Tolerance for me, but not for thee

"[I]f freedom of association is to have any meaning, people have to have the right -- not the absolute right, note well -- to exclude others." So you think that a private US university should be free to exclude all blacks? After all, it's just the right to freedom of association for the university community. Or is the "not the absolute right, note well" clause playing some kind of role here?

I think you don't completely appreciate the GLSEN "safe space" concept and the reality of what happens in schools.
I'd agree that getting administrators to crack down on anti-gay bullying is the ideal goal, although I'm not sure all decent people would support it. But for that to happen, it assumes that every 14-year old gay kid being called "faggot" at school has the fortitude to complain to an administrator. So the "safe space" program identifies allies and an environemtn so gay students know that there are people they can talk to who will help them deal with discrimination and abuse. Ultimately, that be an administrator but probably not initially. There are studies that suggest that up to 30% of homeless youth are gay, lesbian, and transgendered. Most of those kids end up on the street because they've been tossed out of their homes by their (often religious) parents. So if kids fear complaining to parents and fear complaining to the principal, why not offer another option. I understand that these programs are very threatening to religious conservatives, who somehow feel their religious rights are violated when they can't quote anti-gay scriptures on their t-shirts or have to attend diversity training about being supportive of gay youth. But it is about creating a safe culture of all kids, including gay youth.

Rod, I just read your WS story. Dershowitz and Silvergate were complainng about the treatment of the religious conservative activists, not the GLSEN training itself. Theirs is a pure Free Speeh argument related to a lawsuit over the taping, not an endorsement of their tactics or a support of their opposition to the GLSEN program (at least from what I can tell from your story).

Another reason I vote Republican, even with all the GOPs flaws. The Dems are just in bondage to this lobby.

"Can I at least get you to admit that this particular GLSEN event was indefensible?" I'd agree that the portions taped by the conservative activists--based on what you quoted in the WS--is indefensible. I'm betting there is some missing context, but it seems noteworthy that the speakers were Mass. gov't workers and not GLSEN staff. One seminar that went too far, however, doesn't mean the entire program is a bad idea.

Rod, if you really support the right of free association then you have to support the right of any association saying no to any people for any reason. Says who? I really support the right to free speech, but I don't support the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater.

Seriously - one wonders what it is you people want, if not the complete erradication of gay people. You don't want us at your dating sites, and that's *ok*. You don't want us to have anyplace to discuss sex and sexuality with teenagers in any way that contradicts YOUR moral stances, but fail to recognize that even at the evil conference cited above, the controversial portions described are in response to questions from the teens, themselves. You, of course, would prefer that the state either refuse to answer such questions at all or give the "morally correct" response, but whose morals? Which moral paradigm? There are people who do not accept, a priori, the same premises you do: namely, 1) that sex is only for procreation, and 2) that sexual activity outside of the Christian-approved marriage bed is evil. Are they not allowed to have the space to explore *their* paradigm? Why not? Because it's your tax dollars at work? Well, it's *our* tax dollars at work, too, but no one is ever willing to address that. And when we *do* want to get away from you people, we're decried as some sort of evil anti-freedom-of-association devils? What do you people want from us?

And when we *do* want to get away from you people, we're decried as some sort of evil anti-freedom-of-association devils? Not at all. Getting away from certain people is what freedom of association is about. It's only when you think yourself free to get away from "us people" but we're not free to get away from "you people" that you become "evil anti-freedom-of-association devils". Or hypocrites, anyway. What do you people want from us? Consistency?

~TV: Seriously - one wonders what it is you people want, if not the complete erradication of gay people. ~TV, with respect, this is the kind of thing that makes it really hard to argue with you. Two points of view were expressed in my post: 1) that there's an offensive inconsistency of gays demanding full access to hetero activities/places (to the point of filing a lawsuit), while also demanding the right to exclude heteros from gay activities/places; and 2) that the idea of creating "safe spaces" is a rhetorical ruse concealing a different agenda. I could be right or wrong on either or both, but it's a point of view. Your instinct is to respond by accusing me, and those who agree with me, as exterminationists. How are we supposed to answer that? How are we supposed to reason if you begin from the premise that our position can only be justified by irrational, murderous animus towards gays?

How are we supposed to answer that? Ignore him. I didn't read the rest of his note after his genocide accusation.

Two issues are intertwined here: 1) The right of private property and its proper constraints 2) The definition of freedom On private property this is of significance. Either we uphold the right to do as one wishes on ones property or one secedes property to the control of the state. If we are to retain control then we must define under what constraints that ownership should be controlled. In this case moral constructs become primary.
But there is no personal morality if there is no personal freedom in any case, and certainly inclusive of private property. So thus enters the notion of freedom. Is it unlimited license or is it not. And from that comes the need to address freedom for who.
Further comes the fundament of do we beleive in free will. If so, then the state has no business interfering in ones use of private property as it exhumes from them the right to moral choice and hence the state retains the right to determine for you what you are and will be. Thus there are no chances for personal moral salvation. Quite what we have today and quite the opposite of what we should have despite the potential costs to the good of society. We lose then not only the right to free association but also in essence the right to be who we choose. We become proscribed by the state, which is exactly what the state currently offers despite the misrepresentation and drug-like induced stupor created by the constant misuse of the word diversity. Gays then, subsequent to ownership of property should be able to exclude who they want, and by the same token Christians by ownership of property can also be exclusive, as can blacks, whites or Asians. The only constraints become moral ones since the decisions we make in our lives ultimately determine who we are and that must be somewhat personal yet guided by an enlightened culture not as a matter of law exclusively but as a matter of reasoned tradition. Freedom cannot be circumscribed for one group but not the other or it loses it moral foundation. But freedom in a better understanding of the word does not become the right to do what one one wants to do but instead becomes the right to do what one ought to. This derives from tradition, culture and that which rules in the heart of reasonable men. However there is a growth process, which derives from a dynamic of action and reaction that propels people toward the right use of property in the context of freedom. This becomes the ultimate moral constraint not the state imposition of what it construes to be the good.
Gay rights activists have conflated the two. They want license and yet do not wish to grant the same to others. So they want their cake and to eat it also. We must wrestle with this as people because this group challenges basic notions at the philosphical level of who we are as a people. By pushing the notion of license and ignoring the bounds of morality they do harm to the society in which they reside. Now let me say this is not gay bashing it is only a call to more serious contemplation of the real impact of behavior and ideas.
There is no reason for anyone to be denied a right to associate but there is every reason for others to react to public expression of what has been an unacceptable activity such as discussion of fisting with a group of children, since societies and individual peoples have a right to self defense against intruding notions which are deemed against the totality of what they are and choose to be. Let me also say that the outcome is in a sense preordained a priori, as at the age of reason they know right from wrong, at the least in an agregate way. So without interference and allowing for free choice (a very dangerous choice of words in todays world) a reasoned group of folks will become moral and thus use their property with wisdom and correctness and this is as it should be and we then remain assured the coercion from the state and its forces remain at bay. Gays by presenting their sexuality publicly as it is, is beyond the bounds of reasoned tradition which states that this is a private matter for all people and not a public one. (I do not traverse the streets in leather pants with my backside hanging out as seen recently in my town.) When a certain point is transgressed, people within their rights call for restraint. When gays live within the bounds of civility I think we have reached the point of tolerance as a moral due. When gays act outside civility then we have disruption. It becomes incumbent on the gay population to make the decision and to reap the results of what they choose and not to go on about blaming others for expecting normal behavior in society which is quite separate from sexual orientation.

GLBTs did not create the supposed hypocrisy of wanting equal access and fighting to preserve protected spaces. Every group which has sought access to traditional white male enclaves has found themselves in the same position. The reality is that avenues of power cut through those smoke-filled gentlemen's clubs and restricted golf courses, and those seeking power had to seek access. It's not hypocrisy, it's reality. And it's not that hard to draw a line between equal access and private spaces. The supreme court has done it in their freedom of association cases. You can check them out to see how these issues can be resolve. Gay hypocrisy? Not hardly. A natural and universal tension between competing goals. As for the need for safe spaces, your right wing mole with the tape recorder helps to demonstrate why something like that might be helpful.

Rod, if you really support the right of free association then you have to support the right of any association saying no to any people for any reason. Is it okay for a hotel to not allow Asians? A hotel isn't an "association". It's a business.

But we as a society have already established that the right to free association doesn't translate into having the right to refuse to allow certain categories of people to patronize your business. If you are a landlord, you can't refuse to rent to Jews. If you run a restaurant, you can't refuse to serve blacks.

Fisting. How long until Bishop Jefferts Schori and her allies in the Episocopal Church's House of Bishops propose a blessing or rite for the practice? The next revised Book of Common Prayer could be a real interesting (and sad) read.

In others words ... "we as a society have already established" ... actually, we've established no such thing. We've made it a matter of law. Big difference.

So, everybody has to be conscripted into the worldview of The High Church of the Most Holy Condom so sophie can sleep easy at night. It's public health, yaknow. Good to have things stated so bluntly.

Look Vic, They don't have to be conscripted, but they do have to be told. When your kids come home, you can certainly deprogram them by replacing all those pesky facts with your myths and conjecture.

Oh pleez ... if it were something your kind thought was immoral, you wouldn't take such an irenic view of "deprogram them at home with your myths and conjectures." You'd be crying at the school and threatening a lawsuit. And that's not conjecture, as the eHarmony lawsuit is merely Example #785129356 of the lawsuit to force "tolerance" (of what we decree shall be tolerated). Oh ... and don't pretend that you want to "tone down the war rhetoric," if you're going to construct this particular matter as "those pesky facts [versus] your myths and conjecture."

Sophie, I think you missed my dripping sarcasm in my original comment. I think abstinence-only education is the most ridiculous, fundamentally dangerous form of "sex education" that exists. My parents were open and honest with me at a young age, and I went through public school with real sex education that included much information about and much emphasis placed on safe sex. It didn't make me want to run out and have sex. It educated me so that I could make smart, potentially lifesaving decisions when I did decide I was ready to have sex. I could not agree with you more.

That's not a reason enough though for the schools to fill the gap. How about those parents that *want* their tax dollars to pay for comprehensive health education including sex ed to their kids?

I wasn't aware that the scientific studies done on condoms amounted to myth The only thing a scientific study can tell you about a condom is whether it is technically efficient (it is). Science has nothing to say either about the personal morality of their use or the social morality of age-appropriateness.
Whether you personally are suing eHarmony or not is of no consequence whatever, socially; this is merely the latest thing that the gay movement is doing, and everybody has to live with it. But I'm certainly glad you don't think anybody should be tagged with something they did not themselves personally do. I'll save it for the next time you try to tar a Christian with Fred Phelps and/or his kind of moonbattery. (It'll make social discussion kinda tough though.)
How about those parents that *want* their tax dollars to pay for comprehensive health education including sex ed to their kids? First of all, they don't have any natural right, as sophie wants, to determine how other people's children are formed. And since there's only one public school, the sanest thing is to have no sex ed at all and leave values formation in this matter (and others) to the family. Second, if bohemian parents think their kids so need education in fisting but (a) don't want to do it themselves (as my previous grafs suggests) and (b) think it vital everyone else's kids be Crisco-compliant (as sophie sez) ... then we're at a moral impasse. There's a procedure for this situation, it's called democracy. And if the bohemian parents are outvoted, they lose (Christian parents must play this game too). But the losers don't get to sue to reverse the outcome. Or get to impose their will anyway through professionalistic legerdemain.

Victor, you are putting all kinds of words in my mouth. I want schools to educate children about safe sex, avoiding pregnancy and and the use of condoms. I don't think public schools need to teach kids about sexual practices, though I have no problems with schools offering settings where kids can discuss such things in safety. Here's what we end up with. Rod concedes that some children will not receive good information about sex from parents or guardians. Since information about safe sex and avoiding pregnancies is important, and really is essential to success for many kids, that is reason enough to provide them with that information in the school setting. Conversely, your religious-based moral view is not at all a sufficient reason for denying kids the information they need.

Sophie, Pay no mind to the inane notion of sex education = school endorsement of and explanation of fisting. It's the oldest anti-gay scare tactic in the book. You talk about something that is disgusting to nearly all of the population, attribute it to an entire group, and then deny things like safe sex education to everyone, all because some kids at a GLSEN meeting asked about fisting.
It goes like this: some gays get into fisting, thus, all gays must love fisting, and all gays are liberals, and all liberals want comprehensive sex education in schools, therefore....all sex education programs are fisting-based and therefore morally wrong and disgusting. This horribly unclever argument takes many forms, but this was a pretty classic example.

And, you know, I am a woman, so the personal is political and all that. Well, I'm a man, so I don't. Conversation over.

Victor, It's not over. It's not up to you to say who gets the last word. I can see you have very strong feelings about sexuality. Apparently they are very rooted in your religious beliefs, and you are entitled to them.
But the reality is that teens have sex, that abstinence education does not prevent them from having sex, and that sex puts them at risk of many things (many of which can't be cured by tetracycline) which condoms can help to prevent. That's the default reality.
When you deprive kids of information about safe sex, they can die -- and I am not talking about spiritual death, I am talking about the permanent kind. Your religious beliefs do not provide an adequate grounds for depriving kids of that information. And it would be laughable -- if it weren't so sad -- that you think all kids have to be kept in the dark because you don't want your children to be labeled uncool for opting out.

I stand with you Victor, Nice job, well argued and well put. Wish more thought the same. I think the world might then rest a wee bit. A couple of cents more: The effort to suggest that because kids are having premarital sex we need sex education in school does not compute. It is precisely due to the line of reason on here displayed by Sophie and others that kids are having pre marital sex. You cannot surround children with a "free sex attitude" as one readily sees in lots of the gay community but as well in others and on public media as well and then teach them about it all non-judgementally or ideolgicaly and expect that the damn will hold.
It has not been the thousands of years of carefully cultivated attitudes about sex that caused the problem. It has been the rapid dislocation from the past that is inducing the present chaos.
Liberal sexual license has created the havoc not the Christian approach but this seems to want to be denied.
Experience is against those who want to argue otherwise. Anyone old enough to head backwards and not terribly far can see the impact of walking away from what those before us already knew.

Schmitt I do argue that because teens are having sex it is necessary to teach sex education. You say this does not compute, but you do not say why. You say instead that teens are having sex because they are teaching sex education. You cannot verify this. When kids are not taught any sex education, they have sex. When they are taught abstinence education, they have sex. You cannot stop kids from having sex by not teaching them sex education. Many factors lead to teen sexuality. Throughout most of your "thousands of years of carefully cultivated attitudes about sex" teen sex was the norm.
Some factors contributing to teen sex I don't like any better than you do. I don't think teen sex is a good thing, but I don't think it's an inherently evil soul-killing thing either. But good or bad, it is not going to be eliminated any time soon. And I think you know that, Victor knows that, and Rod knows that. So the reality is that you're willing to put others lives at risk to advance your religious principles. Sad.

Oh Schmitt, please tell me you didn't open that can of worms. Teenagers have been having sex outside of marriage since there have been teenagers. The reason why the attitudes about premarital sex exist in the first place is because premarital sex exists. Regardless of how well society adhered to the attitude that premarital sex was wrong, it didn't stop premarital sex. Admittedly, when the unfortunate results of premarital sex (disease, pregnancy) reared their ugly heads, the action was properly pooh-poohed and the offender was appropriately shamed. And yet still people did it. Permissive attitudes did not cause premarital sex. It merely brought it out in the open air of reality so people who cared to could talk about it. Disease happens. Pregnancy happens. Neither is beneficial to a teenager. Who better than they to point out that there are ways *many* ways to avoid disease and pregnancy, only ONE of which is abstinence.

Perhaps comprehensive health education should include lessons on: how to inject heroin to maximize pleasure and minimize the risk of HIV/AIDS; the relative merits of reefers, pipes and bongs; how often the bong water should be changed; whether Thai stick beats just plain pot; and, even better, whether sex is better high or straight. Many of the children will play with drugs, and better yet drugs and sex, so why not have them do it safely. Tax dollars working for a better educated child. The 70s classic "Rock and Roll Hoochie Coo" sums up the current public school curriculum:
"The way they wiggle that thing, it really knocks me out" "I'm gettin' high all the time, hope ya'll are too"
"Come on little p***y I'm gonna do it to you."
These lyrics also summed up the ethos of my high school days in the early 70s. They were, however, inconsistent with what we were then taught in the public school classroom. But, the times they have a changed.

Rod, I don't agree that we are putting hearts and souls at risk by teaching sex education. We could discuss this if you like, but I sincerely don't agree that chastity or celibacy are necessary for salvation.
On the other hand, you have to agree about the very real health consequences of unprotected sex. That's something right here in the material world, that we can all appreciate with our senses.
Do you see the difference?

sophie, I challenge you to provide an instance of a single school district in this country informing students that condoms "don't work." I will grant that some districts might refer to something like "failure rates," which are part of an informed discussion on any kind of birth control.

cs, here's what five seconds on google got me: Teens are taught abstinence-only, with false statistics to back it up. Abstinence programs have been telling students that condoms fail to prevent HIV infection 31 percent of the time during heterosexual sex, the chances of getting pregnant while using a condom are 1 in 6. and condoms break or slip off nearly 15 percent of the time (www.washingtonpost.com). John S. Santelli, a pediatrician and a professor at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health, reports that each of these "facts" are wrong. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/228677/newest_study_abstinence_programs_are.html And in addition to the false statistics, schools mislead kids by telling them what condoms cannot prevent, without telling them what they can prevent. My middle school son -- a really bright kid who pays attention -- came home saying condoms "don't work" -- because that's all he was taught. It's not going to be easy to override that first impression.

Blood on my hands? Hoooo-boy...

Sophie,
In their world, if that kid dies, it's his own fault because he should have listened to the bible. Which, in their world, would be the approved public sex curriculum...

Sophie, I think the fundamental issue is that you think government involvement in sex education is to the good and I and others, I suspect think the opposite.
I would point to the very arguements on here about the whole subject as evidence to exactly why government should not be involved. you can see from the divergence of veiwpoints that this matter cannot be resolved by someone other then mom and dad.
While I would like to think public schools would be offering sound moral guidance to our kids I think the evidence points to the negative.
Government sex teaching is likely to attempt to placate the constituency as they see it and that often is the loudest special interest in the mix.
Over the past 20-30 years it seems that moral considerations have been relegated to the swamp since no one can stand for anything except on an individual basis. The culture has seen to that matter since the sixties. relativism dominates the minds of most today. TV: I am 55 years old. I can assure you that when I was younger what has been happening today did not occur when I was a kid. I grant you that some experimentation went on but at such a lower level that comparison is ludicrous.
What I knew about sex was all mystery and it was not til much later in my teen years that my dad said much to me except avoid it or else, and this was the case with most everyone. We had not one single pregnant girl in my high school, no date rape, and no bizzarre notions about what our bodies were for.
I give you that we wondered but any action on my a part would have gotten me into more trouble then I would have cared to face from my parents and hers and I would have actually ended up embarrassed not proud. Kissing a girl was a major event and happened only on rare occasions accompanied by much anxiety and preliminary planning and stress.
I, nor my friends knew nothing of drugs and cigarrettes were the worst we got and we were quite afraid of getting caught with them. So you tell me what happened to change this.

Schmitt I think teaching sex education saves lives. You think not teaching sex education saves souls. My argument can be verified. Yours cannot. Mine belongs in the public arena. Your does not. I think your experience was not too representative for 1969. In any event, the sexual revolution preceded sex education instruction. Ask anyone.

Sophie, Then your understanding was either to dim or too shallow or your ego is to large to allow for any truth outside that which you yourself think is perceptible. Might I urge more humility in the matter and go back searching wearing a humbler expression. Two thousand years of deep thinking I doubt can be dismissed so easily by one contemporary woman. You do not have the time on this planet to wage war upon every element of orthodox Christian thinking. You will find yourself overpowered in rapid order but then there is always the retreat toward emotion if it makes you feel safe.

Let's correct some facts here: The conference was NOT funded with any state funding, nor was it "co-sponsored" by the government. It was funded by the registration fees involved as well as private donations and contributions. It was sponsored by GLSEN and Project 10/East, and the only government involvement was that three of the presenters worked for the government, and that Educational development credits were given to attendees. That's it. The purpose of this workshop was to give kids the opportunity to ask any questions they might have on sexual topics without fear of reprisal or judgement over their curiosity. It's purpose WAS NOT to teach any specific activities--but to answer students questions and correct any misinformation previously given. Students were there to ask questions they couldn't ask in their high school sex ed classes (for various reasons).
This workshop was originally meant to be a closed workshop, limited to the kids and the three adults leading the workshop. The adults who remained, including the authors of this inflammatory article, were allowed to do so only because the kids were given the choice to let them stay or not, with the kids deciding to do so. It was explicitly listed as a confidential workshop, so the authors knew (or should have known) that taping the proceedings was not acceptable. This is not a "suppression of free speech" issue.
One of the activities of the workshop involved students anonymously writing questions they had on cards. The questions were read in the order received, and the other students were first given the opportunity to share what they thought the answer was. If misinformation was presented by one student, it was corrected by the adult facilitators--who reportedly tried to do so without embarassing the person who presented the misinformation. One of the questions listed was "What is fisting?" The question was read and the other kids present were to talk about what they thought it was. One of the students who responded made the statement that fisting was "slamming your fist up into somebody". As this is not accurate, the facilitators corrected the misinformation.
So--we have a privately funded, completely voluntary conference, with an explicitly confidential session for teens to ask questions they *couldn't* ask in their state-sponsored sex ed clases, with those teens first having an opportunity to answer anonymous questions from other teens (not the adults), with the presence of the educators serving as facilitators and correctors of misinformation presented BY the teens themselves. A far cry from state-sponsored fisting education, I'd say. For the complete story on what actually happened, check out this article

schmitt to what fate would you consign the many children who don't learn sex education at home? do you care about them?

Next they'll be saying that needle exchanges encourages rampant drug use...

Sophie, When you state that God does not make sense it translates to me that you simply do not comprehend the idea. The simplicity and power of the concept is too important to dispel except after a lifetime of contemplation and then only upon ones death and you will not be able to inform us at the point.
When you discard brilliant minds of great depth of thought and use loaded contemporary terms like patriarchical dismissively I consider that arrogance. When great time is of less importance the current state of feeling I think one is perhaps less then transcendent. If you think you are the sole answer to all matters of life and that you will have the great Ah Ha based soley on your own resources then I fear you best find the answer to immortality.
Generations have passed before you and knew what you face now, they patiently worked out answers. They observed, thought and tried.now somehow we think we know it all. I cannot imagine how that might be possible. yet I admit that we enter the equation on our terms and offer what we can to the continuity of knowledge but yes I do think it the height of arrogance to be dismissive toward the past at least when observing brilliance that was used to further good intentions.

Sex education must be taught to protect our kids. however there should be limits, if what rod's blog said is true, and the presenters were telling the attendees how to do certain positions and acts, i think they were very stupid and senseless. Sex education should imo be neutral on the matter of actually having sex - not encouraging or discouraging - but just focussing on the need-to-know stuff. if you try and discourage it you're bound to fail. but if u arm them with potentially life-saving information, at least theyll not be coming home and telling u you're a grandparent any time soon.

And thanks to BlueChocobo for the much-needed reality check.

Blue Chocobo, The website to which you linked confirms that participants received "professional development credits" for attending the conference. Therefore, the state did sanction the conference as a legitimate professional development opportunity for teachers. In addition, employees of the CDC participated in the conference. The incident mentioned was hardly isolated. Here is a list of the topics discussed with the youth participants of the conference:
so. Cum? Calories? Spit versus swallow? Health concerns? What age do most GLB first have sex? Is it different from the age of straight kids? What is an anal ball? Should some kind of protection be used in lesbian sex? Women s vaginal wall can expand to any dick size Can anal walls do the same? Are girls who primarily like guys and are only attracted to other girls sexually (not in the love-y) way considered bisexual? How is protection used in lesbian sex since it s mostly oral, where does the protection go? My ex said she enjoys pain, what the hell is that about? What is fisting? Define fetish. What is lesbian sex anyway? How do I find out if someone is bi? Homo? What are the technicalities of transsexual and hermaphrodite sex? How long do you have to wait to get tested for HIV or any STD after the "act" is committed? A question on the ethics of oral sex: would it be considered rude not to swallow? Can you answer the fish question? Do lesbians rub their clits together? Is that even sex? How do GLB kids determine loss of virginity?"

That list of topics was provided by the students themselves, according to the info BC provided. So what's the problem? Is it that the students were asking those questions or that people were giving them honest answers?

should be '...promotes a radical gay AGENDA that has little to do with preventing bullying...'

The website to which you linked confirms that participants received "professional development credits" for attending the conference. Therefore, the state did sanction the conference as a legitimate professional development opportunity for teachers. And I even noted that they received education credit in my prior post. I'm not debating that. I do disagree that allowing education credit for attending a conference means that the government automatically espouses EVERY position taken within that conference, and I do disagree that in giving credit, the state is "sanctioning" it. The incident mentioned was hardly isolated. Here is a list of the topics discussed with the youth participants of the conference: Yes, and every single one of those topics was brought up BY the students, anonymously, and without prompting. What should the facilitators have done? Not answer questions in a workshop designated specifically as a place where the students could ASK those questions?
And again, I reiterate, since you may not have gotten this point--this was voluntary. As far as we know, no student was forced into this workshop. No public funding was used to set up this workshop, and presumably, any monetary compensation received by the facilitators was from the private funding that paid for the conference. The questions asked were student submitted questions. The questions were first turned over to the students to answer, and only if misinformation was presented were the answers corrected, clarified, etc--according to one of the three facilitators involved, at any rate.

"What should the facilitators have done?" Not going into the mechanics and joys of fisting might be a good start.

Not going into the mechanics and joys of fisting might be a good start. Quite simply, we only have the word of two VERY biased authors that the event occurred in the way Rod's article portrays it. Both men have histories prior to this particular incident of spreading misinformation about gays, gay-straight alliances, and sex-ed programs in education. So I'm not inclined to trust them.

By handing out course credits to students and professional development credits to teachers, the Education Department is actively involved and encouraging people to attend. Would the Mass. Education Deparment ever hand out credits to attendees at a conference that teaches participants that people with same-sex attraction can and ought to refrain from engaging in gay sex?

By handing out course credits to students and professional development credits to teachers, the Education Department is actively involved and encouraging people to attend. The article I quoted only mentions the educators getting professional development credits. Nothing is mentioned about the students getting any sort of credit whatsoever.
Would the Mass. Education Deparment ever hand out credits to attendees at a conference that teaches participants that people with same-sex attraction can and ought to refrain from engaging in gay sex? That would be a question for the Mass.Ed Dept. As I do not work for them, represent them in any way, or even LIVE in Mass, I'm not qualified to answer what the Ed Dept will or won't approve credits for.

I haven't read all the above comments. My eyes still hurt from reading that excerpt.
Backed by the Teachers Union? Says it all right there.. Doesn't it. Dr. Kennedy, Truth That Transforms did a week long or 2 on Education last week, check out his website.
They are taking the word marriage, husband and wife out of textbooks. If I can't homeschool, my kids are going to a good private school. Even if I have to be a janitor there....

I'll admit as a gay man that I've talk with other gays about activism and often are either A) frustrated at the lack of support that many GLBT people have for actually doing activism or B) frustrated by the ways in which the organizations that are supposed to be working on equality issues tend to handle the issue and what things they actually do to. It can be frustrating to see organizations that are supposed to be working for a particular cause like GLBT equality, and then see them do things that are completely opposite of what they should be doing. I mean never mind that most people "get it" when it comes to equality rights and that if you take the time to sit down with people you find that they want the same things for all people and don't often realize the discrimination or bullying or hatred that is done not only to GLBT people but to people that are actually protected by law. Once you get to the heart of the debate...you know getting people to realize that there are two seperate arguments being made that those who oppose equality issues often are arguing a different argument altogether than those who are favor equality. Once you get passed this, get to the heart of the matter, the fact is most people always say something like "Yeah, I wouldn't want to be treated like that" or "As a citizen I'd expect to be treated like all the other citizens". But it's almost as if the GLBT organizations (and other similar equality organizations for other groups) don't really seem to try to get to the heart of the debate or even bother really getting out there and explaining the issues to people. If they did, things would be advancing much faster because people would actually be able to relate. Instead their own tactics/measures on the issues seem to make people view each of the groups of people as "seperate"...as if the issues themselves are "seperate" when in fact we're all talking about the "same" issues...different groups of people, similar issues. I've been involved with human rights and GLBT equality activism for some time and I sometimes feel that the human rights activists seem to get it more than the individual groups like GLBT or Native Americans or African Americans or Asian Americans or Hispanic Americans or whatever other group of people you can think of who have groups that are supposed to be striving for their equality and to ensure fairness. The human rights organizations seem to get it, but perhaps its because they overlook all those different segments...they aren't working for the "rights" of one group, they are working for the "rights" of humanity...all humanity. But that's just my own humble opinion based upon my own humble experiences.

Oh pleez ... if it were something your kind thought was immoral, you wouldn't take such an irenic view of "deprogram them at home with your myths and conjectures." We're not even human to these people. Even Free Republic is less virulently anti-gay than some of Rod's commenters.

Ted, You obviously recognise that you are incapable of answering the principled Christian critique of the gay rights movement because you spend a great deal of time discussing a blood libel of your own invention--namely that Christians advocate the extermination of homosexuals. In fact, most Christian denominations teach that violence against homosexuals is a sin.

In fact, most Christian denominations teach that violence against homosexuals is a sin. My, how big of you. I don't see why gays would ever be put out with Christianity. Afterall, you allow them to live, which is plenty!

My second point addresses the past. I grew up in the 70's. We didn't have any kind of comprehensive sex-ed. We were taught about reproduction, broadly. And let me tell you, teens were having sex, even without the supposed 'encouragement' of sex-ed, and the advocation of condom use. Fortunately for me, my parents did teach me how to be safe, though the phrase 'safe sex' hadn't been coined yet. I waited until I was nearly 18, and engaged. Most of my contemporaries had parents who told them don't or else, and they had sex anyway. Obviously we cannot always count on the parents. My kids, OTOH, had factual sex-ed, and parents who explained how we felt about the subject. They know that we want them to wait, at least until they are physically AND emotionally able to handle it. They know from both sources how to be safe, just in case they don't wait. Another major issue, they have learned from both sources, that ANY sex is sex (thinking oral sex here, which kids don't seem to think 'counts'), it counts, and it also runs most of the same risks as intercourse.
Personally, I would rather my kids' friends also have the facts, instead of passing rumors as fact because a)the schools can't teach it to them, or b)their parents WON'T.

I'd like to know where all of you old geezers have been getting your information about what goes on in a sex-ed class. 1. It's not (and never has been) about teaching that a person should have sex. In fact, the classes have always come from the premise that sex should be avoided until the individual is a) of legal age, and b) mature enough to handle the consequences. 2. It's not (and never has been) about teaching the in's-and-out's of the karma sutra. Graphic discussions about the joys of particular sex acts just don't occur. The students get embarrassed and giggle at a side-view biological illustration of the internal human genitalia--they most assuredly aren't actively participating in a swallow-or-spit debate.
3. The girls and guys are separated during gender-specific discussions to minimize how uncomfortable the class can become (doesn't work though--still uncomfortable seeing a giant cutaway penis illustration on the screen and hearing the teacher say the word "ejaculate"). 4. There is nothing--not one thing--in the curriculum that makes sex any more or less attractive. Whether or not a student gets laid is based upon individual choice, influences OUTSIDE of school or--more often than not--luck. Knowing what a condom does or how sperm makes its way to an egg is not really a factor in a person's decision to go for it or not--level of horniness and availability of a willing participant is. 5. Most parents have no clue about what info should be provided to a kid about sex, at what age it should be provided, what the kid has already learned (through experience or otherwise), what vital info the kid should know, but doesn't, or how to present the info in the most effective and least uncomfortable way. The kids already know that their parents prefer that they abstain, so if that's the extent of their sex education, it's redundant and unnecessary. 6. Sex ed classes are not about convincing the students that sex is bad or convincing them that they should get naked and do it right there on the classroom floor. It's just another boring hour that has to be endured before we get a lunch break. It's a CLASS.
5. Finally, why are conservatives always bringing up "fisting" whenever they talk about gay sex? Do they really think that it's a common and routine part of gay sex? Really? I think their fascination with fisting says more about the conservatives than it does about the gays. Guaranteed, it's just not a subject that most gays consider on a regular basis, anymore than a dirty sanchez is pondered over everyday at breakfast by straights. But, let me say this since the subject was brought up--if a kid knows enough to ask a question about fisting, then the horse is already out of the barn, the genie is out of the bottle, the toothpaste is out of the tube and they've already done left the farm for gay Paris.
Denying the kid an answer isn't going to make the question magically disappear. And I'm willing to bet that learning the actual honest truth about what is involved would be enough to repel them from the act--forever! Seriously though--where the hell are these sex ed classes happening that conservatives are so scared of (and apparently titillated by)? I don't know anyone who has ever seen one. I think it's an urban legend (or, closer to the point, a red herring).

Ted, If you are going to use Paul Cameron, than I suggest everyone google Michael Swift. Everything that he (Swift) threatened (though as a joke right?) is coming gruelingly TRUE! I point you to the fact that GLBTers demand to have the only word on appropriate sexuality wherever they hold the power to do so. "Educating even the tiniest of children that their strange feelings mean they are homosexual. I have never seen a GELSN or PFLAG handout say that a child's "questioning" feelings on sexuality 90% percent of the time means that they are NOT gay or Lesbian. No, no, in fact, they are invited to join in for awhile until they can find out what ticks, so to speak. By that time, the child is too screwed up to know what is right and what is wrong. NO, repeat, NO other perspective is allowed alongside the GLBT one on sexual appropriateness.
Are there any "wait 'til marriage" champions in the "Gay" marriage world? No, rather, gay marriage is a tool of legitimizing "anything goes."
And the Pederasts descend on our youth like a swarm of heart worms. Nevcer a word from the GLBT community about morality of abstinenece. Of course. Massachusetts, California, New York, Illinois (and I'm sure Oregon, Washington, Vermont, New Hampshire . . ., those Pink and Rianbow Triangles loom uber alles like like a closed fist over the issue of sexuality in our public schools. What may have started out as a civil rights issue (MAY), is certainly turning Sodom and Gomorrah more and more every moment of every day. Hopefully the gay guys at that Australian bar, will set a precedent that will help those desiring not to be around the homosexual movement and its adherants.

I was having a discussion with my sister and asked her why of all the sins mentioned in the Bible are so many Christians demonizing this particular one mentioned in the Old Testament among so many others. She had a rather profound theory.
Heterosexuals have committed a whole host of biblical sins. We, collectively, have had sex before marriage, eat pork and shellfish, work and recreate on the Sabbath, occasionally or totally forget to make it to a house of worship, covet our neighbors goods which is the very basis of capitalism, divorce, remarry, swear, commit murder and adultery, etc., etc. The one sin we heterosexuals don t engage in is homosexual activity. If this becomes the ultimate of sins in our eyes, even though Jesus the basis of our church failed to mention it, then we have precipice from which to condemn those who are less worthy than us.

schmitt, Every generation thinks its is the worst that has ever lived. Let's not forget, if it hadn't been for the repression and oppression to which people were subjected, there woudl have been no sexual revolution.

Liz, The Christians in the New Testament tackled food and sexual immorality. They tackled slavery and heresy. And all of the other Levitical laws. Homosexuality was still considered grossly inappropriate after all was said and done. Food was dealt with and by saying something like "let's get real." It goes in, it goes through, it goes out. It does almost nothing to harm the spirit. Bye-bye food restrictions except for idolatry.
Slavery? Be a good slave and be a good slave owner. Oh and by the way, treat your slaves like a brother or sister in Christ. Bye-bye slavery. Same-gender sex, adultery, immorality and other sexual sins, still left in the no-no category. Even in Mel White and Jim Wallis Bibles. That is why we are urged to "study" from the writers of the New Testament. Remember, it was the cross-dressing, man marrying Nero that dealt Paul and Peter and the firct century Church their sentences. It was Roman cultrte that executed Jesus. Read Michael Swift's little Nero-like tirade against Christians and see why it also says in the Bible that there is nothing new under the sun. Same "adversaries" chasing the Christians to this day.

One vote for MM's solution. With you 100 percent. Maybe leave the state schools for those who wish them and let us use our tax dollars as free members of the society to purchase the education we want for our kids instead of being told what we will pay for, how it will be delivered and what they will hear. Yep, with you all the way. Would love to see vouchers or even better return of the tax funds stipulated to be used for childrens eduction to grant acess to educational choice.

TV, Lets see isn't diversity part of your agenda.

All of this talk about how homosexuals are so immoral and trying so hard to ensnare your children--what ridiculous and blatantly ignorant positions. Gays don't want to have sex with kids any more than straights want to have sex with kids. The difference between gays and straights is the sex of the person to whom they are naturally attracted, not the age of the person. There is no dimension to homosexuality that inclines them toward pedophilia. That is pure alarmist bullshit. And if you really believe that proponents of gay marriage are in actuality promoting an "anything goes" agenda, then you're a fool. I don't think that statement requires any additional explanation. With all the red herrings you guys keep throwing out, you should open a fish market. None of this has anything to do with what actually is taught in sex education classes.

Nick J I used a contextual abstraction, sometimes refered to as deductive reason. Without assumptions we will be in the deep dive without a bottom. Just to clarify. I am not one arguing about the immoraltity of homosexual behavior. This is not so clear to me.
I am though suggesting that sexuality of any sort should be private. Sex comes with much meaning from those who see it as simple biology to those who see it within a moral structure. But society demands a norm of behavior to maintain civility. You simply cannot parade the streets looking like nuns in drag and expect much respect as your due. Everyone perhaps has a different approach. There are some things in life that should be sacred matters and should be left essentially to the parents not the state acting as the parental surrogate.
I think the gays need to respect the rights of hetero's if they wish to win respect in the society. You simply cannot act in the public forum as if you retain complete freedom absolved from moral norms. Until gays come to that conclusion and I know some have but others have not there is going to be push back. It is incumbent on the gay community to essentially police the outlandish behaviors of the ones that are in everyones face while respectfully entering dialog with the larger community in a dignifed way.

It is incumbent on the gay community to essentially police the outlandish behaviors of the ones that are in everyones face while respectfully entering dialog with the larger community in a dignifed way. So when will you be policing the likes of Pat Robertson, James Dobson and Fred Phelps? It's a two-way street, afterall.

What is A Biased Sample?

And of course it seems to need posting here that rod's entire essay displays a very serious confusion between the viewpoints of particular businesses and the viewpoint of individual persons. Because a *business* wants to discriminate againsgt some customers in favor of others doesn't mean that the actual *customers* want to discriminate against other potential customers. So I don't hold people who buy gas at gas stations legally at fault, or morally at fault, if the gas station has discriminated in some way against its suppliers or workers. similarly, just because one individual, or even a group of individuals, behaved ina way Rod finds problematic in a public setting it doesn't mean that everyone in every public setting is wrong in discussing certain topics. It all depends. rod consistently confuses political with legal with social issues and actors, but there is no reason his commenters should be confused. The remedy is to bring bad actors to court. So if Rod thinks he would like to attend a gay themed hotel in Australia he is welcome to 1) petition the owners to change their rules 2) sue them under whatever applicable laws australia has 3) show up and ask to be included in the fun! All good remedies for what is (to me) patently discriminatory behavior. I'd I'd recommend the exact same thing to the gay people who are suing the on line dating service! So where's the problem? In rod's mind its not the principle of the thing, its the outcome, that is at fault. But all we've got is princples and laws. Rod's desire to punish people he doesn t like doesn' and really ought not to enter into any legal or social discussion of the legal issues. Because rod's position is entirely uninformed. oh and by the way before the anti gay prudes jump all over this I'm a happilly married heterosexual woman. aimai

Could you imagine the "free-speech zones" around McDonalds to keep the patrons safe from masses of "anti-meat-and-cheese" protesters?

Similarly, your ill-informed and groundless judgment of my alleged motives have no place in this discussion either.

Touchy much? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...2+2 = 4...etc., etc., blahblahblah.

Whatever. It's probably a gay duck anyway.