Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fistgate to be Held Again on March 15
MassNews ^ | March 7, 2003 | MassNews Staff

Posted on 03/07/2003 7:35:36 AM PST by scripter

Fistgate IV will be held again on March 15 to teach teenagers how to play with the sexual organs of other students.

The first Fistgate was in 2000 and caused waves of protests from parents and others. It was exposed by the Parents Rights Coalition which taped part of the scandal so that people would finally understand what was happening, and by MassNews which reported it.

The homosexual community has said that its agenda was badly damaged by the scandal. It was almost unable to find a location for the event in 2001, but Tufts University finally did let them use its facilities again.

The sponsor of the event, GLSEN, an acronym for Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, says that the purpose of Fistgate is to teach safety and respect. But the event that was taped in 2000 went on for 55 minutes about explicit forms of homosexual sex, including thrusting your fist into another's rectum, before anything was even mentioned about condoms in the last five minutes.

Four years later in 2003, the Gay/Straight Alliance at Newton North High School, with the help of the state Dept, of Education, is handing out leaflets to students arriving at the school, which ask questions such as, "If you have never slept with a person of the same sex, how do you know that you wouldn't prefer that?"

It lists BAGLY as a resource for the teenagers to contact. In 1999, which was before Fistgate, MassNews reported that BAGLY offered $25 and free dinner to boys who would come to their headquarters in Boston and discuss homosexual sex and other issues. The boys were also invited to a free, three-day, lakeside, weekend retreat in New Hampshire with other "boys" up to 25-years, who are "attracted to or have sex with other men."

The following is printed on the Newton High pamphlets: "This project is supported by a grant from the Massachusetts Department of Education."

The state has been paying more than $1.5 million/year to help the Gay/Straight Alliances in the schools and similar activities. It is impossible to discover how much money is now going to those projects. Some of the money always went to GLSEN and it is assumed that much of it still does. <


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: aft; brainwashing; children; dontbendover; education; gay; gayrecruitment; gerbilalert; glsen; handoverbutt; homolinks; homosexual; homosexualagenda; homosexuallinks; indoctrination; lesbian; nea; outright; prisoners; schools; teacher; teens; tolerance; voucher
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301-329 next last
Comment #151 Removed by Moderator

To: madg
"Secret" recording of a conversation one is an obvious party to is an unsettled are aof the law. Most states allow it. It is NOT at all clear whether an sustained and assertive contest of such laws in states that ban it -- states that require consent of all parties to a converstaion -- would find the Supreme Court upholding such laws. A person with a demonstarted photographic memory (or phonograhpic in this case) -- and there are such people -- how is his memory different than a fidelic sound recording. They are of the same level of testable fidelity, imho.

Who owns the discussion heard at one's ear?

Perhaps copyright claims be made -- why then fair use would break them in this case, for the commentary and context of the discussion of such recording is political.

152 posted on 03/10/2003 3:05:30 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
"that we simply would never hear about, at all, from any news source"

Certainly not the Boston Globe, whose writing staff is riddled with homosexual activists.

153 posted on 03/10/2003 3:05:50 PM PST by bribriagain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: madg
You have to be kidding... What stopped them from leaving was the "fact" that it was a mandated assembly. Faculty members were there. These kids TRUSTED their teachers and those who chose to have this "former stripper" perform for them. The students had no warning and attendance was not OPTIONAL. How many HS students would have gotten up and walked out? NONE, it appears. They thought this was a chance to learn how to keep yourself safe from AIDS which was still rather new on the scene at that time. They trusted their teachers. In addition to the "base/crude" content of the PERFORMANCE it was filled with untruth. Condoms do not prevent the spread of AIDS.

As to the family being EXPOSED to the content of Mass News...No harm there. The truth can be dealt with. It defends itself.

154 posted on 03/10/2003 5:02:52 PM PST by codder too
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: bvw
"Mass Legislature was told that they could not discuss the matter either, at a time when the funding of the program was to be debated.

That's a fundamental balance of powers issue -- I'd think no court could limit the speech within a state legislature chamber. Can you expound on that issue?"

Sure. Unfortunately I must rely on the despicable Massnews, since I can't find it in the Globe archives. Would one of the activists who dislike Massnews see if you can find Judge van Gestel's gag order and how Janet Barios interpreted it to the legislature? Thanks in advance.

http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/2000/10_Oct/1000fist5.htm

"Part of the tape was played on Boston talk-radio station WTKK-FM by the host, Jeanine Graf, whom
I've known for years as a vigorous advocate for free speech. The Parents Rights Coalition made the tape
available to others, and GLSEN sued to have it and any transcripts suppressed. On May 17, Suffolk
County Superior Court Judge Allan van Gestel, who moonlights as a lecturer at Harvard Law School,
issued one of the most far-ranging prior-restraint orders in American judicial history. It included not only
the Parents Rights Coalition but anyone, including lawyers, who tried "to disclose or use such tape in any
forum" or its contents. That included the press, electronic and print. Moreover, Jarret Barrios, a
Massachusetts state representative, sent a message to all House aides and representatives in the
Legislature. He warned that because there was a question of whether the students' privacy rights had been violated, the Legislature was also under the gag order. And it agreed. "

So it was not the court who gagged the legislature- it was strongly hinted by a member, and the rest agreed to be "gagged" and not bring up the topic of graphic sex instruction at state-funded conferences where minors were bussed in to attend, in school district schoolbusses.

This dodged the issue, and nobody had to go on record supporting it or denouncing it. Everybody won, and the Safe Schools funding was passed for another year.
155 posted on 03/10/2003 6:42:49 PM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: madg
"It appears that the DA's office disagrees with you.
"

That would not be the first DA's office to disagree, and certainly not the last to lose against me. Anyone talking publicly about how to molest a child with the intent of doing so doesn't want me to hear it.
156 posted on 03/10/2003 6:42:52 PM PST by PatrioticAmerican (Arm Up! They Have!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
Would that there be one bold state legislator willing to bear up and play that tape on the floor!
157 posted on 03/10/2003 6:46:31 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: madg; bvw; PatrioticAmerican; codder too; FourtySeven; MEGoody
"I'm no expert but my own reading of the pertinent laws shows me why the DA would choose to NOT press "corruption" charges. Quite simply, the context of the exercise was not prurient in nature. The content may have been presented in a manner that many would find offensive, but that by itself does not mean that there was any harm (as defined in the law)."


You still don't get it. The highest ranking educational official in the state of Massachusetts, Education Commissioner Driscol, was quoted in the article State condemns 'gay' sex discussion, saying:

"Faced with the irrefutable evidence of his employees' actions, David Driscoll, commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Education, admitted Tuesday:

"The participation of our staff in conversations with students about explicit issues of sexuality outside the realm of AIDS/HIV prevention was wrong. The workshops were of prurient nature, and not educational, and what we heard suggests that the discussion contributed absolutely nothing to the students' understanding of how to avoid AIDS and HIV." "


SECTION 31 of the GENERAL LAWS of MASSACHUSETTS DEFINES matter that is OBSCENE and HARMFUL to MINORS:

"Harmful to minors'', matter is harmful to minors if it is obscene or, if taken as a whole, it (1) describes or represents nudity, sexual conduct or sexual excitement, so as to appeal predominantly to the prurient interest of minors; (2) is patently contrary to prevailing standards of adults in the county where the offense was committed as to suitable material for such minors; and (3)lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.

"Obscene'', matter is obscene if taken as a whole it (1) appeals to the prurient interest of the average person applying the contemporary standards of the county where the offense was committed; (2) depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and (3) lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value...

The following definitions are from "Webster's Desk Dictionary of the English Language," 1990 edition:

prurient - (2) causing lasciviousness or lust.

lasciviousness - (2) arousing sexual desire.

describe - (1) to depict in words.

depict - (2) to represent in words.

Education Commissioner Driscoll determined that the material being DESCRIBED and DEPICTED to MINORS by the workshop presenters was (1) sexually explicit; (2) of prurient nature; (3) not educational; and (4) wrong.

The DA's failure to acknowledge and publicly respond to Scott Whiteman's complaint has been discussed here and here. A qualified, professional opinion is available to the DA and the DA has chosen to ignore it. Why the DA or AG doesn't even bother to acknowledge Scott Whiteman's complaint and evidence is obviously a question of politics. The homosexual community has procured both the DA's and the AG's silence on the complaint.

The District Attorney, as a public official, has a duty to respond to the complaint and the tax-paying public has a right to know the official ruling on the complaint. This continued silence by the DA is unacceptable. The citizens of Massachusetts should demand that the DA make an official ruling on the complaint. The complaint should be filed every ten days until the DA publicly responds.

158 posted on 03/10/2003 7:32:50 PM PST by EdReform (Support Free Republic - www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/581234/posts?page=914#914)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: madg; philetus; bribriagain
"Schools should not be teaching anything about gay sex to children."

"It was a private conference, not a school... "

These were public school kids who were at the conference (and the conference did take place on public property). Are you claiming that once the homosexual community has kids in a private setting such as this conference, that the law no longer applies and they can do as they wish with them?

159 posted on 03/11/2003 7:09:08 AM PST by EdReform (Support Free Republic - www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/581234/posts?page=914#914)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: EdReform
Thanks, this may prove to be a helpful resource.
160 posted on 03/11/2003 8:11:47 AM PST by FourtySeven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven
You're welcome! There's lots of good documentation in the following threads:

Parent Alleges Harassment for Exposing 'Fistgate'

Assemblyman MOUNTJOY opposes promotion of homosexuality in public schools

161 posted on 03/11/2003 8:26:59 AM PST by EdReform (Support Free Republic - www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/581234/posts?page=914#914)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

Comment #162 Removed by Moderator

Comment #163 Removed by Moderator

Comment #164 Removed by Moderator

Comment #165 Removed by Moderator

To: madg
I think Ed and I both made our point.

No one should be teaching children about gay sex.

I think you made your point too.

You advocate it.
166 posted on 03/11/2003 6:23:51 PM PST by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

Comment #167 Removed by Moderator

To: madg
"So your teenager comes home from school and asks you "what is 'fisting?'"

Ya, like there are any teenagers left that don't know what fisting is.

How do I respond?"

I would tell him/her "it's where sick,perverted,weirdos, get their jollies, ramming their fists up each others rectums."

My kids would then say "ewww,gross" and go looking for one to beat up.

168 posted on 03/11/2003 8:07:52 PM PST by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: madg
"(Likewise, your apparently misinformed opinion of condoms is also irrelevent.)"

Not sure what his misconception was, madg, but I use this reference for HIV/condom effectiveness. The study was for male-female contact and did not get into gay sex in any detail:

"Among participants who reported always using condoms, the summary estimate of HIV/AIDS incidence from the twelve studies was 0.9 seroconversion per 100 person years. Among those who reported never using condoms, the summary estimate of HIV/AIDS incidence from the seven studies was 6.7 seroconversions per 100 person years. Overall, Davis and Weller estimated that condoms provided an 85% reduction in HIV/AIDS transmission risk when infection rates were compared in always versus never users."

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf

This is the report CDC uses when asked about condom effectiveness. Assuming the same protection rate among gays, a 15% risk (the flip side of 85% effective) is pretty risky when your life is on the line. The more partners or the more contact with an infected partner and the risk goes up.

In Russian Roulette, having only one cylinder loaded is 5/6, or 83% effective in not getting shot, or 16% dangerous (1/6), depending.

When I read the NIAID study it made me rethink risks!
169 posted on 03/11/2003 8:21:47 PM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

Comment #170 Removed by Moderator

Comment #171 Removed by Moderator

To: madg
The "mandated assembly" I mentioned, was performed in a MA High School by Suzie Landolfi. She was promoting condoms as "safe sex". That IS a lie. The AIDS virus is able to easily penetrate flaws in the latex and the out and out failure rate of condoms is high. That is fact not "Misinformed opinion". Curious that the "Safe" Sex slogan was changed to "SAFER" shortly thereafter. The prospect of lawsuits looming on the horizon.

The SCREAMING I am doing is just that, and it started a long time ago when it became evident that the Sex EDUCATION curriculum being formulated for use in ALL public schools, was and now is,being used primarily as a vehicle for the homosexual agenda. To move public opinion from toleration of the life style to accepting it as NORMAL. To date, hundreds of thousands of young, innocent, impressionable minds have had this SHOVED at them, to use your expression.

Massachusets was in the vanguard of the Sex Ed curriculum and Falmouth held the distinction of being the first JUNIOR and Senior Highschools, in the NATION,to provide condoms for their students.

You are defending the right of 25 young minds to voluntarily attend this GLSEN workshop. I will continue to fight for the innocent who didn't volunteer and for their parents who don't know what is being TAUGHT in their public school classrooms and For parents who have given their children strong values and find that those values are challenged and are not acceptable in todays SAFE classrooms if they don't include the acceptance of homosexuality as NORMAL.

172 posted on 03/12/2003 7:40:45 AM PST by codder too
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: madg
The "mandated assembly" I mentioned, was performed by Suzie Landolfi. She was promoting condoms as "safe sex". That IS a lie.The AIDS virus is able to easily penetrate flaws in the latex and the out and out failure rate of condoms is high. That is fact not "Misinformed opinion". Curious that the "Safe" Sex slogan was changed to "SAFER" shortly thereafter. The prospect of lawsuits looming on the horizon.

The SCREAMING I am doing is just that, and it started a long time ago when it became evident that the Sex EDUCATION curriculum being formulated for use in ALL public schools, was and now is,being used primarily as a vehicle for the homosexual agenda. To move public opinion from toleration of the life style to accepting it as NORMAL. To date, hundreds of thousands of young, innocent, impressionable minds have had this SHOVED at them, to use your expression.

Massachusets was in the vanguard of the Sex Ed curriculum and Falmouth held the distinction of being the first JUNIOR High and Senior Highschools, in the NATION,to provide condoms for their students.

You are defending the right of 25 young minds to voluntarily attend this workshop. I will continue to fight for the innocent who didn't volunteer and for their parents who don't know what is being TAUGHT in the classroom. For parents who have given their children strong values and find that those values are not acceptable in todays SAFE classrooms if they don't include the acceptance of homosexuality as NORMAL.

173 posted on 03/12/2003 7:41:51 AM PST by codder too
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: madg
Your prospective answer is factually inaccurate.

How? It involves one person inserting their fist into a body cavity of another person. When those two persons are male then that cavity must be the rectum. Seems that philetus' reply was 100% factually accurate. Only "sick,perverted,weirdos," would do such an unnatural thing.

174 posted on 03/12/2003 8:41:20 AM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

Comment #175 Removed by Moderator

To: madg; philetus
I believe the poster used the term "ramming." That is factually inaccurate.

"Ram" according to webster's dictionary "(3) to stuff; cram (4) to force passage or acceptance of"

Seems that anything going in the out door will need to be crammed or forced through the passage.

philetus was 100% accurate. You owe him an apology

176 posted on 03/12/2003 11:08:47 AM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

Comment #177 Removed by Moderator

To: madg
but your terms are too violent. It’s not ramming, cramming, stuffing, shoving…

None of those words denote violence. They denote force. force is always required to push something where it doesn't naturally go.

You still owe philetus an apology

178 posted on 03/12/2003 11:29:09 AM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: John O; philetus; DBrow; codder too; EdReform
I see that you've all become acquainted with madg.
179 posted on 03/12/2003 2:32:25 PM PST by Bryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: madg
madg, you missed the part of the report where it said 85% effective. That was calculated out of the seroconversion data you misunderstood.

The condom is 85% effective in preventing HIV infection with male-female vaginal intercourse, that was the point.

Do you know of another report that has a different number for effectiveness?
180 posted on 03/12/2003 7:20:44 PM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

Comment #181 Removed by Moderator

To: madg
These data provided strong evidence for the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission in both men and women who engage in vaginal intercourse.

How many gay men contract HIV by engaging in vaginal intercourse?

182 posted on 03/13/2003 12:02:57 PM PST by Bryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

Comment #183 Removed by Moderator

To: madg
It's not a rhetorical question. Since gay men are a high-risk group for HIV transmission, and since heterosexuals are not (in the absence of other risk factors such as IV drug abuse), one would think that the most appropriate question about condom effectiveness would involve anal sex, rather than vaginal sex.
184 posted on 03/13/2003 12:11:47 PM PST by Bryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

Comment #185 Removed by Moderator

To: madg
Well, let's move on then, to address the activities of a group that is high-risk. Do you have any information on the effectiveness of condoms for gay men who engage in anal sex?
186 posted on 03/13/2003 1:42:46 PM PST by Bryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

Comment #187 Removed by Moderator

To: madg
Try again without being deliberately obtuse. Do you have any accurate scientific data on the failure rate for condoms during anal sex?
188 posted on 03/13/2003 2:18:47 PM PST by Bryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

Comment #189 Removed by Moderator

Comment #190 Removed by Moderator

Comment #191 Removed by Moderator

To: madg
Yup, condoms are the best we have, other than abstinance. Given that, they are effective, more than not using them. They reduce the spread of AIDS, no arguement there. They do not prevent the spread of AIDS, though. Yeah, that data.

The male condom is much better at reducing the spread of AIDS compared to other STDs, yeah, it says that. So condoms are less effective for other STDs. Condoms are dynamite for reducing pregnancies, though.

Yup, the meeting was not intended to be used to set public policy but CDC did just that, as did my local school board and junior high health class. They give condoms out for the asking along with a flyer that advises girls not to use lipstick or lip gloss when engaging in oral sex with condom because the stuff in lipstick can degrade latex. I learned something new! They hand out flavored condoms, cherry and vanilla.


The data shows that they are 85% effective, in male-female vaginal encounters where one partner is HIV positive, about the same odds as Russian roulette with one bullet in the cylinder.

Telling people that they "provide protection" from HIV without mentioning the odds is a bit skeevy.

Although I have no data to back it up, I feel that anal sex and fisting is probably riskier than that. Teaching kids "safe" techniques to perform these acts and having them believe that a condom is going to provide 100% protection is wrong, they should know the odds. Condoms make it "safer", not "safe". Screaming down the road on my Kawasaki is "safer" with a helmet on, yano? But meeting a guard rail, now, that's hard.

You find it acceptible that the rate of HIV infection in a large population using condoms is "only" .9 per 100 person-years? How many is that in a population of, say, 10,000,000 over ten years? Heck, the rate for non-condom users was "only" less than three! Go at it bareback, dudes! Wheee!

"Ain't never going to do it without the fez on, oh no, that's what I am, I want to be your holy man..." SD

I gotta go to a conference, so I'm dropping out of this thread for a bit (I expect it will be at 900 posts by then) y'all take care.
192 posted on 03/14/2003 7:29:19 PM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: madg; codder too; Bryan; DBrow; John O; philetus; scripter
"In fact, the TITLE of the workshop in question effectively said: "You WON'T learn this in school.""

Do you believe that just because the title of the workshop was "What They Didn't Tell You About Queer Sex & Sexuality In Health Class: A Workshop For Youth Only Ages 14-21," that the content of the discussions workshop presenters had with minor children, even if documented to be obscene and harmful, and prurient and not educational, are exempt from state law?


( I will be back later to respond to other replies in this thread ).

193 posted on 03/15/2003 7:06:53 AM PST by EdReform (Support Free Republic - www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/581234/posts?page=914#914)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: madg; philetus; All
"So, just as “point of fact” I said (in pertinent part): “It was a private conference, not a school... " As a reply, my message was 100% accurate, it informatively clarified the situation, and yet... I didn’t even gainsay the poster’s stated opinion. Philetus’ opinion still stands."


Your response clarifies nothing. You've implied that, because this was a "private" conference and not physically located in a public (K-12) school, the presenters had the freedom to discuss anything. You have claimed that the conference, and the "Fistgate" workshop in particular, were educational in nature. As Education Commissioner Driscoll clearly stated:

"The participation of our staff in conversations with students about explicit issues of sexuality outside the realm of AIDS/HIV prevention was wrong. The workshops were of prurient nature, and not educational, and what we heard suggests that the discussion contributed absolutely nothing to the students' understanding of how to avoid AIDS and HIV."

If you want points for "technical merit" then yes, you are technically correct - the conference was not physically a "school". But that doesn't matter. The Commissioner of Education rendered a qualified, professional judgement on the content of the discussion workshop presenters had with minor children, and found that the workshops were of prurient nature and not educational.

Now reviewing sections 28, 29, and 31 of Chapter 272 of M.G.L. again, we see that the only defense the workshop presenters could have is if they were acting within the scope of their employment. As stated in sections 28 and 29:

"It shall also be a defense in any prosecution under this section if the evidence proves that the defendant was a bona fide school, museum or library, or was acting in the course of his employment as an employee of such organization or of a retail outlet affiliated with and serving the educational purpose of such organization."

Do you remember what Education Commissioner Driscoll said about the participation of the workshop presenters? He said:

"The participation of our staff in conversations with students about explicit issues of sexuality outside the realm of AIDS/HIV prevention was wrong.

Did you get that? The discussions were outside the realm of standard and proper educational guidelines, specifically AIDS/HIV prevention education. The presenters were acting outside of the scope of their employment, and they were WRONG for doing so.


So madg, I make no apologies for asking my original question, and I ask you AGAIN -

Are you claiming that once the homosexual community has kids in a private setting such as this conference, that the law no longer applies and they can do as they wish with them?

194 posted on 03/15/2003 9:59:20 AM PST by EdReform (Support Free Republic - www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/581234/posts?page=914#914)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: madg
" Speaking of inconsistencies, you jump from insisting upon the alleged “public” aspect (see your own underlined text) to the acknowledged “private” quality. Unless you are deliberately obfuscating... which is it?"


It doesn't matter whether the workshop took place at "private" conference or a public school.

Because the workshop presenters' discussions with minor children described and depicted matter of an obscene and harmful nature, and were prurient and not educational ( see section 31 ), it doesn't matter whether you define the workshop as being private or public - the workshop presenters were wrong and outside the realm of standard and proper educational guidelines. Education Commissioner Driscoll left no doubt about that. And neither did the workshop tape. A reasonably prudent person can see that, under sections 28, 29, and 31 of Chapter 272, the workshop presenters have no defense..

A serious complaint was filed with the DA by Scott Whiteman. That complaint was backed up with tape recorded evidence and Mr Whiteman as an eye witness. A qualified, expert opinion on educational matters was (and still is) available to the DA, and the DA refused (and still refuses) to publicly acknowledge and rule on the complaint. The DA, as a public official, has a duty to respond to the complaint and the tax-paying public has a right to know the official ruling on the complaint. If the DA or the AG dismisses the complaint, then they are obligated to state why the complaint does not meet the criteria of sections 28, 29, and 31 of Chapter 272 of M.G.L.


Do YOU believe that the DA and the AG have the necessary credentials and are better qualified than the Commissioner of Education to determine whether the content of the workshop was educational and within the scope of proper instructional guidelines?

Do YOU believe that the DA and the AG, as public servants, have an obligation to publicly respond and rule on the complaint?


You can squeal all you want about the "illegality" of recording of the workshop, but the fact remains that Camenker and Whiteman had a civic duty to expose the harmful and obscene material being discussed with minors in GLSEN's workshops, especially after the Scott Whiteman's complaint was ignored by the DA. The audio tape substantiated Camenker's and Whiteman's claims. And the tape revealed that discussions with similar (and even worse) obscene and harmful content are being introduced in the public school curriculum by teachers who bring in homosexual "guest speakers" to their classes. But evidently the DA and the AG are just fine with that. This is, after all, Massachusetts. And there is little doubt that the homosexual community has procured the DA's and AG's silence on the complaint.

195 posted on 03/15/2003 10:08:31 AM PST by EdReform (Support Free Republic - www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/581234/posts?page=914#914)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: madg
"The conference took place at Tufts University in (presumably) leased or rented space(s). Aside from “expert” testimony that no taxpayer monies were used (Camenker to the contrary), and that only private and/or privately raised funds were involved, I have no idea how GLSEN paid for use of the space... (and neither does Camenker, which he publicly and inconsistently admitted.)"


The state has a history of supporting GLSEN in various ways, including their GSA's as documented here and here. So I ask again, did the conference take place at a state-funded institution? Did GLSEN (a PRIVATE organization) pay a fee for use of the facilities? Or did the state give them a free ride? If they didn't pay any fees (or pay reduced fees) for using the facilities, then indeed, taxpayer monies were used to support the GLSEN conferences.

Here's what Camenker actually said:

Graphic gay sex workshop under fire by Ed Hayward, Boston Herald, Wednesday, May 17, 2000

"Coalition president Brian Camenker disputed the department's assertion no state funds were spent at the conference.

'This is bogus because state and federal monies are so blended together that no one knows where the money is coming from,' Camenker told Massachusetts News, a conservative publication. 'The homosexual group that sponsored it receives money from both the federal and state government.'"

Well, Brian Camenker was right to dispute the claim that no state funds were used for GLSEN's conference. The state, on it Department of Education Web site, admits that they provided taxpayer funding:

Grants and Other Financial Assistance Programs: FY2001 - Gay/Straight Alliance Mentoring Program ( Fund Code: 798)

"Conduct a workshop on the GSA Mentoring Program at one regional conference of the Department of Education and the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN)"

Did you get that? A regional conference of the DOE AND GLSEN. Can you say state support for "Teach-Out/Fistgate"? That certainly appears to be a taxpayer supported partnership. And there is plenty of documentation posted here to show that GLSEN has often been paid with taxpayer funds to develop homosexual-based programs. You've stated that GLSEN was paid a "consultant" fee for working with the "Safe Schools" program. That "consultant" fee was paid for with taxpayer monies.

Also of interest:

news
GLSEN Press Releases
December 4, 2000
GLSEN Opens Office for Public Policy in DC

"NEW YORK - GLSEN this week announced the opening of its Office for Public Policy in Washington, DC. Under the stewardship of Public Policy Director Mary Kate (MK) Cullen, the offices will identify federal, state and local public policy strategies and expand the organization's work with the Department of Education and mainstream education organizations.

In addition to expanding GLSEN's work with national mainstream education and civil rights groups, the Office for Public Policy will provide leadership in mapping out the states and communities in which GLSEN will leverage resources to pass safe schools legislation, expand nondiscrimination policies or fight anti-gay initiatives. It will also direct GLSEN's Research Project, which brings together academics and activists to identify research gap areas and strategies to fill them...

It will be interesting to see what turns up in a search for funding of GLSEN at the federal level...

196 posted on 03/15/2003 10:22:16 AM PST by EdReform (Support Free Republic - www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/581234/posts?page=914#914)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: madg
"At the conference, no “schools” were “teaching” anything. It was a private organization, it was a Saturday, nobody was required to attend, it was not part of any school curriculum, and it did not take place in any lower, middle, or high school (where “children” would conceivably attend)."

On another thread, you stated, "What took place at the PRIVATE conferece would have never taken place at PUBLIC schools"

As I've pointed out, one of the workshop presenters let us in on the little secret of how material similar in content to what was presented in the workshop is covered in public school curriculums. Workshop presenters who teach classes in the public schools bring in representatives from homosexual groups such as "SpeakOut" as "guest speakers." These "guest speakers" are then permitted to discuss any and all homosexual-related topics with children in the public schools. And sometimes, the "guest speakers" present information in a manner that is even more explicit than was presented in the workshop.

Again, you can listen to it for yourself - From time index 5:39 to 7:41 on Fistgate audio clip 8. Scott Whiteman: As With Vegetables, Children Shouldn't Knock Homosexuality Until They Have Tried It (Length 8:02).

So even though we’ve clearly heard a reperesentative of the homosexual group “SpeakOut” (which claims to have hundreds of presentations every year) admit that discussions about explicit homosexual sex have actually taken place in public school classrooms,

are you still claiming that the “Fistgate” workshop was an anomaly and such obscene and harmful discussions never take place in public school classrooms with minor children?

197 posted on 03/15/2003 10:33:09 AM PST by EdReform (Support Free Republic - www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/581234/posts?page=914#914)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: madg
"Next, your rhetorical “are you claiming” question is not well based in reality. You infer that GLSEN is emblematic of “the homosexual community.” It might be a nationwide education network, but you would be hard pressed to demonstrate that any significant portion of “the homosexual community” really knows (or cares) about what they are doing. I certainly know and care... but that’s just me."

Madg, it's easy to demonstrate that a significant portion of the homosexual community really knows (and cares) about what GLSEN does. It's apparent that GLSEN is one of the "crown jewels" of the homosexual community.

Do a search on Google for GLAAD GLSEN. Do a search for LAMBDA GLSEN. Do a search for DATALOUNGE GLSEN. Do a search for HRC GLSEN. Do a search on PFLAG GLSEN. Do a search for NEA GLSEN - (that's the National Education Association). Do a search for PLANNED PARENTHOOD GLSEN. Then if you need further evidence, go to those homosexual and pro-homosexual web sites and use their own search engines to search their web sites. You'll be amazed at how GLSEN, this crown jewel of the homosexual community, is in partnership with these and many other national homosexual organizations, and is integrated into the homosexual community at large.

The homosexual group "SpeakOut" participates in GLSEN's "Teach-Out" conferences.

GLSEN is part of the homosexual DataLounge Network.

You'll find links to GLSEN on the adult "GayHealth.com" web site (search under GLSEN).

Celebrate National Coming Out Day with HRC and GLSEN on October 11th

January 15, 2002 Lambda and GLSEN Team Up to Create a New Publication...

The memo stated, "...that GLSEN National formalize and codify a relationship with the NEA and AFT and other labor organizations."

MTV has partnered with prominent civil rights groups, including GLSEN, HRC, GLAAD, AVP and others...

" As a major part of this on- and off- air campaign, MTV has partnered with prominent civil rights groups, including GLSEN, HRC, GLAAD, AVP and others to produce numerous programs and public service announcements that address homophobia and give the audience numerous ways to take a stand against it.."

And before you try to tell us that this "PRIDEFEST" link is just some insignificant local thing, here's what they say:

" Since its founding in 1993, PrideFest America has become the nation's largest annual gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) symposium and festival. It has expanded from a three-day conference of regional organizations to a full week of events featuring international, national and regional leaders on a broad range of compelling issues. With more than 60 programs and social events presented by 80 regional, national and international organizations, PrideFest America 2002 is the nation's most in-depth program of the emergence of a vibrant GLBT community and its civil rights aspirations."

Pridefest supports mtv, and prominately mentions GLSEN's partnerships with major homosexual groups and the media.

( There are many more links that show relationships between GLSEN and the homosexual community ).


GLSEN, with national headquarters in New York, offices in Washington DC, and chapters in almost every state, has teamed up with GLAAD, HRC, Lambda Legal, Departments of Education, The National Education Association, and a whole host of other homosexual and pro-homosexual organizations and media outlets.

Yeah, madg, tell me more about this "tiny," "insignificant" GLSEN and how they are virtually unknown to the homosexual community.

Obviously, a very significant portion of the homosexual community knows and cares deeply about GLSEN. Of course, I needn't remind you of that which you know so well.


( I'll will respond to other material, and have more to say about GLSEN later... )

198 posted on 03/15/2003 10:59:34 AM PST by EdReform (Support Free Republic - www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/581234/posts?page=914#914)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

.


"I would rather walk a mile barefoot on broken glass than endure a confrontation with homosexual zealots. However, that less painful path cannot be responsibly taken. What choice is there but to stand in opposition to homosexual activists with their in-your face arrogance, their malicious attacks on religion, family values and moral standards, and, in essence, their demand that American society be turned upside down and inside out to accommodate their sexual disorientations?"

-- Linda Bowles, Defending Dr. Laura and America, May 31, 2000

199 posted on 03/15/2003 11:35:45 AM PST by EdReform (Support Free Republic - www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/581234/posts?page=914#914)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: EdReform
An interesting thread, with many well thought out response and much factual presentation.
All for naught, however. People such as Madg will never be swayed from their position by logic and reason. Facts hold no special meaning to them. Their position is what they want to be true, thus empirical truth has no influence, as it is discarded out of hand because it does not fit into a predetermined parameter. To such as him, one starts with a conclusion, and then fights to defend it.
200 posted on 03/15/2003 11:52:53 AM PST by apeman81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301-329 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson