Just when you thought it couldn’t get more shameless …

It does.  According to CNN.com, a federal judge has blocked the implementation of a sex ed program in some Maryland schools that tolerates homosexuality.

The reasoning?  Sit down for this one. 

U.S. District Judge Alexander Williams agreed with two groups that sued contending such discussions gave preference of religions that are tolerant of homosexuality over those that reject it.

And of course we can’t have any preference for religions, can we?  Unless it’s OUR One True Religion, that is. 

So now teaching students that homosexuality exists and that homosexuals are people too infringes on someone’s religious right to hate them and urge discrimination against them?

Erik Stanley, an attorney for the groups that filed suit, said the curriculum excludes the viewpoints of former gays and those who believe that “same-sex attraction can be overcome.”

You mean, it excludes the viewpoint that homosexuality is wrong, that it can be eliminated with just a six-week online course, and therefore discrimination against homosexuals is okey-dokey?  I sure as hell hope so.

It’s amazing the lengths to which the Far Reich (thanks, Nunya) will go to fight to keep their religious dominance and their bigotry.

(Now Consi will probably look up something in the court documents and spank me with it, but that’s okay—I like that about him.  wink)

 

 

11 thoughts on “Just when you thought it couldn’t get more shameless …

  1. I’m confused. Is it being taught that acceptance of homosexuality is a religious quality?

    Last I checked, I couldn’t care less if religions accept it as a valid lifestyle as long as it doesn’t affect laws that would repress my harmless expressions.

    More and more I’m thinking the world needs a Gay Pope. Not these closet cases who sin in their hearts and hide their passions. The time has come to for each of you heterosexuals to make a statement. Have sex with someone of your gender, all of you, to prove your support of gay rights. I have given you a challenge.

    Get back to me next week and tell me how it went.

  2. Now Consi will probably look up something in the court documents and spank me with it,

    And after the spanking??? wink 

    Time to get cracking!!

  3. Here seems to be the issue:

    From the booklet that was going to be taught:

    “Although “transformational ministry

  4. The time has come to for each of you heterosexuals to make a statement. Have sex with someone of your gender, all of you, to prove your support of gay rights. I have given you a challenge.

    Get back to me next week and tell me how it went.

    Angelina Jolie turned me down, dammit. 

    And after the spanking??? wink

    Naughty Zoot!  wink

  5. This among other things is why I hate the law.

    Those repugnant bastards (excluded my man SEB)with their heavily starched judge robes can just massage their anuses with their gavels.

  6. Consigliere, perhaps you can correct my understanding of this:

    You said, “This implicitly implies that those religions that endorse transformational ministries are bad, while those religions that accept homosexuality are good.”

    I would have thought that this implies that religions that endorse transformational ministries are wrong.

    There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support the idea that homosexuality can be changed through ‘faith.’ Although there is anecdotal evidence for it, there’s anecdotal evidence for lots of things that aren’t supported by the scientific evidence.

    (Personally, I’d like to see just one nice simple randomized study—with a control group for a change—that shows any degree of change in homosexuals. And while we’re at it, let’s not take their word for it, shall we? Let’s measure arousal to same-sex material.)

    So, what I’m saying here is that the judge seems to have assumed that this is a value judgment when this would certainly not be the case by any scientific measure. So it isn’t that these ministries are bad, they’re just wrong.

  7. They never fail to find some obscure excuse to discriminate against someone else.

  8. Erik Stanley, an attorney for the groups that filed suit, said the curriculum excludes the viewpoints of former gays and those who believe that “same-sex attraction can be overcome.”

    Are there any verifiable instances of heterosexuals who have become homosexuals, thereby proving that “opposite-sex attraction can be overcome?” tongue wink

  9. If the pamphlet is going to mention religion at all it can’t take sides.

    Well, Consi, we know what side you’re on, and we’re on the other side.  This case is emblematic of the wrongheadedness and backwardness of some, not all,  religious viewpoints.

    That said, I have to agree with you.  Mentioning religion at all was, given the current political climate, honest and informational, but a tactical error.  If they just wanted to teach sex ed, they should have stuck to science, which should be sufficient to defenestrate prejudice, and left the religious perspectives, tolerant and bigoted alike, alone.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.