Gay marriage and public education


unixknight
 Share

Recommended Posts

Brenton....you really should lay off insulting the Church........RULES!!

I'm not. It's a matter of speculation.

Oh.....I mean everyone but Brenton, Elphaba and Rastler....they will just be worm food since there isn't a God. Just kidding......

Well I'm glad you understand science so well, fábjáni!! :D

believe in such superstitions

You're actually making some sense. Here's my distinction, and it's important socially - but mainly ignored at this time ... you have no right to tell someone what to believe.

But you do have the right to tell someone what is EMPIRICALLY truthful.

I've even been called a bigot because I once said I'd not let my male children wear dresses. (Who, exactly, I'm supposed to be bigoted against was never made clear, but meh.)

I'm not going to pretend to know the position or thought of the person that said that to you. But here's my take on that though, a dress is just a design. It's "okay" for a woman to wear pants, but its not okay for a man to wear a "dress" even though both things are just fabric.

Politically neutral....not morally neutral.

That, my friend is the biggest crock. Telling someone who to vote is not politically neutral, nor is it morally neutral. The LDS church claims to be morally correct, but politically neutral.

I know you clearly take it as insulting the Church, but I really have a feeling it's got to do, deep down, with taxation issues. Otherwise the church wouldn't care, with all their talk of free agency for all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 211
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That, my friend is the biggest crock. Telling someone who to vote is not politically neutral, nor is it morally neutral. The LDS church claims to be morally correct, but politically neutral.

I know you clearly take it as insulting the Church, but I really have a feeling it's got to do, deep down, with taxation issues. Otherwise the church wouldn't care, with all their talk of free agency for all.

The church does not endorse a political party or candidate but is not silent on moral issues. There are General Authorities that are members of both political parties. Free agency is a gospel principal and a war was fought in heaven over it. We are all free to choose good or evil....but not without consequences. I have to be honest here, Brenton, you have gotten under my skin a couple of times and I have responded a bit sharply and for that I apologize. Perhaps you could in future posts remember that your sarcasm and pointed comments and dismissal of religious persons beliefs tend to make people of religious faith bristle. Again I am sorry for being sharp or even insulting in my comments as well.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Omega, no who has actually read the literature would assert that genetics is the reason people are gay. It is unquestionably more nuanced than that.

Science expects to get things wrong. It is about formulating hypotheses and testing them, and using data to formulate new hypotheses and testing them . . .

I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but I think those of you who are LDS and are so sure of the causes of homosexuality really should read the statement of your own leaders on lds.org. They are a more open-minded about this question than what I'm seeing here.

I am very aware of what scientists do to arrive at a hypotheses. I was saying that some people make a statement and scientists say it is probable and then actually think it is factual when that may not be the case. It may become factually or it may be proven totally false at a later time.

Some people just jump the gun and think it is true because they may want it to be true or because since it is probable therefore in time it will be true. We start to fool ourselves and others. Let's not be so open minded and let that happen.

When discussing an issue it's best to discuss the facts behind it. It may be fun to discuss what probably is or isn't about something but it simply doesn't prove anything. What is probable about something really is an unknown at this point in time. Not factual but unknown.

I have seen some posts where someone may say that scientist say it is probable that... or the evidence shows that it is probable that... It just doesn't make it true. It could be entirely false. Sometimes people lose their testimonies over something that just isn't proven and they lose their own salvation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I quoted directly from him, and I encourage anyone who is interested to read the piece for themselves. I linked to it above.

He says very clearly that the LDS church does not have a position on the causes of homosexuality. He also says that it is the moral responsibility of gay LDS members to control their actions, and that such control is possible.

I have neither misrepresented nor criticized the LDS church's statement.

You made an accusation that is completely unfounded. I'd appreciate it if you'd acknowledge that and apologize.

The Church has not said that anyone is predisposed to live contrary to the commandments of God. To say that anyone is then makes God into a sadistic creator, doesn't it? I mean, to say that someone who commits fornication or adultery cannot enter into His presence and then also to mandate that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman is rather ...well, you get the point.

I'll deal with this more later -- I have a Sunday School lesson to prepare for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Church has not said that anyone is predisposed to live contrary to the commandments of God. To say that anyone is then makes God into a sadistic creator, doesn't it? I mean, to say that someone who commits fornication or adultery cannot enter into His presence and then also to mandate that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman is rather ...well, you get the point.

I'm just a little curious, does the church consider fornication and adultery the same sin as being gay?

Rainofgold

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Church has not said that anyone is predisposed to live contrary to the commandments of God. To say that anyone is then makes God into a sadistic creator, doesn't it? I mean, to say that someone who commits fornication or adultery cannot enter into His presence and then also to mandate that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman is rather ...well, you get the point.

I certainly do get the point (and I do find this concept irrconcilable with my understanding of God) -- yet this is exactly what the lds.org statement says. It says that homosexual orientation is not eternal, but that the LDS church does not have a position on its causes here in the mortal existence. I'll quote from lds.org again, with some comment of mine:

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. . . .

This acknowledges that some people in mortality may not be able to marry.

[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. . . .

An acknowledgment that, though the feelings may be real, people can still choose to live the law of chastity.

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. . . .

An acknowledgment that we mortals don't know why homosexuality occurs.

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.

Addresses your concerns above, and again acknowledges that the law of chastity is in effect for everyone.

. . . 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.

Can he be any clearer in regards to the LDS church's position on the causes of homosexuality?

Fiannan, you don't seem to get that you are arguing against your church's own position. For the life of me, I don't see why. I still think an apology for your accusation that I have misrepresented the LDS church's position is in order -- but I'm not holding my breath.

Edited by OtterPop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just a little curious, does the church consider fornication and adultery the same sin as being gay?

Rainofgold

Being gay is not a sin, even in Mormonism, as being gay is not an action.

Gay sex is considered a sin. I think whether it is viewed the "same" as fornication or adultery depends on the member's individual priesthood leader. I suspect that some bishops see it as comparable to unchastity between a man and a woman, and I suspect that some think it is a "worse" sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Church has not said that anyone is predisposed to live contrary to the commandments of God. To say that anyone is then makes God into a sadistic creator, doesn't it? I mean, to say that someone who commits fornication or adultery cannot enter into His presence and then also to mandate that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman is rather ...well, you get the point.

I'll deal with this more later -- I have a Sunday School lesson to prepare for.

That kinda sounded contradictory to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Catholic Viewpoint. In some ways-the Catholic Church viewpoint is similar to the LDS Church.

The Catholic Church has been one of the main supporters along with the LDS Church in oposition to same-sex marriages.

The Catholic Church believes homosexual acts are "acts of grave depravity." (2357)

The Catholic Church believes homosexual people are called to chastity: (2359)

Here is an official Vatican link on the subject.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sixth commandment

See sections 2357-2359 on the document.

Here is an entire official document on the subject of same-sex marriage from The Vatican:

Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons

in part it says:

11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger

Carol

Being gay is not a sin, even in Mormonism, as being gay is not an action.

Gay sex is considered a sin. I think whether it is viewed the "same" as fornication or adultery depends on the member's individual priesthood leader. I suspect that some bishops see it as comparable to unchastity between a man and a woman, and I suspect that some think it is a "worse" sin.

Edited by abqfriend
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our brain makes connections every day, it changes every day. So, what is cause and what is effect? Homosexual behavior or the differences in the brain?

When a young person is curious about same sex attraction and tries out same gender sex to see if they like it, they have just given themselves permission to like it. Whenever you opt to try something, whatever that something is, you've given yourself permission to like it and even to continue "trying" it.

Has everyone heard about the lesbian school teacher who got married and took her 1st grade class to her wedding as a field trip? Apparently there was parental approval of this as well and was one parent's idea.

Here is the article: Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day

Problem 1: This became a school sponsored event the moment the school approved of this field trip. They took time out of school to go see their teacher get married.

If the teacher had invited the parents and children to her wedding and it was a weekend wedding and most of her class showed up that would be okay by me because it would not be a school sponsored event. Or if the parents had surprised the teacher during a non-school day or after school and attended the wedding it would be okay by me.

Problem 2: This is not how you should deal with homosexual issues in elementary school.

If there's a sharing day and you ask the kids to bring in a family picture to talk about it and then one kid has same gender parents that's fine. I have no problem with that. No child should be excluded from such a sharing activity. THAT is the appropriate way to deal with such things! Allow them to come up naturally during those times when the class talks about their families!

Problem 3: The after field trip activities related to the field trip.

Making this whole homosexual marriage issue part of a school or class curriculum is inappropriate. While the parents were allowed to opt out of this field trip (two families did) it does not stop those children from being exposed to the contents of this field trip in other ways such as the after field trip activities relating to the field trip.

Homosexual marriage is a moral issue. As such public schools should not promote either for or against homosexual marriage.

In high schools you can have the gay club if a teacher sponsors it, just as schools allow the Christian club and the Muslim club. There is no reason to pound our young children's head with this. They'll figure it out eventually, when they are cognitively ready and able to!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our brain makes connections every day, it changes every day. So, what is cause and what is effect? Homosexual behavior or the differences in the brain?

When a young person is curious about same sex attraction and tries out same gender sex to see if they like it, they have just given themselves permission to like it. Whenever you opt to try something, whatever that something is, you've given yourself permission to like it and even to continue "trying" it.

Has everyone heard about the lesbian school teacher who got married and took her 1st grade class to her wedding as a field trip? Apparently there was parental approval of this as well and was one parent's idea.

Here is the article: Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day

Problem 1: This became a school sponsored event the moment the school approved of this field trip. They took time out of school to go see their teacher get married.

If the teacher had invited the parents and children to her wedding and it was a weekend wedding and most of her class showed up that would be okay by me because it would not be a school sponsored event. Or if the parents had surprised the teacher during a non-school day or after school and attended the wedding it would be okay by me.

Problem 2: This is not how you should deal with homosexual issues in elementary school.

If there's a sharing day and you ask the kids to bring in a family picture to talk about it and then one kid has same gender parents that's fine. I have no problem with that. No child should be excluded from such a sharing activity. THAT is the appropriate way to deal with such things! Allow them to come up naturally during those times when the class talks about their families!

Problem 3: The after field trip activities related to the field trip.

Making this whole homosexual marriage issue part of a school or class curriculum is inappropriate. While the parents were allowed to opt out of this field trip (two families did) it does not stop those children from being exposed to the contents of this field trip in other ways such as the after field trip activities relating to the field trip.

Homosexual marriage is a moral issue. As such public schools should not promote either for or against homosexual marriage.

In high schools you can have the gay club if a teacher sponsors it, just as schools allow the Christian club and the Muslim club. There is no reason to pound our young children's head with this. They'll figure it out eventually, when they are cognitively ready and able to!

Absolutely disgusting........

"It's coming, whether you like it or not" Gavin "any twosome" Newsome

The indoctrination of our children is real and very sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking you are a martyr for the cause, and then choking up with tears at just the moment it would have the most emotional impact, does not persuade me.

The guy was an idiot. Of course he was going to get handcuffed and taken away. You cannot stay on a school's property without permission. Was he so stupid he didn't realize this?

Did he not know there are proper channels to go through? If the school wasn't doing what he wanted, then he should have gone to the immediate surperindent, or whatever higher authority they call it where he lived.

Additionally, I highly doubt he was the only parent upset about the book. He could have brought them all together and gone to the school board with their concerns and proposals.

There were a myriad of "legal" actions he could have taken, none of which would have resulted in him being handcuffed.

But, no. He was going to milk this one, knowing what was going to happen, including knowing it would make great copy on the local nightly news.

Stories like this are what dumb-down Americans into believing this means something, when it does't mean anything at all. Overreactions cause more problems than they solve.

And the best manipulation of all is the tears--at just the right moment, of course.

Elphaba

Ever thought that maybe he didn't know how to go about going through proper channels? Maybe the principal and the other staff members were completely unhelpful. Mayhaps he would have gone through proper channels if he was given the information to do so, or directed to where he could get the info.

Very often people do not know HOW to go through the proper channels, how to go to the boss's boss's boss so to speak. Or mayhaps the super intendant was there, or was called by the principal and was agreeing with the principal? We do not know those specifics. Maybe he could have dealt with it better, maybe the idea of getting other parents involved hadn't occurred to him. Who knows? What we do know is that the school staff was very unyielding and unwilling to meet this family's personal needs. I doubt he was looking to go to jail.

What I do know is that every parent has the right to be involved in the classroom.

My daughter's teacher welcomes parent helpers and has told me and other parents that if issues arise about anything including the curriculum materials to talk with her and hopefully something can be worked out. As long as the kids are prepared for the first grade curriculum everything else has the possibility of being negotiable or worked around. She is also conservative about the things she allows in her classroom. How hard is that? My daughter's teacher is also the most sought after Kindergarten teacher in the school because she is just that good at teaching these kids and making learning fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever thought that maybe he didn't know how to go about going through proper channels? Maybe the principal and the other staff members were completely unhelpful. Mayhaps he would have gone through proper channels if he was given the information to do so, or directed to where he could get the info.

Did this couple look stupid to you?

No, I don’t think for one minute he didn’t know about the “proper channels.” In fact, after watching the video again, I realized what I was seeing was a planned event, a sort of civil disobedience, and that he knew he would be arrested, and that that was exactly what he wanted.

Having written numerous video scripts, I can spot a scripted product, as there is a sequence used that is the most effective format.

First, you present the message of the video by exposition. This is the information-rich section of the video. In this case, this happened while they were discussing the issue in the kitchen, and had the book right there to show. If you remember, there were no teary eyes or choking throats. Just a meticulous explanation of the facts where everyone was articulate and focused.

Then the stark setting of the kitchen moves to the cozy living room, where they all sit closely together. It was also at this point that the questions change to elicit emotional responses, which did not happen by accident.

In this case, we had a teary wife and a husband choking up at exactly the questions meant to tap into the Parkers‘ real angst. Again, I am not saying these emotions weren’t real, but they were cued.

Additionally, we have a camera man who relies on the director to tell him where to point and shoot. In fact, I would not be surprised if there weren't two cameras, because there were different angles used while the conversation was seamless. But I can't be sure about that. I do know these were professionals who used the Parkers, who were more than willing to be used, to make a video that would compel people to join their cause.

The fact that they even made a professional-quality video enforces my belief that this was a planned event from the beginning. There is no doubt in my mind.

But let’s say for the sake of argument that this wasn’t pre-planned and that he was doing this by himself.

I ask again: Do the Parkers look stupid to you?

Very often people do not know HOW to go through the proper channels, how to go to the boss's boss's boss so to speak. Or mayhaps the super intendant was there, or was called by the principal and was agreeing with the principal?

No, none of those things were an issue.

The Parkers and another couple, did go on to sue the school district and lost. They then appealed the ruling, and unfortunately I can’t tell from the article when this happened, and if it is concluded. But isn’t it interesting the light bulb finally went off, and they realized they should get a lawyer willing to sue the school district.

Please. This had been planned from the beginning, I suspect with Perkins' organization.

We do not know those specifics.

We know the specifics the Parkers and Perkins wanted us to know.

Maybe he could have dealt with it better, maybe the idea of getting other parents involved hadn't occurred to him. Who knows?

I do. They have played this perfectly and gotten exactly what they want.

Again, there is NOTHING wrong with this. It is an effective way to bring your issue to light, and if other people agree with you, you have started a movement.

What I do know is that every parent has the right to be involved in the classroom.

Not if they are going to be disruptive. But I don’t know what that has to do with this. He wasn’t requesting to be a volunteer teacher’s aid. To your point, I agree every parent has a right to know what his/her child is learning.

My daughter's teacher welcomes parent helpers

As do most teachers, regardless of their personal beliefs.

and has told me and other parents that if issues arise about anything including the curriculum materials to talk with her and hopefully something can be worked out.

That is very interesting, as the state’s Board of Education usually determines competencies that must be met, regardless of how they are taught. Thus, the teacher is bound by these pre-determined competencies. She does not have the option to cherry pick which ones she’ll teach and which ones she won’t.

In fact, it is a huge task to determine these competences and when they are age-appropriate. These competencies are not lightly chosen, like some parents seem to think they are. They have to be age-appropriate, sequential, visual, auditory or kinetic, depending on the type of learner the student is, and many other criteria. And if the school does not ensure these competencies are taught, it will lose its federal funding.

It is while developing the competencies the writers ask for input from the parents. So, it is not as if the teacher chooses a book to fit his own moral code. He picks it out because it teaches the competencies outlined.

As long as the kids are prepared for the first grade curriculum everything else has the possibility of being negotiable or worked around.

If by that she means all of the competencies are covered, which are intended to prepare the students for the next grade, then I would agree other items she wants to teach, or not teach, is fine.

She is also conservative about the things she allows in her classroom. How hard is that?

How hard is what? I don’t understand what you mean. Is she politically conservative? Or conservative about her materials, or . . . . ? What would a liberal teacher do differently?

My daughter's teacher is also the most sought after Kindergarten teacher in the school because she is just that goodat teaching these kids and making learning fun.

Good for her. What does this have to do with the discussion?

Elphaba

Edited by Elphaba
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is very sad:

LEXINGTON, Massachusetts, June 14, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On May 17—the two-year anniversary of same-sex "marriage" in Massachusetts—the first-grade son of a prominent pro-family advocate was dragged and beaten behind the Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington during recess, receiving multiple blows to the chest, stomach, and genital area.

Jacob Parker, the 7-year-old who was attacked, is the son of David Parker.

LifeSiteNews.com readers will recall that David Parker objected to homosexual curriculum in his son's kindergarten class. At a meeting with the principal of the school last year Parker requested that the school inform him of when homosexual discussions would take place, so he could exclude his son from the activity. The principal refused and Parker said he would not leave until his request was granted. School administration called the police and had Parker charged with trespassing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I’m curious. How do people here feel the teachers’ should address bullying? It’s not a trick question, I promise.:P

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realize that, if they didn't teach that it was normal, that kids who found out that some poor kid -with absolutely no control over his situation- would end up being tormented because he belonged to a household that wasn't normal? I can promise you that happened to someone I knew growing up who had two female parents.

I'm concerned here. I understand what you're saying, but the -real- victims here would be the kids in that household if this wasn't taught. Does teaching it encourage kids to switch their orientation? I sincerely doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realize that, if they didn't teach that it was normal, that kids who found out that some poor kid -with absolutely no control over his situation- would end up being tormented because he belonged to a household that wasn't normal? I can promise you that happened to someone I knew growing up who had two female parents.

I'm concerned here. I understand what you're saying, but the -real- victims here would be the kids in that household if this wasn't taught. Does teaching it encourage kids to switch their orientation? I sincerely doubt it.

Kids are always the victims....very sad. Parents should be teaching their kids to treat every one with kindness. I don't have a problem with schools reinforcing the golden rule or even mentioning the issue to age appropriate kids in the context of showing respect to others who may seem different. I was taught growing up that, "if you didn't have anything nice to say, don't say it." Some of the responsibility certainly belongs to the parents who are in these relationships....there life style choice's can be a source of pain to the kids as they grow up and regardless of teaching kids to be kind, there will always be somebody that will be cruel to the innocent. It's just a by product of a lifestyle that is outside the norm.....doesn't make it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elph.....that's an odd story isn't it? The dad probably should have tried a different approach with the Principal. It seems unlikely that a Principle would object to this request by a parent.....I guess it is possible. I wonder why the parent didn't go to the Superintendent, rather than make a scene? Anyways, why were the other kids beating up his son? Because they were for homosexual education? Is the article suggesting that their is a link between the the parents protest and the beating? :confused:

Parents must be raising some kind of kids if they are dragging other kids places and beating them up. Thankfully, those thoughts or feelings never existed in my kids. As far as teachers go, bullying should be strictly prohibited......they should exercise some common sense.

Edited by bytor2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is very sad:

LEXINGTON, Massachusetts, June 14, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On May 17—the two-year anniversary of same-sex "marriage" in Massachusetts—the first-grade son of a prominent pro-family advocate was dragged and beaten behind the Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington during recess, receiving multiple blows to the chest, stomach, and genital area.

Jacob Parker, the 7-year-old who was attacked, is the son of David Parker.

I was curious to know if any children, who participated in the assault, were from homosexual couples but the story doesn’t say. How much of this hatred is being taught by their parents?

This is very sad. It used to be that we didn’t have any tolerance of homosexuals and now we don’t seem to have any tolerance of heterosexual beliefs. Now the pendulum swings the other way.

I wonder why schools can’t just wait until college to teach homosexuality. Why indoctrinate children at so young an age?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the rationale is that if you believe there's nothing morally wrong with same sex marriages, and if those marriages are legal in your state, then on some level showing a picture of a gay couple in a children's book should be no more unusual than showing a hetero set of parents, as is common.

The problem with that mentality is that it completely ignores the fact that, like it or not, this is a controversial issue and people have strong feelings about it on both sides. To ignore that, however morally justified you might feel you are in doing so, is to ask for trouble and will only serve to make things worse. (I've been told, in debate, that this SHOULDN'T be a controversial issue. Well, it is. I wish there weren't any controversy over whether nor not Mormons are Christians, but if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.)

People have tried to suggest that this issue is somehow invalid because the video I linked to used an appeal to emotion to get to the audience. Well of course it does. That's the point. This video isn't a documentary it's essentially a campaign video. To dismiss it as no more than propaganda is a mistake, however, because it doesn't change the fact that parents are being told that they have no right to know ahead of time what their kids will be taught, and are in a position ion which they feel they have no recourse. No matter where you are on the issue, backing people into a corner is never a smart idea.

We don't know whether they went to the school superintendent or not. I'd say they probably did, and maybe it didn't make it into the video because nothing noteworthy came of it. We don't know all of the facts precisely because this isn't a documentary.

But we do know some of them, and I find them troubling. That doesn't make me a bigot, a homophobe or a hater.

Edited by unixknight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the rationale is that if you believe there's nothing morally wrong with same sex marriages, and if those marriages are legal in your state, then on some level showing a picture of a gay couple in a children's book should be no more unusual than showing a hetero set of parents, as is common.

The problem with that mentality is that it completely ignores the fact that, like it or not, this is a controversial issue and people have strong feelings about it on both sides.

The same thing could have been said about mixed race marraiges. They used to be illegal in many places as well. That changed and people mostly got over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same thing could have been said about mixed race marraiges. They used to be illegal in many places as well. That changed and people mostly got over it.

I am not so sure people mostly got over mixed race marriages......I think some have adopted the idea of.."as long as it is not my son or daughter.." (that is not how I feel personally). In mixed race marriages, it is still a man and a woman. The controversy will continue regarding same sex marriage......for religious folks the moral issue can't simply be disregarded and treated as normal. I do wish the schools would stick to academics and leave social engineering alone. Teens and young adults seem more tolerant of "gay" people today and not as prone to "bully" or humiliate......and that's a good thing. Perhaps that is because they have been taught by pop culture(MTV) and TV sitcoms that people are born "gay".......and maybe they are...I don't know. I think the schools can insure a safe learning environment for our kids without teaching them about same-sex parents. By the time kids are in there early teens they are aware of the differences in people...race, religion and sexual orientation.......

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