MCPS Sex-Ed Advisor Believes Gay Behavior Should Be Outlawed
The Montgomery County Public Schools Citizens Advisory Committee for Family Life and Human Development (CAC) advises the school district on its health curriculum, specifically its sex-ed classes. Citizens from the community review materials and advise on curriculum changes. I was on that committee for four years.
Of last year's members who reapplied, most were not accepted. The only members selected by the school board to continue from last year are the chair and co-chair, a woman who was new last year, and Family Research Council Senior Fellow for Policy Studies Peter Sprigg.
Word from an MCPS insider at the time was that the Board of Education picked him because they were told "he is not as big of a trouble maker as some and actually they have witnessed him building consensus." This means, really, that he was recommended by MCPS administrators who were part of the CAC meetings. Somebody inside MCPS likes him. I can tell you as a former committee member that the only consensus he ever built was in opposition to him. The Board of Education was well aware of his philosophies, he was appointed originally as a nominee of the anti-gay group PFOX and has spoken at events held by the anti-gay Citizens for Responsible Curriculum.
Here's our longtime friend and TTF comment-community member Alvin McEwen writing at Huffington Post:
In case you think this was a distortion of what Sprigg said, here is a transcript of the last part of Sprigg's appearance on Hardball
Follow the link to Huffington Post and listen for yourself.
There is nothing ambiguous about this. Your school district selected this man, knowing his views, to serve on their advisory committee. Peter Sprigg believes gay behavior should be against the law, and he is shaping the sex education curriculum in Montgomery County.
Of last year's members who reapplied, most were not accepted. The only members selected by the school board to continue from last year are the chair and co-chair, a woman who was new last year, and Family Research Council Senior Fellow for Policy Studies Peter Sprigg.
Word from an MCPS insider at the time was that the Board of Education picked him because they were told "he is not as big of a trouble maker as some and actually they have witnessed him building consensus." This means, really, that he was recommended by MCPS administrators who were part of the CAC meetings. Somebody inside MCPS likes him. I can tell you as a former committee member that the only consensus he ever built was in opposition to him. The Board of Education was well aware of his philosophies, he was appointed originally as a nominee of the anti-gay group PFOX and has spoken at events held by the anti-gay Citizens for Responsible Curriculum.
Here's our longtime friend and TTF comment-community member Alvin McEwen writing at Huffington Post:
On Tuesday's episode of Hardball, Family Research Council spokesperson and board member Peter Sprigg said that he believes that Lawrence vs. Texas (the Supreme Court decision that struck down the sodomy laws) was "wrongly decided" and that "gay behavior" should be criminalized. FRC's Peter Sprigg supports 'criminal sanctions' against the gay community
In case you think this was a distortion of what Sprigg said, here is a transcript of the last part of Sprigg's appearance on Hardball
Chris Mathews: Do you think we should outlaw gay behavior?
Peter Sprigg: Well, I think certainly it's defensible ...
CM: I'm just asking, should we outlaw gay behavior?
PS: I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas which overturned the sodomy laws in this country was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.
CM: So we should outlaw gay behavior.
PS: Yes.
Follow the link to Huffington Post and listen for yourself.
There is nothing ambiguous about this. Your school district selected this man, knowing his views, to serve on their advisory committee. Peter Sprigg believes gay behavior should be against the law, and he is shaping the sex education curriculum in Montgomery County.
posted by JimK at 11:41 PM
43 Comments:
The Family Research Council Senior Fellow for Policy Studies is paid to espouse hateful things about gay people.
What is such a creepy guy with such a creepy view of our gay community members as Peter Sprigg doing on an MCPS committee for family life and human development? Why is someone without a student enrolled in MCPS and with such a hateful view of Montgomery County's gay citizens allowed to advise the Montgomery County Public School system on classes that cover human sexuality?
Would he criminalize anal sex for heterosexual couples too? After all, even FOX NEWS reported that while only 4% of men report having had anal sex with a man, 40% of men report they've had anal sex with a woman.
Andrea- not anon
Peter Sprigg is a sad excuse for a human being. His remarks are clearly hate speech but protected under our laws. I bet he thinks that despite his hatred that he is a fine and religious person while I'm still looking for that commandment "And thou shalt hate thy neighbor"
Well, there are lots of people in Montgomery County that feel homosexual practices, in some manifestations, should be discouraged. So, I think we should respectfully consider Peter's views.
Remember, he's been nominated for an award for exceptional service to the county, he was asked to serve another term and he turned out to be right about abstinence education.
He's got a track record of accomplishment!
"(Feb. 2) -- What if abstinence-only programs actually work?
That's the question facing educators this week after a groundbreaking study found that students who take classes emphasizing abstinence are less likely to have sex than those who take classes teaching safe sex.
The federal study, published in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, finds that programs encouraging students to abstain from having sex altogether are successful.
Half of the students in the study who received sex-education classes with information about contraceptives went on to have sex within two years. But only one out of three students in the study who received abstinence-only education did.
John Jemmott, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who headed the study, told The Washington Post, "I think we've written off abstinence-only education without looking closely at the nature of the evidence."
Valerie Huber, the director of the National Abstinence Education Association, said the study should be "a policy-changing article."
Huber said she hopes President Obama will make a "course correction" on funding for abstinence-only programs. "There needs to be a specific abstinence approach that is funded separately from so-called comprehensive funding,"
she said.
The study, interestingly enough, comes at a time when teen pregnancy rates are up for the first time in a decade.
At Newsweek, Sarah Kliff points out that abstinence-only funding rose during the Clinton years, when the teen pregnancy rate actually dropped by 3 percent. "Particularly between 1997 and 1998, when the funding of abstinence-only education increased tenfold, there should have been some indication of an uptick if the critics of abstinence were correct," Kliff writes. "But there wasn't."
In Catholic schools at least, little will change. Joe Kohn of the Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit said the latest study simply reaffirms the abstinence-only curriculum found in Catholic schools. "One thing I can say is, when it's practiced, the policy of abstinence is effective 100 percent of the time," he said.
James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, which has promoted comprehensive sex-ed programs, said "This is a legitimate study from a legitimate researcher," he said. "So those of us who believe in legitimate research have to pay attention."
It's clear that experts and groups that had once thought abstinence-only education to be a fool's errand are taking a second look. Abstinence-only programs are clearly more useful than researchers originally thought. Sarah Brown, head of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, told The Washington Post that the study was "game-changing.""
"A new poll conducted in the days after President Obama's State of the Union address finds half of Americans believe the government should become less involved in regulating and controlling business.
In the speech last week, the president proposed new regulations and fees for financial institutions and other government controls of business and industry.
The Gallup survey released Tuesday shows 57 percent of respondents are worried there will be too much government regulation, while 37 percent worry that there will not be enough."
The China is warning Obama that if he meets with the Dalai Lama, they will stop financing the U.S. deficit.
This is Obama's big opportunity.
When opportunity knocks, Barry, answer quickly.
PoliticsDaily.com published Arguing About Gays in the Military: It's So Over, which reports:
Today's military men and women -- half of them under the age of 25 -- have grown up in a different environment, one of increasing acceptance of gays and lesbians. Many high schools have gay and lesbian organizations; "coming out" has ceased to be a curiosity; and much of the remnants of homophobia have simply evaporated with the passage of time. National surveys confirm these trends. In Washington, this issue is often filtered through a Republican-Democrat prism, but when it comes to gay rights, age is a stronger predictor than ideology. One of the sharpest demographic divisions pollsters have ever seen on a public policy issue occurs around gay marriage. Two-thirds of Americans over the age of 65 are opposed to gay marriage, while the "Millennial Generation" -- those under 30 years of age -- favor it 59-37 percent, says Gallup.
Now those kids are swarming into the military, bringing their attitudes with them. Just last week, when I was living with 82nd Airborne Division troopers in Haiti, several soldiers mentioned in the course of conversation that they have friends who happen to be gay, including some in the military. (About 66,000 gays and lesbians currently serve in uniform, estimates Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.)
I am sure there are exceptions. But in the 82nd Airborne and other units I've lived with, in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, it has become clear that gays and lesbians not only serve, but that their sexual orientation is unremarkable.
I don't know how old Peter Sprigg is but I do note that he works day after day to stir up the very "remnants of homophobia" that are fading with time.
that Peter Sprigg is an exceptional citizen
we need half a dozen more like him on the MCPS committee that will soon be approving an ab-only program for the county
the victims of homosexuality have an advocate here in MC
The federal study, published in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, finds that programs encouraging students to abstain from having sex altogether are successful.
This is pure unadulterated spin. This single study found that *one* non-moralizing abstinence-based program that encouraged approximately one fourth of 662 inner city middle school students to abstain from sex until they felt ready showed a slight decrease two years later in the number of 14 year olds who became sexually active.
The CDC reports in 2006, there were 435,436 births to mothers aged 15-19, a 5% increase over 2005 teen births in this age group.
While there may be some hope that the non-moralistic abstinence message given to inner city preteens may help them delay becoming sexually active, the 2005-2006 teen birth data indicates that for older teens, the abstinence message is not effective.
Having Peter on a board that deals with healthy education and sexual education classes is like having David Duke on the board of the NAACP.
Too extreme? I'm sorry but his comments about "criminializing homosexual behavior" are beyond the pale. I guess we all know what he thinks of lgbt students.
Peter is an outstanding member of our local community and a national figure also
after the comments by Jim and anon-B the last few days, it's a real yuk-yuk to hear anon-B of accusing others of "spin"
nyuk-nyuk-nyuk
straight outta Alfrankenland...
"Nearly two-thirds of Republicans believe that President Obama is a socialist, about four in 10 say he should be impeached, and a majority believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to lead the country, according to a Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll conducted Jan. 20-31 among 2,003 self-described Republicans.
Here are the numbers:
-- Sixty-three percent of Republicans believe Obama is a socialist while 21 percent disagree and 16 percent are not sure.
-- Thirty-nine percent say Obama should be impeached, 32 percent disagree and 29 percent are undecided.
-- Forty-two percent believe Obama was born in the U.S. while 36 percent do not, with 22 percent undecided.
-- Fifty-three percent believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president while 14 percent do not and 33 percent are undecided."
Well, there are lots of people in Montgomery County that feel homosexual practices, in some manifestations, should be discouraged.
Direct Vigilance readers to the survey or poll to you draw this conclusion from. If you cannot direct us to such a survey or poll, Vigilance readers will understand that this is this just pure spin with no basis in fact.
Remember, he's been nominated for an award for exceptional service to the county,
He was nominated for that award by PFOX, the same outfit he suddenly represented in 2005 so that he could take their court-ordered seat on the advisory committee.
he was asked to serve another term
He was *permitted* to serve another term.
He's got a track record of accomplishment!
His track record on the CACFLHD is that a high percentage of his suggestions to incorporate into the curriculum ("heterophobia" and "reparative therapy") were defeated by the vote of the full committee. It's a track record of failure for his perspective as the MCPS curriculum still contains a condom demonstration lesson plan and two lesson plans that teach "Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality," the very lessons Sprigg sought to prevent from ever being taught.
Here's Kos' commentary on the poll of self-identified Republicans he ordered.
Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not?
Yes 39
No 32
Not Sure 29
For what? Who the heck knows. Who needs high crimes or misdemeanors when...
Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?
Yes 63
No 21
Not Sure 16
That's the power of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, after one year of relentlessly claiming Obama is the second coming of Lenin ... and Hitler!
Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?
Yes 42
No 36
Not Sure 22
We still have over a half of Republicans who don't think Obama was born in the US or think it's a matter open to debate.
...42 percent of Republicans aren't really patriotic. They pretend to love America only when they approve of the president. These traitors don't believe in democracy, in our nation's founding ideals, or in our flag. To them, those colors run. They are cowards.
Huffington Post reports: Those cowards have "Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the head of the Republican Senate campaign operation," nervous. He "said Tuesday that the GOP is working to head off the danger of the Tea Party movement forming a third party by getting its activists involved in the primary process.
...Cornyn and the GOP have a needle to thread. Their success so far has come from independents drifting away from Democrats and toward Republicans. But those independents might not find themselves at home with a party courting a Tea Party movement and a base increasingly disconnected from reality.
A new survey of 2,000 self-identified Republicans found that significant numbers believe the president was not born in the United States, is a socialist, is a racist and should be impeached and that their home state should secede from the union.
...Cornyn, asked how the extreme views of his base will affect the political climate in the next year, returned to focus on the value of independents, dismissing those in the survey as voters "who are unaffiliated who have a variety of views."
Anon writes:
"Well, there are lots of people in Montgomery County that feel homosexual practices, in some manifestations, should be discouraged. So, I think we should respectfully consider Peter's views."
But Peter's views are not so modulated. Read the transcript again. Peter gave a simple answer of Yes to the proposition that "we should outlaw gay behavior."
Peter Sprigg supports criminal sanctions against, among others, State Senator Rich Madeleno, Ellen DeGeneres, Neil Patrick Harris, OPM Director John Berry, Congressman Barney Frank, Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin,Dick Cheney's daughter Mary, and the new mayor of Houston Texas. If he somehow "misspoke," he should say so -- and explain what he actually meant.
did Peter say he "misspoke"?
if so, I missed that
certain gays are more irritating than others
I've always liked Ellen Degeneres and Neil Patrick Harris
Barney Frank, on the other hand, should be jailed without delay
Daily Kos: "Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not?"
an0n-B: "For what? Who the heck knows. Who needs high crimes or misdemeanors when..."
I think the charge is fradulently misrepresenting that you are qualified for the presidency when you are actually foreign-born
No, Peter did not say he "misspoke," and that is the point. He really would criminalize the private lives of gay people -- including those Anon says he or she likes.
Jim writes:
"Peter Sprigg believes gay behavior should be against the law, and he is shaping the sex education curriculum in Montgomery County."
I doubt that Peter is shaping the sex education curriculum in Montgomery County, since I suspect he is in a very small minority (perhaps a minority of one) on the Advisory Committee. But, as a citizen of Montgomery County, I think it unfortunate that, given his recently-stated viewpoint, he is a member of a Board-appointed committee. It is as if a member of an advisory committee on race relations went on national television and announced he was in favor of bringing back the laws against "mixed race" marriages and would treat those in such marriages as criminals.
you know, David, I really wouldn't be too concerned, even from your perspective
usually, the most that any state would penalize is public acts
indeed, the very places likely to have laws against, say, sodomy in public parks at night or encounters in truck stop rest rooms, are places like Virginia and Texas, where few think the government has any business monitoring what people do in the privacy of their own homes
as it has been through the ages, discretion is all that's really expected
sound too tough?
Peter will likely be designing the new and improved ab-only curriculum for MCPS
remember, we want the bast science for MCPS students
that Peter Sprigg
you never know what contribution he will make next
one thing I know for sure is it will be good
Once again, Anon, you seek to elide Peter's actual statement. He would criminalize "gay behavior." No caveats, no limitation to public copulation, n limitations at all.
Where do you stand?
Oh, I'm fairly libertarian myself.
I think you can do whatever you want in your own home but I do think discretion should be adhered to.
Here's what Peter said:
"I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas which overturned the sodomy laws in this country was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior."
Equality Maryland Announces:
Today we celebrate a victory for LGBT families across Maryland with the defeat of anti-equality House Bill 90 in the House Judiciary Committee!
HB 90 would have not only invalidated marriages between same-sex couples entered into in another state or in a foreign country, but also declared that "marriages between individuals of the same sex are against the public policy of the State."
In his statements in support of HB 90, lead sponsor Delegate Emmett Burns claimed that civil marriage equality is "bad economic policy, bad social policy and bad educational policy". By halting this harmful legislation we have demonstrated that in fact it is discrimination that is truly bad policy for the Free State.
Daily Kos: "Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not?"
an0n-B: "For what? Who the heck knows. Who needs high crimes or misdemeanors when..."
I see reading comprehension is still a problem for our Anone.
What I said is:
"Here's Kos' commentary on the poll of self-identified Republicans he ordered."
The commentary you attributed to me was, as I said, made by Kos himself.
Jim, I thought moron's comments were to be delete. Que pasa?
Anon:
The portion of the interview you quote is reasonably clear, although one could try to make it less draconian. Chris Mathews gave Peter the opportunity to soften the scope of his statement. Peter clearly declined the opportunity. Here are tne words that followed the words you quote:
CM: So we should outlaw gay behavior.
PS: Yes.
Not some behavior, not just "public behavior," Behavior, period. That is what Lawrence v. Texas, which Peter would have reversed, was all about: Private consenual behavior in one's own home. Peter plainly and unambiguously would criminalize that. Your libertarian streak should shiver at that notion.
I'm getting all kinds of shivers in this year of global warming.
I wouldn't go as far as Peter but I don't get the chills.
We can tolerate a society where people believe as Peter.
btw, im-jay, non-B-ay is a oron-may!
I'm getting all kinds of shivers in this year of global warming.
Simple solution for you Anone: Travel North to Vancouver and work up a sweat helping them haul snow to Cypress Mountain for the Olympic Games that are to begin February 12.
Truckloads of snow dumped on melting Vancouver mountain
With the Winter Games set to open in just 10 days, Vancouver Organizing Committee chief John Furlong told the media that everything was under control at Cypress Mountain venue, which will stage snowboard and freestyle competitions.
But despite Furlong's assurance, the situation has grown increasingly desperate with crews taking the extraordinary step of transporting snow nearly two hours from Allison Pass - which is about 150 km east of from Vancouver...
Full transcript of Hardball, Feb. 2, 2010
Excerpt:
SARVIS: I think what we have—and what I would also suggest to you is that 79 percent of Americans today support open service. They support gays and lesbians being able to serve their country openly.
Indeed, I would say to you that the latest Gallup polling shows that 61 percent of weekly churchgoers support gays and lesbians being able to serve openly. Indeed, 58 percent of conservatives support repeal of don‘t ask, don‘t tell.
MATTHEWS: So, what‘s your response, sir?
SPRIGG: Well, don‘t ask, don‘t tell is the Clinton compromise policy, which is actually incompatible with the law that was passed by Congress.
There‘s almost universal misunderstanding about that. I would like to see us do away with this don‘t ask, don‘t tell, and simply enforce the law that was passed by Congress.
SARVIS: Well, what I hear you saying is that you believe that gays and lesbians should not serve their country in the uniform whatsoever.
SPRIGG: That‘s absolutely right.
SARVIS: Not only—not only are you opposed to repealing don‘t ask, don‘t tell. You would prohibit all gays and lesbians from serving their country right now...
SPRIGG: That‘s exactly right. And that would...
SARVIS: ... when we‘re fighting two wars, and we need every qualified trooper to be out there.
SPRIGG: The percentage of people, the—the number who would refuse to serve in the military if they‘re forced to serve with open homosexuals would dwarf the number of homosexuals who would actually volunteer.
SARVIS: There is no basis in fact for that assertion.
SPRIGG: There is. There‘s a “Military Times” poll which showed that 10 percent of currently serving military would consider not reenlisting if the military was open to homosexuals.
SARVIS: And that‘s a poll of the readers of “The Military Times,” which tends to be...
SPRIGG: Well, that‘s the only indication we have of the views of currently serving members.
MATTHEWS: Let me finish up here.
Let me ask you, Peter, do you think people choose to be gay?
SPRIGG: People do not choose to have same-sex attractions, but they do choose to engage in homosexual conduct. And that‘s conduct also which, incidentally, is against the law within the military. It violates the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It does not make any sense for us to be actively recruiting people who are going to violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
MATTHEWS: Do you think we should outlaw gay behavior?
SPRIGG: Well, I certainly...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: I‘m just asking you, should we outlaw gay behavior?
SPRIGG: I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the sodomy laws in this country, was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.
MATTHEWS: So, we should outlaw gay behavior?
SPRIGG: Yes.
MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you very much, Peter Sprigg. We know your position. It‘s a clear one.
Video of February 2, 2010, Hardball segment with Sarvis and Sprigg
It should be clear to Vigilance readers that Peter Sprigg spun what the Military Times poll found into something it did not find. That poll found "10 percent of currently serving military would consider not reenlisting if the military was open to homosexuals" but Peter changed that to "the number who would refuse to serve in the military if they‘re forced to serve with open homosexuals."
Soldiers who report they **would consider** not reenlisting are NOT saying they **would refuse** to serve in the military.
Peter's statement that 10% of soldiers "would refuse to serve" if DADT is lifted is an outright lie. Peter's lie is not based on the Military Times poll results but on his own biased spin of that poll's results. Spinning such lies is no doubt what got Peter his paid leadership position at the Family Research Council.
David's right. It is indeed unfortunate that Peter Sprigg "is a member of a Board-appointed committee" here in MCPS. Our students deserve Board-appointed committee members who demonstrate honesty, not biased spin.
Anon,
You say you would not go as far as Peter. How far would you go?
quote from me:
"Oh, I'm fairly libertarian myself.
I think you can do whatever you want in your own home but I do think discretion should be adhered to."
Man, do I know how to turn a phrase.
More good news!
Colin Powell Now Says Gays Should Serve Openly
WASHINGTON (Feb. 3) -- Colin Powell, who as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the 1990s led the opposition to letting gays serve openly in the military, said today he had changed his mind.
"In the almost 17 years since the 'don't ask, don't tell' legislation was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed," the former secretary of state said in a statement. "I fully support the new approach presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee this week by Secretary of Defense (Robert) Gates and Admiral (Michael) Mullen."
Powell has been saying for two years that he thought the policy, which was devised as a compromise in 1993 after President Bill Clinton initially proposed lifting the military's long-standing ban on gays, should be reviewed. But today's statement was his first unequivocal endorsement of dropping the policy that allows gays and lesbians to serve only if they stay quiet about their sexual orientation.
The turnaround is certain to add more momentum to President Barack Obama's plan to repeal the policy. It comes a day after Mullen, Powell's successor as chairman, and Gates told a Senate hearing that it was only a matter of when, not if, the policy would be repealed.
"General Powell has made clear that his position is about effectiveness in the military," Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese said. "His powerful voice for ending 'don't ask, don't tell' is a tipping point in favor of the brave men and women who are serving our nation in silence."
Referring to Sen. John McCain of Arizona and other Republicans who still support the policy, Solmonese said: "I want to ask the senators and members who are speaking out against this repeal: What do you know about military effectiveness that General Powell, Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen and the commander in chief don't know?
"The truth is that there are no more excuses. The death knell for 'don't ask, don't tell' has been rung, and now is the moment to send this law into the history books where it belongs," he said.
DADT is good policy that should be expanded to other fields, such as education
if all these teachers and principals in MC are gay, they should keep it to themselves instead of starting up GAY-STRAIGT ALLIANCES, which are basically gay enablement groups
DADT appropriately lowers the profile of homosexuality and its practices
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
DADT is good policy that should be expanded to other fields, such as education
and proselytizing
Bad anonymous said "Oh, I'm fairly libertarian myself. I think you can do whatever you want in your own home but I do think discretion should be adhered to."
You're not fooling anyone. You frequently pretend to be against criminalizing same sex sex, but you can't help but let the truth that you're in favour of criminalization slip out from time to time. Witness in this very thread, bad anonymous said:
"Barney Frank, on the other hand, should be jailed without delay".
And in this thread:
http://www.teachthefacts.org/2009/12/research-testosterone-does-not-cause.html#comments
I said "Bad anonymous left out one situtation where the Uganda law called for the death penalty - if the person was a repeat "offender".
That meant if you had sex with more than one same sex partner, or more than once with the same partner they proposed putting you to death."
Bad anonymous responded: "yes, Robert said that too I didn't leave it out on purpose, I didn't know about it. Of course, penalties should increase with repeated offenses but the death penalty would be wrong".
Queue bad anonymous's inevitable lie that he didn't mean what he said - he wants innocent same sex sex between consenting adults to be punished by law.
you're really stretching it, Priya
nothing against gays
I just think the country would be better off with Barney Freank imprisoned
on the other issue, I just meant that if there were a penalty, it's not that outrageous that penalties increase with repeated offenses
seriously, if you guys want to spread diseases to each other and play S&M games in the privacy of your homes, it doesn't bother me
just don't flaunt or do anything suggestive in public and don't tell others what you're doing, especially children
other than that, anything goes
shouldn't be hard
Anon:
Do people, regardless of sexual orientation, flaunt their sexual orientation when they have nice, wholesome family pictures on their desks or on the walls of their offices?
doesn't bother me
probably not a good idea for teachers to have partner snuggle pictures at work though
What's not a good idea is discriminating against anyone for putting pictures of their loved ones up in their offices.
Reminder for those who forget:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
All US citizens regardless of race, color, national origin, disability, religion, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, physical characteristics, or socio-economic status have the inalienable right to pursue happiness.
so, if a person is only happy when copulating in public parks, they have a right to pursue that?
Have you ever heard of public decency laws? No one, straight or gay is permitted by law to be "copulating in public parks."
Copulating in public parks is quite different from posting family snapshots at your work station.
Posting pictures of your family at work is perfectly acceptable for everyone, straight and gay.
I support public decency laws, Bea, but, under your thinking, they
how about pictures of the husband and wife copulating?
actually, when you think about it, I don't think putting pictures around your desk is necessary for happiness
you think employees have a constitutional right to put pictures on their desk?
you're a CRAAAAZEE OLD BAT!!
you think employees have a constitutional right to put pictures on their desk?
What makes you think that?
And what makes you say:
"probably not a good idea for teachers to have partner snuggle pictures at work though"
Post a Comment
<< Home