Gay marriage and public education


unixknight
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 211
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hemidakota Posted Image

“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 Commandmnts of God.”

Hi Hemi,

I thought you would want to know that the Madison quote above is a "quote hoax." In other words, Madison never said this.

You know, this reminds me of Thomas Paine:

But where, say some, is the King of America? I tell you, friend, he reigns above, and does not make havoc of mankind like the Royal brute of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the Charter; let it be brought forth, placed on the Divine Law, the Word of God; let a crown be placed thereon by which the world may know that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute government the king is law, so in free countries, the law ought to be king, and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished and scattered among the people whose right it is. - Common Sense 1776

-a-train

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until voters discover they can vote themselves largess (generous gifts) from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back again to bondage. (By Alexander Tyler Frasier, over 200 years ago.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DS, you do mean FLAT and not ROUND....yes, there are those who still believe it is so.

Nope, I meant round. It is a belief after all, and by virtue of your previous logic that makes it a religion, does it not? What if I don't share that belief? Why should I let you enforce your religious belief that the earth is round on my children?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until voters discover they can vote themselves largess (generous gifts) from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back again to bondage. (By Alexander Tyler Frasier, over 200 years ago.)

<---- Mormon's "pride cycle".

-a-train

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, I meant round. It is a belief after all, and by virtue of your previous logic that makes it a religion, does it not? What if I don't share that belief? Why should I let you enforce your religious belief that the earth is round on my children?

That doesn't make sense, since it is not a set of core beliefs that drives us daily. DS, does the world being round make it set of core beliefs? It doesn’t for me. What is core of belief? Can we say, ‘A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.’

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are relying on Snopes or the Wiki god, I doubt your findings are correct. I had some past laughs on findings only to find them wrong.

I did attempt a Google Research, with the author and the phrase, there is no contention to the phrase but Washington himself in a sense said the same.

Thanks...

Hemi! I thought you knew me better than that.

Nope, no Snopes.

"Public Education and the Public Good", Robert S. Alley, William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, Summer 1995. pp 316-318. An excerpt:

Responding to the public hubbub [that the quote was a hoax], editors of The Papers of James Madison, John Stagg and David Mattern, referred all inquirers to a letter dated November 23, 1993, in which Mr. Mattern wrote concerning the alleged quotation: "We did not find anything in our files remotely like the sentiment expressed in the extract you sent us. In addition, the idea is inconsistent with everything we know about Madison's views on religion and government, views which he expressed time and time again in public and in private."

Rob Boston, Church & State Volume 46, No. 4, April 1993, pp 8-12

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That doesn't make sense, since it is not a set of core beliefs that drives us daily. DS, does the world being round make it set of core beliefs? It doesn’t for me. What is core of belief? Can we say, ‘A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.’

Sexual orientation is not a set of core beliefs that drive us daily either. I don't know about you, but for me sexual attraction is a hormonal response, not a belief. Calling "gayism" a religion doesn't make much sense either.

In fact, now that I think about it, if you're defining a religion as anything that fits: ‘A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion’ I think that "republicanism" fits much better. We should really try to keep that out of schools as well. I don't want my children to think that society accepts republicans.

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. :(

That is not true, if you really want to home school your kids, you can down size. It just depends how important it is to you, what your children are taught.

When our state decided to teach "Alternative Life Styles" to 2nd graders back in 1995, we decided our kids will have no part of it. We have home schooled our kids for the last 18 years.

It is a choice....Should I buy the nice BMW? Do we need the house with the 3 car garage, or can we get away with 2 garage? Do we need that new boat?

It is a choice...

I had a lady who wanted to home school, I told her your going to have to downsize, she said "my husband will never get rid of his new durango"..

It is all about priorities..

Edited by jazzy225
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hemi! I thought you knew me better than that.

Nope, no Snopes.

"Public Education and the Public Good", Robert S. Alley, William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, Summer 1995. pp 316-318. An excerpt:

Responding to the public hubbub [that the quote was a hoax], editors of The Papers of James Madison, John Stagg and David Mattern, referred all inquirers to a letter dated November 23, 1993, in which Mr. Mattern wrote concerning the alleged quotation: "We did not find anything in our files remotely like the sentiment expressed in the extract you sent us. In addition, the idea is inconsistent with everything we know about Madison's views on religion and government, views which he expressed time and time again in public and in private."

Rob Boston, Church & State Volume 46, No. 4, April 1993, pp 8-12

Elphaba

Thanks. Moments like this bring new awareness in learning something new. At times, when reading, noting no original quote back reference will bring some doubts. But I am further surprise in not seeing it anywhere with a Google search. :)

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, now that I think about it, if you're defining a religion as anything that fits: ‘A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion’ I think that "republicanism" fits much better. We should really try to keep that out of schools as well. I don't want my children to think that society accepts republicans.

Then yes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone wants public education to reflect their own views and teach their own values. The problem is that as a country we can't agree on the specifics of what those views and values are. It is not the job of public education to enforce specific viewpoints that we cannot agree on, but I do think its job includes telling kids what is out there. I don't care if it is mentioned in school that some people think homosexuality is immoral, as long as it is also mentioned that it is a religious belief and many people also think there is nothing wrong with it. If you don't want your kids to hear other viewpoints, I suggest you not let them leave the house.

Edited by DigitalShadow
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not true, if you really want to home school your kids, you can down size. It just depends how important it is to you, what your children are taught . . .

It is a choice...

I had a lady who wanted to home school, I told her your going to have to downsize, she said "my husband will never get rid of his new durango"..

It is all about priorities..

Jazzy, some people truly don't have a choice, and it's not about bigger houses, nicer cars, or electronic gadgets. Most single parents could not possible do home schooling. Some married couples live in poverty and truly can't afford to live on one income. Having a roof over your head and food on the table is a higher priority than home schooling your kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fiannan, how much reading about gender and sexual orientation have you actually done? How many gay people have you actually talked to about their orientation? (And just to be clear, I don't mean their "sex life" when I say that.)

You are certainly entitled to believe that homosexual behavior is sinful and unnatural, but your ideas about sexual orientation are outdated and based on ignorance. The LDS church endorses views about SSA that are a lot more nuanced. Maybe you should get a clue from them.

Oh I have done my share of studies in psychoanalytic theory, behavioral sciences, neurology and endocrinology. And yeah, I have had detailed discussions with homosexual and bisexual people, and that has not gone into their sexual practices either.

Now did I say homosexual behavior is unnatural? Now that would be difficult even to determine what is natural or not. I mean really, things like incest are perfectly natural in the animal kingdom and in humans the practice still creeps up far too often yet there are some societies that encouraged it so we can assume that the rates must have been higher than in our world. Lion, pussycat and bear males eat the offspring of their rivals so they cn impregnate the females with their genes instead. Certainly natural but I would hate to see that occur in human society. Homosexual impulses are certainly natural and almost every woman and a significant number of men have them or would have them if exposed to situations where it was okay. In ancient Rome an adult man could have a much younger male lover and it was okay. In situations where people are having multiple partners at once most females, even the ones who originally had no intention of engaging in such things, will participate in lesbian sexual activites. Prisons? Well, no reason to go into depth there, now is there?

Then we get into the idea of morality. Yes, every society tries to determine a moral framework in which to live by. For some reason wew seek guidelines and if you believe in God you know why. The problem is, for some strange reason the governments of the infidel west as well as groups that wish to normalize homosexual behavior as something that is equal to heterosexual behavior seem to have to be MUCH more agressive in promoting their agenda with young people. Perhaps this is because if you just stayed totally neutral after a couple of generations of ammoral hedonists they would al bite the dust and the young would return to the patterns of life that were more natural and in line with God.

Well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I have done my share of studies in psychoanalytic theory, behavioral sciences, neurology and endocrinology. And yeah, I have had detailed discussions with homosexual and bisexual people, and that has not gone into their sexual practices either.

I'm genuinely surprised, then, that you can conclude there is "no compelling evidence" for the the idea that gay people are born gay. I think there are lots of compelling data that point to biological roots of sexual orientation. Not proof, but certainly evidence.

. . . Well, no reason to go into depth there, now is there?

I can go into as much depth as you want. I am perfectly willing and able to discuss situational homosexual behavior, but I believe that sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior. My guess is that you do, too, as this is an important distinction that the LDS church makes in its recent statements on homosexuality.

Then we get into the idea of morality. Yes, every society tries to determine a moral framework in which to live by. For some reason wew seek guidelines and if you believe in God you know why. The problem is, for some strange reason the governments of the infidel west as well as groups that wish to normalize homosexual behavior as something that is equal to heterosexual behavior seem to have to be MUCH more agressive in promoting their agenda with young people.

Well?

I don't find it strange at all. Of course gay advocates have to be much more aggressive in promoting their agenda. They are working to overcome significant negative attitudes of long duration. I understand that to you -- and many others -- homosexual behavior is considered a grave moral transgression. To you, this is patently not a civil rights issue. I get that.

However, I do see it as a civil rights issue. In my view, both homosexuality and heterosexuality are morally neutral in and of themselves. Gay marriage is the hot issue right now. Those who pooh-pooh how important it can be for committed same-sex couples underestimate the power of marriage. Right now, any man and woman for a small fee can instantly make each other their next of kin. To achieve that same result, same-sex couples typically have to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees. I don't think that people who want to limit rights according to gender or sexual orientation are inherently bad people -- but I do think they are wrong. Just as they think I am wrong. (And I strongly suspect that most of them don't think people like me are inherently bad, either.)

If I understand you correctly, you assert that sexual orientation is not inborn. My reading of information on lds.org is that the LDS church takes a less definite stance on this issue. Quoting Dallin Oaks at Same-Gender Attraction - LDS Newsroom:

What’s more, merely having inclinations does not disqualify one for any aspect of Church participation or membership, except possibly marriage as has already been talked about. . . .

[H]omosexual feelings are controllable. Perhaps there is an inclination or susceptibility to such feelings that is a reality for some and not a reality for others. . . .

We’re not talking about a unique challenge here. We’re talking about a common condition of mortality. We don’t understand exactly the ‘why,’ or the extent to which there are inclinations or susceptibilities and so on. . . .

No, we do not accept the fact that conditions that prevent people from attaining their eternal destiny were born into them without any ability to control.

. . . The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.

I see this as a more measured and nuanced approach than what you have stated on this thread.

Edited by OtterPop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jazzy, some people truly don't have a choice, and it's not about bigger houses, nicer cars, or electronic gadgets. Most single parents could not possible do home schooling. Some married couples live in poverty and truly can't afford to live on one income. Having a roof over your head and food on the table is a higher priority than home schooling your kids.

That is an excuse. I personally know a few women who have raised/homeschooled and worked from their home. They did quite well.

Like I said it is about choices and priorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we have Bestial Marriages?

No, you cannot, because the "beast" cannot agree to it.

Can we have Plural Marriages?

Why not? As long as they are consenting adults, and cause no harm, I see nothing wrong with it. Especially if I am the one with the two or more husbands.

Perhaps, I can marry myself?

Only if you can give yourself permission. :P

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can we coin the term of 'What is Religion?' Main core of BELIEF....

When it comes to atheism, you can't. I think you misunderstood my analogy.

now you telling me they do not have a core belief of same gender marriage

No, I am not saying that, and I'm not sure why you are.

I have no idea how many atheists believe in SSM, and how many do not. I'm sure some reject it and others champion it. Why should it be any different than theists' numerous opinions about it?

Gay people are not necessarily atheists, and I think if I understand your point, you're conflating the two. In fact, I suspect there are the same percentage of atheists in the gay population as there is in the straight population.

or even the atheist central creed that there is no god?

I don't understand your point. Could you clarify please?

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The public institutions should be limited to saying it is what it is, we need to treat everyone with due respect and dignity, and whether the lifestyle be right or wrong is a discussion to take up with your families at home.

If thats the case, then the public institutions shouldn't encourage the nuclear family either.

You cannot have Health and Human Development (subject name in Australia) without talking about all the genders and all the different sorts of families.

The parents would demand that the teachers teach integrity. And if integrity, then why not chastity?

Chastity is no more natural than wearing clothing.

But in those walls there rages a war for the minds of men.

Ofcourse. You're only told what youre supposed to know. :P

Religion is taught in some schools, but not comparative religion.

History is taught, but only how we want to tell it. etc

Can we have Bestial Marriages? Can we have Plural Marriages? Perhaps, I can marry myself? I think there is a gene to prove that one called the 'Three Ids'. If not, I think every special interest group should have their own way in society and receive their own rights. Brenton, is this what you want?

Absolutely, I'm surprised Americans dont. Your constitution was designed to protect ALL the minorities. You are supposed to be living in a Constiutional Republic, but infact youre in a "democracy" now, like we all are. -sigh-

People should be allowed to do whatever they want in the way of marriage. As long as it doesnt infringe on anyones rights (and being offended by certain marriages is not, a loss of a right).

I watched the video on the newsroom and thats the saddest excuse for something ive ever heard. I think the Church is just worried they could lose their not-for-profit status if gay marriage became more nationally sanctioned.

There is a big difference between isolating a gene which is in someway proven to contribute to same gender attraction and issuing a statement on morality.
The Church is politically neutral when it comes to telling it's members who to vote for. When it comes to issues they (we) feel harm the things we consider sacred...then they get involved.

That's still not politically neutral because the Church is encouraging members how to vote.

But where says some is the King of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve as monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is.

Intersting quote of you to use. ;)

let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God;

Clearly if you read that carefully, Mr Paine is saying that we have no need for the divine law.

I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain.

And here, he is clearly stating that God has nothing whatever to do with human affairs. Paine was a deist.

Nor do the Gays have the right to infringe and force their own beliefs in public shcools.

Nor do the straights.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until voters discover they can vote themselves largess (generous gifts) from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back again to bondage. (By Alexander Tyler Frasier, over 200 years ago.)

The collapse of society has nothing whatever to do with religion. It's the monetary system. That's what controls our lives. It's what keeps things scarce, and stops sustainable living, all so industry can profit etc. Religion is a burden to those who do not require it.

Now did I say homosexual behavior is unnatural? Now that would be difficult even to determine what is natural or not. I mean really, things like incest are perfectly natural in the animal kingdom and in humans

I find it interesting that you put humans seperate to the animal kingdom. Humans are as much animal as a cat or a koala. Since there are many other gay animals, one can scientifically assume it is a genetic thing.

Yes, every society tries to determine a moral framework in which to live by.

That may be true, but are you honestly going to call a Christian lifestyle moral? Humans seek good just like any other animal, because we know were doomed if we cant get along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely, I'm surprised Americans dont [allow bestial marriage]. Your constitution was designed to protect ALL the minorities. You are supposed to be living in a Constiutional Republic, but infact youre in a "democracy" now, like we all are. -sigh-

People should be allowed to do whatever they want in the way of marriage. As long as it doesnt infringe on anyones rights (and being offended by certain marriages is not, a loss of a right).

I'm not sure whether you're being facetious or not.

Actually, our Constitution specifically says that the individual states have the right to legislate everything that's not provided in the Constitution, which at this point doesn't talk about marriage.

Also, in this country, marriage in a contract. Animals cannot enter into contracts. Surely, this is the case in Australia as well?

Edited by OtterPop
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