Slashdot Mirror

No, there is plenty of work being done by conservatives to prevent adults looking at pornography too. You just havn't noticed it because their efforts are utterly ineffectual.

For example, the FRC is perhaps the most influencial social-conservative pressure group in the US, and their policy on the matter is listed on their website:
http://www.frc.org/pornography
"Obscenity and child pornography are illegal and not protected by the First Amendment. They acquire no legal protection merely because they are sent over the Internet. Websites distributing this material from overseas can be prosecuted under extradition agreements, but the fact is that the overwhelming majority of hardcore Internet pornography is produced in the United States and should be prosecuted aggressively."

You can't use nuclear weapons to resolve every conflict, that has been known for nearly 60 years. See Korea or Vietnam.

You apparently didn't read the Head Start article because it discusses the study that shows it is a failure, and a rather spectacular and expensive one at that. The real solution isn't Head Start, but in the 3rd item.

The 3rd item provides useful answers. The Republicans are for marriage, as it is. By "expanding it" I assume you refer to the creation of an institution of so-called "same sex marriage?" "Expanding marriage" wouldn't really help due to the lifestyle choices of gays and lesbians.

Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples .

According to McWhirter and Mattison, most homosexual men understood sexual relations outside the relationship to be the norm and viewed adopting monogamous standards as an act of oppression.

In their Journal of Sex Research study of the sexual practices of older homosexual men, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that only 2.7 percent of older homosexuals had only one sexual partner in their lifetime.[19]

Brad Hayton provides insight into the attitudes of many homosexuals towards commitment and marriage:

Homosexuals...are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature. Sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation. And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good "marital" relationship.[20]

While the rate of fidelity within marriage cited by these studies remains far from ideal, there is a significant difference between the negligible lifetime fidelity rate cited for homosexuals and the 75 to 90 percent cited for married couples. This indicates that even "committed" homosexual relationships display a fundamental incapacity for the faithfulness and commitment that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage.

LEVEL OF COMMITMENT IN HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS

If homosexuals and lesbians truly desired the same kind of commitment signified by marriage, then one would expect them to take advantage of the opportunity to enter into civil unions or registered partnerships, which grant them legal recognition as well as the legal rights of marriage. However, surprisingly few homosexuals and lesbians choose to enter into such legally recognized unions where such arrangements are available, indicating that such couples do not share the same view of commitment as typified by married couples. . .

Number of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont who have entered into civil unions: USA Today reports that, as of January 2004, only 936 homosexual or lesbian couples (for a total of 1,872 individuals) have entered into civil unions.[23] This indicates that only about 21 percent of the estimated homosexual and lesbian population of Vermont has entered into civil unions. Put another way, 79 percent of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont choose not to enter into civil unions. . . .

Number of homosexuals and lesbians in Sweden who have registered their unions: The number of registered same-sex unions in Sweden is reported to be about 1,500 (for a total of 3,000 individuals) out of the estimated homosexual and lesbian population of 140,000.[26] This indicates that only about two percent of Swedish homosexuals and lesbians choose to enter into legally recognized unions. Put another way, about 98 percent of Swedish homosexuals and lesbians do not officially register as same-sex couples. . . .

Number of Dutch homosexuals and lesbians who have registered their unions: A news report by the Gay Financial Network predicted that "some 10,000 gay couples could be married" in the first year following the legalization of gay "marriage" in the Netherlands. In reality, far fewer chose to solemnize their relationships. The Office of Legislative Resear

the company has announced an international campaign to promote legal marriage equality for same-sex couples, called "Legalize Love."

FTA:

Some news reports said the 'Legalize Love' campaign would push for worldwide legalization of same-sex marriage, but a Google spokesman called that inaccurate. The campaign's focus is on human rights and employment discrimination, he said.

Google has spoken out before on same-sex marriage issues, most prominently when it came out in 2008 against California's "Proposition 8" ban on same-sex marriage.

2 Percent of Americans Identify as Gay

Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples

While the rest of your post strikes me as rather crazy, the last sentence leads to a decent "case study" on the misuse of science by fundamentalists. Research is a theme in the anti-gay movement. Both the Family Research Council (FRC) [a leading anti-gay group] and the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) [a leading ex-gay group] have it in their names. The anti-gay people who reference studies usually focus on health and other social problems. Topics include higher incidence of HIV and various STDs, various intestinal parasites, anal cancer, domestic violence and murder, promiscuity, mental health problems and suicide, whether it's a choice or genetic, illegal drug use, and pedophilia.

Here's an article about the American College of Pediatricians [the comparatively tiny anti-gay offshoot of the mainstream American Academy of Pediatrics] distorting some research:

The ACP also claimed that the longer you can keep kids from identifying as gay, the less likely they are to kill themselves. ...
In this case, Remafedi says, the ACP missed the larger point: Kids who come out at a younger age are more likely to kill themselves because they are less able to deal with the stigma and isolation of being gay. If anything, the research shows the need for more support.

"It's obvious that they didn't even read my research," Remafedi says. "I mean, they spelled my name wrong every time they cited it."

It's easy to put up a front of respectability. Here's a nice example from the Family Research Council: an hour long lecture against gay marriage. It's offered by the "FRC University Library", which is almost as respectable-sounding as the American College of Pediatricians. The format is a traditional lecture given by a middle-aged guy in a suit. If you actually listen to him, he rambles incessantly and when he makes a point his reasoning is often highly flawed (for instance, listen to his discussion of the interracial marriage analogy around 48 minutes in; the circular reasoning is just sad). But if you just look at the trappings and believe his conclusions, you might get the impression that he was a trustworthy source to base your own views on.

Statistically a male child being raised by gay men has a much greater chance of being molested than if his parent were heterosexual.

You may not like the messenger. You may not even read it because of the messenger but it is food for thought.

In regards to the previously mentioned Ohio law, it was passed last year in part of a "defense of 'traditional' marriage" legislative package intended to keep homosexuals from wedding.

Ohio passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage being between a man and a woman in 2004 - eight years ago. No statutory law would have greater power to define or limit marriage than the state constitution.

Furthermore, guardians are court appointed and have to make regular reports to the court about the status of the ward and their property. What judge wouldn't consider it a direct conflict of interest for a guardian to marry a ward? Do you think the judge would find the guardian swearing that he really loves his ward and isn't at all doing it to get at the minor's property to be in any way serious or believable and not at all unethical? If teachers can't date students that are technically adults, what makes you think a guardian could date and marry a ward who is a legal minor given the higher duty of a guardian?

GUARDIANSHIPS

The court may appoint, after hearing and investigation, a guardian for a minor or for an adult who is found to be incompetent to take proper care of himself or his property. A guardian, with court supervision, is responsible for making personal and/or financial decisions for the ward. Court supervision is accomplished, in part, through the filing of reports and accountings by the guardian. Both a minor and an adult ward have a number of rights and protections to insure against an unnecessary or ineffective guardianship, including, for the adult ward, the right to be represented by an attorney.

The term 'irony' doesn't even begin to describe the situation there.

I think the term "pure BS" most likely describes what you wrote. Any lie will do to further the cause of "gay marriage", I guess.

And yes, "gay marriage" will have wide spread impact, including school curriculums taught to students about expected behaviors and attitudes, and will bring increasing conflicts between established constitutional rights and those stemming from a newly manufactured right to gay marriage. Think of all the peace and agreement that Roe v. Wade brought to American society, and double it.

Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples

Lesbian Divorce Shocker

Lesbian Divorce Shocker: Same-sex marriages between women are considerably more likely to end in divorce than either same-sex male marriages or heterosexual marriages, according to a study of Norway and Sweden:

We found that divorce risks are higher in same-sex partnerships than in opposite-sex marriages, and that unions of lesbians are considerably less stable, or more dynamic, than unions of gay men. In Norway as well as in Sweden, the divorce risk in female partnerships is practically double that of the risk in partnerships of men.

'Poster couple' for gay rights in California is divorcing

The rhetorical and legal machinery that is being used to punch down society's laws and customs will leave a big enough hole that much more mischief will follow. Polygamists are already filing lawsuits using the same legal theories used to support gay marriage, and support for the normalization of pedophilia is entering the stage that homosexuality was in 50 years ago. These battles will only get worse.

I'm afraid things are a bit more complicated than your friends let on, or perhaps know.

Gays and lesbians deserve our respect and compassion as people. They want to find love like anyone. But their behavior tends to be different from straight people AKA heterosexuals. Does it really make them happy?

Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples

Are homosexual households, as the article suggests, simply another variant of human relationships that should be considered, along with marriage, as "part of mainstream American society"?

On the contrary, the evidence indicates that "committed" homosexual relationships are radically different from married couples in several key respects:

    relationship duration
    monogamy vs. promiscuity
    relationship commitment
    number of children being raised
    health risks
    rates of intimate partner violence

- - - - - -
Male Homosexuals

Research indicates that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime:

    The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.[12]

    Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.[13]

    In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.[14]

    A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than one thousand sexual partners.[15]

I actually can't find a single bit of valid, scientific research pointing either way. Your link also doesn't back up that claim, it has one link that returns a 404. So I'm forced to use, admittedly flawed, anecdotal evidence.

Did you try very hard before you gave up and decided to use your anecdotal evidence?

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/springer/vav/1997/00000012/00000002/art00006
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/springer/vav/1994/00000009/00000002/art00002
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f14463456071g744/
http://www.narth.com/docs/domestic.html
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/2037/Spouse-Partner-Abuse-Who-What-When-DOMESTIC-ABUSE-AMONG-SAME-SEX-COUPLES.html

No, you obviously didn't try very hard.

Also, 50% of gay relationships lack men, the chief abusers in relationships.

A lot of abuse is based off of old family paradigms ("I'm the MAN of the house, your the little subservient woman!"

gay people, by their very existence have moved past that, for the most part

Bullshit. More claims with no evidence, only your anecdotal experience.

Nope. Homosexual couples can be just as dysfunctional as heterosexual ones. I don't understand where the "masochist" bit comes in. I've been in a very happy (heterosexual) relationship for years, and there isn't much pain, or suffering in it, neither is there in the most of the other heterosexual couples I know.

Then by your own admission most heterosexual couples you know are, apparently, fine. Sheer volume might account for the fact that "a fair number" of heterosexual couples you've met had issues with domestic violence, and "only one" homosexual couple did. Do you know comparable numbers of gay and straight couples? And might there possibly just be more pressure on homosexual couples to gloss over issues with domestic violence, in the interests of trying to help themselves be perceived as a "normal family"?

Indeed, and now that a reliable method of making stem cells WITHOUT KILLING has been invented.

Yes, precisely! There are proven stem cell treatments accomplished without killing human embryos:

• lab produced stem cells: http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Newspublications/News/MRC005642
• Adult stem cells: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS09A02

Maybe he stated that because it's true.

If you can produce a reputable, peer-reviewed study to the contrary, please share. Articles by Dailey and Cameron do not qualify.

Welcome to the United States of Amerika where there is no separation of church and state.

If you want proof, you may look at the propaganda in Stop The Filibuster Against People Of Faith: The American Taliban.

Thank you and have a marijuana_induced weekend,
Kilgore Trout, CEO

Ah, I see we're getting into insult territory now...

This is where any meaningful civil discourse ends unless you have something reasonable to say for yourself.

Don't flee from hyperbole; If you don't want to continue this discussion just say so.

If you really wanted to have a good argument, you'd find a way to weasel out of explaining how our lawmakers/breakers are operating in SF currently. I see that you didn't/couldn't do that. Why not just simply admit that what they are doing is WRONG? Righteous indignation stuck in your throat?

The argument that the mayors of SF and that town in NY whose name I can't be bothered to look up are making is that the anti-homosexual-marriage laws violate the Constitutions of their respective states. Based on the fact that the wording of the Constitutions in question is very similar to that of Massachusetts, it's not an unreasonable argument. Civil disobedience in the face of invalid or unjust laws is a proud tradition in the United States, starting from the American revolution. The way you talk, it sounds like you would have opposed that revolution.

Too bad, because I've enjoyed 'chatting' with you all the same.

If you're going to run away, don't try to blame me. You snipped every argument I made to focus on one line; that's pretty cowardly.

This is exactly the sort of thing I mean when I tell my liberal friends to let go of their hate. The hate for anything you disagree with shows it's disrespect - don't think that I or the majority of Americans you spit on don't see it.

Actual, it's the neocons like you who are filled with hate. Your messages reek of hate for homosexuals and for freedom. Moderates like me have a live-and-let-live attitude that makes us seek equality for all.

---Dutch woman marries herself:
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_750542.html?m enu=news.quirkies

Gee, when I read this article it says that although her local equivalent to a Justice of the Peace is humoring her, the marriage has no official standing. I wonder what the article said when you read it that made you think it was relevant.

I couldn't put it better than the Family Research Council on why homosexual marriages damage the traditional family.

I applaud you on your sense of irony. You say that you won't trust a poll conducted by the "liberal media" (not that I'm arguing for the validity of self-selected internet polls) but you try to present the Family Research Council as an unbiased source?!? Clearly you are hoping for a +1, Funny mod.

"...the most significant impact of legally recognizing same-sex unions would be more indirect. Expanding the definition of what 'marriage' is to include relationships of a homosexual nature would inevitably, in the long run, change people's concept of what marriage is, what it requires, and what one should expect from it. These changes in the popular understanding of marriage would, in turn, change people's behavior both before and during marriage.

Newsflash: people's understanding of marriage has changed, and for the better. No longer do spouses feel compelled to stay in abusive relationships because they think divorce makes baby jesus cry.

For one thing, it would reinforce many of the negative changes described above. As an example, marriage will open wide the door to homosexual adoption, which will simply lead to more children suffering the negative consequences of growing up without both a mother and a father.

This isn't evidence; this is merely opinion. If you have actual facts (as opposed to christian propaganda) to back your argument up, please present them. As for fears about homosexual adoption, homosexual couples are already adopting children and there are no independent studies to suggest that there are any disadvantages to those children. What's im

You need to watch out for statistics like the "9 times" one and others, mostly from skewed "research" done by anti-gay organizations like the FRC. If you look over the credible research, theres no real link between homosexuality and pedophilia.

Go see Sony pictures Daddy Day Care! The Family Research Council says "its excellent".

--
The dads are in charge. And the kids are all right.

Charlie (Eddie Murphy) and Phil (Jeff Garlin) are so consumed by their high profile advertising jobs that they are completely missing out on the joys of fatherhood. In the wonderful new family comedy Daddy Day Care, however, their kids provide them with a crash course in child rearing, with uproarious and heartwarming results.

After failing to excite the public about vegetable cereal, Charlie and Phil are fired from their ad jobs. That means no more expensive day care for their sons at the exclusive Chapman Academy, run by the harsh taskmistress Miss Gwyneth Harridan (Anjelica Huston).

While floundering aimlessly in search of employment and tending to his four-year-old son Ben (Khamani Griffin) during the day while his wife Kim (Regina King) is at work, Charlie has an idea. If he and Phil can handle taking care of two kids, how much harder can it be to supervise ten?

Much harder than they ever imagined. Every kid is different and every one is a hilarious challenge, whether they're suffering from sugar rush, fantasizing about being super heroes, or just demolishing everything in sight, Charlie and Phil soon realize they are in over their heads. Way over their heads.

But slowly they get the hang of it and their new venture "Daddy Day Care" thrives, siphoning kids away from the stuffy Chapman school. As the number of kids increases, they bring in a third caretaker, Marvin (Steve Zahn), who seems to speak the children's language, probably because he's just an overgrown kid himself. They teach the kids how to read, play games, interact, and have fun at the same time.

Charlie and Phil gradually bond with their sons, coming to fully appreciate the priceless joys of fatherhood.

However, the better "Daddy Day Care" works, the more threatened Gwyneth Harridan becomes, which leads to a showdown.

Now it's the daddies against the baddest mother of them all.

No, they wouldn't. Censorware programs set a double standard for deciding what to block. They will block offensive stuff that they are requested to block unless it comes from a prominent source like an online Bible or the "Family Research Council. It's still bad. Very bad.

It depends on your goals, I suppose. If Jamie was just trying to demonstrate for the general reader that SurfWatch is deeply flawed, I think he succeeded. If he was hoping to change the Family Research Council's reccomendations, I'm afraid he's barking up the wrong tree.

I'm a little unclear about th relation between the American Family Association, which Jamie says started the censorware initiative, and the Family Research Council, to whom Jamie addressed his open letter. However, both groups belong to the ranks of the "Homosexual Agenda" conspiracy nuts, and Jamie's examples of harmless gay-themed sites will be considered child-inappropriate enemy propaganda

The AFA prominently explains that they want to "combat the destructive effects of homosexuality socially and personally," and offer a videotape "for a suggested donation[sic] of $25 or more" that helpfully explains that "a pro-homosexual bombshell has been fired into our children's elementary schools. It's designed to accomplish three goals: (1) Subvert our children's innocence; (2) Turn them from the beliefs and values you hold dear; and (3) Indoctrinate them with false moral teachings."

The FRC website is such a goldmine of homophobic bile and paranoid fabrication that attempting to find a few choice quotes has me exhausted. Suffice it to say that a search for the string "homosexual agenda" produces 95 hits. Hit #1 is this remarkable press release. Hits 2 and 3 are THE APA SUSTAINS HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA and MISLEADING RAND STUDY PROMOTES HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN THE MILITARY.

In summary, if you're expecting to engage in reasoned debate with these venomous loonies, I would advise you not to hold your breath.

It depends on your goals, I suppose. If Jamie was just trying to demonstrate for the general reader that SurfWatch is deeply flawed, I think he succeeded. If he was hoping to change the Family Research Council's reccomendations, I'm afraid he's barking up the wrong tree.

I'm a little unclear about th relation between the American Family Association, which Jamie says started the censorware initiative, and the Family Research Council, to whom Jamie addressed his open letter. However, both groups belong to the ranks of the "Homosexual Agenda" conspiracy nuts, and Jamie's examples of harmless gay-themed sites will be considered child-inappropriate enemy propaganda

The AFA prominently explains that they want to "combat the destructive effects of homosexuality socially and personally," and offer a videotape "for a suggested donation[sic] of $25 or more" that helpfully explains that "a pro-homosexual bombshell has been fired into our children's elementary schools. It's designed to accomplish three goals: (1) Subvert our children's innocence; (2) Turn them from the beliefs and values you hold dear; and (3) Indoctrinate them with false moral teachings."

The FRC website is such a goldmine of homophobic bile and paranoid fabrication that attempting to find a few choice quotes has me exhausted. Suffice it to say that a search for the string "homosexual agenda" produces 95 hits. Hit #1 is this remarkable press release. Hits 2 and 3 are THE APA SUSTAINS HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA and MISLEADING RAND STUDY PROMOTES HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN THE MILITARY.

In summary, if you're expecting to engage in reasoned debate with these venomous loonies, I would advise you not to hold your breath.

It depends on your goals, I suppose. If Jamie was just trying to demonstrate for the general reader that SurfWatch is deeply flawed, I think he succeeded. If he was hoping to change the Family Research Council's reccomendations, I'm afraid he's barking up the wrong tree.

I'm a little unclear about th relation between the American Family Association, which Jamie says started the censorware initiative, and the Family Research Council, to whom Jamie addressed his open letter. However, both groups belong to the ranks of the "Homosexual Agenda" conspiracy nuts, and Jamie's examples of harmless gay-themed sites will be considered child-inappropriate enemy propaganda

The AFA prominently explains that they want to "combat the destructive effects of homosexuality socially and personally," and offer a videotape "for a suggested donation[sic] of $25 or more" that helpfully explains that "a pro-homosexual bombshell has been fired into our children's elementary schools. It's designed to accomplish three goals: (1) Subvert our children's innocence; (2) Turn them from the beliefs and values you hold dear; and (3) Indoctrinate them with false moral teachings."

The FRC website is such a goldmine of homophobic bile and paranoid fabrication that attempting to find a few choice quotes has me exhausted. Suffice it to say that a search for the string "homosexual agenda" produces 95 hits. Hit #1 is this remarkable press release. Hits 2 and 3 are THE APA SUSTAINS HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA and MISLEADING RAND STUDY PROMOTES HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN THE MILITARY.

In summary, if you're expecting to engage in reasoned debate with these venomous loonies, I would advise you not to hold your breath.

It depends on your goals, I suppose. If Jamie was just trying to demonstrate for the general reader that SurfWatch is deeply flawed, I think he succeeded. If he was hoping to change the Family Research Council's reccomendations, I'm afraid he's barking up the wrong tree.

I'm a little unclear about th relation between the American Family Association, which Jamie says started the censorware initiative, and the Family Research Council, to whom Jamie addressed his open letter. However, both groups belong to the ranks of the "Homosexual Agenda" conspiracy nuts, and Jamie's examples of harmless gay-themed sites will be considered child-inappropriate enemy propaganda

The AFA prominently explains that they want to "combat the destructive effects of homosexuality socially and personally," and offer a videotape "for a suggested donation[sic] of $25 or more" that helpfully explains that "a pro-homosexual bombshell has been fired into our children's elementary schools. It's designed to accomplish three goals: (1) Subvert our children's innocence; (2) Turn them from the beliefs and values you hold dear; and (3) Indoctrinate them with false moral teachings."

The FRC website is such a goldmine of homophobic bile and paranoid fabrication that attempting to find a few choice quotes has me exhausted. Suffice it to say that a search for the string "homosexual agenda" produces 95 hits. Hit #1 is this remarkable press release. Hits 2 and 3 are THE APA SUSTAINS HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA and MISLEADING RAND STUDY PROMOTES HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN THE MILITARY.

In summary, if you're expecting to engage in reasoned debate with these venomous loonies, I would advise you not to hold your breath.

It depends on your goals, I suppose. If Jamie was just trying to demonstrate for the general reader that SurfWatch is deeply flawed, I think he succeeded. If he was hoping to change the Family Research Council's reccomendations, I'm afraid he's barking up the wrong tree.

I'm a little unclear about th relation between the American Family Association, which Jamie says started the censorware initiative, and the Family Research Council, to whom Jamie addressed his open letter. However, both groups belong to the ranks of the "Homosexual Agenda" conspiracy nuts, and Jamie's examples of harmless gay-themed sites will be considered child-inappropriate enemy propaganda

The AFA prominently explains that they want to "combat the destructive effects of homosexuality socially and personally," and offer a videotape "for a suggested donation[sic] of $25 or more" that helpfully explains that"A pro-homosexual bombshell has been fired into our children's elementary schools. It's designed to accomplish three goals: (1) Subvert our children's innocence; (2) Turn them from thebeliefs and values you hold dear; and (3) Indoctrinate them with false moral teachings."
The FRC website is such a goldmine of homophobic bile and paranoid fabrication that attempting to find a few choice quotes has me exhausted. Suffice it to say that a search for the string "homosexual agenda' produces 95 hits. Hit #1 is this remarkable press release. Hits 2 and 3 are THE APA SUSTAINS HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA and MISLEADING RAND STUDYPROMOTES HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN THE MILITARY.

It depends on your goals, I suppose. If Jamie was just trying to demonstrate for the general reader that SurfWatch is deeply flawed, I think he succeeded. If he was hoping to change the Family Research Council's reccomendations, I'm afraid he's barking up the wrong tree.

I'm a little unclear about th relation between the American Family Association, which Jamie says started the censorware initiative, and the Family Research Council, to whom Jamie addressed his open letter. However, both groups belong to the ranks of the "Homosexual Agenda" conspiracy nuts, and Jamie's examples of harmless gay-themed sites will be considered child-inappropriate enemy propaganda

The AFA prominently explains that they want to "combat the destructive effects of homosexuality socially and personally," and offer a videotape "for a suggested donation[sic] of $25 or more" that helpfully explains that"A pro-homosexual bombshell has been fired into our children's elementary schools. It's designed to accomplish three goals: (1) Subvert our children's innocence; (2) Turn them from thebeliefs and values you hold dear; and (3) Indoctrinate them with false moral teachings."
The FRC website is such a goldmine of homophobic bile and paranoid fabrication that attempting to find a few choice quotes has me exhausted. Suffice it to say that a search for the string "homosexual agenda' produces 95 hits. Hit #1 is this remarkable press release. Hits 2 and 3 are THE APA SUSTAINS HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA and MISLEADING RAND STUDYPROMOTES HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN THE MILITARY.

It depends on your goals, I suppose. If Jamie was just trying to demonstrate for the general reader that SurfWatch is deeply flawed, I think he succeeded. If he was hoping to change the Family Research Council's reccomendations, I'm afraid he's barking up the wrong tree.

I'm a little unclear about th relation between the American Family Association, which Jamie says started the censorware initiative, and the Family Research Council, to whom Jamie addressed his open letter. However, both groups belong to the ranks of the "Homosexual Agenda" conspiracy nuts, and Jamie's examples of harmless gay-themed sites will be considered child-inappropriate enemy propaganda

The AFA prominently explains that they want to "combat the destructive effects of homosexuality socially and personally," and offer a videotape "for a suggested donation[sic] of $25 or more" that helpfully explains that"A pro-homosexual bombshell has been fired into our children's elementary schools. It's designed to accomplish three goals: (1) Subvert our children's innocence; (2) Turn them from thebeliefs and values you hold dear; and (3) Indoctrinate them with false moral teachings."
The FRC website is such a goldmine of homophobic bile and paranoid fabrication that attempting to find a few choice quotes has me exhausted. Suffice it to say that a search for the string "homosexual agenda' produces 95 hits. Hit #1 is this remarkable press release. Hits 2 and 3 are THE APA SUSTAINS HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA and MISLEADING RAND STUDYPROMOTES HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN THE MILITARY.

It depends on your goals, I suppose. If Jamie was just trying to demonstrate for the general reader that SurfWatch is deeply flawed, I think he succeeded. If he was hoping to change the Family Research Council's reccomendations, I'm afraid he's barking up the wrong tree.

I'm a little unclear about th relation between the American Family Association, which Jamie says started the censorware initiative, and the Family Research Council, to whom Jamie addressed his open letter. However, both groups belong to the ranks of the "Homosexual Agenda" conspiracy nuts, and Jamie's examples of harmless gay-themed sites will be considered child-inappropriate enemy propaganda

The AFA prominently explains that they want to "combat the destructive effects of homosexuality socially and personally," and offer a videotape "for a suggested donation[sic] of $25 or more" that helpfully explains that"A pro-homosexual bombshell has been fired into our children's elementary schools. It's designed to accomplish three goals: (1) Subvert our children's innocence; (2) Turn them from thebeliefs and values you hold dear; and (3) Indoctrinate them with false moral teachings."
The FRC website is such a goldmine of homophobic bile and paranoid fabrication that attempting to find a few choice quotes has me exhausted. Suffice it to say that a search for the string "homosexual agenda' produces 95 hits. Hit #1 is this remarkable press release. Hits 2 and 3 are THE APA SUSTAINS HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA and MISLEADING RAND STUDYPROMOTES HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN THE MILITARY.

The main problem with capitalism is that it's rarely followed. Ironic that the nation closest to unadultered capitalism is Hong Kong. The economic freedom and prosperity invading from HK and Taiwan will eventually overrun the ChiCom dictatorship, so long as the PLA doesn't do anything particularly antisocial in the meantime (like invade Taiwan, which in MacArthur's words is "an unsinkable aircraft carrier").