Gay marriage and public education


unixknight
 Share

Recommended Posts

So on another forum (populated mainly by those of Left wing viewpoints) I saw this link to a video about the impact of legalizing Gay marriage on a family in Massachusetts.

Personally, as a Libertarian, I've always been one to advocate for a "hands off" approach when it comes to Government legislation on the issue, but this video has made me re-evaluate my position. I haven't yet drawn any conclusions, but I was curious as to the opinions of my fellow members of this forum.

Video <--- link here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 211
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't like that heterosexuals are supposed to be tolerant of homosexuals but the opposite isn't true. This video points out that there is no respect for a family's moral beliefs. They are saying the children are not allowed to choose their own moral code, the school is deciding for them. They are undermining the teachings of the parents and that isn't right either. I agree with these parents that they should have been notified. Especially when dealing with children at such a young age. Parents are generally notified about Sex Ed classes because they deal with moral issues. This is also a moral issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe in individual rights and choices; the problem is when one right/choice impinges on another's. And that is something I think will never be solved. I do not think that gay marriages should impact what my child learns in school. Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why cannot they have the right to marry without it affecting/determining what my child is taught in school? I do not wish my children to be desensitized to something that goes against what I believe in. While they fight for, and win rights, why do I lose/give up rights? Where is the equality in that? Can it really be where it is fair/equal for all? I do not see how.

(By the way; I do realize one solution is to take ones children out of public school...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen the video, so forgive me if I'm a touch off the mark here. Ideally, the limit of education on same-sex marriage in public schools would be that it is legal (in places where it is) and that same-sex couples and their families should be treated with the same respect as heterosexual couples and their families. Any other moral education is out of the public realm and should be taught in the home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That figures...I am blocked by the local provider.

Essentially it's the story of a family in Massachusetts (where gay marriage is legal) being unable to prevent their local school district from teaching that same sex household couples are normal in the name of diversity. The parents, angered that they were neither consulted nor informed of this, tried to get the school to let them opt out of having their children taught this and were told that this was not a parental notification issue and that they could not opt out of these lessons.

The point of the video is to ties this in with legalization of gay marriage, saying that in a place where it's legal, it will naturally be taught by the state as normal to children attending public school there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe in individual rights and choices; the problem is when one right/choice impinges on another's. And that is something I think will never be solved. I do not think that gay marriages should impact what my child learns in school. Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why cannot they have the right to marry without it affecting/determining what my child is taught in school? I do not wish my children to be desensitized to something that goes against what I believe in. While they fight for, and win rights, why do I lose/give up rights? Where is the equality in that? Can it really be where it is fair/equal for all? I do not see how.

(By the way; I do realize one solution is to take ones children out of public school...)

The problem is, not all parents can afford to home school or pay for private education. Most of us are stuck with whatever indoctrination the public school system sees fit to subject our kids to. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Essentially it's the story of a family in Massachusetts (where gay marriage is legal) being unable to prevent their local school district from teaching that same sex household couples are normal in the name of diversity. The parents, angered that they were neither consulted nor informed of this, tried to get the school to let them opt out of having their children taught this and were told that this was not a parental notification issue and that they could not opt out of these lessons.

The point of the video is to ties this in with legalization of gay marriage, saying that in a place where it's legal, it will naturally be taught by the state as normal to children attending public school there.

Thanks for the assessment and review.

We are facing the same tactic in California that is used in Massachusetts. However, here, they will do it under the table [backdooring mandates through state houses] vice going public.

We have already remove two our of children from public school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is, not all parents can afford to home school or pay for private education. Most of us are stuck with whatever indoctrination the public school system sees fit to subject our kids to. :(

I agree; I added that, realizing someone would come back with that as an option, even though I do not think it a fair or reasonable one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree; I added that, realizing someone would come back with that as an option, even though I do not think it a fair or reasonable one.

Ah, gotcha. And yeah, that's always the first reply you hear from people supporting this sort of thing. It's similar to "Well if you don't like the content of your TV, turn it off!" Well, if it were only that simple. As if somehow that meant anything goes just because it's "optional." Besides, my taxes pay for the public school indoctrination whether my kids go or not. That's fair... :(

I cannot even image what the founding fathers are thinking....:)

It breaks my heart.

Sometimes I think it would be awesome to go back in time and sit down with George Washington and tell him about how great this country is and how well their ideas worked, and then I think about how I'd have to tell him about things like this and I realize that maybe it's just as well I can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I beg to differ. I've never met a homosexual who wasn't tolerant and even supportive of my heterosexual lifestyle.

I think the point is that a homosexual would more then likely not be tolerant of a hetrosexual's view that teaching his/her children that homosexual is normal and should be embraced is wrong. I laugh when those who preach tolerance are intolerant of my beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my biggest gripe right there. When I debate this stuff on that site the biggest replies seem to come in the form of either:

A )Being against same sex marriage is equivalent to being against interracial marriage and is thus a form of bigotry. Since bigotry is never okay then there's only one valid point of view and that's that same sex marriage is A-ok.

or

B )By trying to opt out of the curriculum for their kids, the parents are seeking to impose their own beliefs on others (apparently this includes the school as well...).

I don't see either argument as valid but they do stick to it with all their might.

What gets lost in the translation here is that nobody is getting up on a soapbox and railing about the evils of homosexuality or how other people choose to live their lives. All we want is to be able to decide what moral lessons our kids learn. We don't concern ourselves with what other people want to teach their kids. Like it or not, public schools are for everybody and are supposed to stay out of moral indoctrination.

Edited by unixknight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes I think it would be awesome to go back in time and sit down with George Washington and tell him about how great this country is and how well their ideas worked, and then I think about how I'd have to tell him about things like this and I realize that maybe it's just as well I can't.

Believe it or not, at one time the very notion of government had less to do with politics than with virtue. According to James Madison, often referred to as the father of the Constitution: “We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of the government—far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” (Russ Walton, Biblical Principles of Importance to Godly Christians, New Hampshire: Plymouth Foundation, 1984, p. 361.)

George Washington agreed with his colleague James Madison. Said Washington: “Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” (James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the President, 1789–1897, U.S. Congress, 1899, vol. 1, p. 220.) :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen the video, so forgive me if I'm a touch off the mark here. Ideally, the limit of education on same-sex marriage in public schools would be that it is legal (in places where it is) and that same-sex couples and their families should be treated with the same respect as heterosexual couples and their families. Any other moral education is out of the public realm and should be taught in the home.

So what if a biology teacher is asked by a student if there is any proof that homosexuals are born that way and he says the truth -- that there is no compelling evidence for such a position and if homosexuality were genetic then the law of natural selection would have weeded the trait out as it leads to less offspring for the individual -- therefore it is counter to any advantage in evolution.

Has what he said qualify for his being reprimanded by school officials?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hidden

So what if a biology teacher is asked by a student if there is any proof that homosexuals are born that way and he says the truth -- that there is no compelling evidence for such a position and if homosexuality were genetic then the law of natural selection would have weeded the trait out as it leads to less offspring for the individual -- therefore it is counter to any advantage in evolution.

Has what he said qualify for his being reprimanded by school officials?

Except for the fact that the body of evidence is inconclusive. The answer at this point is, we aren't sure, but we're trynig to find out.

Link to comment

So what if a biology teacher is asked by a student if there is any proof that homosexuals are born that way and he says the truth -- that there is no compelling evidence for such a position and if homosexuality were genetic then the law of natural selection would have weeded the trait out as it leads to less offspring for the individual -- therefore it is counter to any advantage in evolution.

Has what he said qualify for his being reprimanded by school officials?

He'd probably be accused of hate speech in some areas, and labeled as ignorant everywhere.

The big comeback to those points (not saying I agree with them, just letting you know what I've seen) Is that homosexuals are genetically an advantage to a population because they... well I forget the 'reasoning' behind it but it does ignore the fact that Darwinism is all about the ability of the individual to survive long enough to pass its genetic traits on. It has nothing to do with the benefit of the community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what if a biology teacher is asked by a student if there is any proof that homosexuals are born that way and he says the truth -- that there is no compelling evidence for such a position and if homosexuality were genetic then the law of natural selection would have weeded the trait out as it leads to less offspring for the individual -- therefore it is counter to any advantage in evolution.

Has what he said qualify for his being reprimanded by school officials?

I would recommend that the biology teacher give the scientific answer: we don't know. You almost had a good answer when you said, "There is no compelling evidence." That needs to be followed with the phrase "at this time."

Your suggestion that the law of natural selection would have 'weeded the trait out' is fairly weak for several reasons, including 1) homosexuals are a minority, so you could argue that natural selection is doing it's job just fine; 2) the law of natural selection has yet to 'weed out' Down Syndrome; 3) if evolution were really that efficient, why do so many of us have appendix, tonsils, and wisdom teeth?

The natural selection argument is used primarily by people who can't stomach the idea that some people could truly have a predisposition to same gender attraction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To desensitize this subject, they need to reeducate or really, doctrinate others into believing what is true to them should be true to you. There are hoping, overtime, the next generation will accept this as normal practice. .

I place gayism and atheism as a religious belief. If that is the case, there can be liable lawsuit where the state educational school board in allowing religious preaching in school. Right or wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I place gayism

"Gayism," is no more religious than is your "Straightism."

atheism as a religious belief.

Saying atheism is "religious" is akin to saying a couple who decides not to have children is "parenthood."

If that is the case, there can be liable lawsuit where the state educational school board in allowing religious preaching in school. Right or wrong?

Wrong.

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share