Maryland School Board Bans Display Of LGBTQ Pride Flags On School Property

[post]

No problems with a symbol of genocide. Ok.

The sacrifices by the ordinary people who put down the rebellion are diminished and disrespected by the comments posted all too often in these threads!

With less than 90 mounted troopers, he charged J.E.B. Stuart's three calvary brigades and his bravery may have won the Battle of Gettysburg, Lincoln's 1864
election, and ultimately, the war.

He died young, and in obscurity, his wife and son, interred in the same family cemetery, are not even mentioned! R.I.P., Captain Charles Corbit.

CPT Charles Corbit (1838-1887) - Find a Grave...

Born in 1838. Died on 29 Dec 1887. Buried in Odessa, Delaware, USA.

www.findagrave.com

"Dear Lou": Civil War Letters Home from Capt Charles Corbit

The Historic Odessa Foundation archives contain numerous original letters from many of the family members who lived in the Foundation’s 18th century houses. Among them are letters from Captain Charles Corbit, son of Henry C. Corbit, to his beloved wife Louisa Anderson Corbit, daughter of Daniel...

www.historicodessa.org

"...on June 29, 1863, where he led 90 men in a charge against the larger numbers of Jeb Stuart’s cavalry. It resulted in capture of most of the Delaware soldiers, including Corbit who was also wounded, but was significant for delaying Stuart’s arrival at the battle of Gettysburg.
The Corbit letters concentrate in the years 1863 to early 1865 and document many aspects of a soldier’s everyday life. Captain Corbit tells of the billeting of officers in local hotels and their horses in town stables. The letters are revealing of the harsh conditions, ailments and complaints of the men, and touching for their homesickness, and frank comments on both politicians and military leaders. During his time at the front lines in 1864 his wife, while living in St. George’s, Delaware, just 3 miles north of Odessa, informs him their only son has died. Captain Corbit’s letters are addressed "Dear Lou" his nickname for his wife Louisa and usually end with “Your Affectionate Husband Charles”.

Wife:

Louisa Anderson Corbit Corbit (1838-1901) - Find...

DIED CORBIT.--In Wilmington, Del., on March 12, 1901, Louisa A. Corbit, wife of the late Charles Corbit. Interment at Odessa, Del. [Ref: _The Churchman_, vol. 83, March 30, 1901, p. 411] She married Charles Corbit 15 Nov 1860 at Odessa, New Castle Co., DE. He was her 2nd cousin once removed...

www.findagrave.com

10 months old son...

Henry C Corbit (1863-1864) - Find a Grave...

His parents, Charles Corbit & Louisa Anderson Corbit (Corbit being her maiden & married names) were 2nd cousins 1 time removed, both descending from Daniel Corbit & Mary Brinton. Source: James Henry Lea and George Henry Lea, _The Ancestry and Posterity of John Lea of Christian Malford...

www.findagrave.com

 

[Slyfox696]

I’m responding to your argument.

My argument is predicated on your response to Tigerace. so, again, is that the language Tigerace used?

And he is wrong. The very fact you’re bringing up laws and regulations once in effect means that this is in fact political. How did those laws go away except by political progress? No, you’re engaging in preening moralism where you believe your causes are so self evidently right that any suggestion it’s political is evil. You’re very much sharing the mindset of Lennin. Although more gay because Lennin would’ve said that conduct was a perversion of the Burgeois.

I explicitly stated I wasn't discussing whether it was political or not. But I do find it quite interesting that you're invoking Russians in the discussion...for no particular reason of course.

Were they?

Yes

Or did they simply only apply to acts between members of the same sex?

No. Denying the right of gay parents to adopt is not about "acts". Take your nonsense elsewhere.

Is everyone who has sex with a member of the same sex homosexual in your mind?

Why are you saying so many stupid things?

Which again, targets behavior and not people.

No, because the same behavior was not made illegal for heterosexuals. Did you even read what I wrote? If so, why are you posting lies about it? If not, then why are you commenting?

In the Jim Crow south laws were applied against people. If you were a black man and came dressed in appropriate attire with sufficient money to pay your check you could be denied service based solely on being black even if you did nothing to warrant being denied service. The laws you’re citing apply to behavior and not people.

Denying gay parents the right to adopt is applying to behavior? You mean...the behavior of being attracted to someone of the same sex?

Why are you regurgitating every homophobic defense in the book to deflect from the fact laws were deliberately crafted to target homosexuals?

States have a right to set regulations for the adoption of children based on what the legislature and human services departments believes to be in the Child’s interests.

And how did they set those laws? By saying homosexuals couldn't adopt?

What is wrong with a strict understanding of rights?

It is dishonest in the context of the discussion being had.

Even to that end what is your basis for claiming certain sexual behaviors are a right?

I don’t want to bring back the sodomy laws, but I am not convinced by arguments that this is a human right

I'm shocked, given your repeated regurgitation of homophobic defenses.

 

[Josie]

Perfectly fine with this decision. Don't Tread on Me and Confederate flags shouldn't be allowed either.

 

[Slyfox696]

It’s not like that at all. The fight was brought to the south.

Yeah, because every time the south brought the fight to the north, they got their asses kicked.

They went down swinging for sure. There is pride in defeat

Not when you were fighting to hold people in slavery for no reason better than the color of your skin. Do you have any idea how utterly racist this comment was?

No person in the south should be proud of their state's involvement in the Civil War. The Confederate states were traitors to the country and they betrayed the country because they didn't want to treat black people as anything other than property. It was reprehensible on every level and no amount of whitewashing will change the evil of what they were doing.

 

[Slyfox696]

I have no problems with a Nazi flag, Karen

This is my surprised face.

 

[Bear5131]

This is my surprised face.

I believe in the 1st amendment and the constitution with all my heart, why would that surprise anyone.?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Carroll County school board voted to ban the display of political flags, including LGBTQ pride flags, on school property. The policy would only affect the school buildings themselves. Students will still be allowed to display pride flags on their person.

Some teachers and parents expressed concern about the pride flag being displayed inside some county classrooms.

"We can be accepting of each person’s sexuality and personal identification. But what I will not accept is over-sexualizing the classroom." said one parent.

Confederate flags and Nazi flags were already prohibited.

source: https://nbc25news.com/news/nation-w...sey-confederate-nazi-flags-already-prohibited

I don't believe it does. School kids are (except for maybe 12th grade in some cases) minors and do not have full constitutional rights.

 

[Slyfox696]

I believe in the 1st amendment and the constitution with all my heart, why would that surprise anyone.?

Oh, you clearly misunderstood the tone of my post. That's okay, I'll be more clear.

I was NOT surprised that you support Nazi symbols. Not surprised in the least.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

My argument is predicated on your response to Tigerace. so, again, is that the language Tigerace used?

I explicitly stated I wasn't discussing whether it was political or not. But I do find it quite interesting that you're invoking Russians in the discussion...for no particular reason of course.

I can see already you’re arguing in bad faith. The reason is because advocating for any form of sexual deviance is a political priority for you. Hence why you have holy months dedicated to “pride” and fly political banners.

Yes

No. Denying the right of gay parents to adopt is not about "acts". Take your nonsense elsewhere.

You don’t have a right to adopt. You can be denied adoption for all manner of reasons.

Why are you saying so many stupid things?

Note you didn’t answer the question

No, because the same behavior was not made illegal for heterosexuals. Did you even read what I wrote? If so, why are you posting lies about it? If not, then why are you commenting?

You posted a link that explicitly said sodomy was illegal between opposite sex couples, but that is irrelevant, even if the law only banned sodomitic acts between members of the same sex, that is not a law against people with same sex attractions. If you never act on it you never violated those laws.

Denying gay parents the right to adopt is applying to behavior? You mean...the behavior of being attracted to someone of the same sex?

No, because what you’re attracted to is a condition within your mind, engaging in physical acts is a behavior

Why are you regurgitating every homophobic defense in the book to deflect from the fact laws were deliberately crafted to target homosexuals?

No evidence of this has been provided by you.

And how did they set those laws? By saying homosexuals couldn't adopt?

Again, there is no right to adopt a child and so no rights were violated.

It is dishonest in the context of the discussion being had.

I'm shocked, given your repeated regurgitation of homophobic defenses.

“Homophobic” oh look more stupid buzzwords

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Yeah, because every time the south brought the fight to the north, they got their asses kicked.

Not when you were fighting to hold people in slavery for no reason better than the color of your skin. Do you have any idea how utterly racist this comment was?

That was a motivation. Not the sole one.

Also this form of slavery was legal in several union states and remained legal under US federal law until after its conclusion

No person in the south should be proud of their state's involvement in the Civil War. The Confederate states were traitors to the country

No they weren’t.

and they betrayed the country

No, they didn’t

because they didn't want to treat black people as anything other than property.

Chattel slavery was wrong, and it was equally practiced in northern states and throughout Latin America. And remains practiced by blacks in subsaharan Africa to this day, and was practiced in the Arab world until the 1960s. This whole rant you have against the confederacy is based solely on bigotry towards low income southern whites

It was reprehensible on every level and no amount of whitewashing will change the evil of what they were doing.

Blah blah blah

 

[Slyfox696]

I can see already you’re arguing in bad faith. The reason is because advocating for any form of sexual deviance is a political priority for you. Hence why you have holy months dedicated to “pride” and fly political banners.

Imagine having the lack of self-awareness to argue someone else is debating in bad faith while you repeatedly attempt to knock down strawman arguments you've already been told don't exist.

You don’t have a right to adopt.

You (should) have a right to be treated equally under the law.

You can be denied adoption for all manner of reasons.

But not just because you're heterosexual. Which means the law targeted homosexuals. Which is what I said from the beginning.

Note you didn’t answer the question

How many children did you sexually abuse this morning?

When you realize why you think my question is stupid, you'll realize why I think your question is stupid and not worthy of response.

You posted a link that explicitly said sodomy was illegal between opposite sex couples

And told you to keep reading and even quoted the portion for you:

"In nine states, sodomy laws were explicitly rewritten so that they only applied to gay people. Kansas was the first state to do that in 1969. Kansas was followed in the 1970's by Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Tennessee, and Texas. In two states, Maryland and Oklahoma, courts decided that sodomy laws could not be applied to private heterosexual conduct, leaving what amounted to same-sex only laws in effect."

But I see, like so many other things, you are simply going to post lies about it.

but that is irrelevant

It's really not. You asked for laws that targeted homosexuals and I've provided it. Now you're engaging in homophobic rhetoric to justify the homophobic laws. Which, whatever dude, if you're homophobic then that's your problem, but I've provided you with examples of laws targeted at homosexuals. You can either be honest and acknowledge laws were crafted to deliberately target homosexuals or you can continue what you're doing.

 

[Slyfox696]

That was a motivation. Not the sole one.

It was the primary motivation. As stated by the states explicitly in their secession declarations.

No they weren’t.

By the very definition of the word, yes they were.

US Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Why are you posting lies?

No, they didn’t

Again, they were literally traitors.

Chattel slavery was wrong, and it was equally practiced in northern states and throughout Latin America. And remains practiced by blacks in subsaharan Africa to this day, and was practiced in the Arab world until the 1960s. This whole rant you have against the confederacy is based solely on bigotry towards low income southern whites

This is the stupidest thing I've seen you say in this thread and that is saying something.

No, the "rant" I have against the Confederacy is they were traitors who betrayed this country to preserve an absolutely evil and abhorrent institution of slavery. And, just so we're clear comrade, I'm equally against slavery practiced anywhere and everywhere you listed. My disgust for slavery is not limited to Confederates, but to anyone who practices or defends it. Like you're trying to do now.

It was reprehensible on every level and no amount of whitewashing will change the evil of what they were doing.

Blah blah blah

So...let's see...you vomit homophobic rhetoric repeatedly and now are cavalier of the concept of slavery being evil. Much as I told Bear, this is my surprised face.

 

[post]

Perfectly fine with this decision. Don't Tread on Me and Confederate flags shouldn't be allowed either.

Except that the decision in Carroll County and your support of it are incoherent, compared to their stated policy, just as the support of posters here
of DeSantis is incoherent, as is DeSantis, himself.

How does banning a LGBTQ flag accomplish anything other than "promotion of intolerance"? How does "make English the official language of the county,"
accomplish anything other than "promotion of intolerance"? A few years ago I had to visit a Florida county DMV office to deal with an issue for my father
who resided in that county at that time. Where I live, the driving test is offered in 15 languages, but Florida passed a law prohibiting the DMV employee
manning the information kiosk in that office from answering any question by a young spanish speaking women. I had to attempt to explain to her why
the county employee was ignoring her, because, of course, the sign explaining the prohibition could not legally be displayed in her language. She ended up
making a call on her cell phone and as I exited that office, I saw her departing in a taxi. Such xenophobic, insecure, counter productive, wedge issue G.O.P.
intolerant bullshit!

-snip-
In 2013 the Carroll County Board of Commissioners voted to make English the official language of the county. In 2018, the Carroll County Public Schools announced that Confederate flags and Nazi swastikas would be banned from Carroll County schools, along with Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Nation symbolism and other messages that promote hatred or intolerance."
-snip-

.
How can DeSantis push the newly minted wedge issue about protecting children from "drag shows," by proposing CPS "investigation" of parents exposing
their children to "drag" when he has indoctrinated his own young children to a sexual predator accused by 26 women of everything from unsolicited advances to forcible molestation and rape, and who slept with a porn star four months after his own son's birth and is on tape bragging about grabbing womens' genitals without even having to ask?

Voted for Trump after the ***** grab admission and likely again, in 2020!

DeSantis Teaches His Kids the ABCs of Trump in New Ad​

https://www.rollcall.com › 2018/07/30 › desantis-teache...
Jul 30, 2018 — The spot features DeSantis' wife Casey talking about how he was endorsed by President Donald Trump but he's so much more than just pro-Trump.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Imagine having the lack of self-awareness to argue someone else is debating in bad faith while you repeatedly attempt to knock down strawman arguments you've already been told don't exist.

You are arguing in bad faith, and getting frustrated because you can’t refute the argument I made.

You (should) have a right to be treated equally under the law.

You don’t get treated equally when it comes to adoption. For example if a black child is up for adoption many agencies will attempt to place them with a black family if one is available. Generally if you are married and own a 4 bedroom home you’re more likely to adopt a child then if you live in a trailer as a single person. You have no right to be treated equally when it comes to the life of a child that the state is placing with you. That is crazy town stuff

But not just because you're heterosexual. Which means the law targeted homosexuals. Which is what I said from the beginning.

“Heterosexual” is a pseudoscientific slur. You have to use language to make false equivelance. Of course you’re not going to refuse to adopt children to persons with normally ordered sexuality. That’s crazy town stuff.

How many children did you sexually abuse this morning?

Zero, now you need to get personal because you don’t wish to discuss issues in a dispassionate manner.

When you realize why you think my question is stupid, you'll realize why I think your question is stupid and not worthy of response.

And told you to keep reading and even quoted the portion for you:

"In nine states, sodomy laws were explicitly rewritten so that they only applied to gay people. Kansas was the first state to do that in 1969. Kansas was followed in the 1970's by Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Tennessee, and Texas. In two states, Maryland and Oklahoma, courts decided that sodomy laws could not be applied to private heterosexual conduct, leaving what amounted to same-sex only laws in effect."

But I see, like so many other things, you are simply going to post lies about it.

I have already addressed this

It's really not. You asked for laws that targeted homosexuals and I've provided it. Now you're engaging in homophobic rhetoric to justify the homophobic laws. Which, whatever dude, if you're homophobic then that's your problem,

See again with personal attacks

but I've provided you with examples of laws targeted at homosexuals.

No, you’ve provided laws that target behaviors

You can either be honest and acknowledge laws were crafted to deliberately target homosexuals or you can continue what you're doing.

No, they target behaviors.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

It was the primary motivation. As stated by the states explicitly in their secession declarations.

By the very definition of the word, yes they were.

US Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Why are you posting lies?

Again, they were literally traitors.

No, they weren’t. Because it wasn’t legally established secession was illegal.

This is the stupidest thing I've seen you say in this thread and that is saying something.

No, the "rant" I have against the Confederacy is they were traitors who betrayed this country to preserve an absolutely evil and abhorrent institution of slavery. And, just so we're clear comrade, I'm equally against slavery practiced anywhere and everywhere you listed. My disgust for slavery is not limited to Confederates, but to anyone who practices or defends it. Like you're trying to do now.

Good for you, you get a gold star, how brave of you for being against slavery in 2022. Did you condemn Obama for Tripoli slave markets?

So...let's see...you vomit homophobic rhetoric repeatedly and now are cavalier of the concept of slavery being evil. Much as I told Bear, this is my surprised face.

 

[Slyfox696]

You are arguing in bad faith, and getting frustrated because you can’t refute the argument I made.

You're arguing something I never argued. That's what "strawman" means, in case you didn't know.

You don’t get treated equally when it comes to adoption. For example if a black child is up for adoption many agencies will attempt to place them with a black family if one is available. Generally if you are married and own a 4 bedroom home you’re more likely to adopt a child then if you live in a trailer as a single person. You have no right to be treated equally when it comes to the life of a child that the state is placing with you. That is crazy town stuff

“Heterosexual” is a pseudoscientific slur. You have to use language to make false equivelance. Of course you’re not going to refuse to adopt children to persons with normally ordered sexuality. That’s crazy town stuff.

Zero, now you need to get personal because you don’t wish to discuss issues in a dispassionate manner.

I have already addressed this

See again with personal attacks

No, you’ve provided laws that target behaviors

No, they target behaviors.

All of this to avoid admitting I was right, that laws have been crafted which targeted homosexuals. And your "target behaviors" argument is a lie, as the same behaviors were not outlawed for heterosexual couples.

So...are you going to be honest and admit I was correct or are you going to keep vomiting homophobic arguments?

 

[Slyfox696]

No, they weren’t. Because it wasn’t legally established secession was illegal.

It was Constitutionally established that levying war against the United States was treason. They were traitors. And they got their ass kicked.

Good for you, you get a gold star, how brave of you for being against slavery in 2022.

Doesn't require bravery at all to condemn an evil practice, which makes your continued defense of those who engaged in it surprising.

Well, for most people it would be surprising. As I stated before, it didn't surprise me at all coming from you.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You're arguing something I never argued. That's what "strawman" means, in case you didn't know.

All of this to avoid admitting I was right, that laws have been crafted which targeted homosexuals. And your "target behaviors" argument is a lie, as the same behaviors were not outlawed for heterosexual couples.

So...are you going to be honest and admit I was correct or are you going to keep vomiting homophobic arguments?

It is irrelevant whether a law applied to such acts between opposite sex couples.

What gets you off was never an element of any of those crimes. It was a strict liability offense for whether or not you committed the act. Many states also had criminal laws banning adultery. I suppose by your standard that was discriminatory targeting of married People

 

[Slyfox696]

It is irrelevant whether a law applied to such acts between opposite sex couples.

It absolutely is relevant in a discussion about whether laws targeted homosexuals.

You've lost. You know it. I know it. Anyone who cares to read this debate knows it. Give it up already.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

It was Constitutionally established that levying war against the United States was treason. They were traitors. And they got their ass kicked.

So the British invaded America in the war of 1812 are guilty of treason?

Doesn't require bravery at all to condemn an evil practice, which makes your continued defense of those who engaged in it surprising.

Especially when you only condemn the practice in the context of modern low income whites in the south who never practiced it. Which would seem to indicate to me, but you don’t really care that much about slavery as practiced 150 years ago. Except in so far as it gives you license to Thinking bigoted manners.

Well, for most people it would be surprising. As I stated before, it didn't surprise me at all coming from you.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

It absolutely is relevant in a discussion about whether laws targeted homosexuals.

Is every person who has sex with someone of the same sex a homosexual? If you do it once and don’t like it are you a homosexual?

You've lost. You know it. I know it. Anyone who cares to read this debate knows it. Give it up already.

You seem to get really upset at having your preconceived notions questioned.

 

[Slyfox696]

So the British invaded America in the war of 1812 are guilty of treason?

All these mental gymnastics to defend traitors.

Especially when you only condemn the practice in the context of modern low income whites in the south who never practiced it. Which would seem to indicate to me, but you don’t really care that much about slavery as practiced 150 years ago. Except in so far as it gives you license to Thinking bigoted manners.

What in the world are you talking about? The conversation was about the Confederate states. Are you really so embarrassed that I've been handing your ass to you on a silver platter in this thread that you're now just going to blatantly post lies about A) what I've said and B) what the conversation is about?

It's really simple. Read slowly if you need. The Confederates were traitors. They fought to preserve the evil practice of owning another human being as property. There is absolutely nothing to be proud of in regards to what the south did. Nothing.

Is every person who has sex with someone of the same sex a homosexual? If you do it once and don’t like it are you a homosexual?

You seem to get really upset at having your preconceived notions questioned.

So you're not going to do the honest thing and admit I was correct that there were laws passed specifically targeting homosexuals? Well, I can't say I'm surprised you refuse to do the honest thing.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

All these mental gymnastics to defend traitors.

What in the world are you talking about? The conversation was about the Confederate states. Are you really so embarrassed that I've been handing your ass to you on a silver platter in this thread that you're now just going to blatantly post lies about A) what I've said and B) what the conversation is about?

It's really simple. Read slowly if you need. The Confederates were traitors. They fought to preserve the evil practice of owning another human being as property. There is absolutely nothing to be proud of in regards to what the south did. Nothing.

So you're not going to do the honest thing and admit I was correct that there were laws passed specifically targeting homosexuals? Well, I can't say I'm surprised you refuse to do the honest thing.

All of this indicates a pretty juvenile attitude and a reluctance to engage in actual defense of your ideas. Which is not a surprise.

 

[Slyfox696]

a reluctance to engage in actual defense of your ideas.

If you're going to post lies, don't make them so obvious. Confederates were traitors to defend an evil practice and got their ass kicked for it and laws were passed targeting homosexuals. It's really that simple, as I've already proven.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

If you're going to post lies, don't make them so obvious. Confederates were traitors to defend an evil practice and got their ass kicked for it and laws were passed targeting homosexuals. It's really that simple, as I've already proven.

These are not serious good faith arguments. This is just moral signaling that you are typing out to be more loved by people who agree with you.