Citizens Advisory Committee Starts Up Again
This evening will be the first meeting of the season for the Citizens Advisory Committee for Family Life and Human Development, also fondly known as CACFLHD. We will meet at Carver, Room 127, at 6:30. There are some new members, so I imagine we'll try to get them to tell us their most embarrassing moments, or maybe we'll play Twister or something. We'll get an update on the status of the lessons that were revised recently, and then we'll start talking about the 5th grade health curriculum.
It's not usually much of a spectator sport, but the public is welcome to come watch.
It's not usually much of a spectator sport, but the public is welcome to come watch.
posted by JimK at 10:10 AM
26 Comments:
I can't wait for tonight. I'm excited I think this year is going to be good.
It'll be great alright.
When's the gay agenda meeting to prepare for tonight's CAC meeting?
They'll probably meet up at the Gay Agenda Fellowship Lodge before the meeting, and then try to stuff the whole Gay Agenda Association into a Volkswagen for the ride across town to pack the meeting room at Carver.
JimK
Great, now Anon is attacking our students. Shame, shame, shame!
What is going on with the Fifth grade curriculum, is diversity and sexual orientation training being added here to....
Well, since PFOX and CRC think it is necessary to spread their lies to elementary school students, we need to try to stop them before they do more harm than they already have.
People are not boring hating... that is why it is important to stop the hate before it begins.
oops, change "boring" to *born*. My fingers get ahead of me sometimes.
FYI, I just came from the meeting. We reviewed some videos about puberty and voted on whether to accept them. The vote was unanimous, we accepted them.
Though I hate to pop your paranoid balloon, Anon.
JimK
"Though I hate to pop your paranoid balloon, Anon."
What paranoid balloon?
It's odd how Jim thinks he can deny being part of the gay agenda by just saying it doesn't exist and everyone who thinks there is one is paranoid.
These gay nut groups have a plan. They have conventions where they openly discuss strategy. It's not paranoid to point that out. MSPS, TTF are influenced by and buy into that agenda.
Nothing wrong with having agenda, btw. It all depends on the worthiness of the goal. The goal of the gay agenda is not worthy.
Anon, let me ask you this: am I part of the Gay Agenda? And if so, why would I do that?
JimK
These gay nut groups have a plan.
That plan is liberty, justice, and equal rights for all. I fully support the LGBT civil rights movement just as I supported the civil rights movements for minorities and women a few decades ago.
I am proud to be an American because in America we support full equal rights for all citizens.
Anonymous said...
“It's odd how Jim thinks he can deny being part of the gay agenda by just saying it doesn't exist and everyone who thinks there is one is paranoid.”
Not just paranoid, also delusional.
“These gay nut groups have a plan. They have conventions where they openly discuss strategy. It's not paranoid to point that out. MSPS, TTF are influenced by and buy into that agenda.”
Just FYI, it’s much more convincing when you say it like this:
“Hordes of persecuted Christians are fleeing to other states and countries. They can't even find work or buy food anymore because of the homosexual agenda.”
"That plan is liberty, justice, and equal rights for all. I fully support the LGBT civil rights movement just as I supported the civil rights movements for minorities and women a few decades ago.
I am proud to be an American because in America we support full equal rights for all citizens."
Well, your distortion of truth is nothing to be proud of. How is some desire or preference the equivalent of one's race or gender? It is completely different and an insult to racial minorities.
Furthermore, civil rights protection involving racial minorities exist because historical conditions creating economic disparity left racial minorities hindered in their ability to participate in society. As these disparities disappear, and this process is well along, so will these types of laws.
This is not true of homosexuals. They are found at every income level and social class and are completely empowered to create their own destiny and argue their own case.
"Well, your distortion of truth is nothing to be proud of. How is some faith or denomination the equivalent of one's race or gender? It is completely different and an insult to racial minorities.
Furthermore, civil rights protection involving racial minorities exist because historical conditions creating economic disparity left racial minorities hindered in their ability to participate in society. As these disparities disappear, and this process is well along, so will these types of laws.
This is not true of religious adherents. They are found at every income level and social class and are completely empowered to create their own destiny and argue their own case."
In fact, bigotry and discrimination for any reason are un-American.
I understand what you're saying, Tish, but religion is in another category because the Constitution specifically discriminates against it, necessitating a counter-balance.
You can't legislate away all "bigotry and discrimation". It would burden us as a society to have every short person or person who talks funny or who has a disagreeable personality taking every denied promotion or lease to court.
Gays are actually doing very well in our society. There is no need for government intervention. Even if they weren't doing fine, they can very easily make a choice not to be part of this group. They take the same chances of social disapproval that all people who choose to be a part of fringe group take. It's their choice.
Just as you, Mr. Anonymous Troll Sock-Puppet, can actually make a choice to not be such an ignorant bigot and fear-monger!
"Gays are actually doing very well in our society. There is no need for government intervention. Even if they weren't doing fine, they can very easily make a choice not to be part of this group. They take the same chances of social disapproval that all people who choose to be a part of fringe group take. It's their choice." "The goal of the gay agenda (sic.) is not worthy." "homosexuals...are completely empowered to create their own destiny and argue their own case."
Those statements are so full of self-righteous, sanctimonious, unsupported generalities and ignorant comments as to call into question your grasp of reality. Get a life!
Rob
Thanks for that expert analysis, Rob!
It's important to remember what we're talking about here: a curriculum for 8th and 10th grade students.
I doubt even Anon believes LGBT teens "are completely empowered to create their own destiny and argue their own case."
This curriculum correctly tells MCPS students "Just as stereotyping others based on sexuality is not an acceptable behavior, steretyping others based on personal beliefs is also not acceptable."
Holding various personal beliefs is fine -- hold all you want -- but acting on them to stereotype, harass, and discriminate against people in our public schools is "not acceptable."
"It's important to remember what we're talking about here: a curriculum for 8th and 10th grade students."
Sometimes we are. Sometimes its more protection for gays by adding extra penalties for crimes against them or adding sexual preference to cable service discrimination laws or changing the definition of marriage to include all people who want to engage in sexual relations with each other. Depends what point anon-B is more comfortable discussing at any particlar point in the conversation.
"I doubt even Anon believes LGBT teens "are completely empowered to create their own destiny and argue their own case.""
They are as empowered as any other fringe group.
"This curriculum correctly tells MCPS students "Just as stereotyping others based on sexuality is not an acceptable behavior,"
Interesting quote. Stereotyping is an attitude not a behavior. MCPS is not big on precision.
What TTF calls stereotying, however, is any negative attitude about homosexuality. Students should be free to make up their own mind about homosexuality and not be told what to think by the TTF-NARAL-MCPS complex. If they want to view homosexuality negatively, they should be free from government sanction for their beliefs.
"steretyping others based on personal beliefs is also not acceptable."
All the above applies to personal beliefs too. Students should feel free to consider and form any judgments or opinions they care to about beliefs. It's called freedom of thought.
"Holding various personal beliefs is fine -- hold all you want -- but acting on them to stereotype,"
If by "act", you mean speak, students have freedom of speech too.
"harass,"
No one should be harassed. You don't need to single out homosexuals for special protection or mention.
"and discriminate against people in our public schools is "not acceptable.""
Discriminate in what way? If students don't want to party with homosexuals, they shouldn't have to. If homosexuals desire the approval of people who don't view homosexuality postively, they are free to choose another path.
"I doubt even Anon believes LGBT teens "are completely empowered to create their own destiny and argue their own case.""
They are as empowered as any other fringe group.
I stand corrected. Anon apparently does believe LGBT teens "are completely empowered to create their own destiny and argue their own case."
If by "act", you mean speak, students have freedom of speech too.
You know very well that depends on what the student says.
No one should be harassed. You don't need to single out homosexuals for special protection or mention.
I didn't, you did. The curriculum doesn't either. It says Harassment—any kind of repeated attention that is not wanted (Glencoe)
"I didn't, you did. The curriculum doesn't either. It says Harassment—any kind of repeated attention that is not wanted"
We can all agree with this. You, however, were basing your argument in favor of the sex ed on reducing harassment of homosexuals. This is harassment that's probably not happening, btw.
No I wasn't "basing [my] argument in favor of the sex ed on reducing harassment of homosexuals." My argument is based on reducing harassment for schools kids of all sexual orientations and personal beliefs. Once again you have demonstrated that you are the one who always singles out gays/homosexuals.
I agree with State Superindentent of Schools Nancy Grasmick who said,
One of serious problems in our schools today is bullying and harassment. Indeed, in 2005 the General Assembly directed school systems to report all incidents of harassment against students based on race, native origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, or disability. Md. Educ. Code Ann § 7-424. The lessons at issue here address harassment problems as they relate to sexual orientation and gender identity. They emphasize tolerance and acceptance. They address ways to deal with bullying and harassment and how to prevent it. I believe it is in the public interest to field test those lessons to determine whether to move forward with full implementation of a curriculum designed, in part, to reduce bullying and harassment.
Well, you're both wrong. Homosexuality doesn't have to be accepted by a student in order for us to expect them not to harass or bully someone. The schools should be teaching that you don't bully and harass anyone regardless of whether you accept them.
By setting up this dichotomy, either accept or harass, you increase the chance of harassment rather than lower it.
Anonymous said...
"This is harassment that's probably not happening, btw.
Probably, as in "almost fer sher." Nice argument BTW.
Anonymous said...
"I understand what you're saying, Tish, but religion is in another category because the Constitution specifically discriminates against it, necessitating a counter-balance."
You mean that you think the Constitution “discriminates” against your perverted supremacist brand of Christianity? I agree, it does. You poor persecuted religious supremacist you...
So Tish's statement stands:
"In fact, bigotry and discrimination for any reason are un-American."
It seems to me that you, "anonymous," are arguing that the constitution itself is un-American.
________
"Gays are actually doing very well in our society. There is no need for government intervention. Even if they weren't doing fine, they can very easily make a choice not to be part of this group. They take the same chances of social disapproval that all people who choose to be a part of fringe group take. It's their choice."
You believe that gender-attraction is a conscious choice, but not for you. Just say so and get it over with. It's not like anyone's going to hate you any more if you do.
Honestly, if you think we choose to be attracted to what revolts us the most, why would you not just come out and say how disgusted by this you are?
What are you so afraid of?
Another lie by Anonymous: By setting up this dichotomy, either accept or harass...
Show us where the curriculum sets "up this dichotomy, either accept or harass."
Anonymous said "Gays are actually doing very well in our society. There is no need for government intervention.".
As many, if not most gays are in the closet there is no proof that gays are "doing very well". Christians however clearly are and by your logic don't deserve the protections they have in anti-discrimination laws which gays do not have.
Anonymous said "Even if they weren't doing fine, they can very easily make a choice not to be part of this group. They take the same chances of social disapproval that all people who choose to be a part of fringe group take. It's their choice.".
Gays do not choose their sexual attractions any more than heterosexuals do and you know you didn't. Relgious people on the other hand do choose their religion and once again by your logic, it is religious people who don't deserve protections, not gays.
Anonymous said "You can't legislate away all "bigotry and discrimation". It would burden us as a society to have every short person or person who talks funny or who has a disagreeable personality taking every denied promotion or lease to court.".
We can easily legislate that one must have just cause related to job performance to deny someone employment or promotion. If some people don't deserve protection from unjust discrimination then no one does. Let's see you advocate that relgious people not be protected if you're so concerned about overburdening the courts - you won't because you don't really care about the burden of the courts, you care about oppressing gays and advantaging yourself.
Anonymous said "Students should be free to make up their own mind about homosexuality and not be told what to think by the TTF-NARAL-MCPS complex.".
If you were sincere about that then you'd oppose allowing PFOX, Narth, and Exodus to present their believes that gays can and should change because its a sin to be gay. If you believe students should be free to make up their own minds then you should oppose all religious teachings that oppose gayness - you don't because you're a hypocrite and a liar.
Anonymous said "No one should be harassed. You don't need to single out homosexuals for special protection or mention.".
When people like you have already singled gays out for harrassment its you that's made them special (in a negative way) and who's created the need to provide gays with protection and mention. When heterosexuals like you stop making gays special by oppressing them there will be no need to mention them in providing protection. Until that time to suggest otherwise is as insane as suggesting there is no need to provide someone with special protection or mention when someone else has threatened them with death.
Anonymous said "You, however, were basing your argument in favor of the sex ed on reducing harassment of homosexuals. This is harassment that's probably not happening, btw.".
As I stated in a previous thread I don't believe for a second that you are honestly that ignorant. No way does any person go through high school and not witness regular denigrations of gays in general - you're a liar and a damn poor one at that. The obvious and well known and documented fact is that gay kids are bullied far more frequently than their heterosexual peers:
http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/news/record/1927.html
Key Findings of the 2005 National School Climate Survey include:
The Scope of the Problem:
75. 4% of students heard derogatory remarks such as "faggot" or "dyke" frequently or often at school, and nearly nine out of ten (89.2%) reported hearing "that's so gay" or "you're so gay" - meaning stupid or worthless- frequently or often.
Over a third (37.8%) of students experienced physical harassment at school on the basis of sexual orientation and more than a quarter (26.1%) on the basis of their gender expression. Nearly one-fifth (17.6%) of students had been physically assaulted because of their sexual orientation and over a tenth (11.8%) because of their gender expression.
Academic Engagement, Aspirations and Achievement:
LGBT students were five times more likely to report having skipped school in the last month because of safety concerns than the general population of students.
LGBT students who experience more frequent physical harassment were more likely to report they did not plan to go to college. Overall, LGBT students were twice as likely as the general population of students to report they were not planning to pursue any post-secondary education. The average GPA for LGBT students who were frequently physically harassed was half a grade lower than that of LGBT students experiencing less harassment (2.6 versus 3.1).
Post a Comment
<< Home