Gay Group Urges Loosening Of School Internet Filters
A gay advocacy group is calling for the federal government to loosen internet filters in schools as a way to assist the gay community.
In a paper released Thursday, the LGBT Technology Partnership and Institute argues that the gay community has “particular needs” for the internet that call for government action. In particular, the group is urging a reform of the government’s E-Rate policy that they say is blocking low-income individuals and students from accessing important LGBT resources and reaching out to other members of the gay community.
E-Rate is the common name for a federal program, administered by the Federal Communications Commission, that offers schools and public libraries discounts on providing internet access and other telecommunications. Under the Children’s Internet Protection Act, schools and libraries receiving funds from E-rate must implement filters to block certain content deemed “harmful to minors,” such as pornography.
According to the group, such filters often block sites dealing with gay health issues, and can also prevent gay youth from discovering their own identities.
“This [filtering] jeopardizes the fundamental rights to free speech not only for young people, but also adult users of publicly funded Internet access,” the report read.
While many gay individuals often move to “traditional gay enclaves” in cities after coming out, the report says, an increasing number are not doing so, and for them having access to gay-friendly social networks is invaluable.
“For LGBT people living in rural areas, the Internet is a vital mechanism for youth negotiating a LGBT identity in the rural United States,” the report continued.
In addition to calls for change on internet filtering, the report made many other requests, including for government and private business to prioritize protecting anonymity on the internet, which they said could be “the difference between life and death” for gay people.
“For too long LGBT communities have not been at the table with other communities as technology policy decisions are being made,” the report concludes. “Public policy makers at the Federal, State and local levels need to ensure that the specific needs and concerns of LGBT communities be taken into account when considering policy decisions,” the report concluded.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/27/g...ing-of-school-internet-filters/#ixzz363sPYOfn
ucking:
A gay advocacy group is calling for the federal government to loosen internet filters in schools as a way to assist the gay community.
In a paper released Thursday, the LGBT Technology Partnership and Institute argues that the gay community has “particular needs” for the internet that call for government action. In particular, the group is urging a reform of the government’s E-Rate policy that they say is blocking low-income individuals and students from accessing important LGBT resources and reaching out to other members of the gay community.
E-Rate is the common name for a federal program, administered by the Federal Communications Commission, that offers schools and public libraries discounts on providing internet access and other telecommunications. Under the Children’s Internet Protection Act, schools and libraries receiving funds from E-rate must implement filters to block certain content deemed “harmful to minors,” such as pornography.
According to the group, such filters often block sites dealing with gay health issues, and can also prevent gay youth from discovering their own identities.
“This [filtering] jeopardizes the fundamental rights to free speech not only for young people, but also adult users of publicly funded Internet access,” the report read.
While many gay individuals often move to “traditional gay enclaves” in cities after coming out, the report says, an increasing number are not doing so, and for them having access to gay-friendly social networks is invaluable.
“For LGBT people living in rural areas, the Internet is a vital mechanism for youth negotiating a LGBT identity in the rural United States,” the report continued.
In addition to calls for change on internet filtering, the report made many other requests, including for government and private business to prioritize protecting anonymity on the internet, which they said could be “the difference between life and death” for gay people.
“For too long LGBT communities have not been at the table with other communities as technology policy decisions are being made,” the report concludes. “Public policy makers at the Federal, State and local levels need to ensure that the specific needs and concerns of LGBT communities be taken into account when considering policy decisions,” the report concluded.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/27/g...ing-of-school-internet-filters/#ixzz363sPYOfn
ucking:
No, homosexuals are very eccentric and melodramatic...worse than chicks.
Ever notice their entire life revolves around their sexual identity?
"Hey everyone! I'm out of the closet! Look at me and my 'partner'! I'm an attention whore!"
Nope, no signs of mental illness there.
That's ironic coming from you Hitler.
No, homosexuals are very eccentric and melodramatic...worse than chicks.
Ever notice their entire life revolves around their sexual identity?
"Hey everyone! I'm out of the closet! Look at me and my 'partner'! I'm an attention whore!"
Nope, no signs of mental illness there.
There's a reason why athletes on team sports stay in the closet...it is simply not socially acceptable because the social-engineers along with the gay mafia haven't penetrated (pun intended) sports locker rooms - not that they're not trying. Up till very recently, the same could be said for the military - one of the last bastions of American Patriotism - but Americans elected a bisexual as 'president' and now his in-your-face agenda ("fundamental transformation") is most definitely out of the closet.
How would you know? You never get out? You are too busy trying to find articles and troll all day. Good Job though, again another post that shows what an out of touch, not in reality buffoon you are.
Roughly 1/3 of all Democrats see homosexuality as a MORAL issue. So, it's not like my position is some outrageous right-wing position. For independents 34% see it as a MORAL issue.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...le-it-depends-on-where-in-the-world-you-live/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...le-it-depends-on-where-in-the-world-you-live/
In a recent survey of 40 countries, majority found homosexuality to be UNACCEPTABLE (and a moral issue).
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/04/15/global-morality/
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/04/15/global-morality/
^^^More people found gambling unacceptable.
The lengths you will go to to condemn people whose suffering you and your "Live straight or burn in hell" ideology have caused, and whose lives you know nothing about.
(Cue boilerplate, "I know a converted faggot with a wife and 3 children" response)
The lengths you will go to to condemn people whose suffering you and your "Live straight or burn in hell" ideology have caused, and whose lives you know nothing about.
(Cue boilerplate, "I know a converted faggot with a wife and 3 children" response)
In a recent survey of 40 countries, majority found homosexuality to be UNACCEPTABLE (and a moral issue).
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/04/15/global-morality/
Would you say it's unaccepted because of religious beliefs
Those Poor Little Gays: The World Is Saying No
By Robert Oscar Lopez
Is same-sex parenting just like grandparents raising their orphaned grandchildren?
The nations of the world say no.
On second thought, try “Hell no.”
But that doesn’t stop the shills for Big Gay, who stand to make billions off expanded gay “adoption” (I use that term loosely), from continuously drawing the lame parallel. Just check out this section of an article that ran in the Daily Beast,by Jay Michaelson, on the United Nations’ recent resolution protecting the rights of the family:
The final resolution passed, minus Uruguay’s silly attempt to sneak gay parenting in. The council declared that the family is the building block of society and must be protected. The vote was not even close: 26 votes for, 14 votes against, 6 abstentions. It’s not like all 26 countries that want to protect the family are mesmerized by Vladimir Putin.
Nothing is more cringe-worthy than watching the pro-human trafficking scribes who shill for Big Gay when they try to use every innocent victim of bad fortune as a human shield.
Notice how Jay Michaelson wants to lump gay male couples who buy babies through horrid surrogacy contracts in the same category as grandparents who raise their orphaned grandchildren. For added emotional freight, they also include unwed mothers who choose to keep their children rather than abort them.
Let’s get this straight once and for all:
They’re not morons. I’m no dummy, either. We aren’t fooled by this silly trick of trying to say that orphans being raised by their grandmothers are the same thing as two lesbians who manufacture a child using DNA they got from a fertility clinic. People have seen Blade Runner. People have read Brave New World. People know what it means to create human beings to satisfy wealthy people’s desire for designer kids. Remember the kidnappings by Boko Haram? They followed on the heels of earlier slave traffic devoted to providing children to wealthy families:
Where are the gay men with babies going to get their babies? Yikes! Maybe the African, European, and Asian countries at the United Nations have more in mind when they talk about “protecting families” than simply being mean to gay people. You think?
Even more pathetically, in a debate on the BBC, a pro-gay announcer countered my objections to same-sex parenting by saying, “But sometimes children don’t have a father because their father has died. Are they any less worthy?” To which I replied, “The fact that people die all the time does not mean that we are allowed to murder people and say it doesn’t make a difference. The fact that fathers die does not mean we can deprive children of a father and say it doesn’t make a difference.”
The drivel coming from the gay parenting enthusiasts is endless. For a brief span, I belonged to an adoption forum, where I found common cause with many other champions of children’s rights, particularly adoptees fighting to reform foster care and adoption. But then, in a moment of lapsed judgment, the forum invited a well-known gay adoptive father to join as an administrator. The forum had previously strived to prioritize children and biological parents rather than adopters (who usually get all the attention). Within a day of adding this “gay dad” as an administrator, the group was nothing but one more website with endless articles about how gay people can be wonderful parents.
I was not going to be a quiet little dupe for this gay adopter, no matter how many columns he gets to publish in the Huffington Post. So I stated that “every child is born with a father and a mother. That is what is meant by ‘created equal.’ This is the most basic ‘inalienable right’ upon which all the others mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are based. If you believe that children do not have a basic right to a mother and father, you do not believe they have any natural-born rights at all.”
True to form, the gay “dad” quickly countered by rattling off the predictable list of human shields. What about widows? What about single dads? What about the 100,000 children in foster care waiting to be adopted? What about the case of a woman in Europe who died of cancer and didn’t know the father of her child and insisted that her gay brother and his partner adopt the child?
The lunging flourish: “Tell them about people having a natural born right to a mother and father.”
To which I replied: “Stop using widows and orphans as human shields. None of us is going to buy this crap. Gay people do not have the right to deprive a child of a parent of the opposite sex just because they want kids. And those 100,000 kids in foster care deserve a mom and dad just like everyone else.”
A war over the statistics ensued, in which I reminded this persistent Rumpelstiltskin that over one million American women seek fertility treatment each year, so there is an inexhaustible pool of heterosexual couples who want children but can’t have them – enough to ensure that no child in foster care ever has to be adopted by a gay couple.
But this is all part of the razzle-dazzle. It works, because most people simply do not have the stamina to deal with the gay Rumpelstiltskins of the world, who will publish the same disproved arguments again and again until we all give up. When all else fails, they just get someone’s confidential tax returns from IRS and publish them with the Human Rights Campaign so dissenters are embarrassed into silence.
Unfortunately for them, they’ve already gotten all my e-mails from Cal State Northridge through a FOIA request, so I have no more embarrassing secrets to hold me back.
But if embarrassment won’t silence a person, sometimes sheer exhaustion can. After ten more posts about the wonders of gay adoption, and seeing this annoying, vapid gay man rallying more bystanders to give “likes” to his tripe, I finally left the group and called it a day. Pearls before swine.
What works with Westerners simply isn’t going to fly elsewhere. In the most recent EU elections, French and English voters migrated en masse to the Front National and United Kingdom Independence Party.
Having made four trips to England and France over the last year and a half, I see an angle that doesn’t get covered much in the states: the boom for the Euroskeptics in France and England came largely because their leaders forced gay marriage on the nations’ conservative parties (UMP and the Tories) at the behest of our president, who’s weirdly obsessed with homosexuality. (A shamelessly gossipy innuendo to consider: what heterosexual president would be looking to settle down in Palm Springs, California after leaving the White House? I'm just saying.)
In recent months, Croatia, Slovakia, Greece, Estonia, and Finland have all made moves to block the expansion of gay marriage and gay parenting. And it’s not because of Russia. It’s because they don’t want gay families and all the affronts to human dignity, motherhood, fatherhood, and children’s rights that come with them.
The gay lobby has gone around the world pushing its agenda, including extreme things like surrogacy brokerages and transgenderism, on countries that have seen Westerners ask them to eschew projects like vaccinations and clean drinking water so they can devote preciously limited resources to free abortions and laws protecting drag queens from housing discrimination. The LGBT agenda is wacko enough on American soil, but when you take it overseas, it’s truly outrageous. The steady drum beat announcing “success after success” of the Gay Lobby here in the United States has to be taken with a grain of salt. In much of Latin America, the populations remain skeptical of these changes. In Asia, Europe, and Africa, the crowds are overwhelmingly hostile to them, which is why the U.N.’s Human Rights Council tilted the way it did.
And as we see the 2014 midterms in our headlights, it is time to remind ourselves: the world may be going mad, but not as mad as we might believe while reading the Daily Beast. Every child has a mother and father. The world knows that. The social issues are not dead; they are, in fact, waiting to awaken from a long slumber.
Robert Oscar Lopez edits English Manif.
By Robert Oscar Lopez
Is same-sex parenting just like grandparents raising their orphaned grandchildren?
The nations of the world say no.
On second thought, try “Hell no.”
But that doesn’t stop the shills for Big Gay, who stand to make billions off expanded gay “adoption” (I use that term loosely), from continuously drawing the lame parallel. Just check out this section of an article that ran in the Daily Beast,by Jay Michaelson, on the United Nations’ recent resolution protecting the rights of the family:
So, an amendment was proposed – formally put forward by Uruguay – that would acknowledge that “various forms of the family exist.” This amendment would cover not just same-sex couples, of course, but families where grandparents raise the kids, or single-parent families – anything other than the assumed norm of the “traditional” family. And it would make clear that subsequent UN action could not be used as a club against families diverging from that norm. But as soon as Uruguay proposed the amendment, Russia pulled a little-used administrative trick – a “no-action” motion – to prevent it from even being discussed.
I’m not endorsing Russia or Vladimir Putin. But then again, you don’t have to support Putin or Russia to see through the hapless obfuscations behind a statement like “various forms of the family exist.”
The final resolution passed, minus Uruguay’s silly attempt to sneak gay parenting in. The council declared that the family is the building block of society and must be protected. The vote was not even close: 26 votes for, 14 votes against, 6 abstentions. It’s not like all 26 countries that want to protect the family are mesmerized by Vladimir Putin.
Nothing is more cringe-worthy than watching the pro-human trafficking scribes who shill for Big Gay when they try to use every innocent victim of bad fortune as a human shield.
Notice how Jay Michaelson wants to lump gay male couples who buy babies through horrid surrogacy contracts in the same category as grandparents who raise their orphaned grandchildren. For added emotional freight, they also include unwed mothers who choose to keep their children rather than abort them.
Let’s get this straight once and for all:
- Nobody on earth has any problems with grandparents who raise their orphaned grandchildren. Nobody is intending to use family law to punish or discriminate against them.
- Unwed mothers who choose not to abort their children are heroes, and we all should support them. This doesn’t mean we want to encourage people to have children out of wedlock. And these situations have absolutely nothing to do with same-sex parenting.
- Same-sex parenting is an abusive practice whereby two gay adults contrive to deprive a helpless child of the love and support of a mother or father.
They’re not morons. I’m no dummy, either. We aren’t fooled by this silly trick of trying to say that orphans being raised by their grandmothers are the same thing as two lesbians who manufacture a child using DNA they got from a fertility clinic. People have seen Blade Runner. People have read Brave New World. People know what it means to create human beings to satisfy wealthy people’s desire for designer kids. Remember the kidnappings by Boko Haram? They followed on the heels of earlier slave traffic devoted to providing children to wealthy families:
In March, Nigerian police arrested several people, including eight pregnant women, during a raid on a house in Lagos. The women planned to sell their newborns for $2,000 (£1,200) each, reports suggest. There have been several raids on supposed Nigerian baby factories since 2011, with more than 100 women discovered during such operations. Investigations by Nigeria's anti-trafficking agency that year revealed that babies were being sold for up to $6,400 each. Buyers tend to be couples who are unable to conceive, and boys typically fetch a much higher price than girls.
Not to make readers feel too uncomfortable, but do you honestly think that most of the world thinks it is a good idea to promise millions of gay male couples that they are going to be allowed to become fathers, when there is currently a shortage of children to adopt but a boom in these wretched “baby factories”?
Where are the gay men with babies going to get their babies? Yikes! Maybe the African, European, and Asian countries at the United Nations have more in mind when they talk about “protecting families” than simply being mean to gay people. You think?
Even more pathetically, in a debate on the BBC, a pro-gay announcer countered my objections to same-sex parenting by saying, “But sometimes children don’t have a father because their father has died. Are they any less worthy?” To which I replied, “The fact that people die all the time does not mean that we are allowed to murder people and say it doesn’t make a difference. The fact that fathers die does not mean we can deprive children of a father and say it doesn’t make a difference.”
The drivel coming from the gay parenting enthusiasts is endless. For a brief span, I belonged to an adoption forum, where I found common cause with many other champions of children’s rights, particularly adoptees fighting to reform foster care and adoption. But then, in a moment of lapsed judgment, the forum invited a well-known gay adoptive father to join as an administrator. The forum had previously strived to prioritize children and biological parents rather than adopters (who usually get all the attention). Within a day of adding this “gay dad” as an administrator, the group was nothing but one more website with endless articles about how gay people can be wonderful parents.
I was not going to be a quiet little dupe for this gay adopter, no matter how many columns he gets to publish in the Huffington Post. So I stated that “every child is born with a father and a mother. That is what is meant by ‘created equal.’ This is the most basic ‘inalienable right’ upon which all the others mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are based. If you believe that children do not have a basic right to a mother and father, you do not believe they have any natural-born rights at all.”
True to form, the gay “dad” quickly countered by rattling off the predictable list of human shields. What about widows? What about single dads? What about the 100,000 children in foster care waiting to be adopted? What about the case of a woman in Europe who died of cancer and didn’t know the father of her child and insisted that her gay brother and his partner adopt the child?
The lunging flourish: “Tell them about people having a natural born right to a mother and father.”
To which I replied: “Stop using widows and orphans as human shields. None of us is going to buy this crap. Gay people do not have the right to deprive a child of a parent of the opposite sex just because they want kids. And those 100,000 kids in foster care deserve a mom and dad just like everyone else.”
A war over the statistics ensued, in which I reminded this persistent Rumpelstiltskin that over one million American women seek fertility treatment each year, so there is an inexhaustible pool of heterosexual couples who want children but can’t have them – enough to ensure that no child in foster care ever has to be adopted by a gay couple.
But this is all part of the razzle-dazzle. It works, because most people simply do not have the stamina to deal with the gay Rumpelstiltskins of the world, who will publish the same disproved arguments again and again until we all give up. When all else fails, they just get someone’s confidential tax returns from IRS and publish them with the Human Rights Campaign so dissenters are embarrassed into silence.
Unfortunately for them, they’ve already gotten all my e-mails from Cal State Northridge through a FOIA request, so I have no more embarrassing secrets to hold me back.
But if embarrassment won’t silence a person, sometimes sheer exhaustion can. After ten more posts about the wonders of gay adoption, and seeing this annoying, vapid gay man rallying more bystanders to give “likes” to his tripe, I finally left the group and called it a day. Pearls before swine.
What works with Westerners simply isn’t going to fly elsewhere. In the most recent EU elections, French and English voters migrated en masse to the Front National and United Kingdom Independence Party.
Having made four trips to England and France over the last year and a half, I see an angle that doesn’t get covered much in the states: the boom for the Euroskeptics in France and England came largely because their leaders forced gay marriage on the nations’ conservative parties (UMP and the Tories) at the behest of our president, who’s weirdly obsessed with homosexuality. (A shamelessly gossipy innuendo to consider: what heterosexual president would be looking to settle down in Palm Springs, California after leaving the White House? I'm just saying.)
In recent months, Croatia, Slovakia, Greece, Estonia, and Finland have all made moves to block the expansion of gay marriage and gay parenting. And it’s not because of Russia. It’s because they don’t want gay families and all the affronts to human dignity, motherhood, fatherhood, and children’s rights that come with them.
The gay lobby has gone around the world pushing its agenda, including extreme things like surrogacy brokerages and transgenderism, on countries that have seen Westerners ask them to eschew projects like vaccinations and clean drinking water so they can devote preciously limited resources to free abortions and laws protecting drag queens from housing discrimination. The LGBT agenda is wacko enough on American soil, but when you take it overseas, it’s truly outrageous. The steady drum beat announcing “success after success” of the Gay Lobby here in the United States has to be taken with a grain of salt. In much of Latin America, the populations remain skeptical of these changes. In Asia, Europe, and Africa, the crowds are overwhelmingly hostile to them, which is why the U.N.’s Human Rights Council tilted the way it did.
And as we see the 2014 midterms in our headlights, it is time to remind ourselves: the world may be going mad, but not as mad as we might believe while reading the Daily Beast. Every child has a mother and father. The world knows that. The social issues are not dead; they are, in fact, waiting to awaken from a long slumber.
Robert Oscar Lopez edits English Manif.
