When social conservs play the 'let's replace the term' game, their faces are often replaced with egg
Laurie Higgins, the Illinois Family Institute's professional pusher of public school discrimination (and Holocaust comparisons), has the following to say about H.R. 2262, a federal measure that would do nothing more than combat bullying and harassment in the nation's schools:
Those who believe in the legitimacy of including explicit mention of homosexuality in anti-bullying curricula need to ask whether they believe that other conditions defined by subjective feelings and volitional acts should also be included. Wherever homosexuality is mentioned in these curricula, let's replace the term with aggression, or promiscuity, or polyamory, or selfishness--all conditions that are driven by powerful feelings that are not chosen and which often emerge very early in life. After all, aggressive, promiscuous, polyamorous, and selfish students ought not be bullied either.
More on "Safe Schools" Legislation [IFI]
Wait, homosexuality should be compared to "aggression, or promiscuity, or polyamory, or selfishness"? Wow, and all this time we thought it should be compared to its factual, scientific counterpart: Heterosexuality. But then again, we were educated in public schools, where we were taught that analogous comparisons should be based in sense rather than dogma. Who can blame us for using logic rather than faith-based agendas?
But that being said: Sure, we think Johnny the selfish, aggressive eight-year-old polyamorist, like all children, should be free from harassment and bullying. But if he's also part of a suspect class that demonstrates a history of discrimination, then we'd like to see the government aggressively combat the apparent problem. LGBT people have more than highlighted the need for us all to work together to end the "smear the queer" matches that are still far too prevalent on our public school's playgrounds. And anti-LGBT activists like Laurie Higgins highlight why we can't afford to wait.
One major benefit of this year,s Obama bashing by the teabaggers, birthers, and deathers, etc. is that now, finally, the general public is becoming aware of the right wing lunatics. We have been almost alone in being attacked these deranged people, such as Laurie Higgins, for years.
Posted by: Richard Rush | Sep 17, 2009 11:34:48 AM
I have asked people who believe like Laurie Higgins how they would feel if, say, their son was harassed for wearing a purity ring or their daughter started getting slut-bashed because she developed early. I remind them that it's sometimes just a matter of perception--lots of times, very heterosexual kids get anti-gay harassment because they won't sleep with a malicious person or they don't conform to local gender expectations. They *still* don't get it, or else, as I have begun to suspect far more often, they just plain don't want to get it.
Posted by: GreenEyedLilo | Sep 17, 2009 1:53:41 PM
Ms. Higgins needs to find a style guide. There are many out there, Laurie. Choose one.
Posted by: SammySeattle | Sep 17, 2009 2:24:16 PM
She forgot to include "religeous beliefs" in her list of volitional behavior.
And, wow! These people really don't believe they're bigots, but everytime they want to compare us to other existing groups, they always use unfavorable comparisons.
Laurie Higgens is an asshole.
Posted by: Bill S | Sep 17, 2009 4:42:21 PM
I don't mean to be crass, but I would like to bully the sh*t out of this b*tch. Women like her make me so far beyond infuriated that there should be another word invented to properly express the boiling rage people like her conjur up inside of me. It's an anger so great that all logic and ability to properly express myself becomes lost and all that can tumble out of my mouth are f-bombs and angry stammering grunts.
Posted by: Mrs. M | Sep 17, 2009 4:47:22 PM
Ah equivocators. People like Mrs. Higgins always say there is no need to include sexual orientation in non-discrimination and harassment policies because no one, NO ONE should be harassed and discriminated against. Mrs. Higgins would be the first person to scream that since GLBT students aren't explicitly covered in anti-discrimination and harassment policies, they don't have a right to sue.
Recently, Matt Barber wrote something for OneNewsNow about how angry he was that an activist judge allowed a gay man to sue his employer for alleged harassment by co-workers. Why was Matt calling the judge activist? Because the state where the man was employed doesn't protect GLBT people from harassment on the job.
So no one should be harassed, but when they are, they shouldn't sue because they don't have the explicit right not to be harassed.
Posted by: stojef | Sep 17, 2009 7:24:51 PMcomments powered by Disqus