View Full Version : Lemur's Law: A Test
You may be aware of Lemur's Law: "Any group with the word 'family' in their name is psychotic." Well, my silly little rule is being put to the test.
Some sort of event is being held next week, and I want to take the kids. It's in a school gym, there will be bouncy houses and games for the children, a nice break from the WI winter. But my fiancee pointed out the group co-hosting the event is the "Family Resource Organization," or something like that.
So: Are they a rightwing homo-hating shill group, or is my silly law incorrect in this instance? I may have to go and find out.
InsaneApache
01-27-2012, 15:57
Sounds suspiciously commie to me.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-27-2012, 16:00
You may be aware of Lemur's Law: "Any group with the word 'family' in their name is psychotic." Well, my silly little rule is being put to the test.
Some sort of event is being held next week, and I want to take the kids. It's in a school gym, there will be bouncy houses and games for the children, a nice break from the WI winter. But my fiancee pointed out the group co-hosting the event is the "Family Resource Organization," or something like that.
So: Are they a rightwing homo-hating shill group, or is my silly law incorrect in this instance? I may have to go and find out.
Go and see, if they are psychotic they'll go for you before the children, then you'll know the score.
It's in a school gym, there will be bouncy houses and games for the children, a nice break from the WI winter.
I don't think you can classify the disaster we have this year as a "winter". :no:
But my fiancee pointed out the group co-hosting the event is the "Family Resource Organization," or something like that.
So: Are they a rightwing homo-hating shill group, or is my silly law incorrect in this instance? I may have to go and find out.
If it's either the Family Research Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council) or Family Research Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Institute), the good news is that the SPLC has them listed as hate groups due to their extreme homophobia. A good trolling opportunity, methinks. Take the kids, dress in drag.
If it's either the Family Research Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council) or Family Research Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Institute), the good news is that the SPLC has them listed as hate groups due to their extreme homophobia. A good trolling opportunity, methinks. Take the kids, dress in drag.
Nah, I would have recognized one of those two. It's some other thing. Still suspicious.
And yeah, this winter has been very mild by WI standards. Which means somebody else got our negative thermal energy. Sorry about that!
Papewaio
01-27-2012, 23:34
Fiancee? Congratulations.
We've had a very dreary summer. Still in t shirt and shorts, but dreary grey sky.
PanzerJaeger
01-28-2012, 00:51
I would definitely do a bit of research on the 'family' group hosting it, simply out of principle. While I doubt such an event would have any negative effect on your own children, I would not want even my ~$5 entry fee going to support an organization that is involved in seriously damaging some of society's most vulnerable children. These groups have their family-friendly, wholesome facades - which often involve such events, usually wrapped in religious overtones - and then they have their more sinister lobbying activities.
Down here in Tennessee, where we have just lost another child (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/23/phillip-parker-gay-tennessee-teen-suicide_n_1223688.html) to anti-gay bullying, the Family Research Council and many other umbrella family groups are pushing both the 'Don't Say Gay (http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120125/COLUMNIST0101/301250070/Gail-Kerr-Don-t-say-gay-bill-will-add-hostility-schools)' bill, which would make it illegal to discuss any sexual behavior other than heterosexuality prior to the ninth grade, and the 'License to Bully (http://www.memphisflyer.com/memphis/license-to-bully/Content?oid=3107096)' bill, that would make it illegal for teachers to discipline children for tormenting classmates about their sexuality on the basis of religious freedom.
One must assume that these people have given at least a few moments of contemplation to the indescribable pain and misery that would drive children to kill themselves. In response, they have not embraced a 'Christian' response to helping such at-risk children - or even just ignored the issue entirely - but have instead sided with the bullies! They are not only trying to ban any discussion of homosexuality during the critical years when prejudices are learned and acquired, they want to give legal backing to the bullies. It's incredible, it's sad, and it's hurting children. Kids pick up on this stuff, and it has very real effects (http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2009.168815) on their self esteem.
/rant
Rhyfelwyr
01-28-2012, 01:43
the Family Research Council and many other umbrella family groups are pushing both the 'Don't Say Gay (http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120125/COLUMNIST0101/301250070/Gail-Kerr-Don-t-say-gay-bill-will-add-hostility-schools)' bill, which would make it illegal to discuss any sexual behavior other than heterosexuality prior to the ninth grade,
Schools are always a difficult issue when it comes to things like this since while state-run instutions aren't supposed to advance certian social or political values, they are of course impossible to avoid so long as they have classes such as "Sex Education" or "Personal Development" like my school at least had.
What these Christian lobbyists are trying to do is no different from their opponents that want to teach children that homosexuality is 'natural' and morally acceptable. We can't keep morals out of the classroom entirely so we may as well just fight it out honestly, rather than complaining that the other is always imposing its views.
and the 'License to Bully (http://www.memphisflyer.com/memphis/license-to-bully/Content?oid=3107096)' bill, that would make it illegal for teachers to discipline children for tormenting classmates about their sexuality on the basis of religious freedom.
Well according to the article it is an attempt to clarify existing laws so that they "may not prohibit [a student's] expression of religious, philosophical, or political views as long as such expression does not include a threat of physical harm to a student or of damage to a student's property."
This seems reasonable enough to me. A pupil telling another pupil that they think their homosexuality is sinful is no different from them telling each other that their atheism/religious beliefs are stupid. When such expressions cross the line into harassment can only really be left to the discretion of the teacher, but to ban students from expressing any sort of moral judgements or talking about these issues is stifling and impractical.
Kids pick up on this stuff, and it has very real effects (http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2009.168815) on their self esteem.
The changes in that study are very sharp and sudden, so I wouldn't attribute them to the fact that "kids pick up on stuff". I'll take the point that the amendments appear to have had a negative affect on gay peoples mental well being, although I have to say the results almost seem suspiciously dramatic given that they are supposedly triggered by a political decision that will have no bearing on day to day life for most gay people, and merely reflect prejudices that must have been around for a long time beforehand.
This is the group (https://www.facebook.com/FRCWalworth). I'll have to examine them more closely later.
PanzerJaeger
01-28-2012, 07:53
Schools are always a difficult issue when it comes to things like this since while state-run instutions aren't supposed to advance certian social or political values, they are of course impossible to avoid so long as they have classes such as "Sex Education" or "Personal Development" like my school at least had.
What these Christian lobbyists are trying to do is no different from their opponents that want to teach children that homosexuality is 'natural' and morally acceptable. We can't keep morals out of the classroom entirely so we may as well just fight it out honestly, rather than complaining that the other is always imposing its views.
This is classic creationist thinking, the pretense of two equally valid and opposing opinions, or viewpoints, when there is only one reality and the ideologically inconvenient facts that stem from that reality. This is not about morality or values, it is about reality. Homosexuality exists, it is naturally occurring, and denying that knowledge to children while at the same time teaching that heterosexuality is the only sexuality is damaging to all involved. Just as with evolution, the proclivity of the moral majority to eliminate information from curricula around the country is disturbing. Teaching kids less is never the answer.
Anyway, I did not mean to drag Lemur's thread off topic. It does not even look like the group in question is tied to those I was discussing.
a completely inoffensive name
01-28-2012, 07:56
Wouldn't it be nice if parents had to teach their kids about sexuality?
Oh, wait.. we already decided as a nation that it wasn't going to be like that. :laugh4:
That's because the internet teaches us younglings now.
Tellos Athenaios
01-28-2012, 08:40
That's because the internet teaches us younglings now.
Which, frankly, is much preferable in many ways.
Strike For The South
01-28-2012, 09:11
Wouldn't it be nice if parents had to teach their kids about sexuality?
Oh, wait.. we already decided as a nation that it wasn't going to be like that. :laugh4:
Texas tried that and failed.
Strike For The South
01-28-2012, 18:12
Speaks to the parents of Texas, and nothing else.
Yup becuase 8% of the countries population isn't a statistically sgnificgant sample or anything
Its much eaiser to teach them about sex than it will be to pay for the unintended conswquences
Sex ed should be mandatory starting in the 9th grade and for most that will be to late
As someone who has seen the "parental responsibilty" meme tried and failed I don't really have time to entertain thoughts of an idealzied family unit. If you dont teach kids about sex the more STDs and teen pregnancies you get and the whole cycle starts over again
^For me it was 8th grade.
Pannonian
01-28-2012, 20:49
I completely agree with you. However, the school's job should not be to dance around politically sensitive issues is what I'm saying. If the school is going to teach sex ed in the 6th grade (as was the case when I went to school back in the dizzaay) then it is the responsibility of the parent to ensure that their kid will act appropriately to the subject matter--gayness included. The thought of parents waiting for the school to broach the subject first is just ridiculous, but I'm sure there are many that do.
1. Raise entitlements for children up to the age of 18.
2. Make states responsible for financing entitlements.
Once the locals see a direct cause and effect between their political choices and the amount of tax they have to pay, they'll stop talking religion and start talking practical solutions.
Pannonian
01-29-2012, 05:29
What do you mean by entitlements?
Free public education up to 18 and beyond. Free healthcare up to 18. Free public travel up to 18. Generous child support up to 18. Make the state finance it all from state-raised revenue. Religious scruples should disappear once the tax bills come in.
Papewaio
01-30-2012, 08:13
User pays should include state level.
My dad explained what a teaser bull was doing when I was four.
Lemur's Law strikes again (http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/720299/star-wars-the-old-republic-gay-controversy-family-group-unloads-on-sw-tor/)
Hello, I’m Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. In a galaxy not so far far away, Star Wars gamers have already gone to the dark side. The new video game, Star Wars: The Old Republic, has added a special feature: gay relationships.
https://i.imgur.com/XUwig.gif
Tellos Athenaios
01-31-2012, 18:26
Not the same one, Lemur already ruled that “FRC” out.
Oh sure, I was just pointing out an example of the law in action.
HoreTore
02-02-2012, 23:48
Which means somebody else got our negative thermal energy. Sorry about that!
That would be here. I have ice in my beard when I get to work in the morning. Big round balls of ice.
Curse you!!!
Papewaio
02-03-2012, 00:07
But it leaves the Yeti in a much better mood. However it doesn't help it's smoking habit :smoking:
Vladimir
02-03-2012, 16:52
That would be here. I have ice in my beard when I get to work in the morning. Big round balls of ice.
Curse you!!!
HoreTore has big round balls in his face every morning.
HoreTore
02-03-2012, 20:39
HoreTore has big round balls in his face every morning.
It was colder today. So now, instead of balls of ice, my beard was completely white around my mouth... Had to wipe it off in the bathroom at work. Can't show it to the kids, ya know...
Vladimir
02-06-2012, 18:07
It was colder today. So now, instead of balls of ice, my beard was completely white around my mouth... Had to wipe it off in the bathroom at work. Can't show it to the kids, ya know...
:2thumbsup:
Condolences to Eastern Europe though. They're getting hit harder than usual and must be miserable.
Been a while HoreTore, good to see you back! :bow:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.