Thursday, September 01, 2011

EQCA Fights Back

California recently passed a law ensuring that state school lessons include the political, economic, and social contributions of persons who are disabled, gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender, and not permit negative campaigns against such persons. The law, Senate Bill 48, extends and modifies the existing list in the California Education Code, which also includes "Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, and European Americans."

Naturally there is a referendum effort underway to repeal the law, and naturally it is being misrepresented as "indoctrination" and something that undermines the good morals of straight people.

The Family Research Council released a video featuring their President, Tony Perkins, denouncing the bill and calling for action against it. Equality California did a little editing to it and released their own version of it. It's pretty good.

Here's a little background on Perkins from a 2005 article in The Nation:
Four years ago, Perkins addressed the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), America's premier white supremacist organization, the successor to the White Citizens Councils, which battled integration in the South. In 1996 Perkins paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,500 for his mailing list. At the time, Perkins was the campaign manager for a right-wing Republican candidate for the US Senate in Louisiana. The Federal Election Commission fined the campaign Perkins ran $3,000 for attempting to hide the money paid to Duke. Justice Sunday Preachers

Here is Equality California's video:



Pretty simple and smart, let the guy talk and then pause the video and point to the lies. People like Tony Perkins want to tell people what the bill says because they know that ordinary citizens won't bother to look it up and read it themselves. They want Californians to believe it is an outrage against good morals, but it's nothing more than an assurance that LGBT people are presented fairly in lessons, similar to other minorities. Nobody has to rewrite any textbooks, no one is going to be "indoctrinated," it is a simple and straightforward matter of showing respect for people.

56 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

why does some special law need to be enacted to make sure gays are treated "fairly" in history textbooks?

why can't we just consider their contributions and ignore who they prefer to have sexual relations with?

that's what we do know and I don't think there's any problem

anyone with half a brain can see there's more to this

most TTFers have at least half a brain, right?

September 01, 2011 11:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, "Anonymous"...and that's exactly one half more than you've got!

September 01, 2011 12:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

really?

well, whatever I've got knows that gays are amply represented in history books

what's not in those books is an identification of these famous people's sexual activities and desires

and, let's be honest, that's what lunatic fringe gay advocates want in there

it's the next step in the agenda

September 01, 2011 3:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The law says nothing about "history books."

Here's the text

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 51204.5 of the Education Code is amended to
read:
51204.5. Instruction in social sciences shall include the early
history of California and a study of the role and contributions of
both men and women, Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican
Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, European Americans,
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, persons with
disabilities, and members of other ethnic and cultural groups, to the
economic, political, and social development of California and the
United States of America, with particular emphasis on portraying the
role of these groups in contemporary society.
SEC. 2. Section 51500 of the Education Code is amended to read:
51500. A teacher shall not give instruction and a school district
shall not sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias
on the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability,
nationality, sexual orientation, or because of a characteristic
listed in Section 220.
SEC. 3. Section 51501 of the Education Code is amended to read:
51501. The state board and any governing board shall not adopt
any textbooks or other instructional materials for use in the public
schools that contain any matter reflecting adversely upon persons on
the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability,
nationality, sexual orientation, or because of a characteristic
listed in Section 220.
SEC. 4. Section 60040 of the Education Code is amended to read:
60040. When adopting instructional materials for use in the
schools, governing boards shall include only instructional materials
which, in their determination, accurately portray the cultural and
racial diversity of our society, including:
(a) The contributions of both men and women in all types of roles,
including professional, vocational, and executive roles.
(b) The role and contributions of Native Americans, African
Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders,
European Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
Americans, persons with disabilities, and members of other ethnic and
cultural groups to the total development of California and the
United States.
(c) The role and contributions of the entrepreneur and labor in
the total development of California and the United States.
SEC. 5. Section 60044 of the Education Code is amended to read:
60044. A governing board shall not adopt any instructional
materials for use in the schools that, in its determination, contain:

(a) Any matter reflecting adversely upon persons on the basis of
race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, sexual
orientation, occupation, or because of a characteristic listed in
Section 220.
(b) Any sectarian or denominational doctrine or propaganda
contrary to law.
SEC. 6. It is the intent of the Legislature that alternative and
charter schools take notice of the provisions of this act in light of
Section 235 of the Education Code, which prohibits discrimination on
the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity,
religion, sexual orientation, or other specified characteristics in
any aspect of the operation of alternative and charter schools.

September 01, 2011 3:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"why can't we just consider their contributions and ignore who they prefer to have sexual relations with?"

Do you consider the founding fathers contributions and ignore which religion they prefered to believe in?

The context and details of a person's life help to illustrate and define their contributions in many ways.

September 01, 2011 4:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did Tony Perkins really ask, "Should we divert precious classroom time and resources away from science?"

Science? The only "science" FRC promotes is the pseudoscience practiced by quacks at NARTH and ACP. Quacks like George Rekers who was on the founding board of FRC and an officer and science advisor for NARTH until he resigned after being busted for hiring a male prostitute to travel to Europe with him.

"The Family Research Council's Senior Researcher for Policy Studies Peter Sprigg was criticized when he, in his official capacity as a fellow of the FRC, stated that gay behavior should be outlawed and that "criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior" should be enforced. More recently, Sprigg has publicly suggested that repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy would encourage molestation of heterosexual service members. When asked about Sprigg's comments regarding the criminalization of same-sex behavior, FRC President Tony Perkins said that criminalizing homosexuality is not a goal of the Family Research Council, but did not denounce Sprigg's statements. Perkins repeated the FRC’s association of gay men with pedophilia, saying that "If you look at the American College of Pediatricians, they say the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a danger to children." The opinions expressed by Perkins are contradicted by mainstream social science perspectives on same-sex parenting and the likelihood of child molestation by homosexuals, and some scientists whose work is cited by the American College of Pediatricians have accused the ACP of distorting and misrepresenting their work."

September 01, 2011 5:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The law says nothing about "history books."

Here's the text

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 51204.5 of the Education Code is amended to
read:
51204.5. Instruction in social sciences shall include the early
history of California and a study of the role and contributions of"

that sounds an awful lot like history to me

"lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans,"

see, this is more than the contributions made by certain people who happen to have deviant desires

the intent is to have specific discussion about being gay doesn't preclude you from making great contributions to society

that's promotional and doesn't belong in schools

"persons with
disabilities,"

kind of pathetic for the gay advocates to try to latch on to the empathy people feel for the handicapped

they really have no shame

the law will be thrown out

"Do you consider the founding fathers contributions and ignore which religion they prefered to believe in?"

no, their religion is significant

"The context and details of a person's life help to illustrate and define their contributions in many ways."

well, that might be true

but this law requires the teachers to only teach positive things about gays

an honest discussion is forbidden as being "discriminatory"

if we can't have an honest and open discussion about a topic, let's just skip it

otherwise, it's just nasty Priya-ism rearing it's ugly head below the border, banning anything that doesn't portray homosexuality as real-life fairy tale

"Onyango Obama was arrested and charged with drunken driving in Framingham, Mass., last week and is being held on an immigration detainer. A federal official has told The Associated Press that he was ordered by an immigration judge to leave the country almost two decades ago."

Obama's a citizen but all his relatives are illegal immigrants

amazing!

September 01, 2011 10:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the intent is to have specific discussion about being gay doesn't preclude you from making great contributions to society

that's promotional and doesn't belong in schools"

No it isn't, it's factual. Lots of gays have made lots of contributions over the course of history and its time we teach the truth about that in school.

Another truth is this: there is no requirement in the law to change any "history books."

OFF TOPIC AGAIN --
"Obama's a citizen but all his relatives are illegal immigrants"

FACTS:
"Obama's father was African, his mother was American so it's possible that relatives on his fathers side are not citizens. Facts about his family can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_of_Barack_Obama

"White House: No special treatment of Obama’s uncle
September 01, 2011|Associated Press

The White House says it expects the arrest of President Barack Obama’s illegal immigrant uncle to be handled like any other immigration case.

Press Secretary Jay Carney also said Thursday that Obama didn’t know about the case involving his distant relative until being informed about it by staff.

Onyango Obama was arrested and charged with drunken driving in Framingham, Mass., last week and is being held on an immigration detainer. A federal official has told The Associated Press that he was ordered by an immigration judge to leave the country almost two decades ago."
http://articles.boston.com/2011-09-01/news/30102178_1_immigration-detainer-immigration-case-special-treatment

September 02, 2011 9:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

FYI Here's "special treatment" courtesy of the Bush Administration:

"Shafig bin Laden (Arabic: شفيق بن لادن‎), half-brother of Osama's, was a guest of honour at the Carlyle Group's Washington conference at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel on September 11, 2001, and among the 13 members of the bin Ladin family to leave the United States on September 19, 2001 aboard N521DB."

September 02, 2011 9:37 AM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Anon,

I am not letting you off the hook easily. In a comment you made to Jim’s post on Wednesday (“Peter Sprigg: We Do It Out Of Love”), you stated that “to enable and encourage homosexual relationships . . . . would be like giving heroin to an addict.” I responded on Thursday morning by asking if you “believe that my son and his partner are like heroin addicts.”

You had not replied by Thursday evening, so I asked the question again last night.

Still no answer.

My son and his partner have been together more than five years. They just bought a house together. They are productive members of our community. Once again, I ask if you really believe that they (and the other wonderful gay and lesbian couples in our community) are like heroin addicts.

If you are not willing to confront this question, then the inescapable conclusion is that you either do not really believe what you say (in which case, you should think before you speak) or are unwilling to defend it.

September 02, 2011 11:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Lots of gays have made lots of contributions over the course of history"

those contributions are in the books

"and its time we teach the truth about that in school."

already do

their alleged deviant sexual preferences aren't relevant accept as gay agenda propaganda

pointing it out implies that deviance contributed to their success

we shouldn't point that out any more than their other failings, like heroin addiction

"Another truth is this: there is no requirement in the law to change any "history books.""

a common ploy among gay lunatics is to claim these laws they push won't have any effect

then, what's the argument for making a new law?

propaganda and something to keep in their back pocket to attack scoiety with

"Obama's father was African, his mother was American so it's possible that relatives on his fathers side are not citizens."

and it's an open question which side of the family he favors, isn't it?

"The White House says it expects the arrest of President Barack Obama’s illegal immigrant uncle to be handled like any other immigration case."

except that Obama thinks all illegal immigrant cases should get automatic amnesty

"Press Secretary Jay Carney also said Thursday that Obama didn’t know about the case involving his distant relative"

rasie your hand if you think your father's brother is a "distant" relative

"Onyango Obama"

boingo-boingo

how about Onsango Osama?

"he was ordered by an immigration judge to leave the country almost two decades ago."

what did Barry know and when did he know it?

"Shafig bin Laden (Arabic: شفيق بن لادن‎), half-brother of Osama's, was a guest of honour at the Carlyle Group's Washington conference at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel on September 11, 2001, and among the 13 members of the bin Ladin family to leave the United States on September 19, 2001 aboard N521DB."

obviously, this was not a safe place for them at that point

do you think we should have put them under house arrest?

we actually have a Constitution here

wonderful gay and lesbian couples in our community off the hook easily Thursday evening, so willing to defend the unwilling inescapable conclusion question again last night really believe what you say you should

September 02, 2011 12:55 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "why does some special law need to be enacted to make sure gays are treated "fairly" in history textbooks? why can't we just consider their contributions and ignore who they prefer to have sexual relations with?".
We need it because people have been systematically excluded from history books because they are gay - that's unfair. The new law will see that we consider their contributions and won't teach anything about "who they prefer to have sexual relations with"

Bad anonymous said "whatever I've got knows that gays are amply represented in history books". You're not aware of any gays in history books, that's just another one of your obligatory lies to cover up the oppression of LGBTs

Bad anonymous said "what's not in those books is an identification of these famous people's sexual activities and desires".
And that won't be in any new history books either.

Bad anonymous said "and, let's be honest, that's what lunatic fringe gay advocates want in there".
Puhh-leeeeeeze. Even you don't believe that, you've just got so used to making anti-gay lies you do it without any consideration as to whether or not its believable. If we're being honest you'll admit what you and your anti-gay bigots want is to exclude mention of gay people to promote the idea that LGBTs never do anything good.
Bad anonymous said "see, this is more than the contributions made by certain people who happen to have deviant desires".
No, its about contributions made by LGBTs - it has nothing to do with people who have deviant desires.

September 02, 2011 1:36 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "the intent is to have specific discussion about being gay doesn't preclude you from making great contributions to society".
Oh, my yes, teaching that would be absolutely tragic, it would destroy the fallacy that being LGBT means one is a bad person, can't have that in Bad anonymous' delusion world.

Bad anonymous said "that's promotional and doesn't belong in schools".
It's important information to know, otherwise LGBT students might be mislead into thinking they can't become the next einstein or Bill Gates (you know how you don't want that). Its important to know for straight students otherwise when they become employers they might overlook better qualified talent because they're LGBT. Teaching LGBT accomplishments is a necessary step towards the incremental improvement of society and the economy.

Bad anonymous said "kind of pathetic for the gay advocates to try to latch on to the empathy people feel for the handicapped".
No equality advocates are saying all LGBTs are handicapped at a rate higher than the general population. The fact that the law seeks to adress the exclusion of more than one minority group from history doesn't in anyway say one group is part of the other.

Bad anonymous said "but this law requires the teachers to only teach positive things about gays".
It does not. It requires that they teach the positive contributions by LGBTs. If an LGBT person does something destructive there is nothing preventing them from teaching that as well.

Bad anonymous said "if we can't have an honest and open discussion about a topic, let's just skip it".
LOL! That's the epitome of irony, you, YOU talking about having an honest and open discussion on a topic. You wouldn't know honesty if it bit you on the ass.

Bad anonymous said "we shouldn't point that out any more than their other failings, like heroin addiction".
That must be that "honesty" you were talking about - you suggesting all gays are addicted to heroin - that's absolutely absurd by you won't let any lie go to waste in your jihad against LGBTs. I suppose that was an indirect reply to David Fishback's question, - you are implying you do think his son and his partner who have been together more than five years, bought a house together and are productive members of our community are like heroin addicts. Of course you don't honestly believe that, you just think promoting that idea will aid in your attempts to oppress, criminalize and promote violence against gays. You are truly despicable.

September 02, 2011 1:36 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Could we please have bad anonymous's offtopic posts about politics deleted? He thinks including them in comments that start off as relevant somehow makes it okay, or will fool the moderators.

September 02, 2011 1:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"people have been systematically excluded from history books because they are gay"

first of all, this is a lie, and a whopper of a lie, by Nasty Priya

secondly, Nasty Priya's buddies here have been claiming history books aren't subject to this law

"- that's unfair."

geez, now Nasty Priya has turned inclusion in history books into an entitlement

history books are actually purposed to teach history not create fairness

remember, this site is called teach the facts not make up a fair fiction

"The new law will see that we consider their contributions"

there are no significant contributions that are not being considered solely because the contributor is a sexual deviant

"and won't teach anything about "who they prefer to have sexual relations with""

that's what gay lunatic fringe types mean by sexual "orientation"

"You're not aware of any gays in history books, that's just another one of your obligatory lies to cover up the oppression of LGBTs"

Nasty Priya, You're not aware of any gays excluded from history books, that's just another one of your obligatory lies to mask your promotion of homosexuality

"And that won't be in any new history books either"

then, what will change?

"you and your anti-gay bigots want is to exclude mention of gay people"

homosexuals are already mentioned if they made a contribution

they simply aren't identified as homosexual

why would they be?

"to promote the idea that LGBTs never do anything good"

some of them do some good things despite their LGBism

are you trying to say we should promote the idea that LGBism was a factor in their contribution

that's unsubstantiated

much like the rest of the gay agenda crap

September 02, 2011 4:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Oh, my yes, teaching that would be absolutely tragic, it would destroy the fallacy that being LGBT means one is a bad person,"

that's a "fallacy" beyond disprove so countering it is no business of the public schools

"otherwise LGBT students might be mislead into thinking they can't become the next einstein or Bill Gates (you know how you don't want that). Its important to know for straight students otherwise when they become employers they might overlook better qualified talent because they're LGBT. Teaching LGBT accomplishments is a necessary step towards the incremental improvement of society and the economy"

this is a bunch of malarkey

LGB students can create their own aspirations without being coached by public school teachers

there's no evidence that homosexuals have felt they couldn't succeed

"It requires that they teach the positive contributions by LGBTs. If an LGBT person does something destructive there is nothing preventing them from teaching that as well."

actually, there is

if you identify that this bad person was a homosexual, you'll be accused of HATEFUL BIGOTRY

"That's the epitome of irony, you, YOU talking about having an honest and open discussion on a topic."

you don't see me begging moderators of blogs to delete comments I don't like

"That must be that "honesty" you were talking about - you suggesting all gays are addicted to heroin - that's absolutely absurd by you won't let any lie go to waste in your jihad against LGBTs."

what I was doing was using a metaphor to compare homosexuality to heroin addiction

your assumption that I said all gays are heroin addicts is very literal-minded and ignorant

"I suppose that was an indirect reply to David Fishback's question, - you are implying you do think his son and his partner are like heroin addicts"

if you follow this blog, you must know that I never discuss anyone's family members

"you just think promoting that idea will aid in your attempts to oppress, criminalize and promote violence against gays"

this is, again, slander

"You are truly despicable"

gee, now I'm hurt

I thought you were a secret admirer of mine

maybe you should express yourself more clearly

"Could we please have bad anonymous's offtopic posts about politics deleted?"

Nasty Priya's doing it again

trying to eliminate open discussion

September 02, 2011 4:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"you and your anti-gay bigots"

I didn't know I had any bigots to call my own.

"(Reuters) - U.S. employment growth ground to a halt in August, reviving recession fears and piling pressure on both President Barack Obama and the Federal Reserve to aid the frail economy.

The economy failed to create new jobs on a net basis according to the Labor Department's monthly nonfarm payrolls survey on Friday."

nice going, Barry

I guess that means this will get even worse:

"A poll released on Thursday found that President Barack Obama slipped with voters in August and is now upside down as he prepares to run for re-election in 2012.

The poll from Quinnipiac University found that a majority -- 52 percent -- of those surveyed disapproved of the job Obama was doing while 42 percent backed the president. Obama is upside down among independent voters. Only 40 percent of independents approved of the president’s job while 54 percent disapproved of his performance."

dang that Bush!!

it's all his fault





Peter Brown
Hide
Peter Brown, the assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, said these numbers should alarm the president and his supporters.

"President Barack Obama has hit a low 42 percent approval in the past, but this is his highest disapproval rating,” said Brown. “Ominous for him is that the share of voters who think he has strong leadership qualities has dropped from 64 to 33 percent in January to 50 to 48 percent now. Voters say, 54 to 42 percent, that he cares about their problems, but that is not impressive since it is a measure on which Democratic presidents historically rate well.

September 02, 2011 7:05 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Anon, in responding to Priya Lynn's inquiry about his failure to directly respond to my question about whether he equates my son and his partner with heroin addicts, said: "if you follow this blog, you must know that I never discuss anyone's family members."

I think that that may be a ruse to avoid discussing the real world impacts of the things he says and the policies he advocates. It is always easier, as Peter Sprigg does, to talk in generalities, rather than addressing the lives of actual human beings.

Nevertheless, I will take Anon at his word, and will restate the question:

"Anon, I know many gay and lesbian couples, who are productive citizens, own homes, and raise children in our community. Do you equate them with heroin addicts? In your answer, you can exclude my son and his partner."

Again, I await your answer.

[I tried to post something like this earlier, but it seems to have gotten lost -- or maybe I pushed the wrong button.)

September 02, 2011 7:49 PM  
Anonymous i feel like a drum major said...

David, do you remember when Harold Camping was predicting the Apocalypse would arrive on May 21?

He was an old man who got carried away and got a lot of attention from the secular media but any Bible-literate believer knew he was wrong.

How?

Matthew 24:42-44:

“Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him."

I know that part of the Bible isn't recognized by your branch of Judeo-Christianity but do you think Jesus was equating himself with a thief?

Do you think I equate him with a thief?

Do you equate him with a thief?

Homosexuality is harmful to those who indulge in it, often fatally harmful.

Homosexuality is hard to overcome or resist once you have become used to it.

Do you see the similarity with heroin addiction?

btw, heroin addicts have been known to own homes, raise children and, depending on how you define things, become productive citizens

September 02, 2011 8:58 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Anon finally responds:

"Homosexuality is harmful to those who indulge in it, often fatally harmful."

1. You have no basis to assert that gay and lesbian couples do not have happy and fulfilling lives. Your "evidence" is the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases. Promiscuity and unprotected sex is extremely dangerous. That is true for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Monogamous gay couples (like relatives of mine you don't want to mention) are not at risk. Creating societal structures that do not encourage marriage work against efforts to contain the spread of sexually transmitted infections. One very good reason to encourage marriage is to encourage and institutionalize monogamy. So you only want to do that for straight people?

"Homosexuality is hard to overcome or resist once you have become used to it."

2. What on earth is the basis for this assertion? I know people who tried their darndest to be attracted to the opposite sex, but it just did not take. When they accepted who they were, they found their soulmates, and moved from sadness and discouragment to fulfillment. If you are parroting something you have heard from someone else, it sounds to me that that person may have been closeted for theological reasons, and is afraid that if they ever act on their feelings, they will have to reject their religion. Such people have my sympathy. But straight people simply do not become gay because it is attractive to them, and that if they "try" it, they never go back.

"Do you see the similarity with heroin addiction?"

3. Only if one accepts all of your false premises.

So now we have it. You believe that gay people are inherently promiscuous and that they simply do not want monogamous stability (even though they are clambering for equal marriage rights).

You also seem to believe that everyone (or almost everyone) is really gay at some level, and that if being gay is acceptable then everyone will try it and then be unable, like an addict, to return to being straight.

To state those premises clearly is to show our absurd they are. I hope someday you will be able to get beyond your prejudices and accept the diversity that, if not attacked, adds to happiness in the world.

September 02, 2011 10:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I think that that may be a ruse to avoid discussing the real world impacts of the things he says and the policies he advocates. It is always easier to talk in generalities, rather than addressing the lives of actual human beings."

oh, we talk about real people all the time here but I avoid discussing people who the other commenters have a vested interest in

there's no point in it and when someone starts bringing up their family members it's kind of a ruse to manipulate the emotions of the readers

"Anon finally responds"

I responded when you dropped the ruse, although, let's be honest, you still playing the family card

"You have no basis to assert that gay and lesbian couples do not have happy and fulfilling lives."

while I won't concede that they do, I didn't assert that in thi conversation

"Promiscuity and unprotected sex is extremely dangerous. That is true for both homosexuals and heterosexuals."

it's more dangerous for homosexuals, for many reasons

"Monogamous gay couples"

an oxymoron

"like relatives of mine you don't want to mention"

here's David violating the terms of our treaty

"are not at risk"

Only if one accepts all of your false premises.

"Creating societal structures that do not encourage marriage work against efforts to contain the spread of sexually transmitted infections"

who's trying to create social structures?

not pro-family advocates

homosexual advocates are trying to create a whole way of life by indoctrinating teens but the effort is doomed to failure, as all social engineering is

"One very good reason to encourage marriage is to encourage and institutionalize monogamy. So you only want to do that for straight people?"

want to do?

that's a place called reality, David

you might want to visit it sometime

September 03, 2011 8:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I said, quite reasonably":

"Homosexuality is hard to overcome or resist once you have become used to it."

David says:

"What on earth is the basis for this assertion?"

uh, David, maybe it's all those studies you guys cite about the low success rate for reparative therapy

"I know people who tried their darndest to be attracted to the opposite sex, but it just did not take."

really? how did that come up in conversation?

"So now we have it."

now?

didn't say anything I haven't said many times before

"You believe that gay people are inherently promiscuous and that they simply do not want monogamous stability"

that's more than a belief

"(even though they are clambering for equal marriage rights)"

they didn't use to

they've been riled up by activists to get on board with the agenda

they'd be perfectly happy to remain as is, if a bunch of social engineers weren't organizing this

"You also seem to believe that everyone (or almost everyone) is really gay at some level,"

no, I think everyone is heterosexual and that homosexuality is usually a coping mechanism that certain people develop as an adaptation to certain stresses and, yes, mental illness can strike anyone

of course, sometimes, it also can be a way certain people express rebellion against society and, in that cause, it's more of a anti-social extremism than a mental illness

"and that if being gay is acceptable then everyone will try it"

no, but if it is acceptable, more mentally ill people will unhesitatingly resort to this coping mechanism

"and then be unable, like an addict, to return to being straight"

well, your studies seem to show that it is hard to shake

"To state those premises clearly is to show our absurd they are"

obviously you don't think so or you would not have responded

"I hope someday you will be able to get beyond your prejudices and accept the diversity that, if not attacked, adds to happiness in the world"

"gay" used to mean happiness when I was younger

now it means deviance

the only thing under attack is the English language, which has taken many hits from gay agenda forces

September 03, 2011 9:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well kids, the holiday weekend has gotten off to a great start

David Fishback, on of MC's main agitators for the gay agenda, has now conceded that the gay agenda is about "creating societal structures"

as we've said for years, it's now been admitted by gay agenda forces that the gay lessons in public schools are not about "teaching facts" but instead creating a societal structure

in the words of Pink Floyd:

hey teacher, leave those kids alone!!

all in all, you're just another brick in the wall

September 03, 2011 10:40 AM  
Anonymous MLK made in China said...

we don't need no "education"

we don't need no thought control

no dark sarcasm

in the classroom

teacher, leave those kids alone

HEY TEACHER

LEAVE THOSE KIDS ALONE !!

September 03, 2011 10:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

September 03, 2011 10:55 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "if you follow this blog, you must know that I never discuss anyone's family members."

Bullsh*t. Some time back you went on and on about how my husband is not my husband, but a roomate and how I couldn't trust him not to have AIDS and I should get tested immediately.

David Fishback said "I think that that may be a ruse to avoid discussing the real world impacts of the things he says and the policies he advocates.".

That's exactly what it is.

September 03, 2011 11:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's all about ending the stigma bigots create and teaching bigots how to live by the Golden Rule.

God does not make mistakes; we are all his creations. His creations come in a variety of colors and models. Sometimes He puts people in the wrong body or creates them left-handed or gay or physically or mentally disabled, but we are all made in God's image.

“See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven." Matthew 18:10

God loves all of His creations equally but bigots are incapable of doing so, and then have the gall to claim to be Christian.

The unyielding hatred of bigotry is not Christian in any sense.

Some of the comments posted here sound eerily similar to comments mady by bigots from the early days in the struggle for Civil Rights, who argued left-handed people were marked by the devil and mixed race marriages violated God's plan to keep the races separate by placing them on different continents.

The truth is unyieldingn hatred and lack of compassion for all of God's creations are both marks of the devil.

September 03, 2011 12:00 PM  
Anonymous Correction said...

September, 2011
After ten years of Bush tax cuts that were promised to grow jobs, the "U.S. employment growth ground to a halt in August, reviving recession fears.

Nov. 4, 2010
"WASHINGTON – John Boehner, a virtual lock for the post of House speaker next year, took a victory lap Wednesday, appearing before dozens of TV cameras in back- to-back news conferences to proclaim that the job of the new GOP majority is to do what the American people want.

And what they want, he said over and over, is this: Cut spending, create jobs and change how Washington works."


We're still waiting for those jobs to be created, Mr. Boehner.

September 03, 2011 12:21 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "history books are actually purposed to teach history not create fairness".
I never said otherwise. What I said was that it is not only unfair to exclude the achievements of LGBTs merely because they are LGBT its a bad idea and inaccurate and incomplete and balanced history. History books are purposed to be those things.


I said "The new law will see that we consider their contributions"

Bad anonymous said "there are no significant contributions that are not being considered solely because the contributor is a sexual deviant".
So now you know the entirety of history for the entire time of human existance, including that which isn't in history books. That's megalomaniacal even for you. The word preposterous doesn't do justice to your claim. Excuse us all while we laugh.

I said "and won't teach anything about "who they prefer to have sexual relations with""

Bad anonymous said "that's what gay lunatic fringe types mean by sexual "orientation"".
No, that's what bigots try to bastardize the meaning of sexual orientation into. Sexual orientation refers to which gender(s) one is romantically, physically, and emotionally attracted to. It says nothing about who one prefers to have sex with. Virgins have a sexual orientation. Gay men sometimes prefer to have sex with women due to societal pressure.

September 03, 2011 12:49 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "You're not aware of any gays in history books, that's just another one of your obligatory lies to cover up the oppression of LGBTs"

Bad anonymous said "Nasty Priya, You're not aware of any gays excluded from history books,".
Of course not, how would I know about them unless they were included in history teachings? Unlike you I'm not such a megalomaniac that I think I know the entirety of history for the entire length of human existance.
Bad anonymous said "that's just another one of your obligatory lies to mask your promotion of homosexuality".
Obviously not.
Now I know what you're going to say - "You don't know that there are any gays that have made historical contributions so therefore there are none.". If that's true than the law won't result in any LGBTs being taught about in history class, they're not going to make up stories about imaginary gays and include them in the lesson plan. So, if you're right you have nothing to fear and if you're wrong then your bigotry doesn't deserve to be represented by exclusion in the history class. Leave it to the experts to come up with a balanced, complete, and accurate view of history - you know precious little about it.


I said "And [lessons on who people prefer to have sex with] won't be in any new history books either"

Bad anonymous said "then, what will change?".
Lessons will include the accomplishments of LGBTs.

I said "you and your anti-gay bigots want is to exclude mention of gay people"

Bad anonymous said "homosexuals are already mentioned if they made a contribution".
LOL, your knowledge of history is virtually non-existant compared to the knowledge it would take to honestly make such a statement. Not even any single historian could make such a claim.

Bad anonymous said "they simply aren't identified as homosexual why would they be?".
Because that is an important part of history. Many, perhaps most people around the world are under the mistaken impression that LGBTs are unworthy, unimportant, and socially destructive. That false belief prevents society from being as good as it can be and that is the purpose of teaching history, so people are better equipped to make decisions for the future based on what's happened in the past.

Bad anonymous said "are you trying to say we should promote the idea that LGBism was a factor in their contribution".
No. I'm saying we should teach people that being LGBT doesn't inhibit one from making contributions, that the hatred people like you promote is false.

September 03, 2011 12:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Bullsh*t. Some time back you went on and on about how my husband is not my husband, but a roomate and how I couldn't trust him not to have AIDS and I should get tested immediately."

actually, I didn't notice you calling someone your "husband" until yesterday

you used to ramble on about a "boyfriend"

don't recognize two guys as a "marriage"

now if David were to marry a guy, we could talk about that

"[ruse},That's exactly what it is"

already discussed

bringing up your kids, a common tactic of politicians, is an emotionally manipulative technique to be used when your other arguments fail

like yours do all the time, Nasty Priya

"It's all about ending the stigma bigots create and teaching bigots how to live by the Golden Rule"

religion doesn't belong in public schools, right?

"God does not make mistakes; we are all his creations. His creations come in a variety of colors and models. Sometimes He puts people in the wrong body or creates them left-handed or gay or physically or mentally disabled, but we are all made in God's image."

we're creations with a free will and may decide to do wrong things to cope with stress

happens all the time

would you say God makes bankrobbers and doesn't make mistakes so we can't send them to jail?

"God loves all of His creations equally but bigots are incapable of doing so, and then have the gall to claim to be Christian"

his love is manifest in that he doesn't want any falling into the trap of sin

homosexuals can expect forgiveness and restoration if they repent of homosexuality but not endorsement of their sexual practices

such endorsement is not a appropriate expression of compassion

"The unyielding hatred of bigotry is not Christian in any sense"

sexual morality, accepted by all major religions and cultures, is not bigotry

"Some of the comments posted here sound eerily similar to comments mady by bigots from the early days in the struggle for Civil Rights, who argued left-handed people were marked by the devil and mixed race marriages violated God's plan to keep the races separate by placing them on different continents."

it's a stretch you want to make for obvious reasons

"The truth is unyieldingn hatred and lack of compassion for all of God's creations are both marks of the devil"

so, you think traditional sexual morality is demonic?

good luck convincing the world of that

September 03, 2011 12:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"After ten years of Bush tax cuts that were promised to grow jobs, the "U.S. employment growth ground to a halt in August, reviving recession fears.

Nov. 4, 2010
"WASHINGTON – John Boehner, a virtual lock for the post of House speaker next year, took a victory lap Wednesday, appearing before dozens of TV cameras in back- to-back news conferences to proclaim that the job of the new GOP majority is to do what the American people want.

And what they want, he said over and over, is this: Cut spending, create jobs and change how Washington works."

We're still waiting for those jobs to be created, Mr. Boehner."

Obama and Reid are not cooperating

change is coming though:

"Perhaps this ideological moment is different, in the same way the 1930s or the 1980s were different. Another dip into recession—a continuing, sputtering failure of the American job-creation machine—might do more than call three years of Obama policies into question. It might call seven decades of accumulating entitlement commitments into question.

Can a modern economy remain energetic and competitive when it transfers increasing amounts from the private to the public sector, from young to old, from the productive to the retired? Will America need to break decisively from the European social model to avoid Europe’s economic fate?

A sense of economic desperation expands the range of policy options. Reagan turned a fear of national decline into a radical revision of the tax code—reducing top tax rates from 70 percent to 28 percent. Today, a second round of recession and an accelerated European economic implosion could create a similar sense of decay and desperation. The normal rules of political realism might be suspended—this time on entitlements."

September 03, 2011 12:51 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "Oh, my yes, teaching that would be absolutely tragic, it would destroy the fallacy that being LGBT means one is a bad person,"

Bad anonymous said that's a "fallacy" beyond disprove so countering it is no business of the public schools".
You're ignorance is showing again. A huge volume of work was done between Evelyn Hooker's first work in the 50's and throughout the 80's showing LGBTs are indistinguishable from heterosexuals on common measures of mental health. This research began to taper off in the 90's as all the previous research proved this and further work would have been redundant.

I said "otherwise LGBT students might be mislead into thinking they can't become the next einstein or Bill Gates (you know how you don't want that). Its important to know for straight students otherwise when they become employers they might overlook better qualified talent because they're LGBT. Teaching LGBT accomplishments is a necessary step towards the incremental improvement of society and the economy"

Bad anonymous said "this is a bunch of malarkey".
You should know, I was sarcastically referring to your recent claims that if we don't teach children they can be anything they want to be they won't become the next Einstein or Bill Gates

Bad anonymous said "LGB students can create their own aspirations without being coached by public school teachers".
True, if they aren't bullied and discouraged and taught they are inferior, will grow up miserable and be deviants (you know, the types of ideas you promote). LGBTs are at much greater risk than heterosexual students for bullying and therefore missing significant amounst of school and dropping out. History lessons that show your hatred is a bunch of lies and that LGBTs have made contributions throughout history will encourage decent treatment of LGBT students, improve their performance and social contributions and thus benefit all of society, including you.

September 03, 2011 1:24 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "you just think promoting that idea will aid in your attempts to oppress, criminalize and promote violence against gays"

Bad anonymous said "this is, again, slander".
You obviously don't know the meaning of slander, it isn't slander when its true.
In this thread:
http://vigilance.teachthefacts.org/2011/08/peter-sprigg-we-do-it-out-of-love.html#comments
You called Peter Spriggs efforts which include promoting the criminalization of gayness and deportation of gays "community service of the highest caliber". And in this thread:
http://www.teachthefacts.org/2009/12/research-testosterone-does-not-cause.html#comments

When you were told that the proposed law in Uganda would inflict the death penalty on those who had same sex sex more than once you said "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".

You try to hide the true depth of your hate but you have such terrible verbal diarrhea sometimes the true extent of the abuse you'd like to inflict on gays slips out.

September 03, 2011 1:26 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "if you follow this blog, you must know that I never discuss anyone's family members."


I said "Bullsh*t. Some time back you went on and on about how my husband is not my husband, but a roomate and how I couldn't trust him not to have AIDS and I should get tested immediately."

Bad anonymous said "actually, I didn't notice you calling someone your "husband" until yesterday you used to ramble on about a "boyfriend" don't recognize two guys as a "marriage" now if David were to marry a guy, we could talk about that".

What a childish and pathetic attempt to change the subject. That is all irrlevant. The point is you claimed never to talk about anyone's family members on this blog and that was a lie and a cheap excuse so you could avoid taking responsibility for suggesting David's sons were like heroin addicts. You pathetic, lying weasel.

September 03, 2011 1:32 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "we're creations with a free will and may decide to do wrong things to cope with stress happens all the time".
Gayness hurts no one and is thus not a wrongdoing. Your imaginary god saying something is wrong or right doesn't make it wrong or right. If your god told you to rape and set fire to an innocent baby and that that was the moral thing to do would that make it right? Obviously not.

Bad anonymous said "would you say God makes bankrobbers and doesn't make mistakes so we can't send them to jail?".
Bank robbing harms people and thus is a wrong. Gayness harms no one and is thus not a wrong.

Good anonymous said "God loves all of His creations equally but bigots are incapable of doing so, and then have the gall to claim to be Christian"

Bad anonymous said "his love is manifest in that he doesn't want any falling into the trap of sin".
"he" doesn't exist and the christian concept of "sin" is not equivalent to a wrongdoing.

Bad anonymous said "homosexuals can expect forgiveness and restoration if they repent of homosexuality but not endorsement of their sexual practices".
The essence of morality is "Do whatever you want but harm no one." Gays in loving monagmous relationships are harming no one and thus by definition are moral. Your attempts to destroy such relationships harm gays and are by defintion immoral.

Bad anonymous said "such endorsement is not a appropriate expression of compassion".
It is compassionate to let people do whatever they want as long as they are harming no one. Interfering with that is oppression motivated by hate or greed.

Bad anonymous said "sexual morality, accepted by all major religions and cultures, is not bigotry".
Punishing people for harmless sexual relations or romantic relationships isn't moral, that is bigotry and its pervasivness doesn't make it moral any more than the once pervasive acceptance of slavery made it moral

"Some of the comments posted here sound eerily similar to comments mady by bigots from the early days in the struggle for Civil Rights, who argued left-handed people were marked by the devil and mixed race marriages violated God's plan to keep the races separate by placing them on different continents."

Bad anonymous asked "so, you think traditional sexual morality is demonic?".
If by "demonic" one means evil, then yes, your anti-gay sexual immorality is demonic.

Bad anonymous said "good luck convincing the world of that".
In western countries the populations are rapidly being convinced of that. Huge progress has been made in the last couple of decades and the polls increasingly favour fairness. You should move to an Islamic country in the middle east, their bigotry hasn't been dented much there and you'd be much more at home in such theocracies.

September 03, 2011 1:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"In western countries the populations are rapidly being convinced of that. Huge progress has been made in the last couple of decades and the polls increasingly favour fairness."

Nasty Priya, remember, no state in our vast country has ever voted by referendum to allow marriage to be redefined to include deviants. The residents of 37 states, including our largest state, California, with 10% of our population, have voted to specifically forbid this redefintion, in order to forestall judicial action by lone ranger judges. In many of these states, polls showed that the gay "marriage" would win before the campaign got going and it was discussed publicly.

Across most of Africa, South America and Asia homosexuality is completely taboo, much. In Canada, your leader was against when he was elected.

Only in non-catholic parts of Western Europe is homosexuality embraced and that area is declining in every way.

Most of our clay and granite planet opposes the homosexual agenda, and since the long arc of history bends toward justice, gay "marriage" will ultimately be an epic fail.

meanwhile, Michelle Bachmann has said her first act as President will be to shut down the EPA.

is Obama getting on board with the plan?

he's caving in to pressure again:

"WASHINGTON — In a dramatic reversal, President Barack Obama on Friday scrubbed a clean-air regulation that aimed to reduce health-threatening smog, yielding to bitterly protesting businesses and congressional Republicans who complained the rule would kill jobs in America's ailing economy.

Withdrawal of the proposed regulation marked the latest in a string of retreats by the president in the face of GOP opposition, and it drew quick criticism from liberals. Environmentalists, a key Obama constituency, accused him of caving to corporate polluters.

The White House has been under heavy pressure from GOP lawmakers and major industries, which have slammed the stricter standard as an unnecessary jobs killer. The Environmental Protection Agency, whose scientific advisers favored the tighter limits, had predicted the proposed change would cost up to $90 billion a year, making it one of the most expensive environmental regulations ever imposed in the U.S."

who said the Tea Party wasn't saving jobs?

that's right

J-O-B-S

maybe Obama will bring this up when he interrupts the first NFL game of the season with a speech detailing his strategy for creating jobs Thursday night

gee, that only took three years

if we give him four more, maybe he'll actually reduce the rate of unemployment

September 03, 2011 4:02 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Anon,

I think you have sufficiently outed yourself today with respect to your real views about gay people.

Just two points, and then I am done with this thread.

First, you assert that talking about real people's lives is an attempt to unfairly "manipulate" emotions. If this discussion is not about real people's lives, then what good is it?

Second, you assert an "aha" moment, accusing me of seeking to "create social structures." Here is the full passage to which you refer:

"Creating societal structures that do not encourage marriage work against efforts to contain the spread of sexually transmitted infections. One very good reason to encourage marriage is to encourage and institutionalize monogamy. So you only want to do that for straight people?"

And you find this objectionable because? (I don't expect an answer. This is a rhetorical question.)

September 03, 2011 4:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I think you have sufficiently outed yourself today with respect to your real views about gay people"

you are hallucinating if you imagine I said anything today I haven't said before

my views have been consistent and consistently expressed

"Just two points, and then I am done with this thread"

does that mean we have to let you off the hook?

"First, you assert that talking about real people's lives is an attempt to unfairly "manipulate" emotions."

no, I said people who who you are closely related to

obviously, everyone will sympathize with a parent-child relationship and this will inhibit honest discussion

for example, I probably would pull my punches discussing Obama's presidency, if I were talking to one of his daughters

same concept

I think you're bright enough to get it, having gone to Harvard and all

"Second, you assert an "aha" moment, accusing me of seeking to "create social structures.""

yes, your language reveals your intention as you pursue the gay agenda

the curriculum changes were not an example of teaching the facts about homosexuality but an attempt to create a homosexual community that mirrors a fairy tale

not what schools are for

September 03, 2011 5:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A poll released on Thursday found that President Barack Obama...."

Polls Smolls.

What you need to predict presidential elections are Allan Licthman's 13 keys. They are the only proven infallible predicters of presidential elections.

"Never-Wrong Pundit Picks Obama to Win in 2012

Allan Lichtman, the American University professor whose election formula has correctly called every president since Ronald Reagan’s 1984 re-election, has a belated birthday present for Barack Obama: Rest easy, your re-election is in the bag.

“Even if I am being conservative, I don’t see how Obama can lose,” says Lichtman, the brains behind The Keys to the White House.

Lichtman’s prediction helps to explain a quirk in some polling that finds that while Americans disapprove of the president, they still think he will win re-election.

Working for the president are several of Lichtman’s keys, tops among them incumbency and the scandal-free nature of his administration. Undermining his re-election is a lack of charisma and leadership on key issues, says Lichtman, even including healthcare, Obama’s crowning achievement.

Lichtman developed his 13 Keys in 1981. They test the performance of the party that holds the presidency. If six or more of the 13 keys go against the party in power, then the opposing party wins.“The keys have figured into popular politics a bit,” Lichtman says. “They’ve never missed. They’ve been right seven elections in a row. A number that goes way beyond statistical significance in a record no other system even comes close to.”

Lichtman’s earned quite the reputation. In 1992, it seemed likely former President George H.W. Bush would be re-elected, having reached historic highs in popularity after he launched a war that pushed Iraqi troops out of Kuwait. But Lichtman thought otherwise and that factored into former Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton’s decision to challenge Bush.“I got a call from this woman with a thick southern drawl. It was Clinton’s special assistant. She wanted to know if it was true that a Democrat could win. I assured her it was and I sent Clinton a copy of my book and a memo and the rest is history.”

In 2005, Lichtman also hit a home run when he said that the political stage was looking so bad for Republicans that Democrats could pick a name out of the phone book and win in 2008, the year a little known first-term senator became the first African-American to win the presidency."

September 04, 2011 11:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Now Lichtman’s predicting a repeat performance by Obama.

Below are each of the keys and how it falls for Obama.

1.Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections. Says Lichtman, “Even back in January 2010 when I first released my predictions, I was already counting on a significant loss.” Obama loses this key.
2.Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. Says Lichtman on Obama’s unchallenged status, “I never thought there would be any serious contest against Barack Obama in the Democratic primary.” Obama wins this key.
3.Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. Easy win here for Obama.
4.Third Party: There is no significant third party challenge. Obama wins this point.
5.Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. Here Lichtman declares an “undecided.”
6.Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. Says Lichtman, “I discounted long term economy against Obama. Clearly we are in a recession.” Obama loses this key. [Read: Seven Ways Obama Can Gain Credibility on Jobs.]
7.Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. “There have been major policy changes in this administration. We’ve seen the biggest stimulus in history and an complete overhaul of the healthcare system so I gave him policy change,” says the scholar. Another win for Obama.
8.Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. Says Lichtman, “There wasn’t any social unrest when I made my predictions for 2012 and there still isn’t.” Obama wins a fifth key here.
9.Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. “This administration has been squeaky clean. There’s nothing on scandal,” says Lichtman. Another Obama win.
10.Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. Says Lichtman, “We haven’t seen any major failure that resembles something like the Bay of Pigs and don’t foresee anything.” Obama wins again.
11.Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. “Since Osama bin Laden was found and killed, I think Obama has achieved military success.” Obama wins his eighth key.
12.Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. Explains Lichtman, “I did not give President Obama the incumbent charisma key. I counted it against him. He’s really led from behind. He didn’t really take the lead in the healthcare debate, he didn’t use his speaking ability to move the American people during the recession. He’s lost his ability to connect since the 2008 election.” Obama loses this key. [See political cartoons about President Obama.]
13.Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. Says Lichtman, “We haven’t seen any candidate in the GOP who meets this criteria and probably won’t.” Obama wins, bringing his total to nine keys, three more than needed to win reelection."

September 04, 2011 11:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see this law as just another excuse for teachers to broach the LBGT topic in every classroom during every subject, OPT-out or not.

When our public schools are doing so terribly that the really ought to just stick to the basics, and sure you should talk about every persons accomplishments, gay or not. I don't see how bringing up the topic of sexual orientation in a HISTORY class is relevant AT ALL.

September 04, 2011 2:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh come on, it's obviously relevant. Can you imagine a teacher talking about the FBI without mentioning that J. Edgar Hoover was gay? His legacy doesn't make sense if you don't take that into consideration.

September 04, 2011 2:41 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

The "gay agenda", as I understand it, is to treat gay people with the same respect and we treat straight people. No more, no less. To the extent that it is necessary to explain what the mainstream medical and mental health professional associations have concluded about homosexuality, providing that education is part of this "agenda", as well.

September 04, 2011 3:10 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "Nasty Priya, remember, no state in our vast country has ever voted by referendum to allow marriage to be redefined to include deviants. The residents of 37 states, including our largest state, California, with 10% of our population, have voted to specifically forbid this redefintion, in order to forestall judicial action by lone ranger judges. In many of these states, polls showed that the gay "marriage" would win before the campaign got going and it was discussed publicly.".

Enjoy the past bad anonymous, because that's all you've got. Several major polls have shown that the American majority supports marriage equality and the rise in those polls has been steady in virtually every year - your side is losing and nothing will change that. The number of states recognizing same sex unions is continuously increasing.

Bad anonymous said "Across most of Africa, South America and Asia homosexuality is completely taboo, much.".

Yes, in the countries that trail the world in standard of living anti-gayness is very popular - you should move to one of those countries, you'd be much happier where your bigotry isn't a minority viewpoint.

Bad anonymous said "In Canada, your leader was against when he was elected.".

When he was elected the first couple of times. After this election he's come out and said his government has no interest in opposing equal marriage. Even the bigots are gradually accepting the inevitable changing tides.

Bad anonymous said "Only in non-catholic parts of Western Europe is homosexuality embraced and that area is declining in every way.".

False. Spain is primarily Catholic and has had marriage equality since 2005. The countries with the highest standards of living lowest levels of social dysfunction are also the ones most accepting of gayness. The countries with the most religiosity and which are most against gayness are the most dysfunctional and economically devastated - Africa is terribly homophobic and is a societal hellhole - look at Uganda, there's your holy land.

Bad anonymous said "Most of our clay and granite planet opposes the homosexual agenda, and since the long arc of history bends toward justice, gay "marriage" will ultimately be an epic fail.".

LOL, there's been steady progress on the acceptance of gayness in western societies for 50 years now and even most of the most anti-gay of societal hellholes are starting to retreat from their extremes. The long arc of history has been bending towards justice for a long time now and governments' recognition of same sex couples increases every year. You can hope desperately that some miracle will turn the inevitable tide around and you will be disapointed year after year just as you always have been.

September 05, 2011 1:28 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Its time for you to leave the U.S. bad anonymous, your kind is increasingly unwelcome there - move to an Islamic country or Uganda where you can hope and pray your bigotry remains in the majority until the day you die angry, sad, and alone with nothing to cling to but your self-loathing.

September 05, 2011 1:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Its time for you to leave the U.S. bad anonymous, your kind is increasingly unwelcome there - move to an Islamic country or Uganda where you can hope and pray your bigotry remains in the majority until the day you die angry, sad, and alone with nothing to cling to but your self-loathing."

Haven't been contributing the last couple of days but looks like Nasty Priya has been busy. Didn't read anything but this last comment yet.

How humorous! Some demented Canadian thinks, uh, she will hand out suggestions about who belongs in America. Amazingly, I speak to people all the time, here in one of the supposed liberal bastions in the U.S., who completely agree with me. Quite honestly, I rarely find anyone who supports the gay agenda.

The polled people you guys always cite have apparently not realized they can vote. They also apparently aren't aware they can leave the house and speak to others.

Maybe someday, huh?

September 05, 2011 8:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The "gay agenda", as I understand it, is to treat gay people with the same respect and we treat straight people. No more, no less."

Your disingenuousness is apparent to everyone, David. As you understand perfectly well, the gay agenda is about forcing everyone to act like and say that homosexuality is the equivalent of heterosexuality.

You are free, in our society, to respect and treat anyone any way you want and yet there are a never-ending set of legislative steps pushed by people like you in an attempt to force everyone else to adopt your fringe viewpoint.

"To the extent that it is necessary to explain what the mainstream medical and mental health professional associations have concluded about homosexuality, providing that education is part of this "agenda", as well."

Teaching the politically correct opinions of a bunch of associations is not education.

In physics, no one is taught the opinion of the American Association of Engineers. Why do so in the health field?

Only because the science isn't available to back it up.

September 06, 2011 7:00 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "Amazingly, I speak to people all the time, here in one of the supposed liberal bastions in the U.S., who completely agree with me. Quite honestly, I rarely find anyone who supports the gay agenda.".

LOL, that's typical of your total ignorance of science, thinking your experience as a lone individual trumps scientific polls of thousands of people. And you're obviously lying anyway - with the majority of Americans supporting full equality for gays you necessarily encounter a lot of them.

Bad anonymous said "As you understand perfectly well, the gay agenda is about forcing everyone to act like and say that homosexuality is the equivalent of heterosexuality.".

Nonsense. Its about enforcing the U.S. constitution and seeing that gays are treated as equal to heterosexuals. You're free to act however you want in your personal life and say whatever you want about gayness

Bad anonymous said "You are free, in our society, to respect and treat anyone any way you want".

You're free to respect (or not) anyone any way you want, but you most certainly are not free to treat anyone any way you want. If you were murder, assault, and selling tainted food would be leagal.

Bad anonymous said "there are a never-ending set of legislative steps pushed by people like you in an attempt to force everyone else to adopt your fringe viewpoint.".

There's never been any legislative steps to "force" anyone to adopt any viewpoint they don't like. In fact that's impossible, one can never force anyone to believe something they don't wish to.

David said "To the extent that it is necessary to explain what the mainstream medical and mental health professional associations have concluded about homosexuality, providing that education is part of this "agenda", as well."

Bad anonymous said "Teaching the politically correct opinions of a bunch of associations is not education.".

Those "opinions" are based on overwhelmingly supportive scientific evidence, unlike your religiously motivated hate which is the antithesis of science. Teaching the science about gayness is a useful part of the education process and relgion is not - that's why relgion cannot be taught in school.

Bad anonymous said "In physics, no one is taught the opinion of the American Association of Engineers. Why do so in the health field?".

Because that "opinion" is based on 50 years of scientific research and is useful in producing a better more productive society. By the same token if the American Association of engineers does research or concludes from engineering experience and evidence that some aspect of physics is incorrect or incomplete it will most certainly be given full scientific consideration by physicists.

Bad anonymous said "Only because the science isn't available to back it up.".

Dozens and donzens, perhaps hundreds of studies since Evelyn Hooker's work in the 1950's show that gayness is a normal, natural and healthy variant of human sexuality. There is no science to back up your religion based anti-gay agenda, that's why it loses ground year after year after year. You can't win, give it up and move to Uganda or Iran where your type of bigotrty is welcome and you'll feel at home.

September 06, 2011 12:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"LOL, that's typical of your total ignorance of science, thinking your experience as a lone individual trumps scientific polls of thousands of people."

I guess so, if you call the results of voting in 37 states my "experience".

Polling is actually way too imprecise to qualify as a "science". The results can be skewed by an endless variety of factors from the wording of the question used to the perception of the respondent.

Voting is more precise because a public discussion has taken to insure that misunderstandings don't exist.

"And you're obviously lying anyway"

interesting how Nasty Priya continually challenges the scientific basis of every statement made by anyone who doesn't support the gay agenda and yet feels free to make baseless assertions herself all the time

"with the majority of Americans supporting full equality for gays you necessarily encounter a lot of them."

"full equality"?

most Americans believe homosexuals should be allowed to do what they want as long as they don't impose their ideas on others

the gay agenda is all about imposition

"Nonsense."

Nasty Priya apparently believes this word is the equivalent of "abracadabra" and by saying it she can magically dispense with further discussion of her erroneous views.

"Its about enforcing the U.S. constitution and seeing that gays are treated as equal to heterosexuals."

Actually, the gay agenda doesn't seek to treat individuals equally, it seeks to treat homosexuality itself equally.

"You're free to act however you want in your personal life and say whatever you want about gayness"

you won't be when the gay agenda is fully implememted

Nasty Priya herself has talked, in this thread, of exiling anyone who doesn't agree with it

"You're free to respect (or not) anyone any way you want, but you most certainly are not free to treat anyone any way you want. If you were murder, assault, and selling tainted food would be leagal"

obviously, you're not free to break the law but otherwise you can treat anyone as you please

and, no, special laws shouldn't be created protecting homosexuality as an institution

"There's never been any legislative steps to "force" anyone to adopt any viewpoint they don't like."

that's what the whole high school indoctrination is about

ever try telling a MCPS high school teacher that homosexuality is not innate?

the student would be disciplined for "homophobia"

how about telling your employees you think homosexuality is sexually immoral?

the employer would risk being sued for creating a discriminatory work environment

"In fact that's impossible, one can never force anyone to believe something they don't wish to."

totalitarians have tried it for years by attacking the free flow of ideas

the gay agenda has totalitarian impulses

September 06, 2011 6:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Those "opinions" are based on overwhelmingly supportive scientific evidence,"

then why isn't the evidence cited rather than the association quoted?

the associations have acquiesced to political and social pressure

"unlike your religiously motivated hate which is the antithesis of science"

actually, science has its roots in religion

ironic, huh?

"Teaching the science about gayness is a useful part of the education process"

useful to the gay agenda, sure

there is no science about "gaynness"

that's why associations are quoted instead

David Fishback here, chief carnival barker for the gay agenda, has pioneered this technique of obscuring the fact that there is no science confirming the tenets of the gay agenda

"and relgion is not - that's why relgion cannot be taught in school."

any student who gets a degree or diploma without understanding religion is ignorant of what is happening in society around them

"Because that "opinion" is based on 50 years of scientific research and is useful in producing a better more productive society."

and yet the research is ignored and the association focused on

there is no research

"By the same token if the American Association of engineers does research or concludes from engineering experience and evidence that some aspect of physics is incorrect or incomplete it will most certainly be given full scientific consideration by physicists"

and well it should

but schools don't teach the "American Society of Actronomers has concluded that the Earth revolves around the Sun"

it would be ridiculous

just as the gay agenda taught in the schools is ridiculous

"Dozens and donzens, perhaps hundreds of studies since Evelyn Hooker's work in the 1950's show that gayness is a normal, natural and healthy variant of human sexuality."

"donzens" of studies based on the research of a hooker don't provide a agreement on a subjective notion like normality

homosexuality is intrinsically abnormal

"There is no science to back up your religion based anti-gay agenda,"

there is no science to back up the gay agenda

"that's why it loses ground year after year after year."

get back to me when the first state votes to redefine marriage

"You can't win, give it up and move to Uganda or Iran where your type of bigotrty is welcome and you'll feel at home."

thanks for closing with a key goal of the gay agenda

the banishment of all who don't accept the normality of homosexuality

September 06, 2011 6:11 PM  
Anonymous let's get this party started said...

WASHINGTON -- Two new polls released on Tuesday confirm that the summer's debt ceiling debate along with the drumbeat of bad economic news have taken a toll, yielding all-time low ratings of both President Barack Obama and Republicans in Congress and suggesting real peril for Obama in 2012. Obama's ratings are now lower than those for Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton at the same time in their presidencies.

The latest survey from the Washington Post and ABC News finds approval of Obama has fallen to 43 percent, while for the first time a majority (53 percent) disapproves. The results from the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds nearly identical results -- 44 percent approve and 51 percent disapprove. The low ratings confirm downward trends seen in most other public polls over the summer.

As the Washington Post notes, Obama's ratings are now worse than those of Reagan and Clinton at the same time in their first terms. Both won re-election despite "serious midterm setbacks" in their first terms, but by this stage both "had settled safely above the 50 percent mark" and "stayed in positive territory" throughout their re-election campaigns.

These levels of disapproval coincide with plunging confidence in the economy and in the Obama administration's efforts to turn it around:

•Both polls show only one American in five feels that the nation is "headed in the right direction," while both show roughly three out of four say that the country is "off on the wrong track."
•Both surveys give Obama some of his weakest marks on the economy, with between 59 and 62 percent expressing disapproval of his handling of the economy or jobs.
•The ABC/Post poll finds only 17 percent of Americans believe that Obama's economic program is making the economy better, while most say it is either having no effect (47 percent) or making the economy worse (34 percent).
•The NBC/Journal poll shows just 22 percent believe that the economy is getting better, the lowest level of the Obama presidency. Most think it is either getting worse (30 percent) or will stay the same (47 percent) over the next 12 months.
Falling economic confidence stems in part from the unending news about stagnant job growth and an unemployment rate stuck at just over 9 percent. However, the two surveys yield evidence that the summer's debt ceiling debate also helped drive down confidence. The NBC/Journal poll, for example, finds just 6 percent with a favorable opinion of the way "the budget negotiation that took place in Washington was handled," while 71 percent have an unfavorable opinion.

The same poll also shows sharply declining confidence in Obama's leadership qualities and ability to achieve goals, a result consistent with findings from the recent Pew Research Center survey.

The poll also asks whether voters will support Obama or "the Republican candidate." On that question, Obama trails by four points (40 to 44 percent).

Obama's personal ratings do remain strong. In the NBC/Journal poll, for example, 70 percent say they like him personally (although nearly half of those who like Obama also say they disapprove of his policies). But the president's political position remains perilous. As Democratic pollster Peter Hart puts it simply to NBC News, "Obama is no longer the favorite to win re-election."

September 07, 2011 9:08 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "LOL, that's typical of your total ignorance of science, thinking your experience as a lone individual trumps scientific polls of thousands of people."

Bad anonymous said "I guess so, if you call the results of voting in 37 states my "experience".".
Deluded bad anonymous the experience you referred to was your talking to people you know. That counts for nothing just as past voting does. Currently a majority favours marriage equality. The amendments past in 31 states haven't accomplished anything, there wasn't marriage equality there before the votes and there isn't after the votes - nothing's changed. What has changed is that year after year more places legally recognize the relationships of same sex couples and the polls prove that's going to continue at an ever increasing rate.

Bad anonymous said "Polling is actually way too imprecise to qualify as a "science". The results can be skewed by an endless variety of factors from the wording of the question used to the perception of the respondent.".
LOL and you want to substitute "people you've talked to" for polling - you're an idiot.

Bad anonymous said "Voting is more precise because a public discussion has taken to insure that misunderstandings don't exist".
False. Nothing says a question on the ballet is anymore clear than a polling question. Doesn't matter anyway, that's all in the past and the trend is inevitable, an ever growing majority accepts marriage equality..

Bad anonymous said "interesting how Nasty Priya continually challenges the scientific basis of every statement made by anyone who doesn't support the gay agenda and yet feels free to make baseless assertions herself all the time".
LOL, your claim that the majority don't support marriage equality because the people you talk to said so isn't remotely scientific in anyway, only a moron like you would think that.

September 07, 2011 12:47 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "most Americans believe homosexuals should be allowed to do what they want as long as they don't impose their ideas on others". And most support full marriage equality.

Bad anonymous said "the gay agenda is all about imposition".
Nonsense. No LGBT has ever advocated forcing heterosexuals to marry a same sex partner. That would be the case if gays were "imposing" same sex marriage on Americans as relgio-idiots like you claim.

I said "Its about enforcing the U.S. constitution and seeing that gays are treated as equal to heterosexuals."

Bad anonymous said "Actually, the gay agenda doesn't seek to treat individuals equally, it seeks to treat homosexuality itself equally.". To treat individuals equally it is necessary to treat gayness as the equivalent of heterosexuality.

I said "You're free to act however you want in your personal life and say whatever you want about gayness"

Bad anonymous said "you won't be when the gay agenda is fully implememted".
Its fully implemented in Canada and bigots like you still rant on and on about how you hate gays and gays are going to destroy society.

Bad anonymous said "Nasty Priya herself has talked, in this thread, of exiling anyone who doesn't agree with it ".
Never said any such thing, I invited you to move where you'll be happier, I have your best interests at heart.

Bad anonymous said "and, no, special laws shouldn't be created protecting homosexuality as an institution".
I never said there should be.

I said "There's never been any legislative steps to "force" anyone to adopt any viewpoint they don't like."

Bad anonymous said "that's what the whole high school indoctrination is about".
Teaching students the truth is not indoctrination, they're free to reject it if they like, no one can force another to believe the truth, you're proof of that.

Bad anonymous said "ever try telling a MCPS high school teacher that homosexuality is not innate? the student would be disciplined for "homophobia"".
Never happend, never will happened, that's just more of your playing the imaginary victim.

Bad anonymous said "how about telling your employees you think homosexuality is sexually immoral? the employer would risk being sued for creating a discriminatory work environment".
Employees have no more right to denigrate gays than any other employee. If you go to work and say black people are mentally inferior you'll rightfully be punished as well.

I said "In fact that's impossible, one can never force anyone to believe something they don't wish to."

Bad anonymous said "totalitarians have tried it for years by attacking the free flow of ideas".
And no where has that ever succeeded. People can't be forced to adopt viewpoints against there will
Bad anonymous said "the gay agenda has totalitarian impulses".
You're projecting your bad behavior on people who aren't guilty of it. Its your side trying to dictate to people the gender of their marriage partners, its your side trying to foce people to attempt to change their orientation by firing them from their jobs, evicting them from their homes, and telling them they'll be eternally tortured for who they are. LGBTs accepts heterosexuals as they are and have never tried to change any heteros' orientation.

September 07, 2011 12:48 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "Those [major mental and medical health organization] "opinions" are based on overwhelmingly supportive scientific evidence,"

Bad anonymous said "then why isn't the evidence cited rather than the association quoted?".
Silly bad anonymous, because its much easier and shorter to summarize the findings than to list hundreds of citations. If you want to see those go to those organizations web sites and look yourself.

Bad anonymous said "the associations have acquiesced to political and social pressure".
Nonsense, the "opinions" are based on 5 decades of intensive research. No one is stopping bigots from producing research that contradicts those findings, they haven't because they can't. Cherry picked "research" packed with lies and fraudulent methods a la Paul Cameron don't count.

Bad anonymous said "actually, science has its roots in religion".
Nonsense. If that were true religion wouldn't be vehemently opposing the fact of evolution or global warming. Religion has always attempted to suppress science when it has inevitably and repeatedly shown religious explanations were childish and erroneous.

I said "Teaching the science about gayness is a useful part of the education process"

Bad anonymous said "useful to the gay agenda, sure".
Seeing that gays are happy, productive and unoppressed benefits gays as individuals and thus all of society. Society is made up of individuals and the more of those we can improve the lives of the better.

September 07, 2011 1:07 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "there is no science about "gaynness" that's why associations are quoted instead".
False. For example there is overwhelming research here showing the children of gay parents do just as well, if not better than the children of straight parents:
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx
Obviously we're not going to list 10 pages of research every time you falsely claim the APA's position is just an opinion.

Bad anonymous said "David Fishback here, chief carnival barker for the gay agenda, has pioneered this technique of obscuring the fact that there is no science confirming the tenets of the gay agenda".
He has done no such thing.

I said "and relgion is not - that's why relgion cannot be taught in school."

Bad anonymous said "any student who gets a degree or diploma without understanding religion is ignorant of what is happening in society around them".
I agree, that's why comparitive religion classes should be taught - they produce more atheists. What cannot be taught is that christianity is the one true religion.

Bad anonymous said "but schools don't teach the "American Society of Actronomers has concluded that the Earth revolves around the Sun""
Actually, they probably do.

Bad anonymous said "it would be ridiculous".
No, it would be confirmation of the other evidence.

Bad anonymous said "just as the gay agenda taught in the schools is ridiculous".
Students need to be taught that LGBTs are not mentally ill destroyers of society. They need to be taught that LGBTs are productive and thus useful members of society.

Bad anonymous said "homosexuality is intrinsically abnormal".
The experts on mental health have proven that is not the case with decades of research. The opinion of the Catholic church is irrelevant as it has no mental health expertise or research to back up its agenda of hate.

Bad anonymous said "there is no science to back up the gay agenda".
There are decades and decades of scientific research to back up the societal desirability of making all citizens equal - I've given you a link to hundreds of studies, but a drop in the bucket compared to what has been doen.

Bad anonymous said "get back to me when the first state votes to redefine marriage".
Won't be long now, several polls have shown a mjajority of Americans favour marriage equality - its inevitable.

I said "You can't win, give it up and move to Uganda or Iran where your type of bigotrty is welcome and you'll feel at home."

Bad anonymous said "thanks for closing with a key goal of the gay agenda the banishment of all who don't accept the normality of homosexuality".
I have no intention of seeking your banishment, that's just friendly advice aimed at making you happy.

September 07, 2011 1:08 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home