection against sexually transmitted infections and unplanned pregnancy.
Remember, I'm leaving out the bulk of it, this is the Reader's Digest version. But I like it.
Here's another nice chunk from B:
... It would work a significant hardship upon MCPS -and may, in fact, be impossible - to rearrange student and staff schedules so that all Grade 8 and Grade 10 students whose parents have opted-in could receive the information in the second semester.
Accordingly, the balance of hardships clearly weighs in favor of the County Board. Petitioners seek to deny the majority of local students access to a comprehensive health education curriculum vetted by medical experts, approved with broad community support, and upheld by the State Board simply because they object to some content, notwithstanding their ability to avoid any exposure simply by not opting-in.
Hey, didn't I just say exactly that, like, yesterday? They must have read this blog, ran right back to their office, typed out everything I said, and ran to the courthouse with it. Man, I am feeling powerful.
Or, maybe ... great minds think alike.
Or -- maybe this is common sense.
The discussion under this section is substantial. For instance, petitioners have to show a real probability and not just a remote possibility of winning on the merits of the case. MCPS tears apart the Establishment Clause argument, extensively quoting the State Board's own opinion.
Here's a good part in section C:
Contrary to Petitioners' claim, cf. Motion for Stay at 11, the Revised Lessons are carefully tailored to avoid value judgments about any sexual orientation or beliefs about particular sexual orientation. It is Petitioners - not the County Board - who attempt to impose a religious meaning on the Revised Lessons' purely secular message of tolerance. Id. / Petitioners' Establishment Clause allegations boil down to a complaint that community values do not coincide perfectly with their opinions. Yet, the principal bulwark against an improvident curriculum - or any ill-conceived government message - is the democratic process. [they quote another ruling: JimK] ("The curricular choices of the schools should be presumptively their own - the fact that such choices arouse such deep feelings argues strongly for democratic means of reaching them.").
Next they go through the errors that CRC et al. made in interpreting the laws. Again, I am abbreviating:
The first regulatory provision that, in Petitioners' view, the State Board incorrectly construed is COMAR 13A.04.04.01, which prohibits religious education in the public schools. Cf. Motion for Stay at 10. For the same reasons that it rejected Petitioners' Establishment Clause claim, see supra at 12-14, the State Board concluded that the Revised Lessons did not violate this regulation. See State Bd. Op. at 12. The State Board's reasonable, non-arbitrary regulatory determination that COMAR 13A.04.04.01 should be construed consistently with the Establishment Clause is entitled to deference.
Second, Petitioners claim that "teaching impressionable students about anal intercourse runs contrary to the prohibition in Maryland law that erotic techniques of human intercourse may not be taught." Motion for Stay at 12-13 (citing COMAR 13A.04.18.03(B)(3)(b)). This claim is meritless. The State Board reasonably interpreted the term "erotic" by relying on a standard dictionary definition that the material must be "sexually arousing or suggestive symbolism, settings or allusions" ...
Third, Petitioners contend that the Grade 10 condom lesson constitutes unsound education policy in violation of COMAR 13A.01.05.05(B) because it "fails to warn students that the risk of contracting HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases through anal intercourse has not been proven to be significantly reduced by the use of condoms." Motion for Stay at 12. The State Board properly concluded, however, that the health curriculum as a whole provided ample opportunity for students' questions about HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases. State Bd. Op. at 14. Moreover, the Grade 10 health education curriculum repeatedly emphasizes that abstinence is the only completely effective method to protect against sexually transmitted diseases and infection.
Fourth, Petitioners claim that the County Board "den[ies] the existence of other sexual variations such as those who are ex-gay or attempting to overcome unwanted same-sex attractions or gender confusions." In Petitioners' view, this deficiency violates the requirement in COMAR 13A.04.18.03(B)(3)(c) "that 'sexual variations' be taught and not just the ones the appellees/respondents favor." Motion for Stay at 8-9. The Revised Lessons, however, make clear that all students should be treated with respect, regardless of their sexual orientation...
Fifth, Petitioners allege that inconsistencies between the Grade 8 and Grade 10 Lessons regarding sexual orientation violate COMAR 13A.04.18.03(C)(2), which requires curricular materials "to be factually correct." See Motion for Stay at 7. This claim, too, is wholly without merit. Petitioners misconstrue - and take out of context - statements in the Revised Lessons in an attempt to manufacture inconsistencies that do not, in fact, exist. Cf. Motion for Stay at 6. Surely, the expression of an "innate" characteristic, the term used in a published textbook excerpt in the Grade 10 Lesson, can be influenced by "the interaction of other cognitive, environmental, and biological factors," as the Grade 8 Lesson explains. There are many innate factors in human beings that do not necessarily express themselves absent certain environmental or psychological triggers. Innate intelligence, for example, may or may not find expression in academic success. In sum, Petitioners present no compelling reason why this Court should not defer to the State Board's conclusion that it was reasonable for the County Board to exercise its quasi-legislative judgment to adopt Revised Lessons reviewed by an expert medical panel as accurate and age-appropriate.
Why, you could knock me over with a feather -- you mean, the CRC misconstrued and took something out of context? I am flabbergasted. Don't know what to say, never dreamed of such a thing.
I for one am glad that they addressed the challenges on the basis of content as they did, succinctly, directly, and lethally. It's fine for a lawyer to argue on the basis of the law, but it's good to have these things on the record -- not only should CRC be thrown out of court for not knowing what a "stay" is, but if they aren't, they'll lose.
Under D, they make a good case:
Halting implementation of the Revised Lessons does not advance the public interest. It would deny many current Grade 8 and Grade 10 students access to necessary and potentially life-saving information, as described above. See supra at 10-11. Both the State Superintendent and the State Board commended the Revised Lessons for addressing "[o]ne of [the] serious problems in our schools today": bullying and harassment of students. State Superintendent Order at 5; accord State Bd. Op. at 10-11. They further noted that the Revised Lessons' emphasis on promoting tolerance and reducing bullying meshes well with state law requiring school systems to report all incidents of harassment, including those based on sexual orientation and gender identity. See id. (citing Md. Code, Educ. § 7-424 (2006)). It is difficult to see how the public interest is served by halting lessons that address these vital concerns.
Moreover, Maryland courts have long recognized that it is not in the public interest to second guess school administrators' expert judgments in any but the most exceptional cases ...
I am hoping some legal minds will say something in our comments section about this. To my mind it appears comprehensive and devastating. Not only does CRC et al. not have any basis for asking for maintenance of the status quo, but all their complaints are baseless, too.
Remember, I'm an idiot when it comes to law, I only know what I've seen on TV -- don't trust my judgment on this subject, in other words. But I like the way this sounds.
posted by JimK at 9:36 PM
81 Comments:
Does anyone really believe that Judy Bresler wrote this?
"You can read their [whining] complaint HERE."
Well I did:
"CITIZENS FOR A RESPONSIBLE
CURRICULUM PARENTS AND FRIENDS OF EX-GAYS AND GAYS and FAMILY LEADER NETWORK
Appellants/Petitioners,"
I then decided to take a gander over to Family Leader Network, and found this article on the situation:
"The views of FLN, CRC, and PFOX on the inappropriateness of schools to teach acceptance of sexual variations is strongly supported by parents in Montgomery County and across the country.
According to a national poll in 2004, 96 percent of middle school parents and 92 percent of high school parents said it is wrong for schools to teach that homosexuality is acceptable."
The poll was conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government and National Public Radio. The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 6 percent.
I don't know how they got the middle school figure, but I believe this is the study in question, which states:
Interestingly, in a separate question about what schools should teach about homosexuality, only 19% said schools should not teach about it at all. For the most
part, Americans want teachers to talk about homosexuality, but they want them to do so in a neutral way. Fifty-two percent said
schools should teach “only what
homosexuality is, without discussing whether it is wrong or acceptable,” compared with 18% who said schools should teach that homosexuality is wrong and 8% who said schools should teach that
homosexuality is acceptable.
Got that? The Family Leader Network characterizes that last part in bold (8%) as "92 percent of high school parents said it is wrong for schools to teach that homosexuality is acceptable."
While technically true, the implication is that those remaining 92% of parents believe homosexuality is unacceptable, which is far from the case, as evidenced above.
Based entirely on the premise that gender attraction is not innate, but ONLY for people who are same-gender-attracted. But like PFOX and the CRC, they never clarify the "only" part.
To admit that all gay people are just too stupid to realize that we're actually attracted to the opposite sex might make them look "hateful," so they lie instead - and then complain about being called hateful homophobic bigots.
The characterization of the study results is a lie, as the intention was to deceive. The Family Leader Network lies.
Nothing unexpected in that sense, but this is just the first thing I looked up in regard to them.
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that transsexuals are not a protected class and affirmed a transportation company’s decision to terminate a male bus driver for planning to use public women's restrooms during work. Under pending legislation in Congress, the outcome could have been drastically different.
Michael Etsitty was hired by the Utah Transit Authority (UTA), but later told his supervisor he was living as a female named Krystal.
The bus company terminated Etsitty’s employment based on concerns that the use of women’s restrooms by a biological male wearing a UTA uniform could result in liability.
"While technically true, the implication is that those remaining 92% of parents believe homosexuality is unacceptable, which is far from the case, as evidenced above.
----
The characterization of the study results is a lie, as the intention was to deceive. The Family Leader Network lies."
Gee, improv, if it's technically true, how can it be a lie.
The plain truth is that most Americans don't want kids taught that homosexuality is acceptable.
If you think implications are lies, then the new curriculum is a lie. While TTF pretends that the curriculum is neutral about the acceptability of homosexuality, when the curriculum carefully omits relevant facts about homosexuality, the goal is clearly to advance the acceptability of homosexuality.
The 92% figure is another lie spun by anti-gay radicals of the religious right, just like their claims that sex education that includes information about sexual orientation is part of *one* orientation's "agenda."
The goal of the 90 minutes of new classroom instruction on sexual orientation is clearly to advance Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality, something too-lazy-to-come-up-with-an-alias-this-morning Anon clearly lacks.
The truth is that the majority of parents (52%) want schools to teach "what homosexuality is."
"Aunt Bea said...
The 92% figure is another lie spun by anti-gay radicals of the religious right,"
Your boy, improv, just quoted the study above.
"just like their claims that sex education that includes information about sexual orientation is part of *one* orientation's "agenda.""
They wouldn't be able to claim that if the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth were told.
"The goal of the 90 minutes of new classroom instruction on sexual orientation is clearly to advance Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality,"
Respect for people is fine. Advocating respect for aberrant sexuality is not properly the school's role.
"something too-lazy-to-come-up-with-an-alias-this-morning Anon clearly lacks."
What the difference between anon and Aunt Bea? They're both anonymous?
"September 26, 2007 7:02 AM
MCPS Mom said...
The truth is that the majority of parents (52%) want schools to teach "what homosexuality is.""
A slim majority for a rather vague statement. Clearly "what homosexuality is" does not include acceptability which 92% don't want taught.
"Your boy, improv, just quoted the study above."
I'm not their "boy," boy. I just come here for the free hypocrisy. To which you and your kind I am eternally grateful.
Anonymous says: "The views of FLN, CRC, and PFOX on the inappropriateness of schools to teach acceptance of sexual variations is strongly supported by parents in Montgomery County and across the country.
Oh, so WRONG Anonymous. Please cite for me the studies, polls, etc. that show this to be the attitude of MCPS parents! Clearly, what people in other states and jurisdictions think has no bearing on what MCPS parents in Montgomery County want for their children. Just another grasping at straws on your part to make it sound like you represent MCPS parents (btw...please note MCPS' point that the Appellants are NOT parents of students in MCPS schools!). What you do represent is wealthy, outsider, insidiously undemocratic religious fundamentalists who get off telling other people how to live their lives. Shameful!!
Rob
"Gee, improv, if it's technically true, how can it be a lie."
I covered that, in fact you quoted me yourself: "the intention was to deceive"
"The plain truth is that most Americans don't want kids taught that homosexuality is acceptable."
Again, already covered, MCPS Mom even repeated it:
The truth is that the majority of parents (52%) want schools to teach "what homosexuality is."
The lie is in the fact that you don't say the part in bold:
"The plain truth is that most Americans don't want kids taught that homosexuality is acceptable or not acceptable."
It's a lie of omission. Is this what you wish to challenge? If so, say so.
But so far, your illogic makes all the more sense of this part:
"If you think implications are lies, then the new curriculum is a lie."
I made it clear that it was about intention: "the intention was to deceive."
Pain and confusion "imply" that there is no God. Care to go there with me?
"While TTF pretends that the curriculum is neutral about the acceptability of homosexuality, when the curriculum carefully omits relevant facts about homosexuality, the goal is clearly to advance the acceptability of homosexuality."
And I think that I honestly perfectly understand exactly what you're saying.
The curriculum carefully omits "Relevant facts," such as the facts about your hatred of homosexuality -- the only world you know.
To teach via neutrality, as opposed specifically negatively about homosexuality, would of course be seen by someone like you as "advanc[ing] the acceptability of homosexuality." Because to someone like you it's a sickness/perversion that should be pushed back and suppressed.
Just as a supremacist sees equality. The equal rights of those who are considered to be inferior will always be seen as "special rights," and thus unfair to the person who feels that they are in a better position to decide the meaning of equality (or the meaning of others for that matter).
P.S. Argument By Repetition (Argument Ad Nauseam)
Thanks for the great example of more spin by Lazy Anon. All of a sudden in 2007, 52% is a "slim majority" but it wasn't so long ago, in 2004 in fact that 50.73% was a evidence of a "mandate" and provided "earned capital" for the Bush agenda. ***Spin spin spin***
For your information, "Aunt Bea" has been my CB radio handle for decades. When I sign as Aunt Bea, you know it's me talking, not somebody else. You, on the other hand, are too chicken to stick to one name and be responsible for your words. That's the difference and it's a big difference IMHO.
The fact that you have constantly refused to pick *one* alias indicates to me that you are so ashamed of your words that you need to hide in order to utter them.
Go MCPS! This is why I love working for MCPS... they don't accept HATE and LIES into their curriculum.
As a gay teacher I also like the fact that they treat me as a first-class citizen, and not a second-class ones as CRC, PFOX and all the Family blah blah BS would love to have it.
MCPS knows that if it wants the best of the BEST teachers, they better not disciminate against anyone. Don't parents want their children educated by people who know what their doing?!
Anonymous said "What the difference between anon and Aunt Bea? They're both anonymous?".
There's a big difference. With Aunt Bea a person can compare each of her posts for consistency and logic, with you changing your handle every time no one can see if what you are saying is consistent from one post to the next, no one can expose the contradictions between posts. You could be, and probably are, saying one thing in one post when it suits your anti-gay agenda and contradicting yourself in another post when you find that better suits your anti-gay agenda.
Your reliance on deception further calls into question everything you write as well as everything other anti-gay anonymouses write. Using the same distinguishable name for every post limits your ability to decieve and clearly you don't want that to happen.
Emproph, excellent job on exposing the lies of the "Family" "Leader" Network. Them saying that 92 percent of parents think its wrong to teach that gayness is acceptable falsely suggests that all of them think being gay is unacceptable - not even remotely the truth.
"With Aunt Bea a person can compare each of her posts for consistency and logic, with you changing your handle every time no one can see if what you are saying is consistent from one post to the next, no one can expose the contradictions between posts."
It may be hard for you to recognize this, Randi, but your response here reveals a lot about the tactics of the whole gay advocacy movement. There is no reason for your to not deal with each argument on its own. This whole thing where you're constantly grasping to find contradictions and inconsistencies shows how weak your position is when you prefer to distract by personal attack rather than reason.
Let me know if you want some examples. There are hundreds in this blogs archives.
Regarding the question of popular support for the new Health Education lessons, it should be noted that the four Montgomery County Board of Education members who were overwhelmingly elected last November publically agreed during the campaign that the health curriculum should include “the conclusions of every mainstream medical and mental health professional association [that] homosexuality is not a medical or other disorder," and should NOT include the "reparative" or "conversion" therapy notions that have been condemned by the American Medical Association. See http://www.emcq.org/voting2006.htm
This whole thing where you're constantly grasping to find contradictions and inconsistencies shows how weak your position is when you prefer to distract by personal attack rather than reason.
Says He-Who-Must-Remain-Anonymous as he makes yet another personal attack against Randi from his usual safe hiding place -- anonymity. As usual Anon, you've got it completely backward. You are the one who chooses to lay insurgency bombs from the relative safety of the shadows.
If you're so sure of your arguments, why this compulsive need to hide?
Anonymous said "There is no reason for your to not deal with each argument on its own.".
Your argument's often span several posts and sometimes you contradict yourself from post to post. Dealing with each of your arguments on its own requires me to know which are your arguments and which aren't. The fact that you want to hide this shows that you want to hamper people in dealing fairly with your arguments - you don't want people to be able to deal with each of your arguments on its own.
Anonymous said "This whole thing where you're constantly grasping to find contradictions and inconsistencies shows how weak your position is when you prefer to distract by personal attack rather than reason.".
It shows how illogical you are when you consider finding contradictions and inconsistencies in your arguments a personal attack. By your logic disputing anything you say is a personal attack - not so in the real and rational world.
What it comes down to is that you are afraid of people exposing the contradictions and inconsistencies in your arguments and that is why you refuse to post under a consistent non-anonymous name.
If you really think using a consistent name is the same as constantly posting under different names you wouldn't go to the extra effort of hiding your identity. Obviously you think it benefits you to constantly change names - you want to be able to make every anti-gay argument you can without regard for compatibility between them. This sort of dishonesty discredits you and all your supporters who post under anonymous or infrequently used pseudonyms.
To sum up, Anonymous, when you say
"constantly grasping to find contradictions and inconsistencies...is...personal attack rather than reason" its laughable - the essence of reason is finding contradictions and inconsistencies. Once again in your bizzaro world reason is a personal attack.
The U.S. Senate is set to vote on two key amendments to a Defense spending bill Thursday, including one that would enshrine homosexuality in federal law.
The hate-crimes amendment would create a new federal class of crime based on "actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity," but the underlying goal is to grant federal civil-rights status to homosexuality.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has introduced an alternative amendment that would simply require a study of hate crimes.
Why is the amendment attached to a military spending bill? Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., has tried many explanations.
"The Defense Authorization Bill is dealing with the challenges of terrorism," he said last week. "And the hate crimes issue … we're talking about domestic terrorism."
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, called that argument outrageous.
"Again, we see this effort to try and link those who defend traditional morality with those in the Middle East who are blowing people up," he said on his weekly radio program. "This is outrageous. This legislation will eventually lead to Christians, and the speech that would counter homosexuality, being criminalized."
Today, Kennedy tried a new angle on the Senate floor.
"This amendment will strengthen the Defense Authorization Act by protecting those who volunteer to serve in the military," Kennedy said. "The vast majority of our soldiers serve with honor and distinction … but sadly, our military bases are not immune from the violence that comes with hatred."
Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said: "Senator Kennedy’s hate-crimes amendment doesn’t belong in the Defense spending bill, and it doesn’t belong in law, period."
Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said: "Senator Kennedy’s hate-crimes amendment doesn’t belong in the Defense spending bill, and it doesn’t belong in law, period."
Hate-crime legislation means haters get in trouble for criminal acts based on hate. No wonder the haters at Focus on the Family Action don't want any such legislation.
Thanks for another plagiarized piece of family blah blah propaganda from those good Christians who believe they should be able to hate with impunity.
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000005562.cfm
Hey Anon -- Did you notice Ms. Horne uses a name? What a concept!
The MCPS lawyers have very thoroughly addressed the complaints filed against MCPS. Of course they had the help of the opinions written by the state superintendent and the state board of education. Whoever wrote this brief did an excellent job putting it all together.
Anon pointed out that FRC's Tony Perkins said "Again, we see this effort to try and link those who defend traditional morality with those in the Middle East who are blowing people up...This legislation will eventually lead to Christians, and the speech that would counter homosexuality, being criminalized."
Tony Perkins supports "those who defend traditional morality." But the "traditional morality" he's talking about includes hating gays so much that LGBT teens are encouraged to risk proven harm by submitting themselves to conversion therapy. Perkins is wrong to push his hateful anti-gay agenda.
Dobsonites like Perkins should remember America is a beacon of freedom for the world because we believe "all men are created equal" and should be treated equally.
ANON: "It may be hard for you to recognize this, Randi, but your response here reveals a lot about the tactics of the whole gay advocacy movement. There is no reason for your to not deal with each argument on its own. This whole thing where you're constantly grasping to find contradictions and inconsistencies shows how weak your position is when you prefer to distract by personal attack rather than reason."
"In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes to others one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them."
Anonymous quoted Tony perkins saying "This legislation will eventually lead to Christians, and the speech that would counter homosexuality, being criminalized."
Yet another lie. The only Christians that would be criminilized are those physically attacking or killing gays - as their bible commands they do.
"Hate-crime legislation means haters get in trouble for criminal acts based on hate. No wonder the haters at Focus on the Family Action don't want any such legislation.
Thanks for another plagiarized piece of family blah blah propaganda from those good Christians who believe they should be able to hate with impunity.
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000005562.cfm
Hey Anon -- Did you notice Ms. Horne uses a name? What a concept!"
Yes, she did, Beatrice, and it was her actual name. If you feel that's the right thing to do, go right ahead and live up to your convictions.
We've been through this before. I personally feel people want names so they can distract from concepts, principles and ideas, and divert attention to personal attacks.
Look at your comments that I've pasted above. Only the first sentence was a content-based response to the Focus on the Family article. The rest was irrelevant personal attacks and generalizations.
I'm penalizing you 15 yards for a personal foul. FoF has the ball and they're in the red zone.
Your entire comment at 2:56 PM is content free, lobbed as usual from the safety of anonymity. You and your FoF boys are so far off the field you're still in the locker room.
Anonymous said " I personally feel people want names so they can distract from concepts, principles and ideas, and divert attention to personal attacks.".
No, its to hold you to your words and check for inconsistencies and contradictions between your posts, the essence of reason and something you use anonymity to avoid.
You hide because you think it assists your lies.
Bea, unless you're seem celebrity that I'm unaware of and goes by one name like Elvis or Cher, you're just as anonymous.
My previous entry was chockful of content responding to the topic you introduced- anonymous blog posting and its legitimacy.
Anonymous, Aunt Bea can't hide from the positions she's taken, she has to be consistent with what she says because she always posts under the same name. You don't because you're dishonest at heart. If you had the courage of your convictions you'd be happy to take responsibility for all your posts by linking them together with the same pseudonym.
On another topic some good news. Focus on the anti-gay Family has laid off 30 employees.
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=7D8E1A2D2187601B344A099955D8FDDC?diaryId=3095
Obviously gay hatred isn't selling as well as it used to. Shame on the rest of that group for evily promoting and profitting on hate.
... so far off the field you're still in the locker room.
Are there closets in locker rooms?
I'm just asking.
Merle
I think I went on a date with Anon once... He's definitely not a good-looker! Perhaps that is why he won't give us his name.
Democrats passed a hate-crimes measure today, but failed to collect enough votes to override a pledged presidential veto. The amendment, which would create a new federal class of crime based on "actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity," is attached to a Defense spending bill.
Five Republican senators who voted in favor of hate-crimes legislation in 2004 switched their votes today and opposed the measure. They are: Sens. Lamar Alexander, Tenn.; Robert Bennett, Utah; John Ensign, Nev.; and Lisa Murkowski and Ted Stevens, both of Alaska.
"The president is not going to agree to this social legislation on the Defense Authorization Bill," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told The Associated Press. "This bill will get vetoed."
The Democrat-controlled House passed similar legislation as a stand-alone bill earlier this year, and also fell short of the needed votes to override a veto.
In debate on the Senate floor, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., again tried to tie hate crimes to terrorism: "This is about the morality of our country, our values of our country, and that is directly tied in to what our men and women are doing overseas in resisting terrorism and fighting for the values here at home."
Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., fought back: "What are we trying to accomplish here?" he asked. "Do we want to protect the Defense policy matters in this bill that actually matter to our forces in the field, or do we want to debate political and social issues on this measure?"
An alternative amendment by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, also passed. It calls for study of hate crimes.
In an historic step toward equality for GLBT Americans, the U.S. Senate voted to pass the Matthew Shepard Act, which updates and expands the federal hate crimes laws to include bias motivated violence based on a victim’s sexual orientation, gender identity, gender, and disability, and provides new resources and tools to assist local law enforcement in prosecuting vicious crimes.
"For over a decade our community has worked tirelessly to ensure protections to combat violence motivated by hate and today we are the closest we have ever been to seeing that become a reality," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. "Congress has taken an historic step forward and moved our country closer to the realization that all Americans, including the GLBT community, are part of the fabric of our nation. The new leadership in Congress fully understands that for too long our community has been terrorized by hate violence. And today, the US Senate has sent a clear message to every corner of our country that we will no longer turn a blind eye to anti-gay violence in America."
The Senate in a bipartisan vote of 60 to 39 accepted cloture which ended debate on the bill and then moved to approve the Matthew Shepard Act by a voice vote -- attaching it as an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2008 Department of Defense Authorization bill.
On May 3rd, the House of Representatives passed a companion bill, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (H.R. 1592), with a strong bipartisan margin of 237 to 180. Twenty-six state Attorneys General, including 23 from states with anti-hate crimes laws already on the books, as well as 230 law enforcement, civil rights, civic and religious organizations support the Matthew Shepard Act and the LLEHCPA because, despite progress toward equality in almost all segments of our society, hate crimes continue to spread fear and violence and local law enforcement often lack the tools and resources to prevent and prosecute them. Some of these supporting organizations include the National Sheriffs Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, 26 state attorneys general, the National District Attorneys Association, the NAACP, the Episcopal Church, the League of Women Voters, the Anti-Defamation League, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the YWCA of the USA and the United Methodist Church.
The President has threatened to veto the legislation, calling it "unnecessary." According to the FBI, 25 Americans each day are victims of hate crimes–that means approximately one hate crime is committed every hour. One in six hate crimes are motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation. It’s time to update the law to protect everyone, and this year marks our best chance yet to get it done.
"Hate crimes terrorize entire communities and violate America’s core democratic principles that all citizens are created equal and are afforded equal protection under the law," continued Solmonese. "On behalf of the millions of Americans who have waited too long for these critical protections, we urge President Bush to sign the bill when it arrives on his desk."
The hate crimes amendment was introduced by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR). It confers authority on the federal government to investigate and prosecute crimes committed against victims solely because of their real or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and disability when local officials are unwilling or unable to do so. It also expands existing federal hate crimes law to improve prosecution of bias-motivated crimes based on race, religious, national origin and color and provides additional resources to local law enforcement.
"According to the FBI, 25 Americans each day are victims of hate crimes–that means approximately one hate crime is committed every hour. One in six hate crimes are motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation. It’s time to update the law to protect everyone, and this year marks our best chance yet to get it done."
This bill will do absolutely nothing to change this statistic. Every act criminalized by this bill is already illegal. "Everyone" is already protected.
"No, its to hold you to your words and check for inconsistencies and contradictions between your posts, the essence of reason and something you use anonymity to avoid.
You hide because you think it assists your lies."
Randi, you're dead wrong here. Even if, in some past post, I had contradicted myself, or held some inconsistent view, it would have no bearing on the subject at hand. It might show that I'm a fool but it wouldn't prove or disprove anything about whatever we're discussing.
Maybe you should enroll in an course on logic and try to ascertain what the "essence of reason" is. I think you're confused.
Aunt Bea said...
"Your entire comment at 2:56 PM is content free.."
ROLFLMAO
Anonymous said...
"Bea, unless you're seem celebrity that I'm unaware of and goes by one name like Elvis or Cher, you're just as anonymous."
Anonymous, you must be new here. We’re talking to this other person who is also goes by the handle “Anonymous,” so just FYI, you might want to distinguish yourself from the other anonymous poster, somehow, so that we know that you’re not rationally challenged as well.
‘Not sure but, I think it’s the same person who keeps posting Citizenlink propaganda...as though not being able to tell the difference between truth and lies is an argument....But don’t quote me on that.
...Nope, yup, it must be the same person.
------
Steve (Mr. Teacher Man) said...
"I think I went on a date with Anon once... He's definitely not a good-looker! Perhaps that is why he won't give us his name."
At this point I think we’d settle for evidence of brain activity.
AND THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH YOU, You don't even answer yes or no questions.
"Every act criminalized by this bill is already illegal. "Everyone" is already protected."
So be it, then do you support the REPEAL of ALL hate-crime legislation?
existing federal hate crimes law to improve prosecution of bias-motivated crimes based on race, religious, national origin and color and provides additional resources to local law enforcement.
"Every act criminalized by this [law] is already illegal. "Everyone" is already protected."
As votes in both the House and Senate show, a majority of our nation's elected federal representatives support expanding hate crime protection from covering only race, religion, national origin and color to include sexual orientation, gender identity, gender and disability. This expansion of protection is also supported by Twenty-six state Attorneys General, including 23 from states with anti-hate crimes laws already on the books, as well as 230 law enforcement, civil rights, civic and religious organizations...includ[ing] the National Sheriffs Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, 26 state attorneys general, the National District Attorneys Association, the NAACP, the Episcopal Church, the League of Women Voters, the Anti-Defamation League, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the YWCA of the USA and the United Methodist Church. On the contrary, anti-gay agenda activists do not support it.
Maybe you should enroll in an course on logic and try to ascertain what the "essence of reason" is. I think you're confused.
Anon at 6:51, like a junkie on smack, has chosen to start the day with a fix, namely putting down an LBGT person with a personal attack from the shadows of anonymity. And this time the personal attack included a bonus, assuming the Anons at 6:36 and 6:51 are the same person. While preparing to make the attack, Anon spouted off that hate crime legislation protection isn't needed. This provides us with an excellent example of one anti-gay agenda activist who objects to this legislation and then goes on to attack an LGBT person, my dear friend Randi.
Most anti-gay activists freely admit they "hate the sin." It becomes a problem when that hate makes some feel justified to attack those LGBT people they believe to be sinners. Such hate violence terrorizes all LGBT people. I've got to say I think we're all thankful that Anon's attack on Randi this morning was only verbal. I'm sure she can handle it, but she shouldn't have to.
With news pouring in like recently reported here by "mrteacherman"
Hi, Everyone. I came across this article and was just wondering if anyone else has heard of it?
www.nbc4.com
WASHINGTON -- A hate crime investigation is under way in the District after a man left a gay-friendly bar in the District and was beaten by a group of young men, authorities said.
It was the third time this month that someone has been attacked based on their sexual orientation. News4's Michael Flynn reported that while the victim of this latest attack was beaten, his attackers used anti-gay slurs...
there's no question in my mind this legislation is needed to help reduce the terror caused by hate violence.
"So be it, then do you support the REPEAL of ALL hate-crime legislation?"
If it's pertaining to acts that are already crimes and we're simply increasing penalties because we don't agree with someone's point of view, then, yes, I would.
I haven't read all the current bill. If there is some section that provides more money to local law enforcement to combat "hate-motivated" crimes, I wouldn't have any problem with that, assuming there is ample evidence that this is more of a problem than other motivation for similar crimes.
As far as sexual "orientation" goes, one has to look at definitions closely in these studies. Politics can distort things and these gay advocacy nuts have broken much new ground in distortion. For example, every time an elementary kid calls another kid a homo and has a shoving match, it's not a hate crime.
"Anon at 6:51, like a junkie on smack, has chosen to start the day with a fix, namely putting down an LBGT person with a personal attack from the shadows of anonymity."
I guess that comment could be called an "attack" although not much different than your remark. I was referring to the Randi's comment, which seems illogical to me. I might have said the same to you, a heterosexual, if you had said the same thing Randi did. I'm sure you're aware of this so the insinuation that I said this to Randi because I have an intense hatred of LBGT people and am looking for an excuse to attack them is just slander.
"And this time the personal attack included a bonus, assuming the Anons at 6:36 and 6:51 are the same person. While preparing to make the attack, Anon spouted off that hate crime legislation protection isn't needed. This provides us with an excellent example of one anti-gay agenda activist who objects to this legislation and then goes on to attack an LGBT person, my dear friend Randi."
Actually, the comments were responses to different posts and unrelated. I didn't know you and Randi were dear friends but, again, I was making a response that would have been unchanged regardless of the person's sexual preferences. Truthfully, my general attittude toward LBGT people is to feel sorry for them more than want to attack them. I can, however, overcome my feelings of pity for individuals that are particularly disagreeable.
"Most anti-gay activists freely admit they "hate the sin." It becomes a problem when that hate makes some feel justified to attack those LGBT people they believe to be sinners."
"Sin" is a religious concept. Those who discuss homosexuality in this context are rarely those who would commit violence against anyone. Attacks on homosexuals, when they happen, aren't taking place in church sanctuaries, they're happening in bars and the surrounding nightlife areas. The perpetrators are rednecks and street gangs. The motivation is generally violence itself and these types are looking for those they perceive as vulnerable.
"Such hate violence terrorizes all LGBT people. I've got to say I think we're all thankful that Anon's attack on Randi this morning was only verbal."
Another baseless insinuation. Similar to someone saying we can only be thankful Anon-Bea wasn't stoned when she wrote this morning's post.
BTW, do you think verbal attacks on gays should be illegal too?
"I'm sure she can handle it, but she shouldn't have to."
Hopefully, Randi will handle the comment by reflecting on it and realizing it is correct. We can always hope.
"With news pouring in like recently reported here by "mrteacherman"
Hi, Everyone. I came across this article and was just wondering if anyone else has heard of it?
www.nbc4.com
WASHINGTON -- A hate crime investigation is under way in the District after a man left a gay-friendly bar in the District and was beaten by a group of young men, authorities said.
It was the third time this month that someone has been attacked based on their sexual orientation. News4's Michael Flynn reported that while the victim of this latest attack was beaten, his attackers used anti-gay slurs...
there's no question in my mind this legislation is needed to help reduce the terror caused by hate violence."
The legislation in Congress wouldn't change this in any way. Beating people is a crime. Police would be seeking the attackers, regardless of their motivation.
I guess that comment could be called an "attack"...insinuation...slander
Have you decided which yet?
""Sin" is a religious concept. Those who discuss homosexuality in this context are rarely those who would commit violence against anyone. Attacks on homosexuals, when they happen, aren't taking place in church sanctuaries, they're happening in bars and the surrounding nightlife areas. The perpetrators are rednecks and street gangs. The motivation is generally violence itself and these types are looking for those they perceive as vulnerable."
In fact, what has gone on in too many church santuaries has caused much pain, loss of innocence, and numerous declarations of bankruptcy. Further, the words that come from some pulpits such as "SODOMY IS AN ABOMINABLE SIN, WORTHY OF DEATH" are used as justification by some people (be they rednecks and street gangs or not) to attack LGBT people.
When acts of violence against LGBT people are committed, they cause terror in the hearts of LGBT people, their loved ones, and allies. That's why I support the Matthew Shepard Act.
Truthfully, my general attittude toward LBGT people is to feel sorry for them more than want to attack them.
Why do you feel sorry for LGBT people? How much do you feel sorry for them and how much to you want to attack them?
"I think we're all thankful that Anon's attack on Randi this morning was only verbal."
Another baseless insinuation.
No, it's not baseless nor an insinuation. That is a statement of my personal opinion about a personal attack published on this blog. Last I checked, I'm still entitled to hold my own opinions, just as you are yours.
BTW, do you think verbal attacks on gays should be illegal too?
I think speech that incites people to conduct criminal acts should be illegal.
We can always hope.
Well put for a person who refers to himself as Anon, oops, they did it again, big apple, cinnamon man, best of the west, rye guy, Al Jolson, ziggy stardust, shiver me timbers, double dan, Elton, washingtonian, buddy in md, river runner, yeah,yeah, yeah and John. (Thanks to Rob for compiling this list.)
Police would be seeking the attackers, regardless of their motivation.
The Matthew Shepard Act includes funding included to allow for the federal government to become involved when "local officials are unwilling or unable to do so." The Act includes that money precisely because local police do **not always** seek attackers, regardless of their motivation.
"I guess that comment could be called an "attack"...insinuation...slander
Have you decided which yet?"
Oh brother. No real indecision on my part. I granted your point that my saying Randi doesn't understand logic might be seen as an "attack" of a kind. Of course, it's the kind of "attack" that you and Randi direct toward those who don't buy the TTF line on a regular basis. Your vague use of the word is just the type of inflammatory technique that is symtomatic of the gay advocacy nut movement.
Insinuating and slandering, on the other hand, is what you were doing.
"""Sin" is a religious concept. Those who discuss homosexuality in this context are rarely those who would commit violence against anyone. Attacks on homosexuals, when they happen, aren't taking place in church sanctuaries, they're happening in bars and the surrounding nightlife areas. The perpetrators are rednecks and street gangs. The motivation is generally violence itself and these types are looking for those they perceive as vulnerable."
In fact, what has gone on in too many church santuaries has caused much pain, loss of innocence, and numerous declarations of bankruptcy. Further, the words that come from some pulpits such as "SODOMY IS AN ABOMINABLE SIN, WORTHY OF DEATH" are used as justification by some people (be they rednecks and street gangs or not) to attack LGBT people."
Oh yeah, those rednecks and street gangs pick up on that attitude because they spend so much time in church listening to sermons.
"When acts of violence against LGBT people are committed, they cause terror in the hearts of LGBT people, their loved ones, and allies. That's why I support the Matthew Shepard Act."
Violence terrorizing everyone. Trying to penalize some motives more than others doesn't help.
Have you seen or heard the guys that attacked Matthew Shepard? They weren't local clergy candidates.
"Truthfully, my general attittude toward LBGT people is to feel sorry for them more than want to attack them.
Why do you feel sorry for LGBT people? How much do you feel sorry for them and how much to you want to attack them?"
I feel sorry for them alot and don't want to attack them at all.
""I think we're all thankful that Anon's attack on Randi this morning was only verbal."
Another baseless insinuation.
No, it's not baseless nor an insinuation. That is a statement of my personal opinion about a personal attack published on this blog. Last I checked, I'm still entitled to hold my own opinions, just as you are yours."
Your insinuation is baseless. Do you know what your insinuation is?
"BTW, do you think verbal attacks on gays should be illegal too?
I think speech that incites people to conduct criminal acts should be illegal."
Well, if you think a verbal attack on a position or logic of some person who happens to be gay is incitement of criminal acts, you're more scary than we have previously imagined.
"We can always hope.
Well put for a person who refers to himself as Anon, oops, they did it again, big apple, cinnamon man, best of the west, rye guy, Al Jolson, ziggy stardust, shiver me timbers, double dan, Elton, washingtonian, buddy in md, river runner, yeah,yeah, yeah and John. (Thanks to Rob for compiling this list.)"
Uh, yeah, makes sense to me, anon-Bea!
"Police would be seeking the attackers, regardless of their motivation.
The Matthew Shepard Act includes funding included to allow for the federal government to become involved when "local officials are unwilling or unable to do so." The Act includes that money precisely because local police do **not always** seek attackers, regardless of their motivation."
Oh please. The D.C. government has unit that does nothing but work on this gay stuff.
Anonymous said "Even if, in some past post, I had contradicted myself, or held some inconsistent view, it would have no bearing on the subject at hand. It might show that I'm a fool but it wouldn't prove or disprove anything about whatever we're discussing.".
That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Obviously if you contradict yourself or make inconsistent statments it has direct bearing on the subject at hand. What you're inanely claiming is that you can be wrong and it has no bearing on the subject at hand. That's profoundly absurd.
And obviously if one can't link your past posts to your current post one is not in a position to see if they are consistent or contain any contradictions and that is obviously what you want because you don't have the courage of your convictions, you know you are being dishonest and want to hide it.
Not to mention the fact that if you've lied or made absurd statements in the past it has direct bearing on the credibility of what you say in the future. Things you say that cannot directly be verified can be judged based on your past history of honest and accuracy or lack thereof. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior and you're afraid to let anyone judge your credibility or the consitency or lack thereof from one post to the next.
Anonymous said "Attacks on homosexuals, when they happen, aren't taking place in church sanctuaries, they're happening in bars and the surrounding nightlife areas. The perpetrators are rednecks and street gangs. The motivation is generally violence itself and these types are looking for those they perceive as vulnerable.".
Based on the fact that many of these attacks are acompanied by condemnations of gays in general and that gays in particular were sought out as a target the motivation is obviously not violence itself, its hatred of gays - a hatred promoted and supported first and formost by religious people and their bigoted bible which itself calls for the death of gays.
I've known a number of gay bashers and while none of them were church-goers all of them justified their attacks with religion. The messaqe from the pulpit to hate and oppress gays does not stay in church, it goes out on the airwaves, on TV, in newspapers and into the minds of friends and relatives of non-church goers who conveniently take that as societal support for their gay bashing. The idea that you can call gays an abomination, a threat to civilization and preach a bible that says they must be put to death and that this in no way contributes to violence against gays is preposterous. This is just what the Nazis did to the Jews in pre-war germany.
Anonymous was asked "do you support the REPEAL of ALL hate-crime legislation?"
Anonymous replied "If it's pertaining to acts that are already crimes and we're simply increasing penalties because we don't agree with someone's point of view, then, yes, I would.".
How totally disingenous. You never spoke against the hate crimes law until it was proposed to add gays to it. You didn't care about it at all until it came time to give gays the same protections you have as a religious person. Don't give us this BS that you oppose it in general. If the amendment to add gays is defeated there's no way you will continue to oppose it and demand that Christians be removed from it.
Anonymous said " Truthfully, my general attittude toward LBGT people is to feel sorry for them more than want to attack them.".
LOL, "Truthfully"?! There's nothing truthful about that comment, that's just a backhanded insult disguised as consideration. If you felt sorry for LGBTS you'd consider our complaints about inequality, you wouldn't be trying to use the law to oppress us, you wouldn't be trying to prevent our loving relationships and force us to be heterosexual. You most definitely do not feel sorry for LGBTs, you just make that statement to paint us as inferior.
And let's just parse that statement a little bit more - "[I]feel sorry for them more than want to attack them.".
Not "I feel sorry for them rather than wanting to attack them" or "I feel sorry for them but don't want to attack them". You want to feel sorry for them (declare them to be inferior) more than you want to attack them. IN OTHER WORDS YOU DO WANT TO ATTACK GAYS. Nice freudian slip, you've exposed your true motivations nicely, you want to attack gays but even more so you want to portray them as inferior and hide that behind a disingenous facade of "concern".
This is why you want to be anonymous, you don't want your history of animus, contradictions, inconsistencies, and lies to follow you from one post to the next. If you were sincere and motivated by genuine concern for fairness and the good of all you wouldn't be afraid to take ownership of all your posts. You don't want to do so because underneath your cloak you're out to attack gays and promote the idea that they're inferior.
Anonymous said "The legislation in Congress wouldn't change this in any way. Beating people is a crime."
Absolutely it would change it. As it stands the religious community is putting out the message that gays are abominable, destroying society, and worthy of death and violence. The hate crimes law will counter that message and say unequivocably that its wrong to attack gays, that gays deserve the same respect and consideration religious people get, that terrorizing an entire community by attacking individuals merely for being gay is wrong, its a crime, and it will be punished.
When a person is attacked for being gay (or Christian, or black) two crimes are committed, one against the individual and one against the community the individual belongs to, a community that is forced to live in fear of being attacked for who they are. We need to punish the second crime just as we punish the first. Its no different than having harsher penalties for premeditated murder than for un-premeditated murder.
Thanks Randi. You are absolutely correct about Anon's intent to deceive and his admission that he wants to attack gays.
Sorry Anonymous, I'd spar with you some more but Uncle Beau and I have got a date to be entertained by Elvis, Amos and Bob tonight so I'm outta here.
Oh, and by the way Anonymous, my handle is Aunt Bea. That's Mrs. Aunt Bea to you.
Randi, those last two posts were utter brilliance. You covered everything and did so with utmost eloquent clarity.
Bravo and thank you!
Randi-
I agree with "emproph". You rock!
Anon is like a little fly that keeps buzzing around, is annoying craps every time he lands!
As a teacher who also happens to be gay and works in MCPS, I have to say it again, I am really proud of our Board of Education. They treat GLBT (and even ex-gays if any of them existed in MCPS) individuals just like everyone else, as people.
No, CRC and PFOX and Family Blah blah would absolutely LOVE it if I could be fired just for being gay. They say they don't hate gay people but if ANYTHING gay is in their way, they are the first people to knock it down. Shame on them...
As a Christian who also happens to be gay, I am just in awe when these people (PFOX, CRC, etc) say that they themselves are Christians. Love God, then love your neighbor.
I am glad I live by that rule because, that way, I know I will be allowed into Heaven. For those people who falsely use Christianity to promote hate, violence and lies... Well, I think you can gather where those individuals will end up.
"As a Christian who also happens to be gay, I am just in awe when these people (PFOX, CRC, etc) say that they themselves are Christians. Love God, then love your neighbor.
I am glad I live by that rule because, that way, I know I will be allowed into Heaven. For those people who falsely use Christianity to promote hate, violence and lies... Well, I think you can gather where those individuals will end up."
Teacher Man,
What you've said here contradicts Christianity so unless you said something you didn't mean, you aren't a Christian.
Anon-
I am a billion more times Christian than you think. Jesus and I have a wonderful personal relationship that I am very proud of. I think your idea of Christianity is a bit off. Let me clear it up for you: using Christianity as an excuse to hate and demoralize the lives of others is NOT Christianity. Does that clear it up for you, Anon?
"I am glad I live by that rule because, that way, I know I will be allowed into Heaven."
I'm sorry, Teacher Man, I don't mean to offend you and you may be a great guy but if you think you're going to heaven because you've lived by a certain rule, you don't understand Christianity and you're in for a big surprise.
Oh yeah? Well my God is Everything, literally. So my god made both of your gods.
Furthermore, I'm not only not going to heaven, I never left heaven. And neither did either of you.
Here we are, in heaven, pretending that everything isn't heaven. What do you think the appeal of hell on Earth is? We're just on vacation here, wake up.
Duh, can I get an Amen?
PS, AND I believe in Jesus. Bring it. ;)
I'd like to thank Emproph for finding the study by NPR/Kaiser/Kennedy School at http://www.kff.org/newsmedia/upload/Sex-Education-in-America-Summary.pdf that was reported on by the Family Leader Network. I did some more digging and found the rest of the study in addition to the summary here:
http://www.kff.org/newsmedia/upload/Sex-Education-in-America-General-Public-Parents-Survey-Toplines.pdf
http://www.kff.org/newsmedia/upload/Sex-Education-in-America-Principals-Survey-Toplines.pdf
NPR has posted links to related studies here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1622610
And thanks again to Emproph for tracking down the Family Leader Network (FLN) article. That article was written by Montgomery County's very own RoseMarie Briggs. She's made Public Comments before the MCPS BOE and told them her uncle is Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project. After a review of the NPR/Kaiser/Kennedy School study and Brigg's report on it, it's obvious she lacks proper science reporting skills in spite of her famous uncle. Her statement about the NPR/Kaiser/Kennedy School study is not "technically true" -- it is incorrect and misleading.
In her September 8, 2007 FLN article (http://familyleader.net/Home/servlet/viewIssue?contentId=846&subsite=) Ms. Briggs wrote "...According to a national poll in 2004, 96 percent of middle school parents and 92 percent of high school parents said it is wrong for schools to teach that homosexuality is acceptable." The poll was conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government and National Public Radio. The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 6 percent. http://www.kff.org/newsmedia/upload/Sex-Education-in-America-Summary.pdf (emphasis as in the original)
Is that really what 96% and 92% of parents said? Let look at actual excerpts from the full parents study report. Page 14 states the question and the multiple choice answers:
Q17 What do you think schools should teach about homosexuality? Should schools teach that homosexuality is wrong, that homosexuality is acceptable, only what homosexuality is without discussing whether it is wrong or acceptable, or should schools not discuss homosexuality at all?
"It is wrong for schools to teach that homosexuality is acceptable" was not one of the possible responses. The fact is only 18% of high school parents and 16% of middle school parents said homosexuality should not be discussed at all in school while 2% of both groups of parents "didn't know" if it should be discussed or not. This means all other parents in this study, that is 80% of high school parents and 82% of middle school parents, selected answers indicating they feel schools should discuss homosexuality. Further, only 17% of high school parents and 12% of middle school parents indicated schools should teach "homosexuality is wrong." Taken together, these results actually indicate that 62% of high school parents and 70% of middle school parents indicated lessons on this topic should be taught and should either remain neutral or indicate that homosexuality is acceptable.
See for yourself. Go to page 14 here and read the question.
http://www.kff.org/newsmedia/upload/Sex-Education-in-America-General-Public-Parents-Survey-Toplines.pdf
Note the actual data collected and reported in the parent survey study.
Parents of high schoolers responded to Question 17 and said schools should teach:
"homosexuality is acceptable" 8%
"only what homosexuality is without discussing whether it is wrong or acceptable" 54%
"schools [should] not discuss homosexuality at all" 18%
"homosexuality is wrong" 17%
"don't know" 2%
Middle school parents responded to Question 17 and said schools should teach:
"homosexuality is acceptable" 4%
"only what homosexuality is without discussing whether it is wrong or acceptable" 66%
"schools [should] not discuss homosexuality at all" 16%
"homosexuality is wrong" 12%
"don't know" 2%
Ms. Briggs apparently didn't bother to read the following section on the methodology used with much care because her statement that "The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 6 percent," is wrong. To clarify, I've used bold typeface for the researchers' discussion of the margin of error for the survey of parents and the general public and italics to designate their discussion of the margin of error for the survey of school principals. The last three sentences are not bolded or italicized because they pertain to both surveys.
"The survey of the general public was conducted among a random nationally representative sample of 1,759 respondents 18 years of age or older, including an oversample of parents of children in 7th through the 12th grade, which resulted in interviews with 1001 parents. Statistical results for the total survey were weighted to be representative of the national population. The margin of sampling error for the survey is plus or minus 3 percentage points for total respondents and plus or minus 4.7 percentage points for parents. The survey of principals was conducted among 303 principals of public middle, junior, and senior high schools across the country. Schools were randomly and proportionally selected from a national database of public schools by type of school (middle, junior, and senior high). Statistical results were weighted to be representative of public middle, junior, and senior high schools in the United States based on geographic region and type of residential area (urban, uburban, non-metropolitan). The margin of sampling error for the survey is plus or minus 6 percentage points for total respondents. For results based on subsets of respondents the margin of error is higher.
Princeton Survey Research Associates conducted the fieldwork for both surveys between September and October, 2003. Note that sampling error is only one of many potential sources of error in this or any other public opinion poll."
Briggs reported the 6% margin of error when she misstated results of the survey of parents, but the 6% margin actually pertains to the survey of school principals. The margin of error for the survey of 1001 parents was lower, 4.7%, however, before CRC supporters get too excited, Ms. Briggs reported middle school parents' and high school parents' results separately. She should have noted as the authors did "For results based on subsets of respondents the margin of error is higher." If the 1001 parents of middle and high schoolers combined had an margin of error of 4.7%, then the margins of error for middle parents alone and for high school parents alone are higher.
A dazzling display of analytical skills, Christine. You mean to say Ms Briggs said the margin of error was 6% and it was really only 4.7%.
The woman is nefarious and should be jailed. That'll teach her to distort them facts!!!
Oh, and Christine, we can say, based on the survey results, that most Americans believe that kids shouldn't be taught that homosexuality is acceptable. Right?
"AND I believe in Jesus. Bring it."
Really?
Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world."
How does that reconcile with what you said above?
I meant exactly what I said.
Briggs brought up the margin of error by citing the wrong one. The margin of error for middle school and high school parents responses combined was reported by the study's authors to be 4.7%. Briggs reported the results of two subsets, middle school parents and high school parents separately but failed to mention the fact that "For results based on subsets of respondents the margin of error is higher."
In answer to your question, this study demonstrates that most parents of middle schoolers and high schoolers want homosexuality to be covered in public schools, "without discussing whether it is wrong or acceptable."
Yes, and combining that (66%) with those who think it should not be taught at all (16%) and those who think that it should be taught as wrong (12%), you arrive at the amount who don't think that homosexuality should be presented as acceptable as 94%.
Of course, we can argue whether the MCPS curriculum presents homosexuality as acceptable but when it says "homophobia" is wrong and defines "homophobia" as any negative reaction to homosexuality, from "mild" to "extreme", it's going to be a little hard for you to keep a straight face.
Yes, and combining that (66%) with those who think it should not be taught at all (16%) and those who think that it should be taught as wrong (12%), you arrive at the amount who don't think that homosexuality should be presented as acceptable as 94%.
You're only mentioning partial answers for one subgroup of survey participants. The data you've selected are from parents of middle schoolers and you've only reported half of their most frequently selected response.
Your statement above is at best a partial truth. In fact, the data indicate that 66% of middle school parents want school to teach about homosexuality, but don't want schools to teach that it is wrong or acceptable. The study found nearly two thirds of middle school parents think homosexuality should be presented in public schools "without discussing whether it is wrong or acceptable."
This is starting to remind us of your pheronome embarassment.
Americans don't want a pro-gay message taught to their kids.
Just admit it.
Go read it again.
And then tell us how the production of different body odors is influenced by choice and learning.
Pathetic
Try sticking to facts Anon. Parents don't want a pro-gay or anti-gay message taught, but they do want information about homosexuality taught in school.
Fifty-four percent of parents of high schoolers want schools to teach only what homosexuality is without discussing whether it is wrong or acceptable.
Sixty-six percent of parents of middle schoolers want schools to teach only what homosexuality is without discussing whether it is wrong or acceptable.
Those numbers are drawn from a sample that represents parents nationwide. Here in Montgomery County, as expected, the numbers are even higher. More than 91% of MCPS parents gave permission for their middle and high school students to take the new revised MCPS health education curriculum.
The majority of parents of middle and high school students do want schools to teach a few non-judgmental facts about sexual orientation. An even greater majority of MCPS parents of middle and high school students have indicated their support for their students to learn "Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality."
These facts are true whether you admit it or not.
"The majority of parents of middle and high school students do want schools to teach a few non-judgmental facts about sexual orientation."
The question, anon-Bea, is whether the MCPS curriculum is non-judgmental. It is not. It doesn't present all relevant facts and implies that those who believe that homosexuality is immoral are anti-social. The curriculum makes the judgment, contrary to societal norms, that homosexuality is acceptable.
After the courts are through, MCPS will have to try again.
Go back, Jack, and do it again!
"It doesn't present all relevant facts and implies that those who believe that homosexuality is immoral are anti-social."
Which "relevant facts" do you feel are not presented? Show us where in the curriculum script you think it implies the morality or immorality of any orientation.
"The curriculum makes the judgment, contrary to societal norms, that homosexuality is acceptable."
Show us the quote from the script where the curriculum makes "the judgement...that homosexuality is acceptable."
Anon-Bea
The curriculum says any negative reaction to homosexuality, from "mild" to "extreme" is "homophobia", a loaded and imprecise term.
Are you saying that calling homosexuality immoral is not a negative reaction to it?
Anon, cut out the lying, would ya? The curriculum doesn't use the phrase "negative reaction," and it doesn't use the word "extreme," you're just making that up.
If you've got a criticism, for instance if you'd like to argue that the word "any" can only mean one thing, which is "all," then go ahead, but lying about what's in the curriculum isn't going to convince anyone of anything.
JimK
From the Holt textbook, as quoted in the curriculum:
"Homophobia is a fear or hatred of people believed to be homosexual. The term is used broadly to describe any range of negative attitudes toward or about gays, lesbians, bisexuals, or transgender people. Homophobia may be shown in ways as mild as laughing at a gay joke..."
Actually, Jim, defining homophobia as "extreme" reactions wouldn't be a problem. It's the "mild" part that broadens the definition to include any negative attitude. To say something is immoral is to view it negatively. No getting around it.
If you devise a non-biased lesson about homosexuality on your next try, we'll probably be able to support it.
Good luck.
OK, Anon, so you're homophobic, by definition. So get over it. If you want to be that way, you have to accept the label that goes with it.
Well, MCPS defines the term twice in one curriculum.
I guess if you keep redefining the word, anyone could be homophobic.
The point TTF is avoiding happens to be that most Americans believe sex ed curriculums should be neutral about whether homosexuality is acceptable or not.
MCPS is not neutral and wants to teach the same attitude to kids.
Let's recap, shall we.
Anonymous, all your little word game complaints have already been addressed here, repeatedly. So at this point you're just blubbering.
But since I know that you're not partial to enlightenment, I'll repeat my post here, with a few clarifications.
“Jim's argument above is irrational. The curriculum is defining the term twice. Once they say it applies to extremism and irrationality. Later, it cover all negative reaction to homosexuality. The purpose is disingenuosness.”
True, it covers ALL negative reactions on the extreme / irrational END of the negative reactions spectrum.
“ANY rational person will interpret the statement as CRC has. Especially so when the curriculum then gives examples ranging from "mild" to "extreme". It doesn't discuss just any "extreme" negative reaction. Most people will conclude that "mild" to "extreme" covers ALL negative reactions. Most people would be right."
To define people by what you hate about them the most -- without merit -- IS extreme and irrational. When one’s beliefs about something are based on virulent ignorance and hatred, then those beliefs ARE irrational. Whether or not those extreme and irrational attitudes are expressed mildly or extremely is irrelevant.
However, one can have “negative attitudes” about someone’s behavior without having a negative attitude about them. I have negative attitudes about heterosexual sex, and playing sports for that matter, but that doesn’t mean I hate or define heterosexuals or people who play sports as "unacceptable."
The curriculum uses the term “negative attitudes” to describe homophobia specifically in relation to attitudes about GLBT people, and NOT in relation to any perceived “homosexual conduct,” as the CRC alleges.
In other words, you can think gay sex is wrong bad evil and disgusting all you like, but you're not homophobic until you attribute those feelings to gay people themselves.
The CRC has constructed a strawman in the effort to conflate the two.
The CRC LIES, and you Anonymous, are attempting to spread lies.
Anonymous said...
"AND I believe in Jesus. Bring it."
Really?
Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world."
How does that reconcile with what you said above?
I also said that “God is Everything, literally.”
Which clearly you don’t believe. So why would you even BOTHER to take me seriously when I say I believe in Jesus?
And since when is the reality of the HolySpiritJesusGodLove confined to the Bible?
Anonymous said...
1) Oh, and Christine, we can say, based on the survey results, that most Americans believe that kids shouldn't be taught that homosexuality is acceptable. Right?
2) you arrive at the amount who don't think that homosexuality should be presented as acceptable as 94%
3) Americans don't want a pro-gay message taught to their kids.
All previously covered, repeatedly, in this thread alone, NONE of which you’ve refuted:
ANON: "Gee, improv, if it's technically true, how can it be a lie."
I covered that, in fact you quoted me yourself: "the intention was to deceive.
"The plain truth is that most Americans don't want kids taught that homosexuality is acceptable."
Again, already covered, MCPS Mom even repeated it:
The truth is that the majority of parents (52%) want schools to teach "what homosexuality is."
The lie is in the fact that you don't say the part in bold:
"The plain truth is that most Americans don't want kids taught that homosexuality is acceptable or not acceptable."
It's a lie of omission.
______
So again: Argument By Repetition (Argument Ad Nauseam)
______
Anonymous said...
"Pathetic"
I covered that too. Not quite in the same context, but it still applies:
"In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes to others one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them."
_____
I'm starting to see a pattern develop here...
"I also said that “God is Everything, literally.”"
Improv
What you're espousing here is referred to as pantheism. It's irrational and has been rejected as heresy from the earliest days of the Christian church.
Improv
You're geting all bent of logical shape in your rambling above.
If asked, most Americans say, yeah, let's teach kids what homosexuality is without saying whether it's acceptable or not.
The problem is, the new curriculum, written with the assistance of a pro-gay dominated CAC, presents homosexuality as acceptable.
It will have to be rewritten.
Anonymous said...
"I also said that “God is Everything, literally.”"
Improv
What you're espousing here is referred to as pantheism. It's irrational and has been rejected as heresy from the earliest days of the Christian church.
I covered that:
EMPROPH: "Which clearly you don’t believe. So why would you even BOTHER to take me seriously when I say I believe in Jesus?
So again: So again: Argument By Repetition (Argument Ad Nauseam)
Improv, I take it seriously whenever someone tries to spread false doctrine. When someone says that they believe in pantheism and then says they believe in Jesus, it is appropriate to say these are mutually exclusive positions.
The problem is, Improv, that the church is caught in a Catch-22 here. If we point out false doctrine, we're called narrow-minded. If we don't, we get associated with every nut who tries to use the name of Jesus to gain legitimacy.
"The problem is, the new curriculum, written with the assistance of a pro-gay dominated CAC, presents homosexuality as acceptable."
Again, covered. This is REALLY getting old.
“The curriculum carefully omits "Relevant facts," such as the facts about your hatred of homosexuality -- the only world you know.
To teach via neutrality, as opposed specifically negatively about homosexuality, would of course be seen by someone like you as "advanc[ing] the acceptability of homosexuality." Because to someone like you it's a sickness/perversion that should be pushed back and suppressed.
Just as a supremacist sees equality. The equal rights of those who are considered to be inferior will always be seen as "special rights," and thus unfair to the person who feels that they are in a better position to decide the meaning of equality (or the meaning of others for that matter).”
So when you say “The problem is, the new curriculum, written with the assistance of a pro-gay dominated CAC, presents homosexuality as acceptable,” we get what you’re saying.
For people like you who hate gay people, anything other than teaching children to hate as you do, is going to be seen as “pro-gay” and “presenting homosexuality as acceptable.”
We understand that. Any message other than teaching kids to hate gay people will be seen as a “pro-gay” message. We fully get it, we just disagree with it. Plus, you’re insane.
"Any message other than teaching kids to hate gay people will be seen as a “pro-gay” message."
No, teaching that "any" negative attitude toward homosexuality is wrong is biased. The curriculum should simply comprise facts and not take a position.
BTW, you calling someone else insane is really funny. Thanks for the chuckle. I'm going to start calling you "Chuckles".
"Improv, I take it seriously whenever someone tries to spread false doctrine. When someone says that they believe in pantheism and then says they believe in Jesus, it is appropriate to say these are mutually exclusive positions."
Well then you don’t understand pantheism. If absolutely everything is all one, then Jesus cannot possibly be separate from any other part of itself. And BTW, I don't "believe" in pantheism/oneness, I'm a witness to it.
I’m not suggesting that you should believe this, I’m suggesting that coming from your position of “mutual exclusion,” the argument is irrelevant.
Unless you want to explore the understanding that oneness includes every understanding of separateness.
And P.S. I’d appreciate very much if you'd call me by my real fake name, Emproph, as I take the time to spell out your even less creative moniker “anonymous.”
And P.P.S., when you find the time:
Since when is the reality of the HolySpiritJesusGodLove confined to the Bible?
"The problem is, Improv, that the church is caught in a Catch-22 here. If we point out false doctrine, we're called narrow-minded. If we don't, we get associated with every nut who tries to use the name of Jesus to gain legitimacy."
You discuss doctrine, just as that. And if you find or feel that it’s false you express as much. Of course it’s narrow-minded, but that doesn’t mean it has to be rigid minded.
"If we don't, we get associated with every nut who tries to use the name of Jesus to gain legitimacy."
I would suggest that we "pantheists" are the very least of your worries in that regard.
Post a Comment
<< Home