Sunday, August 14, 2005

They Come From A Different Universe

I'm afraid I have to say something about those comments by the CRC forum admin, published in the previous post. He said:
The point is, without typing anything in, you can go from a MCPS approved web site, to hot gay singles ads without ever typing in anything. That is a form of tacit approval.

No, the point is, the gay-straight club web site has some links that have been taken over by commercial search engines. All of them have categories of links you can click on to start. There are literally hundreds of categories available one click away from the Outlook Club's web page. One of them, on one of the many search engines, is labeled "Queer," and will take you to gay stuff, some of which the CRC does not approve.

There is no difference between clicking and typing. Most search engines, including these, offer both input modes.

The idea that the search engine means the school district is giving "tacit approval" to whatever search results you get ... nutty. The school district has thousands of HTML pages on its web servers. Some links have died. That's just the hard part about running a web site, you have to maintain it. Have you ever seen the gopher when you clicked on an MCPS link? Same thing, bad links, but those are inside their system. These club links go out to the Internet where there are no gophers.

Then he said:
This "search engine" defense is truly bizarre. This [the CRC] forum exists to discuss the welfare of children in the MCPS.

Followed by some stuff about bomb plans on Google.

People do send me clippings of the more amusing bits from this one-sided "forum." None of it has anything to do with the "welfare of children." What a crock. Search engines at the school web site have nothing to do with the "welfare of children."

No, the "search engine" attack is what's "truly bizarre." To try and convince the school board that the "gay club" at a high school is using their web site to meet "hot gay men" is ... well, bizarre is a great word for it. Nobody uses the "gay club" web site, or takes care of it. The "gay club" has been overrun with apathy, except for amped-up CRC paranoids who are looking for evidence of the so-called Gay Agenda.

To go into the Board of Education and say, as the CRC's Steina Walter did,
Why is the MCPS allowing the gay-straight club at Walter Johnson High School to use the school's Internet web address to meet sexy, single gay men for dating, romance, and more?

-- Now, that is bizarre.

You want to know what this is all about? In the grand finale of Ms. Walter's statement, she said:
Homosexual clubs have no place in MCPS. Our schools are not safe.

That's what it's about, people. They think that "homosexual clubs" make the school unsafe.

... Now, I'll admit something personal here: I find it embarrassing to be talking about these things. This "search engine attack" was so off-the-wall, so ignorant, that no intelligent person should be forced to respond to it, ever. But if you ignore this stuff, they will just keep it up. They'll have something even dumber next time, and eventually they'll just wear us all down.

These are the times I wish somebody else was doing this.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

What John Garza thinks.....(From CRC Message Board)

Johnny Garza

what to expect next

« on: July 10, 2005, 12:44:28 pm »

Is normalizing pedophilia is the next push for the gay community? See below:

But first, I can report that a federal court has declined at this time to allow incest as a right under the Lawrence case. I am sure other courts will look at this and at least one will find the right to marry you sibling(s) in the near future.

Normalizing pedophilia

Posted: July 9, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Ted Byfield

© 2005

Now that the gay lobby has successfully persuaded the Parliament of Canada to legalize same-sex marriage, the question arises: What will it do next?

Will it retreat for a time into inactivity and wait for the public to bestow semi-respectability on the new condition? Or will it brazenly push the government to silence Christian churches that carry the gay-marriage conflict into the next federal election by removing their tax deductibility status? Or will it open a new campaign to prohibit all criticism of homosexual practice on moral grounds by deeming it an exercise in "hate"?

Last week, eight days after the bill went through the Commons, Canadians learned the answer. While the lobby may pursue some of the above, it would also push forward against the last standing barrier to sexual "freedom." It would tackle the laws against sex with children.

Not directly, of course. Public opinion has not "advanced" sufficiently to accept pedophilia. But it will fight a current government move to tighten the child pornography section in the Criminal Code. The gays will insist that possession of material that represents sex with children remain legal in Canada on "educational" or "artistic" grounds, provided the representation is the product of a writer's or artist's imagination and that no actual children were involved in its production.

This exemption was made three years ago by a British Columbia court trying a self-confessed possessor of photographs and stories of children engaged in sexual activity. The court convicted him for possessing the photographs and acquitted him for the purely "imaginary" material.

This meant that drawings and stories of children engaged in sex could be freely bought and sold in Canada. Public outrage at the ruling became so severe that the government introduced an amendment to the Criminal Code to remove this exemption. The amendment has passed the Commons and is now before a Senate committee.

Last Wednesday, the Globe and Mail, chief voice of the gay lobby in the Canadian media, in a lengthy lead editorial launched a formal attack on the amendment. While acknowledging that "politicians are right to seek to protect the victims of that sick abusive trade," (i.e., child pornography), "they are wrong to lose their sense of proportion in fighting it."

The amendment would jeopardize the legality of such literary works as Vladimir Nabokov's "Lolita," says the Globe. It "covers a wide territory: A 16-year-old sneaking a picture of a 17-year-old in a shower, or a 16-year-old who invites someone under 14 to touch his or her body. Writers beware."

The amendment also sets minimum sentences for people convicted under the section, denying the courts the right to let them off with a wrist slap. This, too, the Globe saw as a threat. It quoted approvingly the warning of one senator not to "impose new minimum sentences simply because some people consider the legal system and sentencing proceedings to be ineffective."

Such "glaring flaws," says the Globe, are being overlooked because "emotion is over-riding research." The amendment represents "an attempt to whittle away at free expression."

The Senate will pass the amendment, as the Globe knows full well. But the question arises: Why did this editorial appear now? After all, the amendment has been before Parliament for three years. Coming, as the editorial did, right on the heels of the gay-marriage bill, some kind of strategy must be involved. Clearly, it signals the next move in the culture war, the opening attack on the last sexual taboo.

The real battleground will not, of course, take place in Parliament at all. Whether the amendment survives in Canadian law, or is deemed unconstitutional under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, will be decided in the courts. The Globe's editorial is not aimed at senators, but at judges. It serves notice upon them: Here is where we're going next.

"Educating the public" to this new reality will naturally take time. But the arts lead the culture. If purely imaginary drawings and stories of sex between children and adults can be made acceptable today, creeping first into literature and the visual arts, then into music, then into the movies, eventually the physical acts themselves will become acceptable as well. That's the way things work.

So it's onward until the last bastion falls. The fact that our whole society may be collapsing along with it has not been seriously considered. History alone testifies to that possibility, but so what? Who reads history?


Ted Byfield published a weekly news magazine in western Canada for 30 years and is now general editor of "The Christians," a 12-volume history of Christianity.
Mail service for Mission America provided by American Family Online

Mission America

August 14, 2005 7:06 PM  
Blogger Alex K. said...

If someone clicks the word "Queer" on, then they must have been looking for Gay content.

It's linked on the GSA's website, so you'd have to be mentally incomplete not to expect gay content.


August 14, 2005 9:42 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

Alex K said

" you'd have to be mentally incomplete not to expect gay content."


I believe CRC'rs/PFOX'rs think homosexuals are " mentally incomplete."

Kay R

August 14, 2005 11:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

jimk writes, "These are the times I wish somebody else was doing this."

Sometimes the load you carry must seem very heavy. The forces that do not support sex education in public schools and want keep gays closeted are as relentless as they are misguided. But please remember what you do is so very important.

You are carrying on a great American tradition: standing up for the oppressed.

Lady Liberty guards over New York harbor and tells humanity:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Thank you for your efforts to maintain America as the beacon of freedom against the darkness of opression.

Joyful Noise

August 15, 2005 11:20 AM  
Blogger andrear said...

Okay, our schools are not safe. Kids were stabbed at Springbrook a week or so ago, a kid brought a BB gun to Einstein last year,kids bring drugs to school and knives- in middle school- yes -and Steina Walter thinks school is unsafe because there is a place for GLBT kids in MCPS. Jim, don't insult the possible extraterrestrials reading the blog- let's face it- these loonies are from right here(although possibly not as evolved as us)

August 16, 2005 8:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home