Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Live Homosexual Acts on College Campus

Maybe you heard the disturbing news already. Murray State University in Murray, Kentucky, featured a demonstration of "Live Homosexual Acts" on campus, right out in the open. Students were shocked .. uh, no, just a minute, it says here students thought it was kind of funny.
On Friday, members of the Murray State Alliance performed live homosexual acts on campus in the Free Speech Zone. Many students were shocked, but not necessarily as the name the event implies.

Students performed acts such as reading, studying and hanging out to raise awareness about the lifestyle of gay members of the Murray State campus. 'Acts' shock students, bring awareness

Shocking indeed. Reading, studying, hanging out -- where everyone can see. You know what they're doing, right? They're trying to recruit our young people to join their lifestyle. Next thing you know, good decent college students will be reading, studying, and hanging out, all over the country. They must be stopped! It's worse than terrorism.

Skipping ...
Anthony Jones, senior from Union City, Tenn., and Murray State Alliance president, said he was happy with how Friday's event turned out.

"We had a fairly good amount of people that stopped and talked with us for a while," Jones said.

Jones said he thinks students came away with a very important message.

"Gay people are just as ordinary as anyone else out there," Jones said. "Gay and lesbian folk do the same thing as anyone else and I think (the event) illustrated that in a very clear way."

Jody Cofer, Murray State Alliance adviser, said he was pleased with Friday's turn-out and the student response generated by the event.

"I was noticing how some people would obviously look because the name caught their attention and they wanted to see what it was about," Cofer said. " … Some kind of grinned like they got it. They saw the point that was being made."

We have had nutty people right here in Montgomery County trying to get the schools to teach that "homosexual behavior" is dangerous. This is a perfect example of what is wrong with that whole concept. Gay people are just as ordinary as anyone else out there.

45 Comments:

Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Happy Thanksgiving Day everybody!

Onion news for Thanksgiving Day 2008

November 27, 2008 10:39 AM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

¡Feliz Día de acción de gracias!

Wow, gays are real human beings??? AnonBigot must be really upset now!

November 28, 2008 2:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We have had nutty people right here in Montgomery County trying to get the schools to teach that "homosexual behavior" is dangerous."

The whole canard of TTF, that homosexuals do the same things that others do, fools no one.

Reading and rocking is fine and engaged in by all types of people. However, the random promiscuity, that is ubiquitous in gay communities throughout America and is evidenced by continued overrepresentation of gays in the population of AIDS sufferers, is what distinguishes the danger of this homosexual lifestyle.

When schools tell students a fairy tale that homosexuality is normal and students inappropriately are deceived into pursuing it, they will invariably be put at risk.

It's irresponsible education. Ever since MC has approved it, things have been going downhill. Currently, they're having to make massive cuts in their budget. Hopefully, they can eliminate these types of social experiment programs and get back to their mission.

November 28, 2008 12:58 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Gobble gobble.

November 28, 2008 7:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think Robert represents the lunatic fringe gay advocacy position very well here.

He really sums it up!

30 states to none, buddy.

It's a rout!

November 28, 2008 8:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ludicrous! So typical of the garbage spewed by this "Anonymous" TROLL. "the random promiscuity, that is ubiquitous in gay communities throughout America" says he/she - without even blinking an eye by not referring to the vast majority of heterosexuals in the population who are guilty of the same thing. Obviously he/she prefers a double-standard of morality (or at least what he/she calls "morality") - one for us decent, upright heterosexuals and another for the degenerate fags.
Adding further to his/her total ignorance about human sexuality, he/she then opines: "When schools tell students a fairy tale that homosexuality is normal and students inappropriately are deceived into pursuing it, they will invariably be put at risk." As if merely talking about homosexuality has the power of "convincing" or "recruiting" otherwise heterosexual students to homosexuality. Only in your sick imagination, "Anonymous" - get real!
And then he/she digs the hole of stupidity and ignorance even deeper when he/she says the most ridiculous and idiotic statement of all: "It's irresponsible education. Ever since MC has approved it, things have been going downhill." How pathetic is that for the ramblings of a troubled individual?
Every time you open your mouth to preach your sanctimonious drivel you merely expose your sex-obsession for further scrutiny, "Anonymous". You are really a sad person.
Citizen

November 28, 2008 9:10 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

Keep in mind it was your friends at CRC, AnonBigot, who wasted thousands of taxpayer dollars fighting the Sex Ed Curriculum with your slanted, right-winged, bigoted theocratic agenda... you people are part of the problem, not the solution.

November 28, 2008 10:00 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“The whole canard of TTF, that homosexuals do the same things that others do, fools no one.”

If no one can be fooled, then who are you trying to convince?

November 29, 2008 6:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"CRC wasted thousands of taxpayer dollars fighting the Sex Ed Curriculum"

Drick, the judge found the Fishback revisions to be unconstitutional.

Defense of the Constitution is only considered a waste by those who don't support it.

Try Cuba. They hate the US Constitution too.

I'm sure they'd love to have a productive citizen like you.

November 29, 2008 11:23 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "However, the random promiscuity, that is ubiquitous in gay communities throughout America and is evidenced by continued overrepresentation of gays in the population of AIDS sufferers, is what distinguishes the danger of this homosexual lifestyle.".

Blacks are also overrepresenteed in the population of AIDS sufferers, but you're not man enough to go around and tell the lie that this shows the dangers of the black lifestyle. The reality is when minorities are oppressed it results in a higher rate of social ills, the problem is not with the nature of the people, it is with the bigotry and oppression fomented by people like you. Like the insane fool you are you laughably try to claim that the results of your bigotry justify the ongoing perpetration of your bigotry. You're a sad excuse for a human.

November 29, 2008 2:52 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

There you again, Anon, lying as usual.

Show us where in his decision Judge Williams used the word "unconstitutional." He didn't find anything about the curriculum revision to be unconstitutional; he only granted a 10 day Temporary Restraining Order so there'd be more time to review the arguments. Rather than making their arguments and pressing forward with their lawsuit against MCPS, CRC chose to settle. That's because their lawyers at the Liberty Council knew the curriculum was not unconstitutional. If it had been unconstitutional, LC would have taken that lawsuit all the way to the US Supreme Court to set a precedent. It wasn't, they didn't.

And don't forget, Liberty Council refused to be involved with CRC's second lawsuit against MCSP's second revised sex ed curriculum. The only rightwingnut outfit that would take that case for CRC was the Thomas Moore Law Center. They lost the CRC's second lawsuit against MCPS's second revised sex ed curriculum in Judge Rowan's court room.

Then CRC morphed into CRG and tried to get into politics, which, or course, ended in another lawsuit in another courtroom and the CRC/G lost again.

That's three strikes for you and your homophobic friends, Anon. Maybe you should check out Cuba -- their courts might like you CRC types better than MD courts do.

November 29, 2008 5:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Show us where in his decision Judge Williams used the word "unconstitutional." He didn't find anything about the curriculum revision to be unconstitutional; he only granted a 10 day Temporary Restraining Order so there'd be more time to review the arguments. Rather than making their arguments and pressing forward with their lawsuit against MCPS, CRC chose to settle. That's because their lawyers at the Liberty Council knew the curriculum was not unconstitutional."

This is revisionist history and, knowing better, Bea is lying.

The basis of the suit was the constitutionality of the curriculum. The judge granted the stay because of the "likelihood" that the plaintiffs would succeed and the certainty that the students' rights would be violated if the curriculum were to be implemented. Don't take my word for it. Read the language of the judge himself. Anything else is spin and Bea must be on anti-dizziness medication.

Furthermore, MCPS tacitly conceded the point by throwing out the curriculum and appointing a new advisory committee, starting over again. CRC didn't pursue because they'd won on the points they raised. You can't credibly challenge a curriculum the school board wasn't plaaning to use.

CRC challenged a curriculum that clearly was ruled unconstitutional and did a service to students.

If MCPS really wanted to save some money, they could leave this teaching to religious organizations, who would happily provide a curriculum that included values, saving our society the cost of undesirable teen pregnancies and deadly diseases.

November 29, 2008 11:00 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“If MCPS really wanted to save some money, they could leave this teaching to religious organizations…”

I hear Buddhists are excellent teachers.

November 30, 2008 4:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

People could send their kids to the religious institution of their choice. Buddhists are committed to abstinence so they might put on a good program for those families who have a phobia about the traditional religions in our society.

November 30, 2008 5:35 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Yes, but why should it be a “religious” institution at all?

Isn’t the whole point of a public school system to teach the facts without bias.

I’m not saying that you or I agree that that’s being done as effectively as possible, but isn’t that the intended point?

November 30, 2008 6:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yes, but why should it be a “religious” institution at all?

Isn’t the whole point of a public school system to teach the facts without bias."

Because teaching about sexuality should have a bias toward morality. Valueless sex ed is a problem. Unfortunately, in our society, any value that is held by a religion has come to be seen as religious and, therefore, values are verbotten.

Right now, the bias is mainly toward secularism which is a religious point of view.

Secularism, however, is not based on facts. It assumes there is no God and that is not a fact because it can't be proven.

November 30, 2008 6:43 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“Right now, the bias is mainly toward secularism which is a religious point of view.

Secularism, however, is not based on facts. It assumes there is no God and that is not a fact because it can't be proven.”


To assume that secularism “assumes” that there is no God, is to assume that there is a God, “and that is not a fact because it can’t be proven.”

Which puts the honesty, and therefore the morality, of your “religion,” squarely beneath the “religion” secularism, because secularism does not dishonestly assume and attempt to portray something as factual, when it is not.

All of which is beside the point: How is human sexuality -- in and of itself -- a moral issue?

November 30, 2008 7:37 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

The judge granted the stay because of the "likelihood" that the plaintiffs would succeed

That's precisely right, Judge Williams did not grant the stay because he found anything to be "unconstitutional," but rather because he thought their arguments might be successful. Once the TRO was granted the plaintiffs opted, on advise of their Liberty Council attorneys, to settle with MCPS rather than to proceed with the case because those attorneys knew their arguments would fail and because Weast pulled the rug out from under them. Had Liberty Council expected their arguments to win, they would have recommended the CRC proceed with their arguments to set an important precedent.

When the second curriculum revision was written with input from pediatricians specializing in adolescent health, it included vignettes about various LGBT characters, which drove CRC types to distraction (remember: "No Unisex Bathrooms"). But Liberty Council declined to represent CRC in their second lawsuit and this decision confirmed Liberty Council's doubts about the success of their arguments. If they thought they had a winning case, they would have taken the second case.

The one who lied is the one who said "the judge found the Fishback revisions to be unconstitutional."

November 30, 2008 9:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If MCPS really wanted to save some money, they could leave this teaching to religious organizations, who would happily provide a curriculum that included values, saving our society the cost of undesirable teen pregnancies and deadly diseases.

Really now? You sure you want to go with that as your final answer?

We've now had eight years of unadulterated "abstinence only" sex education mandated by the religious right through its patsies in the Bush Administration. Rates of STDs and pregnancies, after years of falling, are UP. Substantially.

"Values" and sex education have no relationship, and years of empirical evidence now demonstrate this point clearly. Teenage hormones respond to information and education, not religious proselytizing and scare tactics.

November 30, 2008 11:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And before you start bleating "what? where's the data?" remember, as always, that Teh Google is your friend.

Have a nice day.

November 30, 2008 11:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
I saw my neighbors participating in homosexual acts too- they were playing street hockey with their son. In the street- where we could all see them! Shame on them!!

"When schools tell students a fairy tale that homosexuality is normal and students inappropriately are deceived into pursuing it, they will invariably be put at risk." Oh, anon, you are a fool. Is this how you pursued heterosexuality???

November 30, 2008 1:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I saw my neighbors participating in homosexual acts too- they were playing street hockey with their son. In the street- where we could all see them! Shame on them!!"

Poor Andreary!

So jaded by irresponsible propaganda that she can no longer distinguish sexual acts from athletic ones.

She's heard too much warped reasoning, like this:

"How is human sexuality -- in and of itself -- a moral issue?"

Maybe you should talk it out with someone you, ahem, trust!

November 30, 2008 5:10 PM  
Blogger David said...

Anon writes:

"[T]he judge found the Fishback revisions to be unconstitutional."

While I could take credit (and I do mean credit) for the curriculum revisions the BOE sought to implement in 2005, I was just one of many who put it together. All of it was based upon information from mainstream medical and mental health professional associations.

Judge Williams concluded that two things called the 2005 curriculum into question regarding its constitutionality.

First, he concluded that statements characterizing the religious views of groups opposed to homosexuality were a violation of the separation of Church and State. If the curriculum to be presented to the students included such characterizations, then he might have had a point. But the curriculum contained no such statements. In its brief to the court, Liberty Counsel characterized some statements in background teacher resources -- which teachers were instruction not to use in the classroom -- as actually being in the curriculum. This was a falsehood, and the MCPS attorneys, who were only given a few days to respond to Liberty Counsel's brief, did not respond to that mischaracterization. So Judge Williams' decision on that point was based on erroneous facts -- something that would have come out had the case proceeded. (Indeed, after the TRO was issued, I suggested to MCPS that the resources simply be removed to avoid any possible confusion.)

Second, Judge Williams erroneously concluded that the First Amendment required the presentation of "all views" on sexual orientation if any views were to be presented at all. In other words, he concluded that there would be unlawful "viewpoint discrimination" if the views of the mainstream medical groups were presented without the contrary views of those associated with Jerry Falwell and James Dobson. Judge Williams was simply wrong on this point. That reasoning would require, for example, a school system to teach the viewpoints of Holocaust Deniers if it wanted to teach about the Holocuast, or that the Flat Earth Society's views must be taught alongside teachings that the Earth is round.

As Aunt Bea points out, the fact that Liberty Counsel would not defend the CRC position on the second round of litigation is instructive. Indeed, CRC continued to press the "viewpoint discrimination" argument in point in the 2007-08 litigation -- and it lost before both the State Board of Education and the Montgomery Counsel Circuit Court. At that point, their attorneys abandoned them.

I was not pleased with the MCPS 2005 decision not to fight the CRC litigation -- but Judge Williams' reputation for taking inordinately long times to make final decisions may have made that decision a prudent one. And while I believe that MCPS could have moved much more quickly to get a good curriculum in place, the end result in 2007 in many ways (as Aunt Bea also notes)went farther and deeper into the subject that the simple statements that were included in the 2005 curriculum.

December 01, 2008 6:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"First, he concluded that statements characterizing the religious views of groups opposed to homosexuality were a violation of the separation of Church and State."

Here, David agrees that Bea is wrong. The judge did indeed reach a conclusion that the curriculum was unconstitutional. David, unsurprisingly as the head of the committee producing the curiculum, disagrees with the judge but that doesn't change the fact that the judge did reach a conclusion and that the county chose not to contest his conclusion. David believes the county would have won if they had contested the judge's conclusion but that is unproven conjecture.

December 01, 2008 7:26 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Savor your meaningless 2005 TRO "victory," as if it means you were right about something. It only means the Judge was confused by Liberty Council's trickery, which Liberty Council knew would not withstand indepth scrutiny. After all, that TRO was the **only** victory in CRC/CRG's long line of losses as they sought activist judges to side with them over the past few years.

But at the end of day, all CRC/CRG's belly-aching was in vain. MCPS's sex ed curriculum now includes information about LGBT issues as well as a video that clearly teaches proper use of condoms, and it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender identity here in Montgomery County, the truly christian outcome IMHO.

December 01, 2008 7:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the judge found the Fishback revisions to be unconstitutional"

Anon-deluxe, Nov 29, 11:23am


"He didn't find anything about the curriculum revision to be unconstitutional"

Aunt Bea, Nov 29, 11:00pm

"he concluded that statements characterizing the religious views of groups opposed to homosexuality were a violation of the separation of Church and State"

David Fishback, Dec 1, 6:47am

"waaaaaaah!"

Aunt Bea, Dec 1, 7:44am

December 01, 2008 1:55 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

There you go again, Ahem, putting words in my mouth. You have also taken words out of David's mouth.

I never belly-ached -- that's what you CRC types do about having to "associate" with people who are not exactly like you.

Here's David's full quote, try to read ALL of it this time:

he concluded that statements characterizing the religious views of groups opposed to homosexuality were a violation of the separation of Church and State. If the curriculum to be presented to the students included such characterizations, then he might have had a point. But the curriculum contained no such statements. In its brief to the court, Liberty Counsel characterized some statements in background teacher resources -- which teachers were instruction not to use in the classroom -- as actually being in the curriculum. This was a falsehood,

I was being nice when called the falsehood "trickery." David's word is more accurate. It was this lie conflating teacher-only resources with the curriculum presented to students that got the Judge to grant the TRO. And Liberty Council dropped you as clients like a hot potato because they realized the lie would never stand up to careful scrutiny.

December 01, 2008 2:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If the curriculum to be presented to the students included such characterizations, then he might have had a point. But the curriculum contained no such statements."

David's opinion.

The attempt to create bias among the teachers is just as unconstitutional as directly teaching bias to the students.

No evidence that the judge didn't realize the offensive remarks were just part of the teachers' instructions anyway.

So, stop your weency-whining!

December 01, 2008 2:40 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

David's opinion.

The content of the curriculum is not a matter of opinion. I studied the curriculum materials for months and never saw anything that mentioned any religion in any negative or positive way. There were, as David has pointed out, some background materials that opined about some religions' views of homosexuality. These materials were not for the classroom, they were not part of the curriculum.

No evidence that the judge didn't realize the offensive remarks were just part of the teachers' instructions anyway.

Yes there is. The judge's written opinion repeatedly talks about the materials as being part of the curriculum. The anti-gay group's lawyers said they were part of the curriculum, MCPS lawyers never corrected the error.

JimK

December 01, 2008 3:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

background material which informs the teachers' bias is part of the curriculum as they will present from that bias

December 01, 2008 4:34 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Anonymous continues to associate with lesbian gay and transgender people and our friends and allies, on this blog, in every single moment that he can spare.

It's nice to be loved.

As to the background materials:

It surprises me that Liberty Counsel/CRC/W/PFOX-GAG/FOF/FRC/CWA et. al. would cry foul at there being background material for teachers, or even clear statements in the student materials (which there were not; I'm just imagining), and portray this to the judge as a pejorative judgement on their religious positions. Is this not in fact exactly how they feel (i.e. queer=bad)? Are these not exactly the positions that they spend millions upon million of dollars and countless hours telling people about? I mean, if a teacher said: "The Catholic Church opposes contraception in all instances", would the Pope mind? If a curriculum were to say, "The Latter-Day Saints do not accept queer people into their religion," would not the Mormons appreciate the free press? If the a school were to declare: "The Southern Baptist Convention declares that life was created by an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal god who defies the laws of thermodynamics," would the SBC object?

These are not supposed truths about these religious organizations supported by misquotes, innuendo, prejudice, bad science, etc. They are the stated and publicly broadcast positions. What's the objection?

December 01, 2008 5:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

there wouldn't be any objection if they did that

the problem was that they said intolerance of sexual deviance was wrong and then listed the churches who are intolerant

making value judgment about denominations was the problem

"Anonymous continues to associate with lesbian gay and transgender people and our friends and allies, on this blog, in every single moment that he can spare."

A big hang-up you guys seem to have is that you think I refuse to associate with gays. I think people should be free to do so but don't follow the practice myself. Matter of fact, I tend to talk to people with different viewpoints than my own.

December 01, 2008 10:02 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“Matter of fact, I tend to talk to people with different viewpoints than my own.”

FYI, there’s a difference between talking to people, and talking down to people.

December 01, 2008 11:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Really? Tell us what the difference is.

btw, emslob, what's your favorite funny farm?

December 02, 2008 6:34 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Anon seems to be on a kick of calling people mentally ill, moving on to referring to people as insane.

A definite case of the pot calling the teacup black

December 02, 2008 11:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

only we they say things that are crazy

emslob thinks if someone doesn't talk to him, it's the equivalent of murder

then there was Andreary who thought playing hockey with the family is gay

this stuff is going around but you kind blame the full moon- it's a crescent with two jeweled planets hangin' around

December 02, 2008 6:37 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“btw, emslob, what's your favorite funny farm?”

The litany of your musings on TTF.

December 03, 2008 5:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

now, Mr Insane thinks a "litany" is the same thing as a funny farm

maybe that's what they call themselves at the funny farm

that's funny!

December 03, 2008 7:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon seems to be on a kick of calling people mentally ill, moving on to referring to people as insane."

That Robert. He never misses a trick.

The guy's got a mind like a steel trap.

Of course, it's a broken steel trap that keeps snapping about wildly.

But it's a steel trap.

December 03, 2008 7:36 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“now, Mr Insane thinks a "litany" is the same thing as a funny farm”

If one's mind is a structure, and thoughts are the materials used to construct that mind, and your thoughts are reflected in your posts here at TTF, then to that extent, the litany of your musings here at TTF represent what I feel to be the best example of structured insanity, or, a metaphorical insane asylum.

Ergo, “my favorite funny farm.”

You.

Your mind, as expressed here at TTF.

December 03, 2008 8:33 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

QED.

December 03, 2008 12:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, you two aren't pallin' around with gays on the funny farm, are you?

December 03, 2008 1:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, that's what you are doing, coming out here a little more every day.

December 03, 2008 4:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I mean, it's old, but we haven't consciously asxked ourselves, What is the search engine marketing
ny nxt stepAcquire your entire handy-manFind out your
actual relible mates, nearby neighbours along wwith relatives
for any handy-man referral. It is one business that can
be appreciated by someone other than you, consider doing something
different. Kitchen handyman services can be found
throughout the country and they are less expensive search engine marketing ny than calling
a licensed professional to handle only a single task.

My blog post: search engine optimization lawrenceville ga (weebly.com)

March 09, 2014 11:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Government are going to consult on whether the
UK is amongst the top david cameron three most important issues facing Britain today
when opinion pollsters ask one of their videos! The Green party was allowed one new
peer. The PM is desperate to shake off questions about Mr Crosby's role in
stubbing out plans for a register of all meetings between ministers and those giving money to the Tories.
I am very disappointed by the Prime Minister used a major speech to set out the
spirit in which I approach these issues.

Look at my blog: arrogant ()

March 20, 2014 12:17 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home