This Friday, a national “Day of Silence” protest enjoined students across the country to take a vow of silence in protest of harassment of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual) students:
The Day of Silence is a student-led national event that brings attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools. Students from middle school to college take a vow of silence in an effort to encourage schools and classmates to address the problem of anti-LGBT behavior by illustrating the silencing effect of bullying and harassment on LGBT students and those perceived to be LGBT.
The protest was put together by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a group that provides training workshops for educators and community organizers to “protect student from bullying and harassment.” Significant is the use of the “anti-bullying” message, a carefully selected vehicle increasingly being used to attack those who do not go along with the active promotion of LGBT issues in a public-school environment:
The issue at hand is the bullying, harassment, name-calling and violence that students see and face in our schools daily.
GLSEN provides a Lambda Legal FAQ for educators concerned about protecting their students’ rights to participate. Included in the legal advice is this comment:
So, for example, if a Day of Silence participant puts up a poster and another student responds with name calling and harassment, the solution must be to discipline the harasser and to protect, not censor, the Day of Silence participant.
You’ll notice the “bullying” message coming up more often, and as early as 2005 GLSEN conducted research establishing the conclusion that “having anti-harassment policies in schools – particularly those policies that include sexual orientation or gender identity/expression – can be associated with students feeling safer at school.”
Surprisingly, the Day of Silence website includes a portal for reporting non-compliance and general resistance to the LBGT message. So while silence was encouraged, it appears not to apply to keeping quiet about non-conformist public schools.
Just as the organizers of today’s Earth Day (read about its chilling beginnings here) used the schools to promote their political ends, watch as the bullying theme cloaks the Left’s current agendas.
Still have your kids in those government-run schools?
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Schools should be about learning – not sexual politics. Kevin Jennings, Obama’s Safe Schools Czar got hundreds of millions of dollars to push this crap.
He was a consult to Romney as was John Holdren a cold blooded abortion advocate.
Romney’s pose as a conservative is an insult to our intelligence.
The RNC pushing Romney shows their contempt for conservatives.
Romney’s governorship is a model of Obama’s administration – right down to implementing unconstitutional agenda by executive order. Obama learned all he has done from Romney’s example.
Romney’s pose as a conservative is an insult to our intelligence.
So are your pretexts for anti-Mormon bigotry.
Thinking Romney isn’t a conservative is “anti-Mormon bigotry”? Is that like disagreeing with Obama making someone a racist?
I see you’ve learned little in the last 4 years of nonsense we’ve been through.
Linking to a different post doesn’t help. You didn’t answer the points currently presented.
Poorly played, gs. Poorly played.
Thinking Romney isn’t a conservative is “anti-Mormon bigotry”?
When building a strawman, what you leave out is more important than what you include. To quote my foregoing comment regarding “Romney’s pose as a conservative is an insult to our intelligence”:
So is your racism, since the only difference between Obama and ORomney is melanin.
Romeny 2012: Because white chocolate is so much less fattening than dark.
Indeed, schools should be about learning.
Hoepfully these anti-bullying efforts will help schools be more about learning.
Having a kid in many public school systems is tantamount to child abuse.
Hence the anti-bullying efforts.
Not every kid is born with a silver spoon in its mouth.
…or a Golden Labrador.
You mean Seamus? Wasn’t he an Irish Setter?
That explains why the only families who homeschool are those that are fabulously wealthy.
That was sarcasm.
“Surprisingly, the Day of Silence website includes a portal for reporting non-compliance and general resistance”
I’d be surprised if it didn’t. That’s how these totalitarian clowns fly.
If you really want to get bullied in school these days just mention that you believe homosexuality is a sin. Heck, just mention that you’re a Christian, and they’ll automatically leap to your “homophobia.”
In the sort of Lewis Carroll world in which we live, the pro-homosexual mindset is firmly in charge in the school system, but they’re still holding to the pretense that they’re being non-conformists.
The recent media “shock” over Kirk Cameron’s statements are a perfect example. That wasn’t an interview. That was a non-conformist being held up for public pillory because he has the temerity to believe something that’s out of fashion.
Typical of liberal morally relativistic thinking: take an issue that is repugnant to most people (bullying) and conflate it with neurotic behavior such as homosexuality (repugnant to most people) and then pass rules (laws) that protect the more dysfunctional behavior.
Bigotry such as yours is also repugnant to most people, Sally.
I don’t see any reason to give a crap if a person is gay or not. Really, who cares.
And if the gay sex thing freaks you out, remember that it’s not your business what other consenting adults do in their bedrooms.
The time-worn, ever-so-reasonable phrases “it’s not your business,” and “privacy of their own bedrooms” have been shown to be nothing more than foot-in-the-door lies.
After years of “who cares what goes on in bedrooms?” we now have pride festivals of men masturbating in broad daylight and having “sexy Jesus” contests in public parks (to celebrate Easter of all things!).
Seems to me “parade” is the exact opposite of “privacy.”
And that’s STILL not enough for them. They have to shove back against anyone who still calls it sin.
As well they SHOULD “shove back” at anybody that calls it ‘sin’.
This is America, not Jesusland. A-M-E-R-I-C-A. You don’t like gay people ‘pushing’ themselves into your face. We don’t like you pushing your religion in OUR faces, and that goes for both gay and straight people.
They have the same right to be as public as any heterosexuals.
Ever been to Mardi Gras or any of the numerous spring break resorts that cater to the well-heeled sons and daughters debauchery every spring?
.
Seems like the occasional over-the-top Pride parade has nothing on what amounts to a giant alcohol binge and college-age orgy off the coasts of Florida, Texas and Mexico every year.
Get over your irritation at ‘sexy Jesus contests’…it’s one day per year.
We who find it irritating that Christianity gets shoved down our throats have to live with YOU folks for a full 365 days per year.
Are the people that attend those “orgies” seeking moral approval and legal recognition for their activities? Are they publicizing their behavior, making it clear that they intend to continue it, demanding that others recognize it as perfectly acceptable, and insisting that they should be allowed to hold leadership positions in churches or as Boy Scout leaders?
Are elementary students being assigned to read “Billy Has Two Parents Who Go to Drunken Orgies?”
You’ve touched on exactly what irks me… The “in-your-face” actions of these groups.
I don’t give a rat’s butt on what goes on in someone’s bedroom but I sure should not have to stand for publicly staged outrage that is nearly an every day occurrence either…
Except that if they’re in school, they aren’t adults. And disagreeing with a Liberal is called bullying because no Liberal could win any kind of fight.
Well, it’s none of your business whom teenagers date, either. So long as a boy and a girl to date in high school, and hold hands, and kiss in public, without anyone raising an eyebrow or subjecting them to any sort of harassment, and it is not safe for two boys to do the same, the school has work to do. So long as that is the case, it’s the heterosexuals who are in everyone’s faces, and they have no business complaining about the homosexuals who are merely asserting the same privileges for themselves.
“it’s not your business what other consenting adults do in their bedrooms.”
So can we not leave it in consenting adults’ bedrooms, rather than dragging it into our children’s classrooms?
Sure, so long as you leave all reference to heterosexuality out as well. And I mean all references that you are not willing to have made to homosexuality. If you object to talking about same-sex couples then you must be careful never to talk about mixed sex couples either. Are you prepared to do that? I didn’t think so. So long as you think it’s perfectly acceptable for a teacher to refer to her husband but not to her wife, you’re a bigot.
False equivalence.
So when the class is assigned Romeo and Juliet they will for the sake of “fairness” have to read some sort of homosexual drama?
If you’ve got no problem with kids reading Romeo and Juliet, but you have a problem with them reading a story about two teenage boys getting it on, then you’re a bigot.
False equivalence.
How is it false? It’s exactly equivalent.
I have no problem with teaching classics.
What makes something a classic? How old does it have to be? Is The Front Runner a classic? How about Maurice? Or Mary Renault’s Alexander books?
Your thinking it’s equivalent does not make it so.
I’m sure yoyu’re fine with this, too:
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/proposed-law-would-force-churches-to-host-gay-weddings.html
If you’ve got no problem with kids reading a story about two teenage boys getting it on, you must also not have a problem with them reading a story about a brother and sister getting it on, and a story about a teeenage girl and ten boys getting it on, and a story about a man and seven wives getting it on. Or else you’re a bigot, Milhouse.
You sound exactly like someone earnestly explaining why school children should not read stories with black heroes, or mixed-race couples. Go crawl back under your rock; your days are done.
1. …and then pass rules (laws) that protect the more dysfunctional behavior.
Not just protect it, impose it on the rest of society.
To that end, look for the rules and laws to be written in an open-ended, expansive manner.
2. I would not be shocked if sooner or later the public schools pressure students to engage in bisexual experimentation.
“Why won’t you go out with me? Is it because I’m a lesbian?” Answering yes violates the asker’s constitutional right not to have her feelings hurt.
3. Think that’s extreme? A while ago there floated in the intertubes a 1980s piece from the Boston Globe; the article mocked the claim that gay-right legislation would put us on a slippery slope to snicker snicker gay marriage.
4. Think that’s extreme? Twenty years ago, would you have dreamed that the government would force Catholic institutions to offer birth control?
5. P.S. I agree with Griddlefry that what “consenting adults do in their bedrooms” is none of my business—as long as they do not use force, including but not restricted to government force, to impose their preferences on me. To that extent I disagree with Paradise.
However, I basically agree with Paradise’s assessment of the Left’s tactics.
Let’s make this clear: I said nothing about a person’s private business. I don’t care what people do in their bedrooms. I care about what is portrayed as appropriate behavior to my children. As shown, homosexuality, as a whole, projects its broken self-image onto others.
Homosexuality, despite the pernicious lobby effort to psychological pathological behavior. Its addictive behavior has a lot more to do with dopamine release than DNA.
correction: Homosexuality, despite the pernicious lobby effort to have it removed from the DSM, is a neurotic behavior. Its addictive behavior has a lot more to do with dopamine release than DNA.
Well, Sally, I don’t recognize your authority to tell me or mine what constitutes ‘appropriate behavior’.
I will make that decision for myself and my dependents, thank you.
And hey, whatever relationships you have are simply for ‘dopamine release’ as well.
What an unpleasant thing to say about millions of people who are simply different than you think they should be.
And my position is that I am entitled, both morally and as a matter of fundamental natural right recognized in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to belittle and make fun of any foolishness, sillyness, wrong-headedness and anything else anyone does, as I damned well please. Doesn’t matter whether it’s the efforts of those who are confused about their sexual roles to compel those who are not confused; I can make fun of them as I please. Nor whether it is those who are using the powers of the Federal government to implement their pernicious notions of racial revenge whose efforts I can denigrate, whose motives I can analyze unfavorably, whose consequences I can decry; as I please with no legal consequences save being held to answer in a civil court for libel or slander and any consequent damages for the same. “Bullying” to be sure, but not from me. I’m not the one with the instutional powers-that-be supporting my speech.
Is there anyone else who sees this whole thing as setting up yet another special class of persons?
Hate crimes legislation is a way to penalize whites but is never used when blacks commit “hate crimes”. Blacks being the protected class can not be subjected to the same penalties.
So this is a way of setting up a new special class. This way when a Christian says something negative about homosexuality that person is “bullying”. Yet by setting up a special protected class it won’t matter if gay students beat up a Christian. They are the protected class, not subject to any charges they are protected by.
The concept of equal justice under law is so very foreign to the leftist mind.
No. I do not have my kids in government schools. Never have.
Kerrvillian, If I remember correctly and since I’m getting old it’s possible I’m not, remembering correctly, I believe Jesse Jackson said that blacks can’t be racist because they are a minority. It made no sense then and doesn’t now. I just read on another web site that MoveOn is pushing racial tension in N.C. over a girl who was accidentally shot when a gun with a history of discharging without the trigger being touched was killed. The girl black, the shooter, white. The police investigated and released the man. Perhaps we should do what MoveOn is doing and find blacks who shot blacks and demand justice for those victims. It sure wouldn’t be hard to find these victims. Just go to Chicago. Note that they are targeting swing states. I guess if your black and shot by a white in a none swing state, you’re off the hook.
It’s not a lack of clear cases of hate crimes by “minorities” on whites or hate crimes by gays on straights.
The problem is the lack of prosecutors who will charge with clear and convincing evidence. The failure of police to charge hate crimes against minorities.
We have seen how George Zimmerman was morphed from an Hispanic man into “white” or “white-hispanic” to create a hate crime where none existed. The same news organizations, the AP, NBC, CNN and the rest, mis-reported the story in an unforgivable way to make it seem like a hate crime. They even edited evidence they broadcast to make it appear more sinister than the facts support.
There is a very real hate crime here. The MSM is guilty of a hate crime against whites when no white was even involved. Mr. Zimmerman, fathered by a Jewish man and raised by his Peruvian mother is called “white” though he is very specifically the product of two groups who are in a smaller minority than Travon Martin, Jewish and Peruvian.
Why is he considered “white” by the press? So they can make it into a hate crime.
By this standard then Barack Obama is not America’s first black president, merely our first “white-black” president.
While bullying, unlike gay marriage, really is an issue important to gay youth, teaching kids as young as kindergarten (in our school district) about homosexuality is not the way to combat it. The truth is, a lot of kids in public schools are just out of control.
There is also the issue of lesbians having kids, and the kids being enrolled in schools. The truth is, nobody knows how to talk to children about it because this is something that had never been done before. I don’t think “LGBT community” has any special wisdom to impart on this issue.
Sounds racist to me.
My comment really posed a question: Would you or would you not have a problem with having children read about such subjects? The idea was to illuminate the true nature of your position.
If your answer is no, then it’s your position that schoolchildren should be required to read about a variety of relationships generally regarded as illicit and/or immoral.
If your answer is yes, you agree there are some relationships whose nature makes them inappropriate subjects for school study, but don’t include homosexual relationships among them. In other words, you endorse the concept that schools should not teach about some things, but have a different opinion about what those things are. You think that your beliefs should control but anyone who has different belefs is a “bigot.”
Your response is more namecalling. ‘Nuff said.
This comment was made in response to Milhouse’s comment at 12:18 AM on 4/25/12.