NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, I confess to being relatively conservative in my views (politically I consider myself to be more of a Libertarian than anything else) however, this just floored me. It is clearly staged and a bit over the top, however, I do see the flip side and think the parents have a bit of a legitimate gripe (assuming that the facts are as claimed and portrayed).

So, what do you guys think? Should a parent be allowed to "opt out" for his/her kid when it comes to discussions of marriage (gay or otherwise)?

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1815825713/bctid1819819843

Those assholes are a pack of disgusting liars. Don't listen to a word they spew.

Edit: Also, we should absolutely teach the normalness of same-sex marriage in schools, and, yes, as young as kindergarten. They learn about opposite-sex marriage, they should learn about same-sex marriage--just as they learn, around the same age, that different people are (say) of different skin colors too, and that's perfectly normal and okay.

Again, switch 'same-sex marriage' for 'slave rights' and jump back 150 years and you'll see the same arguments.

"I can't believe they're teaching my boy Billy Bob that black people are not only legally equal, but morally equal, where are my rights as a parent to tell him that black people are a sin in the eyes of the Lord?"

Those assholes are a pack of disgusting liars. Don't listen to a word they spew.

Edit: Also, we should absolutely teach the normalness of same-sex marriage in schools, and, yes, as young as kindergarten. They learn about opposite-sex marriage, they should learn about same-sex marriage--just as they learn, around the same age, that different people are (say) of different skin colors too, and that's perfectly normal and okay.
but:

1. is it "normal?" Doesn't that depend on your personal opinion of what is normalcy? Gay marriage is NOT normal if you gauge normalcy by what has been traditionally accepted as being a "legitimate" marriage. ON the other hand, I'll concede that an equal right to marry has not always been accepted as a legitimate right for blacks in the U.S. either. That is not the point though, or is it? Is sexual attraction within the same gender as "normal" as hetrosexual attraction across races?

2. Even if "normal" should a parent be allowed to "opt out" for his child? If not, why shouldn't a parent be allowed to determine when, where and what his child is taught about marriage and the interrelationships of the sexes? If not, why should I trust the government (in the form of our public school system) to teach my child about sex and marriage? What makes the opinion of government officials "more right" on the issue than that of the parents who live with and raise a child each day?

EDIT: just for the record here, I'll state I could care less one way or another. Further, I think a parent should have the right to "opt out" for his/her child in ANY discussion regarding sex/marriage they want. Marriage is cultural matter as much as it is a legal one, but morality is something that cannot be legistated. If a parent thinks homosexuality is immoral, I think he should be allowed to "opt out" his child. Likewise for Heterosexual marriage.

This is nothing. When I was a kid we all had to read the 'gay way' books.

When they got to the 'indoctrination' and 'religious' BS I had to quit watching or kill my computer...

This is nothing. When I was a kid we all had to read the 'gay way' books.But, I think it is "something" since this will, in fact, affect the way bloc of voters judge certain candidates.

When they got to the 'indoctrination' and 'religious' BS I had to quit watching or kill my computer...OK, so you watched the first 15 seconds, your point?

:D

Those assholes are a pack of disgusting liars. Don't listen to a word they spew.

Edit: Also, we should absolutely teach the normalness of same-sex marriage in schools, and, yes, as young as kindergarten. They learn about opposite-sex marriage, they should learn about same-sex marriage--just as they learn, around the same age, that different people are (say) of different skin colors too, and that's perfectly normal and okay.


Are you seriously comparing somebodies sex life to their skin color?

1. is it "normal?"

Yes.

Doesn't that depend on your personal opinion of what is normalcy?

Not in this society, no. There are same-sex couples in virtually every county of this country. There are tens of thousands of children being raised by them. They are everywhere. And all of the evidence states that they are not any more socially problematic than opposite-sex couples.

Gay marriage is NOT normal if you gauge normalcy by what has been traditionally accepted as being a "legitimate" marriage.

But the point of this kind of thing is not to teach history, but to teach children about the people they are actually likely to encounter in life. Which will include gay people, and children raised by same-sex couples.

ON the other hand, I'll concede that an equal right to marry has not always been accepted as a legitimate right for blacks in the U.S. either. That is not the point though, or is it? Is sexual attraction within the same gender as "normal" as hetrosexual attraction across races?

Yes. More, if anything--there have never been massive geographic barriers to homosexuality.

Even if "normal" should a parent be allowed to "opt out" for his child?

Absolutely not. We should never cater to bigotry.

If not, why shouldn't a parent be allowed to determine when, where and what his child is taught about marriage and the interrelationships of the sexes?

Because children are not property. There is no "right" at stake here, just a question of social benefit: is it better to have a society that is free of racism, sexism, and homophobia, or to have a society that allows bigoted parents to continue indoctrinating their children into bigotry? I have never needed to hesitate before giving an answer to that one.

If not, why should I trust the government (in the form of our public school system) to teach my child about sex and marriage?

It's not about you--you'll obviously believe that what you think is right, simply because that's what it means to think something. It's about us, as a public, as a people--and in this context, the question is, "Do we really trust parents to teach their children about sex and marriage so much that we shouldn't insist on some contribution on the part of public education?"

I don't see any reason for that level of trust. If anything, it seems to me that contributions by public schools--like comprehensive sex education--seem overwhelmingly to have positive effects precisely because parents alone aren't any good at it... especially parents who are prejudiced and/or socially conservative.

What makes the opinion of government officials "more right" on the issue than that of the parents who live with and raise a child each day?

The fact that what's taught in public schools has a far better chance of according with the actual scientific evidence.

This is nothing. When I was a kid we all had to read the 'gay way' books.

2 questions



1. WTF is that?
2. What country?

Are you seriously comparing somebodies sex life to their skin color?

The prejudice is just as arbitrary and can be just as harmful... so, yes, I am.

Are you seriously comparing somebodies sex life to their skin color?Well, if homosexuality is genetically predetermined, what makes it different? A person clearly cannot choose his race, what if (s)he can't choose his sexual orientation either? Why is the comparison invalid in that case?

So, what do you guys think? Should a parent be allowed to "opt out" for his/her kid when it comes to discussions of marriage (gay or otherwise)?


Let me ask you this, should they be allowed to opt their kids out of math? How about geography? Chemistry?

The prejudice is just as arbitrary and can be just as harmful... so, yes, I am.



If you say so. I'll still put them on different planes. My sister is gay and I had live with her for 4 years after she came out, so I'll have to think about that.

At risk of going against the consensus; while I believe that marriage shouldn't have gender requirements (or even numerical requirements, I do believe that parents should have the right to determine what their children are taught in terms of morality. Regardless of whether this video was an accurate representation of what is really happening in Mass. (I suspect that it's more than a little biased), the question is one of parental rights. If parents wish to opt out of this, they should be able to.

Re: the video . . .

Your bigotry is not my problem and someone needs to help your child overcome it. Why not the schools since you are unwilling to do the right thing for your child?

Well, if homosexuality is genetically predetermined, what makes it different? A person clearly cannot choose his race, what if (s)he can't choose his sexual orientation either? Why is the comparison invalid in that case?


Oh I'm sorry, you mistook me for someone who cares. I was just asking, I don't really care at this point.

2 questions



1. WTF is that?

Books about the gay way. The big red book, the blue book, the gold book, hats in someone's arse... a whole bunch of books that were all about gay way of reading.

2. What country?

The United Kingdom of Gayness. (Or the UK as it is more commonly called).

OK, so you watched the first 15 seconds, your point?

:D

Few things anger me/make me laugh more than religious nuts crying "Indoctrination".

Books about the gay way. The big red book, the blue book, the gold book, hats in someone's arse... a whole bunch of books that were all about gay way of reading.


Gay way of reading? Sorry I don't follow you. Maybe what each was about would help, because from what I saw gays are rarely different from straights.......Well....Some are weird.

the question is one of parental rights.

Parents do not have the right to indoctrinate their children into their beliefs. Why should they?

If they want to present their views to their children, fine. But no one is stopping them from doing that--it is only their desire that no one else present alternative views to their children that causes problems.

Parents do not have the right to indoctrinate their children into their beliefs. Why should they?

If they want to present their views to their children, fine. But no one is stopping them from doing that--it is only their desire that no one else present alternative views to their children that causes problems.

Do you have kids? Do you want unknown adults talking to them about sensitive subjects without your knowledge? This was done, if the video is truthful, without first informing the parents. Do you think that children should be taught sensitive subjects without the parents being informed?

Parents do not have the right to indoctrinate their children into their beliefs. Why should they?

Like it or not, they do. They pay the taxes for their child's schooling, they have at least a say in what their child should and shouldn't watch. At least once a year, there would be an occasion in one of my classes, without fail, where a parent complained about showing certain videos or ideas and either the teacher was scolded or a warning was sent or something.

Do you have kids? Do you want unknown adults talking to them about sensitive subjects without your knowledge? This was done, if the video is truthful, without first informing the parents. Do you think that children should be taught sensitive subjects without the parents being informed?

Let's start by teaching them about fellatio when they're in preschool. For a warmup. :P

Let's start by teaching them about fellatio when they're in preschool. For a warmup. :P

Let's not be biased, you need to include cunnilingus as well. Sexist.

Do you have kids?

No.

Do you want unknown adults talking to them about sensitive subjects without your knowledge?

Do I think the public education system should teach my hypothetical kids about "sensitive" subjects without my consent? Yes.

I know very well that I do not know everything, that I have biases, and the very last thing I want is for me to impart my own intellectual limitations to others. Better to let them think for themselves.

If I choose to remain ignorant about what is being taught, that's my own problem.

Gay way of reading? Sorry I don't follow you. Maybe what each was about would help, because from what I saw gays are rarely different from straights.......Well....Some are weird.

I don't know. This was the seventies. Something about a big red lorry, and bang, bang, bang. All I can tell you is that I was taught the gay way of reading.

I am sorry if U judge me for that. I was an innocent child at that time.

Like it or not, they do. They pay the taxes for their child's schooling, they have at least a say in what their child should and shouldn't watch.

Right. A democratic say. They can go ahead and express that say in how they vote. And I will express mine.

At least once a year, there would be an occasion in one of my classes, without fail, where a parent complained about showing certain videos or ideas and either the teacher was scolded or a warning was sent or something.

Yeah, it sucks that our school system is so cowardly in dealing with parental whining.

Let's start by teaching them about fellatio when they're in preschool.

What a ridiculous straw man. Obviously there are things that should and should not be taught at different ages. That is not in question.

/snip . . .
Absolutely not. We should never cater to bigotry. So is it bigotry to teach that pedophelia, necrophelia and bestiality are "abnormal?" Would it be bigotry for a homosexual parent to teach a child that heterosexuality is abnormal and a behavior to be avoided?

Because children are not property. There is no "right" at stake here, just a question of social benefit: is it better to have a society that is free of racism, sexism, and homophobia, or to have a society that allows bigoted parents to continue indoctrinating their children into bigotry? I have never needed to hesitate before giving an answer to that one. I will agree that children are not "property" in the same way a car or house is. However, I'm not so sure that there is not a "right" at stake here. I agree homosexuals should have the right to be free of disparate treatment. However, I think parents should have the right to teach their children what they (the parents) believe to be right/moral and wrong/immoral.

It's not about you--you'll obviously believe that what you think is right, simply because that's what it means to think something. It's about us--and in this context, the question is, "Do we really trust parents to teach their children about sex and marriage so much that we shouldn't insist on some contribution on the part of public education?"Well, first of all I meant "I" in a generic "all of us" sense. Secondly, I have no problem with the government teaching children something about sex and marriage. However, what makes the government a better arbitrar of morality than a parent? A better arbitrar of legality/illegality in the social arena? Sure, that is the function of government, to determine what is legal and illegal in terms of disparate treatment. But a personal belief as to what is and is not moral? I don't think the Government has any business in making that determination.

I don't see any reason for that level of trust. If anything, it seems to me that contributions by public schools--like comprehensive sex education--seem overwhelmingly to have positive effects precisely because parents alone aren't any good at it... especially parents who are prejudiced and/or socially conservative.What if I don't think socially liberal people are good at teaching sex ed? Sorry, but I see that argument as fallacious. Again, letting a school have some input is not the issue. The issue is whether a parent should have the ability to keep a school from having any input.

I'll agree some input by a school is a good idea. I'm not so sure I agree that a parent should be denied the opportunity to refuse all school input though. Just because it is a good idea doesn't, to me, mean a parent should be required to go along with it.

The fact that what's taught in public schools has a far better chance of according with the actual scientific evidence.Kind of like when they taught that blacks were genetically inferior to whites?

See what I did there?

No.



Do I think the public education system should teach my hypothetical kinds about "sensitive" subjects without my consent? Yes.

I know very well that I do not know everything, that I have biases, and the very last thing I want is for me to impart my own intellectual limitations to others. Better to let them think for themselves.

If I choose to remain ignorant about what is being taught, that's my own problem.

So, the school system's biases are better than your biases? Do you really think schools teach kids to think for themselves? What color is the sky on your planet?

Fucking obvious joke apparently wasn't obvious enough. >.>

Fucking obvious joke apparently wasn't obvious enough. >.>

I got the joke. I was just trying to help it along.

I don't know. This was the seventies. Something about a big red lorry, and bang, bang, bang. All I can tell you is that I was taught the gay way of reading.

I am sorry if U judge me for that. I was an innocent child at that time.



Judge you for what? You read it and I didn't, I thought you knew.

I got the joke. I was just trying to help it along.

Not you... <.<

However, that was an awesome reply.

I give up.

The fucking books were called the gay way!!! U learned the gay way of reading. Does no-one find this funny?

U will all pay when the big war comes. Mark my words.

Do you have kids? Do you want unknown adults talking to them about sensitive subjects without your knowledge?

Who is to say what's a sensitive subject? If the parents take the entire Bible literally, that's most of the curriculum covered. From maths to cookery, and from geography to biology.

Honestly, as far as I remember, there was no explicit sexual bias at all. It was more or less "Here's a guy part, here's a girl part. Semen fertilizes egg. Yadda yadda yadda. Not so much "This is right" as "This is procreation."

I don't see why it should be taught - neither of them, I mean. Sexuality isn't something like math where there's one solution. Also, I wouldn't like to see kindergartners taught about homosexuality at that young of an age. Sex ed is taught around the 7th grade - why not then? I don't see any less of an impact then than very early in development.

Who is to say what's a sensitive subject? If the parents take the entire Bible literally, that's most of the curriculum covered. From maths to cookery, and from geography to biology.

"Today we're going to be covering cannibalism. I trust you all had your parents sign off..."

Who is to say what's a sensitive subject? If the parents take the entire Bible literally, that's most of the curriculum covered. From maths to cookery, and from geography to biology.

It's probably safe to say that, as long as you teach creationism and abstinence, these particular parents will be happy.

But parents still need to informed about what their kids are being taught.

So is it bigotry to teach that pedophelia, necrophelia and bestiality are "abnormal?"

It's pure bigotry to seriously attempt to compare ANY of those to homosexuality.

I give up.

The fucking books were called the gay way!!! U learned the gay way of reading. Does no-one find this funny?

U will all pay when the big war comes. Mark my words.



Nope.


The whole gay thing stopped being funny to me when I was 14.

So, the school system's biases are better than your biases? Do you really think schools teach kids to think for themselves? What color is the sky on your planet?This is actually one of my issues here. What makes the school system/government better at what deciding whether and when a child should be taught something than the child's parents?

The video claims a parent was jailed for objecting to his child being taught something was morally "ok" that he did not believe was morally "ok." Such a power grab by a government entity bothers me a great deal. If the government is such a great determiner of morality, then why do my Congressmen and Senators get indicted? Why is Wall Street such a mess? etc. To me, the government's ability to determine and teach what is and is not moral behavior is highly questionable. Gitmo anyone?

I agree homosexuals should have the right to be free of disparate treatment. However, I think parents should have the right to teach their children what they (the parents) believe to be right/moral and wrong/immoral.
You're separating the issues, which is what you not intended to do: the video is intended to make you think that it is necessary to institutionalize discrimination, or else the school curriculum will have to include all this "diversity-sensitivity training" or "gay-agenda indoctrination" or whatever. They want you to vote for a proposition which is not at all about how, or whether, schools should teach about the issue, but strictly about restoring the legal discrimination.

Nope.


The whole gay thing stopped being funny to me when I was 14.

Well U are very mature, or somesuch.

I don't see why it should be taught - neither of them, I mean. Sexuality isn't something like math where there's one solution. Also, I wouldn't like to see kindergartners taught about homosexuality at that young of an age.

Why not?

Sex ed is taught around the 7th grade - why not then? I don't see any less of an impact then than very early in development.

Because some of the kids will have two daddies/two mommies before 7th grade and it's important that the WHOLE CLASS know that that is ok regardless of the bigotry of their parents.

It's probably safe to say that, as long as you teach creationism and abstinence, these particular parents will be happy.

But parents still need to informed about what their kids are being taught.

Only to the extent that it enables them to help their children learn the subject. They should have no right to withdraw their children from the subject in question.

It's pure bigotry to seriously attempt to compare ANY of those to homosexuality.Why? Probably a topic for another thread, but I'll ask why here. Why is it bigotry? Ask a psychiatrist, he'll be glad to tell you that, for example, a pedophile truly is attracted to children and cannot help how he feels about them. Why is it bigotry to compare that sexual predisposition to homosexuality if neither one of them can truly help it? I'll happily say the same for heterosexuality.

So is it bigotry to teach that pedophelia, necrophelia and bestiality are "abnormal?"

No.

Would it be bigotry for a homosexual parent to teach a child that heterosexuality is abnormal and a behavior to be avoided?

Absolutely.

However, I think parents should have the right to teach their children what they (the parents) believe to be right/moral and wrong/immoral.

They do. Who's stopping them?

Secondly, I have no problem with the government teaching children something about sex and marriage. However, what makes the government a better arbitrar of morality than a parent?

Public schools do not have "morality" classes where they give the government's official position on every moral controversy. It's not a wholesale moral indoctrination anyone's talking about here--it's basic democratic values of tolerance and mutual respect.

But a personal belief as to what is and is not moral? I don't think the Government has any business in making that determination.

You probably do; you just aren't comfortable applying it to homosexuality.

Is it wrong for schools to recognize Martin Luther King Day, because some people's parents might be racists? Should they teach the Civil Rights Movement in "neutral" terms, as if the civil rights marchers and the racist whites who attacked them are somehow just two different, equally legitimate perspectives?

What if I don't think socially liberal people are good at teaching sex ed?

I didn't say we were... but rather than quibble over details, the response to the spirit of your objection is, even if I believe that pigs fly, I hardly have the right to stop the public education system from teaching that pigs do not.

The issue is whether a parent should have the ability to keep a school from having any input.

Right... which means that letting the school have some input is precisely the issue.

Kind of like when they taught that blacks were genetically inferior to whites?

...when white supremacy was accepted social doctrine among almost all white parents too, yes.

Of course, public education preceded the private attitudes of white parents in that respect, too--because the democratic principles of our society triumphed over arbitrary prejudice, and forced it to be desegregated. That's how it should be.

So, the school system's biases are better than your biases?

I think that school systems are generally less likely to be biased regarding issues of scientific fact than parents are, yes.

Do you really think schools teach kids to think for themselves?

Do you really think parents teach kids to think for themselves? (Obviously, some parents do... and some teachers do, too.)

But more to the point, the issue here is not which more encourages critical thinking, but that exposing children to a variety of different views is much more likely to generate critical thinking and open-mindedness than indoctrination is.

You're separating the issues, which is what you not intended to do: the video is intended to make you think that it is necessary to institutionalize discrimination, or else the school curriculum will have to include all this "diversity-sensitivity training" or "gay-agenda indoctrination" or whatever. They want you to vote for a proposition which is not at all about how, or whether, schools should teach about the issue, but strictly about restoring the legal discrimination.Is it truly about "restoring legal discrimination" or about acknowledging a parent's right to raise a child as he/she sees fit?

(honestly, dunno what the proposition in question states)

Only to the extent that it enables them to help their children learn the subject. They should have no right to withdraw their children from the subject in question.

I regret that I have to disagree with you. While I have no problem with gay marriage, polygamy, polyandry or polygyny or any other form of marriage so long as all the participants agree to it and no one is harmed, I feel strongly, that parents must be able to determine when and how their children are taught about sex, marriage, gender differences and morality, even if I disagree with their opinions on said subjects.

If the government is such a great determiner of morality, then why do my Congressmen and Senators get indicted?

So do public school systems teach people that corruption is okay?

Why not?

Because introducing children to sexuality prepubescently doesn't seem like the right thing to do. Introduce it to them when their bodies are chaning and when they are more apt to be able to deal with their thoughts intellectually.

Because some of the kids will have two daddies/two mommies before 7th grade and it's important that the WHOLE CLASS know that that is ok regardless of the bigotry of their parents.

Wouldn't this be an issue for the parents to take up with their children? The rightness part, not the teaching part...

Hm. Interesting.

Scenario: Let's say that some parents don't like their kids seeing pictures of interracial couples in a book like that, or a couple with an adopted child of an ethnicity other their own... and they're all like, "OMG, you can't teach my child that! You have to let me know that book had a black person in it!" Meanwhile that character's actually Hispanic, like the "gay man" who's actually bisexual and just happens to have a male partner... but the parents won't care about getting all of those "little details" right because it's all the same to them. They're uneducated, and often don't care to even try to learn more about what they don't know (since people are afraid of what they do not understand). And hate is often born out of fear. Educate, get rid of fear, get rid of hate.

Or at least decrease the amount of it.

Bleh.


And wow, for the record... that crying didn't look phony at aaaall.
/sarcasm

i feel for the schools position. if they did not teach it they would have a civil rights matter. they simply took the path of least resistance. we need to decide if schools can teach issues such as this, and it is all or none no middle ground bullshit like don't ask don't tell

I am slightly disturbed at how many people are assuming parents are idiots...

>.>

It's probably safe to say that, as long as you teach creationism and abstinence, these particular parents will be happy.

It's not safe to say anything of the kind. And even if they are okay, what about the next set of parents who come complaining?
"You taught my Billy-Jo that some folk eat shellfish, but you didn't teach that eatin' shellfish is an abomination unto The Lord! I'm 'a postin' a U Tube video about it right now, mister."
"Pi? Pi? Sir, The Bible says the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is 3. That's right, 3. Not this Devil's number, Pi. Why, mister, that's not even an integer, let alone a rational number."


But parents still need to informed about what their kids are being taught.

That sounds fair enough. If a copy of the curriculum isn't publicly available, it should be.

Soheran and others:

Thanks, its 3 am here and I need some sleep. Before you judge me, I'd ask that you again read my original post and understand, I'm a bit ambivalent about the matter. I think the video goes a bit too far in its objections, but I also there is a bit of truth to the complaint voiced in it.

What I'm attempting to explore here is the slippery slope of parental vs. school/government "rights" when it comes to the education of our children. I have little trust in a significant percentage of parents since I see their kids in my classes every day. However, as a teacher, I have even less faith in the ability of the government to instruct children. However, I recognize there has to be a line somewhere. I'm trying to figure out where it should be drawn.

I regret that I have to disagree with you. While I have no problem with gay marriage, polygamy, polyandry or polygyny or any other form of marriage so long as all the participants agree to it and no one is harmed, I feel strongly, that parents must be able to determine when and how their children are taught about sex, marriage, gender differences and morality, even if I disagree with their opinions on said subjects.

On what grounds?

On what grounds?

Why do I need any grounds? But if you insist, on the grounds that this is still, in spite of the efforts of some, a substantially free country and any attempt to subvert that freedom, like telling parents that they have no rights where the education of their children is concerned, is deleterious to that freedom.

Because introducing children to sexuality prepubescently doesn't seem like the right thing to do. Introduce it to them when their bodies are chaning and when they are more apt to be able to deal with their thoughts intellectually.

So no Snow White or Beauty and the Beast then. The kissing introduces them to sexuality.

Wouldn't this be an issue for the parents to take up with their children? The rightness part, not the teaching part...

Which leads to bigot parents teaching Timmy that Billy's daddies are going to hell and Billy is by extension a bad person. This is what teaching the children FACTS is supposed to stop.

I regret that I have to disagree with you. While I have no problem with gay marriage, polygamy, polyandry or polygyny or any other form of marriage so long as all the participants agree to it and no one is harmed, I feel strongly, that parents must be able to determine when and how their children are taught about sex, marriage, gender differences and morality, even if I disagree with their opinions on said subjects.
Damn, you made it so simple. This what I've been trying to say is my position and trying to understand why some think this position is "wrong."

I am slightly disturbed at how many people are assuming parents are idiots...

Parents who feel learning that there's nothing wrong with the fact that Timmy has two daddies will in some way endanger their child ARE idiots.

Are you seriously comparing somebodies sex life to their skin color?
since neither is something they can change, then it is an appropriate comparison.


edit: I watched 1/2 the vid before switching it off. One thing that struck me was just how incredibly fake it was, especially the way the two 'parents' were so loquacious, well-spoken and well-modulated. Not once did they stumble, pause, um, er or speak in anything other than a strong forceful voice.
How 'convenient' for the vid makers they were able to find a husband and wife who both had such excellent voice skills.

Because introducing children to sexuality prepubescently doesn't seem like the right thing to do. Introduce it to them when their bodies are chaning and when they are more apt to be able to deal with their thoughts intellectually.


But it's not about sex per se... it's about the concept that some kids may have two mommies or two daddies. Kids are 'introduced' to heterosexuality at a very young age, not just in terms of parents but also in terms of marriage - see about a hundred different fairy tales where the princess marries the handsome prince. Why should you not have books where the princess marries another princess or the handsome prince marries another prince. Sex does not need to come into it... and indeed shouldn't at that age.


I am slightly disturbed at how many people are assuming parents are idiots...


And I'm always disturbed by how many people assume that just because you managed to reproduce that automatically means your moral judgements are unimpeachable... at least where it comes to your kids.

Parents are no more smart or stupid than non-parents, there is no mystic revelation that happens as soon as a child is born that suddenly means your opinion should carry any more weight than anyone elses.

Why do I need any grounds?

Because you're the one supporting the right of parents to short change their child's education. Let me ask you this, do you support a parents right to prevent their child from learning about ALL controversial topics (evolution for example) or is homosexuality somehow special? What about if an Aryan Nation parent objected to their child learning that Taneesha is their equal despite her dark skin?

But if you insist, on the grounds that this is still, in spite of the efforts of some, a substantially free country and any attempt to subvert that freedom, like telling parents that they have no rights where the education of their children is concerned, is deleterious to that freedom.

What about my freedom to stand up in the middle of a crowded (and completely flame free) theater and shout "FIRE!!!"?

So no Snow White or Beauty and the Beast then. The kissing introduces them to sexuality.

Yes. Because kissing is innanely sexual. So are you saying you wanted to fuck your mother every time she kissed you on the lips or do you honestly think that kindergartners make this connection immediately? Apparently, puberty is a purely physical change and not a chemical one as well.

Parents who feel learning that there's nothing wrong with the fact that Timmy has two daddies will in some way endanger their child ARE idiots.
Many people in this world would contend the exact opposite - why are you right and they wrong? Last I heard, the evidence indicates that a child reared in a household with a male and female role model are, in a very broad sense, better off than those who are reared otherwise.

I'm not saying gay is "bad" just that there is at least some evidence that hetero is "better."

But it's not about sex per se... it's about the concept that some kids may have two mommies or two daddies. Kids are 'introduced' to heterosexuality at a very young age, not just in terms of parents but also in terms of marriage - see about a hundred different fairy tales where the princess marries the handsome prince. Why should you not have books where the princess marries another princess or the handsome prince marries another prince. Sex does not need to come into it... and indeed shouldn't at that age.



And I'm always disturbed by how many people assume that just because you managed to reproduce that automatically means your moral judgements are unimpeachable... at least where it comes to your kids.

Parents are no more smart or stupid than non-parents, there is no mystic revelation that happens as soon as a child is born that suddenly means your opinion should carry any more weight than anyone elses.


Just had to quote all of this and say I agree with both of these statements 100% - I was working on typing something up to get the idea across myself, but I believe this should be clear enough to most.

>.>

...hopefully.

Because you're the one supporting the right of parents to short change their child's education. Let me ask you this, do you support a parents right to prevent their child from learning about ALL controversial topics (evolution for example) or is homosexuality somehow special? What about if a Aryan Nation parent objected to their child learning that Taneesha is their equal despite her dark skin?



What about my freedom to stand up in the middle of a crowded (and completely flame free) theater and shout "FIRE!!!"?

You're getting emotional. I support individual rights in the face of a government growing ever more monolithic and intrusive into the smallest facets of our lives. You would have children learn that they have no rights in the face of the government. I would have governments learn that their rights in the face of the people are to be severely limited.

Yes. Because kissing is innanely sexual. So are you saying you wanted to fuck your mother every time she kissed you on the lips or do you honestly think that kindergartners make this connection immediately? Apparently, puberty is a purely physical change and not a chemical one as well.

So, you're saying that a book where a kid has two parents of the same gender (who even kiss) DOES NOT "introduce children to sexuality prepubescently"?

Since that's what people are discussing when they talk about teaching about homosexuality in kindergarten what's you're problem with it?

Edit: Or are you suggesting that what we should eliminate from childrens' books are married adults/adults in a committed loving relationship?

But it's not about sex per se... it's about the concept that some kids may have two mommies or two daddies. Kids are 'introduced' to heterosexuality at a very young age, not just in terms of parents but also in terms of marriage - see about a hundred different fairy tales where the princess marries the handsome prince. Why should you not have books where the princess marries another princess or the handsome prince marries another prince. Sex does not need to come into it... and indeed shouldn't at that age.

I do understand where you're coming from on this and you make a very convincing argument. I honestly don't care about princess on princess or etcetera. I honestly feel, however, that a child is much more suited intellectually to deal with the issue of sexuality at a pubescent age, when their urges and desires become clear, and when they are more able to think critically.

Beyond that, telling them that it is okay or not okay? I'm unsure. We all experience bigotry or hatred at a point in our lifetimes, and it is up to the learned to distinguish what is or isn't right from actions of those that they once considered learned. To say that a bigot cannot become learned is a bit dogmatic; however, if such really is the case, I feel that schools should concentrate more on critical thinking, then, rather than who is right and who is wrong.

You're getting emotional. I support individual rights in the face of a government growing ever more monolithic and intrusive into the smallest facets of our lives. You would have children learn that they have no rights in the face of the government. I would have governments learn that their rights in the face of the people are to be severely limited.

Children have the right to disagree with the information they are presented, as do their parents. They do not have the right to prevent the information from being presented to them.

Furthermore do you or do you not support a parents right to prevent their child from being taught about evolution? Do you or do you not support a parents right to prevent their child from being taught that black people and white people are equal?

If you do not support these parental "rights" then why do you support their "right" to prevent their children from being taught that it's perfectly ok for Billy to have two daddies?

Why does a child who has same-sex parents need to feel abnormal? While I can see that a parent has a right to express their opinion, a state-run school should not teach that a man-woman marriage is 'approved by society' and everything else is not.

People tend to think about this in terms of 'in the case of my child' while forgetting the effect it may have on a child living in a same-sex family.

Are people really suggesting that those children should be made to feel different, morally wrong and that other parents can decide this?

Children have the right to disagree with the information they are presented, as do their parents. They do not have the right to prevent the information from being presented to them.

Furthermore do you or do you not support a parents right to prevent their child from being taught about evolution? Do you or do you not support a parents right to prevent their child from being taught that black people and white people are equal?

If you do not support these parental "rights" then why do you support their "right" to prevent their children from being taught that it's perfectly ok for Billy to have two daddies?

Parents do have the right to prevent what they consider to be inappropriate information from being presented to their kids at inappropriate times. I was always taught that the time to teach kids about sex and gender related issues was when they asked about it. Telling them before they're ready confuses them. Part of the problem is that the state is setting an arbitrary age of readiness for this information. Part of the problem is that they are gearing the information for mass consumption and not for the individual ability of the child. Whether you like it or not, the parent, who, presumably, has the most intimate contact with the child, is the best judge of readiness and ability. Unless, of course, you advocate removing children from the care of all parents whose views don't agree with yours. I am really mystified by the current notion that parents are to be denied the rights and tools needed to raise their children and are at the same time held responsible for how their kids grow up. Teaching kids about diversity before they have any context in which to put it is confusing to them and counterproductive.

*snip*

Yet are they teaching these kids about gender relations? I don't think so, I think they're just representing the full spectrum of family life.

Again, what about the child with same-sex parents, why do other parents get to choose how that child's family is represented, as something not to be talked about? It's perfectly legal so why not show it as simply another facet of family life, no better or worse than any other.

Where a black family is included in a book, do we say that this is teaching children about race relations?

No we don't.

The United Kingdom of Gayness. (Or the UK as it is more commonly called).
Ugh, tell me about it. I'm still at school and a few years back they taught us some of that kind of shit in sex education classes. My dad complained to the school which was a little embarassing, but it's still a bit weird and freaky to go teaching itin schools.

Sexuality isn't something like math where there's one solution.

We need to work on improving the way schools teach math :-E.

ok i only watched one minute of the video and am at the bottom of the first page of the thread

but

when did school start teaching marriage? i dont recall it being a subject.

IF it comes up in the course of an average school day AND the subject of "i saw 2 men get married on tv" (for example) comes up, then YES the teacher shouldnt say "ohmygod thats nasty!" but "yes, when 2 adults love each other they can get married even if they are 2 men"

My objection to this has always been that legalizing gay marriage puts a quick patch to shut up the problem, and leaves other groups with much less voice in their plight. What's wrong with 3 men getting married, or 2 men and a woman, or 3 shemales and 2 hermaphrodites?

The answer to this is amazingly simple. Teach kids that relationships are socially acceptable. Be they male/female, female/female, male/male, shemale/hermaphrodite, etc. If the parents disagree, that is for them to teach their kids in their own time. As far as I know, schools do not teach kids about marriage.

But what about sex ed? In sex ed, we are taught the mechanics of sexual intercourse, so that we may apply these techniques for reproduction (or other means) later in life. We are also tought about protection and contraceptives, as well as STD's. This education should me mandatory with no exceptions ever. But then, since the mechanics of male/female intercourse is discussed (penis in the vagina), should mechanics of other relationships be discussed? Or is it necessary to discuss male/female intercourse to better explain the process of reproduction?

It should at least be acknowledged that relationships other than male/female relationships exist, and that they are perfectly acceptable in society. Any argument to this is pure bigotry.

My objection to this has always been that legalizing gay marriage puts a quick patch to shut up the problem, and leaves other groups with much less voice in their plight.

The only reason there is a recognized "problem" is because people have actively campaigned for recognition for same-sex relationships. There is no socially recognized problem with the general exclusivity of the marriage concept. Strong social liberals may be sympathetic to that argument, but unfortunately we are a small minority.

If other groups want recognition for their relationships, fine--but they have to campaign for it, too. Policy changes do not happen by magic.

But then, since the mechanics of male/female intercourse is discussed (penis in the vagina), should mechanics of other relationships be discussed?

Yes. Actually, anal and oral sex should be discussed anyway, because straight people engage in them so often too.

Or is it necessary to discuss male/female intercourse to better explain the process of reproduction?

That's part of it, but part of the point of comprehensive sex education is that, because we do not delude ourselves into thinking that people will only have sex for procreation, people should be taught about sex and sexuality in a broader sense, too.

http://photos-g.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v363/176/39/505580842/n505580842_1318246_3511.jpg

This image seemed somehow relevant.

Yes. Because kissing is innanely sexual. So are you saying you wanted to fuck your mother every time she kissed you on the lips or do you honestly think that kindergartners make this connection immediately? Apparently, puberty is a purely physical change and not a chemical one as well.

Kinda walked into that one, huh?

Teaching that 'timmy has two daddies' is no more implicitly 'sexual' than the kissing in (the modern, sanitised) version of Sleeping Beauty.

To object to mentioning that - actually - not all families are one man and one woman and x number of spawn because it's 'sexual' or 'not appropriate content' for pre-teens - is to create an artificial reality to object to. There is nothing innately sexual about the gender of your parents, except that your awareness makes it so.

Obviously if we have gays in school books our children will be turned gay. That's exactly what happened when we let them put blacks in the school books. Now we have white boys dressing like rappers and white girls with big butts!

The only reason there is a recognized "problem" is because people have actively campaigned for recognition for same-sex relationships. There is no socially recognized problem with the general exclusivity of the marriage concept. Strong social liberals may be sympathetic to that argument, but unfortunately we are a small minority.

If other groups want recognition for their relationships, fine--but they have to campaign for it, too. Policy changes do not happen by magic.
They don't have the power to campaign for it. So legalizing gay marriage will just shove their concerns under the bed, at the same time insulting most Christians.

The one-step, real solution is to create a concept of civil union, which is not related to sex and gender, but has all the legal implications of marriage (or maybe even make it selective which to apply). Whoever enters it - straights, gays, a threesome, a man train, or a whole commune - is their business.

This gives everyone the ability to manage their status as they want, while at the same time bypassing any religious concerns, since it's not formally called marriage.

Because children are not property. There is no "right" at stake here, just a question of social benefit: is it better to have a society that is free of racism, sexism, and homophobia, or to have a society that allows bigoted parents to continue indoctrinating their children into bigotry? I have never needed to hesitate before giving an answer to that one.

Bigotry is not a right, it's a mental disease. It should be treated as such.

Parents do have the right to prevent what they consider to be inappropriate information from being presented to their kids at inappropriate times. I was always taught that the time to teach kids about sex and gender related issues was when they asked about it.

Then you were always taught wrong. Teaching about sex and sexuality is appropriate at the point where someone asks, but also at the point where they start experiencing sexual characteristics - whether or not they've asked.

And gender isn't something that should be waiting for a certain level of questioning - children should be raised aware of the physical reality of their world. You don't have to teach them about sex, just beause you teach them about gender - and I'm not sure where that conflation keeps arising from.

They don't have the power to campaign for it. So legalizing gay marriage will just shove their concerns under the bed, at the same time insulting most Christians.

The one-step, real solution is to create a concept of civil union, which is not related to sex and gender, but has all the legal implications of marriage (or maybe even make it selective which to apply). Whoever enters it - straights, gays, a threesome, a man train, or a whole commune - is their business.

This gives everyone the ability to manage their status as they want, while at the same time bypassing any religious concerns, since it's not formally called marriage.

Horseshit. Just because one group CLAIMS that they own 'marriage', doesn't give any validity to that claim.

More to the point, perhaps, changing the name for it when it's someone else is running from the problem - exactly the way you keep talking about. 'Different, but equal' is still discriminating because it's NOT equal, it's saying it IS different.

Many people in this world would contend the exact opposite - why are you right and they wrong? Last I heard, the evidence indicates that a child reared in a household with a male and female role model are, in a very broad sense, better off than those who are reared otherwise.

I'm not saying gay is "bad" just that there is at least some evidence that hetero is "better."
Bull. If any such evidence exists, then present it.

Let those parents who think it's harmful to teach kids to be accepting of their peers no matter who or what their parents are actually show some evidence of children being harmed by learning not to express intolerance towards such other kids. Let's see it already. We've waited long enough.

I'm sorry but there is NO difference between these arguments and the racist arguments of an earlier generation. No difference, often not even in the wording. These arguments contain nothing but old, tired rhetoric and no substance. This nothing but another case of bigots trying to defend the position of privilege their bigotry claims. Screw them. Let them homeschool their little mini-thems if they really can't live with the fact that society has grown past them.

Then you were always taught wrong. Teaching about sex and sexuality is appropriate at the point where someone asks, but also at the point where they start experiencing sexual characteristics - whether or not they've asked.

And gender isn't something that should be waiting for a certain level of questioning - children should be raised aware of the physical reality of their world. You don't have to teach them about sex, just beause you teach them about gender - and I'm not sure where that conflation keeps arising from.
I believe the conflation keeps arising from either latent homphobia or people being bamboozled by the distortions of the debate and misrepresentations of public education promoted by homophobes.

They don't have the power to campaign for it.

Neither did gays, in 1950. Political power is something you build.

So legalizing gay marriage will just shove their concerns under the bed,

Their concerns are already shoved under the bed. Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with it either way.

at the same time insulting most Christians.

Christianity does not own marriage. I really couldn't care less if some Christians whine because their delusional sense of entitlement has been violated.

The one-step, real solution is to create a concept of civil union, which is not related to sex and gender, but has all the legal implications of marriage (or maybe even make it selective which to apply). Whoever enters it - straights, gays, a threesome, a man train, or a whole commune - is their business.

This doesn't make any sense. If there is any basis for giving people in relationships particular rights, it does not apply when you alter the concept so drastically. Also, this is (obviously) politically impossible. It literally would be a destruction of marriage.

This gives everyone the ability to manage their status as they want, while at the same time bypassing any religious concerns, since it's not formally called marriage.

This is catering to bigotry, and I cannot support it.

Insofar as our society has reasons for making marriage something "special", we should recognize that those reasons, insofar as they are valid, apply just as much to same-sex couples as they do to opposite-sex ones. That's the point of the marriage equality movement.

Even if you could bypass people's "concerns" by calling it civil unions (and you would not be able to, especially on the scale of the changes you suggest), it would still be wrong to do so as anything more than a temporary, intermediate step: same-sex relationships deserve to be recognized as equal, not merely recognized.

Bigotry is not a right, it's a mental disease. It should be treated as such.

Indeed. :)

Horseshit. Just because one group CLAIMS that they own 'marriage', doesn't give any validity to that claim. No, it doesn't. Realpolitik. A civil union will have less opposition from these rednecks. Easier to pass.

More to the point, perhaps, changing the name for it when it's someone else is running from the problem - exactly the way you keep talking about. 'Different, but equal' is still discriminating because it's NOT equal, it's saying it IS different.
It's not changing the name. It's creating a new legal concept.

And, actually, I'm not for "equal but different", but rather for taking all legal meaning out of marriage. Have the legal part implemented via a civil union (signed parallel with a marriage, applied retroactively). That would allow people to have choice of how they prefer to manage their union - select the commitments they wish and don't wish to make. Ranging from simple recognition of cohabiting to absolute union with shared property and rights.


Again, I personally consider it a fault that we have a strong bias for two-spouse family. It's a thing that could make sense biologically, but it's bad from all other points of view. A trilateral system is inherently more stable. From the ability of two to stop the third in certain cases, to death of one of the spouses having a less devastating effect on the other. Today, of course, it looks ridiculous and unthinkable, but imagine if we had three genders? And since gender isn't black and white already, it's not all that unimaginable.

The one-step, real solution is to create a concept of civil union, which is not related to sex and gender, but has all the legal implications of marriage (or maybe even make it selective which to apply). Whoever enters it - straights, gays, a threesome, a man train, or a whole commune - is their business.The exclusivity of the mutual rights and duties between two people is precisely the legal implication of marriage. Polygamous arrangements, though historically a common form of "marriage", functioned in a different legal environment in which women had duties toward men but not reciprocal rights. Whether we should give legal recognition in some form to polygamous households is a separate issue (I would in general be wary of any move in that direction), but it isn't and can't be the same as our present concept of the "civil union" which we call "marriage".

This gives everyone the ability to manage their status as they want, while at the same time bypassing any religious concerns, since it's not formally called marriage.
The word "marriage" does not belong to churches. My parents, like many in this country, were never believers, yet nobody until recent years ever had the fucking nerve to suggest they weren't really "married" unless the goddamned Christians said they were.

Last I heard, the evidence indicates that a child reared in a household with a male and female role model are, in a very broad sense, better off than those who are reared otherwise.

You heard wrong.

"In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpconclusion.html

I'm not saying gay is "bad" just that there is at least some evidence that hetero is "better."

While we're on the topic:

"Notably, same-sex relationships, whether between men or women, were far more egalitarian than heterosexual ones. In heterosexual couples, women did far more of the housework; men were more likely to have the financial responsibility; and men were more likely to initiate sex, while women were more likely to refuse it or to start a conversation about problems in the relationship. With same-sex couples, of course, none of these dichotomies were possible, and the partners tended to share the burdens far more equally.

"While the gay and lesbian couples had about the same rate of conflict as the heterosexual ones, they appeared to have more relationship satisfaction, suggesting that the inequality of opposite-sex relationships can take a toll."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/health/10well.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

;)

No, it doesn't. Realpolitik. A civil union will have less opposition from these rednecks. Easier to pass.


Fuck the rednecks. Half the battle - perhaps more important even than gaining the union, is forcing the concept into obstructive minds.

As a wise philosopher once wrote: "It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds".


It's not changing the name. It's creating a new legal concept.


No, it's not - it's about creating the SAME concept, just for 'gay people'.


And, actually, I'm not for "equal but different", but rather for taking all legal meaning out of marriage. Have the legal part implemented via a civil union (signed parallel with a marriage, applied retroactively). That would allow people to have choice of how they prefer to manage their union - select the commitments they wish and don't wish to make. Ranging from simple recognition of cohabiting to absolute union with shared property and rights.


We already have the ability to create such civil unions for straight partners - it's called 'marriage', and it doesn't intrinsically belong to any religion.

I agree that there should be more flexibility about which contractual obligations your personal 'marriage' should have - but I completely disagree with you on which side should be forced to relinquish their claim of 'ownership'. Marriage is a secular arrangement, the ceremonies may be religious (or may not, even now), but the binding of two persons IS innately legalistic, in our society.


Again, I personally consider it a fault that we have a strong bias for two-spouse family. It's a thing that could make sense biologically, but it's bad from all other points of view. A trilateral system is inherently more stable. From the ability of two to stop the third in certain cases, to death of one of the spouses having a less devastating effect on the other. Today, of course, it looks ridiculous and unthinkable, but imagine if we had three genders? And since gender isn't black and white already, it's not all that unimaginable.

I've argued the exact same argument before. Marriage should be whatever gender orientations and organisations those involved choose.

The exclusivity of the mutual rights and duties between two people is precisely the legal implication of marriage. Polygamous arrangements, though historically a common form of "marriage", functioned in a different legal environment in which women had duties toward men but not reciprocal rights.
It's XXI century, things have changed - it can just as fine be one woman and multiple men.
And who's saying it has to be heterosexual? A gay threesome is less impossible than you think.


Whether we should give legal recognition in some form to polygamous households is a separate issue (I would in general be wary of any move in that direction), but it isn't and can't be the same as our present concept of the "civil union" which we call "marriage".
If so, it could mean you're no less inclined than the Christians to keep monopoly on marriage, simply prejudiced against other groups than they are.

No, it's not - it's about creating the SAME concept, just for 'gay people'.
Straight people would have to use it then.

I'm as much in favor of extending the marriage rights as you are, but changing minds to accept *that* would take a lot more time - for which people would be denied it. Better to have it with another name than not have it at all.


I agree that there should be more flexibility about which contractual obligations your personal 'marriage' should have - but I completely disagree with you on which side should be forced to relinquish their claim of 'ownership'. Marriage is a secular arrangement, the ceremonies may be religious (or may not, even now), but the binding of two persons IS innately legalistic, in our society.
It is for some, most of us, I think. But there's a lot of conservatives who still view it as religiously significant - that's where all the opposition to gay marriage is coming from.

I agree on the principle, just see a simpler implementation - call it different legally, but everyone will still call it marriage, and then wait for the hardcore conservatives to die out (most are old) and have the case closed.

As an atheist libertarian, I'm not against gay rights or same-sex marriage but our public schools should not be pushing it like this. They have no right to indoctrinate kids with any kind of moral beliefs. It's the parents' job to teach things like that. The school took it too far. I was quite surprised that they threatened to arrest the father. Big Brother is such a bitch.

They should be allowed to opt out.

As a wise philosopher once wrote: "It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds".

:D

I liked that line, too.

How embarrasing to be this moronic couple, caught on film showing off their idiocy.

"Omg! Look what they're teaching my 5 year old! How harmful! It interferes with us teaching our 5 year old that homosexuals should burn in hell for all eternity!"

As an atheist libertarian, I'm not against gay rights or same-sex marriage but our public schools should not be pushing it like this. They have no right to indoctrinate kids with any kind of moral beliefs. It's the parents' job to teach things like that. The school took it too far. I was quite surprised that they threatened to arrest the father. Big Brother is such a bitch.

They should be allowed to opt out.

A big chunk of school curriculum in the US and in Canada involves a 'citizenship' component. Moral values are so essentially intertwined with the curriculum that you could not possibly separate them. You're living in a dream world if you think this has not always been the case.

How embarrasing to be this moronic couple, caught on film showing off their idiocy.

"Omg! Look what they're teaching my 5 year old! How harmful! It interferes with us teaching our 5 year old that homosexuals should burn in hell for all eternity!"

The school's indoctrination is interfearing with thier own religious indoctrination.

As an atheist libertarian, I'm not against gay rights or same-sex marriage but our public schools should not be pushing it like this. They have no right to indoctrinate kids with any kind of moral beliefs. It's the parents' job to teach things like that. The school took it too far. I was quite surprised that they threatened to arrest the father. Big Brother is such a bitch.

They should be allowed to opt out.

This isn't indoctrinating anyone into any kind of moral beliefs. Its just educating about the world they live in. You know, exactly what schools are meant to do.

And they shouldn't be allowed to opt out, IMO, no more than they should be allowed to opt out of science classes because they don't believe in evolution.

A big chunk of school curriculum in the US and in Canada involves a 'citizenship' component. Moral values are so essentially intertwined with the curriculum that you could not possibly separate them. You're living in a dream world if you think this has not always been the case.

No, I see your point. I just feel this is one of those things that should be left to the parents to teach their kids.

They have no right to indoctrinate kids with any kind of moral beliefs.

Should public schools be "neutral" when teaching about, say, slavery?

We have a society that is founded on certain values and principles, and the public education system's curriculum, by necessity, is determined by those values and principles. (It has to be determined by something--we always have to make choices about what to teach, and how to teach it.) We should be open about their content.

I was quite surprised that they threatened to arrest the father. Big Brother is such a bitch.

Your initial surprise was probably justified. These people are systematically dishonest. They willfully distort reality to justify their delusions of being oppressed, and they do it again and again and again, however often they are called on it.

Is it truly about "restoring legal discrimination" or about acknowledging a parent's right to raise a child as he/she sees fit?

(honestly, dunno what the proposition in question states)
Oh, I thought you were in California. The proposition is that same-sex marriage should be ended (overturning the state supreme court ruling that "equal protection" requires allowing same-sex couples the same marriage right as different-sex couples); it is not clear whether the couples which have already gotten married will be effectively divorced. The proposition has nothing to do with school curricula.

Straight people would have to use it then.

I'm as much in favor of extending the marriage rights as you are, but changing minds to accept *that* would take a lot more time - for which people would be denied it. Better to have it with another name than not have it at all.

It is for some, most of us, I think. But there's a lot of conservatives who still view it as religiously significant - that's where all the opposition to gay marriage is coming from.

I agree on the principle, just see a simpler implementation - call it different legally, but everyone will still call it marriage, and then wait for the hardcore conservatives to die out (most are old) and have the case closed.

The choices aren't 'call it marriage' or 'give up until we can'. Allowing the 'separate but equal' thing allows the discrimination to continue, even if people MIGHT get to use the eterminology earlier.

What I would advocate would be arguing for equal rights the whole time, while holding out for the equal terminology.

Simply put - as LONG as it's allowed to be termed differently, it will be treated differently.

Pluralism and tolerance for different views are important. Fundamentally, though, they are about something. They are not value-neutral: they are founded on the idea that is good to have a tolerant, pluralistic society.

If we really believe that, we should carry it through to its conclusion and educate for tolerance. That's how we actually go about achieving such a society--not through remaining neutral between hateful bigotry and mutual respect.

No, I see your point. I just feel this is one of those things that should be left to the parents to teach their kids.

School is all about normalising. Children's books feature crazy things like black politicians, mixed race marriages...female police officers...things that were all at one time very controversial, and looked upon with as much enthusiasm as gay marriage currently is by some.

I'm sure the refrain of 'leave it to parents to teach' was uttered in each situation. The thing is...schools are actually about education, as much as they are about socialisation, and it's ridiculous to think that children should be kept in some sort of educational vacuum because some parents wish it to be so. No. The schools can teach it. And if you feel so strongly about it, you can teach your kids that faggots are evil and they abuse children. That's your right as a parent. Keeping your children in ignorance is NOT a parental right in a society that has legally enforceable, mandatory education.

GnI makes a good point. Christianity does not own the term marriage. Marriage has been around since before Jesus and his little cult. Romans had the concept of marriage. Jews and Islamics too. Hindu's also. Marriage is not a Christian concept, nor is it owned by Christianity. In fact, with such religious diversity in marriage, and the fact that you do not have to be religious to get married, means that no religion should have any say in marriage in the legal sense. Marriage is a legal thing, and as such, should apply equally to everyone. This however, does not force churches to perform religious marriages for gay couples. It meerly forces law to recognise gay marriages, which is fair.

GnI makes a good point. Christianity does not own the term marriage. Marriage has been around since before Jesus and his little cult. Romans had the concept of marriage. Jews and Islamics too. Hindu's also. Marriage is not a Christian concept, nor is it owned by Christianity. In fact, with such religious diversity in marriage, and the fact that you do not have to be religious to get married, means that no religion should have any say in marriage in the legal sense. Marriage is a legal thing, and as such, should apply equally to everyone. This however, does not force churches to perform religious marriages for gay couples. It meerly forces law to recognise gay marriages, which is fair.

Customary laws in respect of marriage have been recognised (http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/pub/matr/cm_e.html) in both the US and Canada when it comes to aboriginal nations, which makes it pretty clear that marriage is not founded on Christianity and therefore need not be bound by it.

I see no problem with recognising various forms of religious marriage ceremonies and allowing them to create legal relationships as long as fundamental human rights are respected. I have no problem with an aboriginal Elder refusing to marry non-aboriginals according to Cree custom, for example...Roman Catholics who don't want to marry gays...well, whatever.

I do see a problem with living so far in the dark ages that the issue of gay marriage is actually still a live one.

It's XXI century, things have changed - it can just as fine be one woman and multiple men.
It wouldn't be "marriage" as the 21st century understands it, which is about mutuality and exclusivity of the rights and duties. For example, one spouse is unconscious in the hospital, which of the multiple other parties has decision-making authority?
Now, 19th century polygamous marriages in Utah operated under the 1st century legal paradigm: if the man is incapacitated, which of the wives can decide things? NONE of them, of course: women do not decide things for men, period; the males in his family would decide. Multiple men could not enter into THAT concept of "marriage", of course: which one would be the exclusive decision-maker?
So, if you want to create an entirely new legal institution for polyamorous households, not even a restoration of the antique institution which has disappeared for very good reasons, that is an entirely separate issue.
And who's saying it has to be heterosexual? A gay threesome is less impossible than you think.
What the hell makes you think that I find anything "impossible" about a threesome? I've known such arrangements. All I am saying is that it is not like a mutually committed couple, and is not what the present legal institution of marriage can accommodate. Nor do I see any need for a new institution: what, exactly, would a threesome want from the law? To designate one of them as the decision-maker for the other two? I don't know any threesome that would want that. The FLDS polygamists would, of course, want precisely that: a legal recognition of the man's right to utterly dominate the women; this is what I mean when I say I would tend to oppose recognizing polygamy, because unless it is just a codification of some revival of the old gender domination,I do no see what it would consist of.

Am I the only one who gave the video the MST3K treatment?

It wouldn't be "marriage" as the 21st century understands it, which is about mutuality and exclusivity of the rights and duties. For example, one spouse is unconscious in the hospital, which of the multiple other parties has decision-making authority?
Consensus.


So, if you want to create an entirely new legal institution for polyamorous households, not even a restoration of the antique institution which has disappeared for very good reasons, that is an entirely separate issue.
Restoration of the antique institution would border on anticonstitutional.

I'm for, if we do give equal rights to marriage, create a new system that can really accommodate everyone, as well as different needs, rather than patch one hole at a time.


Plus, with genders blurring, soon may come a time when threesome isn't polyamorous. Or what about this arrangement even today - A loves B, B loves C, C loves A, all are also great friends.

All I am saying is that it is not like a mutually committed couple, It's not? Three people can't be mutually committed to each other?

Nor do I see any need for a new institution: what, exactly, would a threesome want from the law? To designate one of them as the decision-maker for the other two? For instance, among other things. Not one of them, consensus of remaining two. But there are more important parts, such as common property.

Why do I need any grounds? But if you insist, on the grounds that this is still, in spite of the efforts of some, a substantially free country and any attempt to subvert that freedom, like telling parents that they have no rights where the education of their children is concerned, is deleterious to that freedom.

what about the rights of the child, though you may not be as much for youth rights as I am, there's still their right to an education.

Bigotry is probably genetic too. Even if it isn't the child is more than likely going to learn to be a bigot through their parents.

I really don't think that this needs to be taught to kindergarteners. At least start teaching it when they're a bit older and can form their own thoughts on the subject. It's kind of the child's choice whether they want to follow their parents beliefs, or form beliefs of their own from what they're taught in school.

I wasn't even taught about straight marriage in school.

I'm all for gay rights (And I am a Christian), but I don't see why we need to be teaching about gay marriage, or any marriage, in juvenile schools.

Because introducing children to sexuality prepubescently doesn't seem like the right thing to do. Introduce it to them when their bodies are chaning and when they are more apt to be able to deal with their thoughts intellectually.

Why? Children are introduced to heterosexuality in fairy tales and Disney movies at a young age.

...if one is speaking of telling children about sex acts, there is some evidence that teaching them about things like oral sex at a young age (around 7) is probably a good idea to help prevent some of the games that young teenagers play involving oral sex.

Parents do have the right to prevent what they consider to be inappropriate information from being presented to their kids at inappropriate times. I was always taught that the time to teach kids about sex and gender related issues was when they asked about it. Telling them before they're ready confuses them. Part of the problem is that the state is setting an arbitrary age of readiness for this information. Part of the problem is that they are gearing the information for mass consumption and not for the individual ability of the child. Whether you like it or not, the parent, who, presumably, has the most intimate contact with the child, is the best judge of readiness and ability. Unless, of course, you advocate removing children from the care of all parents whose views don't agree with yours. I am really mystified by the current notion that parents are to be denied the rights and tools needed to raise their children and are at the same time held responsible for how their kids grow up. Teaching kids about diversity before they have any context in which to put it is confusing to them and counterproductive.

Enough with the politician weasel speak. YES OR NO do you or do you not support a parents right to prevent their child from being taught about evolution? Do you or do you not support a parents right to prevent their child from being taught that black people and white people are equal?

I wasn't even taught about straight marriage in school.

I'm all for gay rights (And I am a Christian), but I don't see why we need to be teaching about gay marriage, or any marriage, in juvenile schools.
You never read a story involving a happily ever after ending where prince charming goes off with the heroine, or one that included a male character interested in a female character? Or even a story that has has a kid with a mommy and a daddy?

It's pure bigotry to seriously attempt to compare ANY of those to homosexuality.

Why? Probably a topic for another thread, but I'll ask why here. Why is it bigotry?

You don't see the problem with comparing consensual sex between two (or more) living adult humans to having sex with a child to young to consent, having sex with an animal incapable of giving consent, or having sex with a corpse?

Would you also find it acceptable to compare a bi-racial relationship to bestiality?

Not adressed to me, but lets jump in ;)

Enough with the politician weasel speak. YES OR NO do you or do you not support a parents right to prevent their child from being taught about evolution?

Being taught about the theory of evolution through natural selection ? Of course parents should not prevent that. It exists. It is the dominant scientific theory on the subject. Ignoring it is moronic.
Of course, schools should also be free to point out that some religious people have different ideas. Those religions after all also exist.

Do you or do you not support a parents right to prevent their child from being taught that black people and white people are equal?

Different question. The first one was asking if one should ignore the existence of something, despite it being dominant. This one is asking if one should exclusively teach a single view. Schools should therefor explain why the black and white are equal viewpoint is considered to have more merit than other viewpoints in the eyes of the state. If the school is any good at teaching kids critical thinking, they can then make up their own minds.

Well, as much I have said my part on the anti-gay frontlines, i will say this in a neutral way:

The system as run by a democratic government is simply a propaganda machine in which those in power tell the people what they want the people to believe, so in the case of any form of relationships, whether they be heterosexual, homosexual and/or interracial based, will be taught in the form of propaganda based on what the government wants the people and their children to believe

all in all, its better to do the tried and trusted methods of the parents sitting down and explaining relationships to their kids, that way the good parents can pass on truths and only that bad parents can share the brainwashing, instead of brainwashing being part of the public education system

all in all, its better to do the tried and trusted methods of the parents sitting down and explaining relationships to their kids, that way the good parents can pass on truths and only that bad parents can share the brainwashing, instead of brainwashing being part of the public education system

'Truths'.

Well, as much I have said my part on the anti-gay frontlines, i will say this in a neutral way:

The system as run by a democratic government is simply a propaganda machine in which those in power tell the people what they want the people to believe, so in the case of any form of relationships, whether they be heterosexual, homosexual and/or interracial based, will be taught in the form of propaganda based on what the government wants the people and their children to believe

all in all, its better to do the tried and trusted methods of the parents sitting down and explaining relationships to their kids, that way the good parents can pass on truths and only that bad parents can share the brainwashing, instead of brainwashing being part of the public education system

'Truths'.

Mmmmm truthy.

Consensus.
And by what legal mechanism will you compel consensus between people who, as often happens, seriously disagree? The entire point of the marriage institution, as it applies in this particular scenario, is to designate a SINGLE decision-maker.

Restoration of the antique institution would border on anticonstitutional.
At least we agree on SOMETHING, then. This is all I mean when I say that I would tend to be opposed to any recognition of polygamy, in that I do not see what it would even mean if not a restoration of classical antiquity; and resent the use of polygamy as a comparator, when it is not similar at all.
I'm for, if we do give equal rights to marriage, create a new system that can really accommodate everyone, as well as different needs, rather than patch one hole at a time.
Creating a new system is an entirely separate issue, unrelated to the question of who gets access to the existing institution. I do not, in any case, see any real demand for the "new system" you are vaguely contemplating; the only demand for polygamy is from the FLDS types who want antiquity back.

Plus, with genders blurring, soon may come a time when threesome isn't polyamorous. Or what about this arrangement even today - A loves B, B loves C, C loves A, all are also great friends. Uh, a threesome is "polyamorous" by definition: the "poly-" prefix simply means more than two.

It's not? Three people can't be mutually committed to each other?
I wasn't denying they could be mutually committed; I was denying they were the same as a couple. The exclusivity of the commitment is what makes it a marriage.
For instance, among other things. Not one of them, consensus of remaining two. But there are more important parts, such as common property.
In the absence of agreement, "consensus" really means that the person who doesn't want anything done wins (spouse is unconscious; should surgery be done? NO, if any one of the squabbling co-spouses says no; he dies, now is it best to sell the house? NO, if any one says no). Compelling that result is quite different from what marriage does.

I can't see the video, so I can't judge this particular case.

However, every example of this sort of thing I've heard about before has gone something like this:

TEACHER: *reads kids a book in which a same-sex relationship happens to appear*
SMALL MINORITY OF PARENTS: *freak the hell out about how the schools are indoctrinating their children into gayness*

If this is roughly what happened in this case as well, then, no, I'm not on the parents' side. There is no more justification for demanding that your kids not be exposed to the concept that gay people exist than demanding that your kids not be exposed to the concept that black people exist. If there were actually some sort of moral value attached ("Being gay is better/worse than being straight!") - which I highly, highly doubt was the case - the parents would have a point. If the kids were being taught about sex acts, whether gay or straight ("Then Heather's two mommies went back to the bedroom, where they engaged in cunnilingus! Can you say 'cunnilingus,' kids?") - which I doubt even more was the case - the parents would have a point. But, see, I've never heard of any schools doing that, so I'm inclined to believe that's probably not what happened here, either.

I can't see the video, so I can't judge this particular case.

However, every example of this sort of thing I've heard about before has gone something like this:

TEACHER: *reads kids a book in which a same-sex relationship happens to appear*
SMALL MINORITY OF PARENTS: *freak the hell out about how the schools are indoctrinating their children into gayness*

If this is roughly what happened in this case as well, then, no, I'm not on the parents' side.

Pretty much sums it up.

There is no more justification for demanding that your kids not be exposed to the concept that gay people exist than demanding that your kids not be exposed to the concept that black people exist. If there were actually some sort of moral value attached ("Being gay is better/worse than being straight!") - which I highly, highly doubt was the case - the parents would have a point.

At most one could argue that the schools are attaching a moral value of "equal to" heterosexual marriage.

Pretty much sums it up.

Color me unsurprised.


At most one could argue that the schools are attaching a moral value of "equal to" heterosexual marriage.

That would indeed be the most one could say. Honestly, the objections I've heard don't even seem to be "You are teaching my kids that gay people exist and are good" so much as "You are teaching my kids that gay people exist and not even mentioning that they're unnatural and gross and going to burn in hell, which are clearly vital parts of any discussion of gay people."

Personally, I want to know what right a religion has to claim something that was political in nature to begin with. Marriage under the system the U.S. uses is a descendent of the Roman system, which itself just used marriage as a political tool.

Ok, I confess to being relatively conservative in my views (politically I consider myself to be more of a Libertarian than anything else) however, this just floored me. It is clearly staged and a bit over the top, however, I do see the flip side and think the parents have a bit of a legitimate gripe (assuming that the facts are as claimed and portrayed).

So, what do you guys think? Should a parent be allowed to "opt out" for his/her kid when it comes to discussions of marriage (gay or otherwise)?

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1815825713/bctid1819819843

The kindergarten I taught in last year had a student with two moms. Her moms were both regular volunteers in our classroom. To "protect" children from learning about the scary reality of homosexuality, we would have had to exclude one of her mothers from participating in her child's education. To "protect" children from being "indoctrinated" into thinking homosexuality is acceptable, we would have to get rid of every activity or project that ever mentioned family. Is THAT fair to a 5 year old?

Personally, I want to know what right a religion has to claim something that was political in nature to begin with. Marriage under the system the U.S. uses is a descendent of the Roman system, which itself just used marriage as a political tool.

Didn't you know? America was founded on Christian values. It was created by Christians, for Christians. Pay no attention to that first amendment behind the curtain, it's the ten commandments that are important.

Didn't you know? America was founded on Christian values. It was created by Christians, for Christians. Pay no attention to that first amendment behind the curtain, it's the ten commandments that are important.

And no attention to the fact that those same Christians who were the Founding Fathers also were some of the founders of science, democratic thought, and the government's distrust of the public.

Didn't you know? America was founded on Christian values. It was created by Christians, for Christians. Pay no attention to that first amendment behind the curtain, it's the ten commandments that are important.

Indeed. Hopefully the US government is going to forbid Jewish, Hindu, Muslim and *shudders* atheist marriages soon. That stupid wad of toiletpaper called the constitution after all goes against the far more important Bible. Burn it !

Sad thing is that Palin might actually see nothing wrong with that.

My objection to this has always been that legalizing gay marriage puts a quick patch to shut up the problem, and leaves other groups with much less voice in their plight. What's wrong with 3 men getting married, or 2 men and a woman, or 3 shemales and 2 hermaphrodites?Whether or not there is any merit to a marriage of more than two people, the legal arguments presented for gay marriage are not the same, and do not extend to opening marriage up for multiple people.
If there is a good argument for doing so, that's fine, but it is not contained within the particular legal framework.

It's not changing the name. It's creating a new legal concept. So then any international treaty where the U.S. and a foreign country agree to recognize each others' marriages would be...what? Dissolved? Renegotiated?

And no attention to the fact that those same Christians who were the Founding Fathers also were some of the founders of science, democratic thought, and the government's distrust of the public.

Pay no attention to the fact that most of them weren't even Christians.

Gee.. I hope we never have to deal with the issue of inter-racial same-sex marriages! Whew!

Gee.. I hope we never have to deal with the issue of inter-racial same-sex marriages! Whew!

I, SaintB, fully endorse this message.

School is all about normalising. Children's books feature crazy things like black politicians, mixed race marriages...female police officers...things that were all at one time very controversial, and looked upon with as much enthusiasm as gay marriage currently is by some.

I'm sure the refrain of 'leave it to parents to teach' was uttered in each situation. The thing is...schools are actually about education, as much as they are about socialisation, and it's ridiculous to think that children should be kept in some sort of educational vacuum because some parents wish it to be so. No. The schools can teach it. And if you feel so strongly about it, you can teach your kids that faggots are evil and they abuse children. That's your right as a parent. Keeping your children in ignorance is NOT a parental right in a society that has legally enforceable, mandatory education.



/thread.

As if kids have any idea what the "traditions" have been... and as if tradition is worth a shit anyway.
If kids grow up in a world that accepts gay marriage, they'll go right along with it.

I really can't believe gay marriage isn't legal everywhere in the US by now.

I'll preface this with saying that I've only scanned the thread to this point.

At risk of going against the consensus; while I believe that marriage shouldn't have gender requirements (or even numerical requirements, I do believe that parents should have the right to determine what their children are taught in terms of morality. Regardless of whether this video was an accurate representation of what is really happening in Mass. (I suspect that it's more than a little biased), the question is one of parental rights. If parents wish to opt out of this, they should be able to.
They aren't teaching morality. The fact of life in MA is that yes, gay marriage exists. You will, at some point in your life, come in contact with a gay person. In this state, they may very well be married. The public schools make no judgement call except to present that yep...it's there.

Parents in this state have the right to opt out of sex ed. I find that even that tends to go too far. Teaching about gay marriage as a fact of life in this state is not sex ed any more than saying "some kids have a mommy and a daddy" is.

Because introducing children to sexuality prepubescently doesn't seem like the right thing to do. Introduce it to them when their bodies are chaning and when they are more apt to be able to deal with their thoughts intellectually.



Wouldn't this be an issue for the parents to take up with their children? The rightness part, not the teaching part...
this isn't introducing "sexuality" any more than "mommy and daddy kiss".
Gay couples exist. Students should be aware that Timmy is no different than Bobby and Janet, even though Timmy has two dads, Bobby has a mom and a dad, and Janet has a mom who has a new girlfriend and doesn't know her dads name (yep, all of these are present in my sisters 3rd grade class. And guess what? They were present in the 2nd and 1st grade class too, when these students were there)
Why do I need any grounds? But if you insist, on the grounds that this is still, in spite of the efforts of some, a substantially free country and any attempt to subvert that freedom, like telling parents that they have no rights where the education of their children is concerned, is deleterious to that freedom.
Parents have every right. Don't like the public school? Homeschool, find a charter that you agree with, find a private school, hire tutors. Can't afford it? Get a scholarship (generally pretty well available). Nonbe of the above? Move.
No, I admit, that isn't real choice, as each has high costs. But, if you send your child to public school, you agree to the public school curricula.
The fact of the matter is gay marriage exists here. Gay people exist here. And they aren't burned at the stake. There is no need to shield students from this.

As an atheist libertarian, I'm not against gay rights or same-sex marriage but our public schools should not be pushing it like this. They have no right to indoctrinate kids with any kind of moral beliefs. It's the parents' job to teach things like that. The school took it too far. I was quite surprised that they threatened to arrest the father. Big Brother is such a bitch.

They should be allowed to opt out.

There are no moral judgements. Johnny really does have gay parents. That's fine, that's his family. Emily has just a mommy. Jacob lives with his grandparents. Tony was adopted. Janet lives with mommy and her girlfriend. Chris lives with just his daddy. Sam has a mommy, a stepdad, a daddy, and a grandma whom he lives with at different times.
And I doubt he was actually threatened with arrest.

Wow just wow is right.

I think the way to think of it is like this.

What if the couple in the vidoe where talking about their right as parents to instill racist attitudes in their children.

Well surly they have the right to do that but if by going public with their disgust at the shcool for trying to teach anti racist thought, they engage in 'hate speech' then quite rightly they should expect to feel the weight on the law breathing down their necks.

Because there are a Christian family, and acording to their faith homosexuality is a sin, then again they have the right to bring their kids up with that belife, but if they engage in hate speech again, then yep, lock the old man up.

Its a tricky one really, I would not like to be the one to tell any parent how to bring up their kids, but the law is the law.

http://photos-g.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v363/176/39/505580842/n505580842_1318246_3511.jpg

This image seemed somehow relevant.

:D Classic.

Parents do not have the right to indoctrinate their children into their beliefs. Why should they?

But the schools do I suppose? Bear in mind this question could be on any topic from same-sex marriage to meat eating.

Of course the school should also be teaching about polygamy as well.

But the schools do I suppose? Bear in mind this question could be on any topic from same-sex marriage to meat eating.

Of course the school should also be teaching about polygamy as well.

Schools offer information on reality, not opinions on it (at least, that's what good schools do).
So by using a book that states that gay marriages exist, they're not exactly indoctrinating the kids, are they? Just stating facts, not evaluating them in any way.

But the schools do I suppose? Bear in mind this question could be on any topic from same-sex marriage to meat eating.

Of course the school should also be teaching about polygamy as well.

But the school wasn't teaching about homosexuality. It wasn't saying Geoff puts his thallace into Steve's anus using his favoured brand of anal lube. It was meerly mentioning gay marriage, and gay couples. It is simply mentioning that which is a part of our society. I was never taught in school that male/female marriage was normal, nor was I taught that male/male marriage was abnormal. It just is. Schools aren't teaching morals, they are teaching about the society in which we live, and gay couples are as much a part of that culture as black judges, female police officers, and retard politicians.

Schools offer information on reality, not opinions on it (at least, that's what good schools do).
So by using a book that states that gay marriages exist, they're not exactly indoctrinating the kids, are they? Just stating facts, not evaluating them in any way.
But, see, if we allow kids to know that interracial couples EXIST, then they'll immediately assume that this means they should run right out and fuck somebody of another race.

Oh wait, replace "interracial" with "gay." I forgot that in this decade we're using that argument against fags instead of negroes.

But, see, if we allow kids to know that interracial couples EXIST, then they'll immediately assume that this means they should run right out and fuck somebody of another race.

Oh wait, replace "interracial" with "gay." I forgot that in this decade we're using that argument against fags instead of negroes.

*ponders*

Wouldn't that be "this century"?

But the schools do I suppose? Bear in mind this question could be on any topic from same-sex marriage to meat eating.

Of course the school should also be teaching about polygamy as well.
This is not a good argument and here's why:

As has been pointed out, social "normalizing" is the point of all this "what kinds of families are around us" teaching. It is not the job of schools to anticipate and endorse every single lifestyle choice that might exist somewhere or come along some day. It is the job of the schools to teach kids what kind of a society they are living in right now.

In the US, that means three things:

-- A society in which the kids in any given class will live in widely varying family arrangements. In Massachusetts, that includes families with married gay couples. In Utah, it might include polygamous families, but not in Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, polygamy is illegal (I don't know its status in Utah).

-- A society in which people are expected to be tolerant and polite towards others who are different from themselves and in which "normal" is defined broadly and inclusively.

-- A society that has rules and in which kids must learn the difficult lesson of where to draw lines -- what kinds of behavior are considered normal and acceptable -- like families built around gay couples -- and what kinds are not -- like families where kids get beaten at home.

Presenting married gay couples as part of a normal family structure IS social normalization in Massachusetts because gay couples get married here. Teaching kids that such families exist and are normal prepares kids for the society they are entering. Families built around polygamy are not a normal family structure in Massachusetts because polygamy is illegal. Presenting such families in the same way as two-person-couple families would mislead kids about the kind of society they are entering because it would set them up for conflict with the rules of the state. Kids may be taught that kids from polygamous families are no different from kids from other kinds of families, but it would be misleading to present polygamy in the same way that other kinds of families are presented. If the legal status of polygamy were to change some day, then how polygamous families are presented should also be changed.

HOWEVER, THE WAY THINGS STAND NOW IN THE US, arguing that, if schools are going to teach that gay marriage is normal, then they should teach that polygamy is normal also is nothing more than a species of "slippery slope" argument, implying that if you're going to teach that gay is okay, then you may as well teach that anything is okay, and soon you'll have books about Little Timmy whose dad is married to a toaster.

My view on this is supported by the kinds of groups who most strongly push that argument. You never hear polygamists (such as fundamentalist Mormons) pushing that argument. Nope, you only hear it from anti-gay-rights activists. The fact that "well, you may as well teach ALL the lifestyles then, including polygamy" is promoted as an argument by groups that are only using polygamy to attack gays indicates that they are not arguing for more acceptance, nor do they think polygamy is an acceptable lifestyle. They think it's immoral and are citing it to underscore that they also think homosexuality is immoral.

Even people who sincerely do believe that polygamy should be a legally and socially accepted lifestyle are unwittingly giving credibility to an fundamentally bigoted argument by repeating it.

If you want to be an activist for polyamory, fine, but PLEASE be aware of your arguments.

Because of the legal and social status of polygamy, it is not appropriate to attach arguments about it to arguments about gay rights at this time. It accomplishes nothing but to attack gays while doing nothing at all to advance polyamory.

But, see, if we allow kids to know that interracial couples EXIST, then they'll immediately assume that this means they should run right out and fuck somebody of another race.

Oh wait, replace "interracial" with "gay." I forgot that in this decade we're using that argument against fags instead of negroes.

I think parents that are so freaked out by reality might consider psychological help.
They need a bit more mental stability in order to be parents, I think.

-snip-

Points read, points accepted, debate conceded. On a related issue tough could one use the arguments given for same-sex marriage to help promote multiple marriages?

On an unrelated issue I like your new avatar even if it is somewhat unnerving.

Schools offer information on reality, not opinions on it (at least, that's what good schools do).
So by using a book that states that gay marriages exist, they're not exactly indoctrinating the kids, are they? Just stating facts, not evaluating them in any way.

Well we have hit the nail on the head, teaching reality is one thing teaching opinions is another. But that debate is for another thread. I suppose we should all read the book in question first to see what it is actually says rather than relying on the say-so of a couple of parents and some guy who knows how to influence Americans. (Back drop of the white house, USA pin on jacket)

More to the point, perhaps, changing the name for it when it's someone else is running from the problem - exactly the way you keep talking about. 'Different, but equal' is still discriminating because it's NOT equal, it's saying it IS different.



It's not changing the name. It's creating a new legal concept.

And, actually, I'm not for "equal but different", but rather for taking all legal meaning out of marriage. Have the legal part implemented via a civil union (signed parallel with a marriage, applied retroactively). That would allow people to have choice of how they prefer to manage their union - select the commitments they wish and don't wish to make. Ranging from simple recognition of cohabiting to absolute union with shared property and rights.

What Vault 10 is suggesting is something that I entirely agree with. In that the easiest method is to just take christian religious morality out of the government by eliminated the concept of "marriage" as a legal term.

So under this system there are no more "marriage licenses" there are only "civil union licenses" that are handed out to two partners of any gender who may or may not have a romantic relationship together (frankly something that isn't the governments business) that give the same benefits that marriage once gave.

Thus it isn't separate but equal because there is no more marriage at all there is only civil unions. Marriage then becomes a private and/or religious issue, which again is outside the scope of the government.

Also I believe that to claim that people must accept social attitudes of a state infringes on their personal liberty. So you can't teach children that homosexuality is a normal practice, and you shouldn't teach that it is abnormal you just teach that it exists and leave it up to the children to formulate their own opinions based on their rearing and personal experience.

What you can teach is tolerance for these behaviors because if you aren't tolerant you are infringing on others civil rights. The only things you shouldn't teach tolerance for are criminal activities, as these cannot infringe civil rights because you don't have a right to do these things. So you teach kids to tolerate homosexuals because homosexuality isn't illegal but you teach them to not tolerate pedophiles because pedophilia is illegal.

So in short all Jimmy needs to know is that Billy has two dads when parents visit for family day and anything else he needs to know should be handled by his parents. If Jimmy's dad tells him Billy is going to hell and Jimmy tells Billy that he should be punished by the school, if Jimmy's dad complains his argument is without merit because the school isn't telling Jimmy he needs to accept Billy's family but that Jimmy must respect that in our society we need to be tolerant of others decisions as long as they follow the laws of said society.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm repeating myself, I just want to make sure my points are clear.

What Vault 10 is suggesting is something that I entirely agree with. In that the easiest method is to just take christian religious morality out of the government by eliminated the concept of "marriage" as a legal term.

So under this system there are no more "marriage licenses" there are only "civil union licenses" that are handed out to two partners of any gender who may or may not have a romantic relationship together (frankly something that isn't the governments business) that give the same benefits that marriage once gave.

Thus it isn't separate but equal because there is no more marriage at all there is only civil unions. Marriage then becomes a private and/or religious issue, which again is outside the scope of the government.

Also I believe that to claim that people must accept social attitudes of a state infringes on their personal liberty. So you can't teach children that homosexuality is a normal practice, and you shouldn't teach that it is abnormal you just teach that it exists and leave it up to the children to formulate their own opinions based on their rearing and personal experience.

What you can teach is tolerance for these behaviors because if you aren't tolerant you are infringing on others civil rights. The only things you shouldn't teach tolerance for are criminal activities, as these cannot infringe civil rights because you don't have a right to do these things. So you teach kids to tolerate homosexuals because homosexuality isn't illegal but you teach them to not tolerate pedophiles because pedophilia is illegal.

So in short all Jimmy needs to know is that Billy has two dads when parents visit for family day and anything else he needs to know should be handled by his parents. If Jimmy's dad tells him Billy is going to hell and Jimmy tells Billy that he should be punished by the school, if Jimmy's dad complains his argument is without merit because the school isn't telling Jimmy he needs to accept Billy's family but that Jimmy must respect that in our society we need to be tolerant of others decisions as long as they follow the laws of said society.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm repeating myself, I just want to make sure my points are clear.

Don't know about how things are were you are, but in most of the world, marriage IS a civil union.
It can be blessed by any kind of religion you'd want, but without the legally binding, CIVIL part of it, it's completely irrelevant.

So why bother changing the name? It won't catch on anyway, or are you going to ask your GF to civil unionise you?

Points read, points accepted, debate conceded.
Thanks. :)

On a related issue tough could one use the arguments given for same-sex marriage to help promote multiple marriages?
I see no reason why not, especially if those arguments emphasize the "consenting adults" angle. However, I would advise that a person should acknowledge the functional differences of multiple marriage for legal purposes and not automatically attack all such concerns as based in bigotry.

On an unrelated issue I like your new avatar even if it is somewhat unnerving.
Thanks. That's the effect I was going for. :D

It seems to me that this is primarily an issue of the public school system, not one of gay marriage. Enrolling a child in public school is in and of itself giving that school permission to teach your child whatever is on the curriculum (so you should review it first). Public schools tend to teach to the majority's viewpoint and if you disagree with the majority, public school is probably not going to be your best option. For example, I do not want my sons to be taught that Columbus was a kind and admirable human being who brought civilization to the Indians. Therefore, my options are either to inquire at start of school when this lesson will be taught and pull him out on those days, or to find an alternative school. What we teach our children is of course our business and not the governments, but enrolling our children in a government funded institution is a parenting choice that logically leads to our children being taught what the government considers important. I hope that people will not alter their vote on proposition 8 because they disagree with the way our public school system is run. Gay marriage and public education are two distinct and separate issues.

It seems to me that this is primarily an issue of the public school system, not one of gay marriage. Enrolling a child in public school is in and of itself giving that school permission to teach your child whatever is on the curriculum (so you should review it first). Public schools tend to teach to the majority's viewpoint and if you disagree with the majority, public school is probably not going to be your best option. For example, I do not want my sons to be taught that Columbus was a kind and admirable human being who brought civilization to the Indians. Therefore, my options are either to inquire at start of school when this lesson will be taught and pull him out on those days, or to find an alternative school. What we teach our children is of course our business and not the governments, but enrolling our children in a government funded institution is a parenting choice that logically leads to our children being taught what the government considers important. I hope that people will not alter their vote on proposition 8 because they disagree with the way our public school system is run. Gay marriage and public education are two distinct and separate issues.
You would pull your child out of a class over such a relatively minor disagreement (as compared to current issues of social equality)? My family handled stuff like that differently. History was a frequent topic around the dinner table (complete with heated disagreements about it), and children were strongly encouraged to read the (quite advanced) books of history that the house was filled with. And when I came home with a low grade on a paper that was written with reference to books other than the approved classroom textbook, my mother held meetings with my teachers and explained things to them. Result: My assignment grades tended not to coincide perfectly with my overall class grades, the former always reflecting criticism for going off the class plan, and the latter always placing me 3-5 grade levels above my class.

The life lesson I learned was that the official story is not always THE story. I would not have learned that valuable lesson if my family had just shielded me from differing opinions and differing sources of information. Leaving me in the general class and allowing the conflict to play out around me was actually beneficial, in my opinion.

So why bother changing the name? It won't catch on anyway, or are you going to ask your GF to civil unionise you?


No I'm going to ask my girlfriend to marry me (in time if I'm lucky). But that will be an entirely religious affair distant from the government.

Then I may or may not make my wife my "legal partner". Of course if my wife's best friend has a better family insurance policy then me and she needs medication then I'd like her to enter a civil union with them.

I have no problem with homosexuals getting married whether they be in a christian church, a pagan temple or by a ship's captain. However to me my marriage is a religious rite and is quite separate and different then civil marriage. I'm not saying that it's any better or worse then anyone else's definition of marriage but like me many Americans consider marriage a religious affair. I want separate terminology because what the government considers "marriage" has nothing to do with love or sexuality or friendship. All government marriage is (or at least should be) is a business arrangement between two parties that can be dissolved at any time.

Gays getting married doesn't bother me on a personal level. I believe as a couple they should have all the same rights as far as adoption, spousal privileges and tax exemptions that straight couples have. But to me it will never be an acceptable religious practice and as such I cannot recognize it as a proper marriage.

Of course on the reverse side if you use my system and instead of saying civil union you use marriage it cheapens the concept of marriage in a homosexual couples eyes because in my system you don't need to have any romantic attachment nor sexual activity to be considered "married". Thus I feel that marriage should be kept unofficial so that it can maintain it's specialness to the couple that chooses to get married. After all most of us would rather have a grand wedding celebration rather than a bland courthouse wedding.

Enrolling a child in public school is in and of itself giving that school permission to teach your child whatever is on the curriculum (so you should review it first).


What do you do when you have no other options because it is illegal (truancy) to withhold a child from school.

So your telling me that a parent (unable to homeschool for argument's sake) in a rural school district (so no alternative nearby public school) gives blanket permission to allow whatever the school wants to teach to that child without recourse because the alternative (withdrawal from school) is a crime?

To me parents should have choices on how to raise their child. Schools are there to educate not indoctrinate. Giving opinions without presenting the bias openly shouldn't be allowed in any government institution.

I am slightly disturbed at how many people are assuming parents are idiots...

>.>

And I wonder how many of those are parents. Because one thing I have found out being a father, when you have kids and you realize that you are responsible for them, a lot of the views you had change drastically.

Of course, I think it is so funny, that those that have never raised kids know more than those of us that have raised them.

*ponders*

Wouldn't that be "this century"?

You'd really hope it was this century, wouldn't you.

Don't know about how things are were you are, but in most of the world, marriage IS a civil union.
It is, indeed, a form of civil union. The suggestion is to offer other forms.

US is not a part of "most of the world"; what do you expect from the only country that still isn't metricated?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act


So why bother changing the name? It won't catch on anyway, or are you going to ask your GF to civil unionise you?
It's not changing the name. Rather, it's building, from the ground up, a system of civil union between individuals, which offers more flexible solutions, benefiting all of them, including simple heterosexual couples. For instance, it will allow to recognize a relationship between people who don't want yet to enter such a binding deal as marriage, but want some of the mutual rights it grants.

Such a union can equate to marriage or not, at will of the partners. The word "marriage" will become a popular name for most forms of it, rather than a legal term.

So why bother changing the name? It won't catch on anyway, or are you going to ask your GF to civil unionise you?The differences between "marriage" and "civil union":
Instead of getting "married", we get "civilized"
Instead of holding it in a "church", we hold it in a "union hall"
Instead of a "preacher", we have a "union organizer"
Instead of exchanging "rings", we exchange "union labels"
Afterwards instead of "marital discord", we have "civil disorder"
If one partner "cheats", it is called "treason against the union"
If it doesn't work out, instead of a "divorce", we have a "secession"

The differences between "marriage" and "civil union":
Instead of getting "married", we get "civilized"
Instead of holding it in a "church", we hold it in a "union hall"
Instead of a "preacher", we have a "union organizer"
Instead of exchanging "rings", we exchange "union labels"
Afterwards instead of "marital discord", we have "civil disorder"
If one partner "cheats", it is called "treason against the union"
If it doesn't work out, instead of a "divorce", we have a "secession"
And here's the song you play during the "civilization":
http://unionsong.com/u103.html

but:

1. is it "normal?" Doesn't that depend on your personal opinion of what is normalcy? Gay marriage is NOT normal if you gauge normalcy by what has been traditionally accepted as being a "legitimate" marriage. ON the other hand, I'll concede that an equal right to marry has not always been accepted as a legitimate right for blacks in the U.S. either. That is not the point though, or is it? Is sexual attraction within the same gender as "normal" as hetrosexual attraction across races?

2. Even if "normal" should a parent be allowed to "opt out" for his child? If not, why shouldn't a parent be allowed to determine when, where and what his child is taught about marriage and the interrelationships of the sexes? If not, why should I trust the government (in the form of our public school system) to teach my child about sex and marriage? What makes the opinion of government officials "more right" on the issue than that of the parents who live with and raise a child each day?

EDIT: just for the record here, I'll state I could care less one way or another. Further, I think a parent should have the right to "opt out" for his/her child in ANY discussion regarding sex/marriage they want. Marriage is cultural matter as much as it is a legal one, but morality is something that cannot be legistated. If a parent thinks homosexuality is immoral, I think he should be allowed to "opt out" his child. Likewise for Heterosexual marriage.

I couldn't agree more. It is not the place of anyone but the parents and who they allow to teach their children about sex and what is morrally acceptable.

I couldn't agree more. It is not the place of anyone but the parents and who they allow to teach their children about sex and what is morrally acceptable.
If I recall correctly, every single person taking that stance on this issue has ignored the question of whether they would give parents the same rights in regard to teaching their kids that black people are not equal to white people or excluding references to black people in presenting what normal society looks like. Do you feel like taking a crack at that one?

Let's look at gay marriage (or civil union or whatever) this way.

The main argument for gay unions is that "people should be able to love whoever they want." That's great, however, let's look at this hypothetical situation.

Everyone in the world decides to love someone of the same gender.

What happens now? Well you end up with the world ending because men physically cannot reproduce with other men, women cannot reproduce with other women. What happens? No more children. No more future. No more humans.

So you see, it is not only about loving who you want. It goes against nature (or God or whatever you want) to have same-sex marriages.

Let's look at gay marriage (or civil union or whatever) this way.

The main argument for gay unions is that "people should be able to love whoever they want." That's great, however, let's look at this hypothetical situation.

Everyone in the world decides to love someone of the same gender.

What happens now? Well you end up with the world ending because men physically cannot reproduce with other men, women cannot reproduce with other women. What happens? No more children. No more future. No more humans.

So you see, it is not only about loving who you want. It goes against nature (or God or whatever you want) to have same-sex marriages.

What about people who choose not to have kids?

they still have the ability to have them

Let's look at gay marriage (or civil union or whatever) this way.

The main argument for gay unions is that "people should be able to love whoever they want." That's great, however, let's look at this hypothetical situation.

Everyone in the world decides to love someone of the same gender.

What happens now? Well you end up with the world ending because men physically cannot reproduce with other men, women cannot reproduce with other women. What happens? No more children. No more future. No more humans.

So you see, it is not only about loving who you want. It goes against nature (or God or whatever you want) to have same-sex marriages.
No. Or else account for the following:

1) All the legal and religiously sanctified marriages between men and women who choose not to produce children.

2) The fact that a promise to produce children is NOT a part of any marriage ceremony, whether civil or religious.

3) The fact that failure to produce children does not automatically annul a marriage by rendering it invalid.

4) The billions of children born into the world without a marriage being involved in any way at all.

Bottom line: Marriage and reproduction are NOT connected, and reproduction is NOT the point of marriage.

But thanks for playing.

they still have the ability to have them

And gays can still get artificially inseminated.

they still have the ability to have them
So do gay people. Gay =/= infertile.

EDIT: So do unmarried people. Marriage does not make you fertile.

Let's look at gay marriage (or civil union or whatever) this way.

The main argument for gay unions is that "people should be able to love whoever they want." That's great, however, let's look at this hypothetical situation.

Everyone in the world decides to love someone of the same gender.

However let's look at this hypothetical situation. What if everyone in the world...turned into rabbits.

Now wait a minute, I know what you're going to say, but bare with me here. Everyone is rabbits, rabbits as far as the eye can see. But not just rabbits. Giant, intelligent rabbits. And these hyper intelligent rabbits develop weapons of mass carrot destruction.

And the evil carrot people of Vergon VII, perceiving these once man now rabbit people with their carrot destroying technology as a threat, so they declare war on Earth/Planet Watership Down. This war continues for thirty million years, with massive casualties on both sides. however one brave rabbit, and one brave carrot person of Vergon VII, flaunt the age old hostilities between their people, and give in to their forbidden love.

Shortly thereafter, a half man, half carrot, half rabbit, half Winnebago child is born, and hailed as the new messiah. The war is ended, old grudges put aside, and in time, the two species become one, and what was once humanity has now turned into a mishmash of fuzzy ears and carrotine.

Is this what you want? I know I sure as hell don't.

So, kill the fucking carrots.

And if you consider this post nonsensical and absurd, yours is not any better.

No. Or else account for the following:

1) All the legal and religiously sanctified marriages between men and women who choose not to produce children.

2) The fact that a promise to produce children is NOT a part of any marriage ceremony, whether civil or religious.

3) The fact that failure to produce children does not automatically annul a marriage by rendering it invalid.

4) The billions of children born into the world without a marriage being involved in any way at all.

Bottom line: Marriage and reproduction are NOT connected, and reproduction is NOT the point of marriage.

But thanks for playing.
But the ONLY WAY to reproduce is through a man and woman.

Where did I say that failure to produce children annuls a marriage?

However let's look at this hypothetical situation. What if everyone in the world...turned into rabbits.

Now wait a minute, I know what you're going to say, but bare with me here. Everyone is rabbits, rabbits as far as the eye can see. But not just rabbits. Giant, intelligent rabbits. And these hyper intelligent rabbits develop weapons of mass carrot destruction.

And the evil carrot people of Vergon VII, perceiving these once man now rabbit people with their carrot destroying technology as a threat, so they declare war on Earth/Planet Watership Down. This war continues for thirty million years, with massive casualties on both sides. however one brave rabbit, and one brave carrot person of Vergon VII, flaunt the age old hostilities between their people, and give in to their forbidden love.

Shortly thereafter, a half man, half carrot, half rabbit, half Winnebago child is born, and hailed as the new messiah. The war is ended, old grudges put aside, and in time, the two species become one, and what was once humanity has now turned into a mishmash of fuzzy ears and carrotine.



wtf does that mean?

However let's look at this hypothetical situation. What if everyone in the world...turned into rabbits.

Now wait a minute, I know what you're going to say, but bare with me here. Everyone is rabbits, rabbits as far as the eye can see. But not just rabbits. Giant, intelligent rabbits. And these hyper intelligent rabbits develop weapons of mass carrot destruction.

And the evil carrot people of Vergon VII, perceiving these once man now rabbit people with their carrot destroying technology as a threat, so they declare war on Earth/Planet Watership Down. This war continues for thirty million years, with massive casualties on both sides. however one brave rabbit, and one brave carrot person of Vergon VII, flaunt the age old hostilities between their people, and give in to their forbidden love.

Shortly thereafter, a half man, half carrot, half rabbit, half Winnebago child is born, and hailed as the new messiah. The war is ended, old grudges put aside, and in time, the two species become one, and what was once humanity has now turned into a mishmash of fuzzy ears and carrotine.

Is this what you want? I know I sure as hell don't.

So, kill the fucking carrots.

And if you consider this post nonsensical and absurd, yours is not any better.

/thread

they still have the ability to have them

What about infertile couples? Should they not be allowed to marry either?

my friends mom and dad were told they could not have children

guess what happened

they had 6

they were told they were infertile yet they still had kids gay couple have NO POSSIBLE way to have kids

my friends mom and dad were told they could not have children

guess what happened

they had 6

they were told they were infertile yet they still had kids gay couple have NO POSSIBLE way to have kids

You've never heard of IVF, have you?

No, I suppose you haven't.

And anecdotes are cute, but don't really serve much purpose in the process of discussion.

my friends mom and dad were told they could not have children

guess what happened

they had 6

they were told they were infertile yet they still had kids gay couple have NO POSSIBLE way to have kids

I'm sure they can just choose to be straight long enough to get knocked up.

But the ONLY WAY to reproduce is through a man and woman.

Where did I say that failure to produce children annuls a marriage?
You didn't. I said that and asked you to account for it if you are going to try to claim that marriage is in any way connected to procreation.

Yes, you need to combine genetic material from a female with genetic material from a male to produce a new human being. That is true.

But you don't need a man and a woman to fuck each other for that to happen, thanks to miracles of modern science. So, in the real world that we actually live in, your argument that reproduction requires people to be heterosexual is bull.

Also, since time immemorial, gay people have been biting the bullet and fucking outside their preference for the sake of making kids, so on the point of basic ability (which you cited), you don't have to be hetero to reproduce, either.

So that kills that part of your attempted argument from two angles. Gay people can indeed reproduce. Next:

Even if a man and woman do want to fuck each other to make a third person, they don't have to be married to each other to do that. More than 10,000 years of human history bears that out.

So that kills the part of your attempted argument that tries to link marriage to reproduction.

So, in conclusion, your argument that marriage is between a man and a woman because you need a man and a woman to produce babies is nonsense and it fails because gays can reproduce and marriage is not connected to the making of babies.

my friends mom and dad were told they could not have children

guess what happened

they had 6

they were told they were infertile yet they still had kids gay couple have NO POSSIBLE way to have kids

Ar Ti Fic Ial In Sem In A Tion

I'm sure they can just choose to be straight long enough to get knocked up.

Or there's always the option of the Turkey baster for lesbians :eek:

Seriously, with the way science is going, I doubt that's going to be the case any more for gay couples with 10-15 years. Advances are being made which would allow the development of a feotus from the genetic material of two individuals, irrespective of gender.

And gays can still get artificially inseminated.

Mostly the lesbians. Gay men might find themselves inseminated, but usualy not artificially.

Let's look at gay marriage (or civil union or whatever) this way.

The main argument for gay unions is that "people should be able to love whoever they want." That's great, however, let's look at this hypothetical situation.

Everyone in the world decides to love someone of the same gender.

What happens now? Well you end up with the world ending because men physically cannot reproduce with other men, women cannot reproduce with other women. What happens? No more children. No more future. No more humans.

So you see, it is not only about loving who you want. It goes against nature (or God or whatever you want) to have same-sex marriages.

Fail.

Even though I m married to my wife, there is nothing compelling me to have (more) children with her, and nothing to really stop me from being the father of children with other people.

So - even in the super unlikely event that your story had any significance, just being married to your own gender wouldn't mean that the human race dies out - people would just marry the people they wanted to, and have children with the people they had to. Not so difficult.

Mostly the lesbians. Gay men might find themselves inseminated, but usualy not artificially.

But gay men can use their semen to inseminate a woman artificially, even if they're against the idea of having sex with a woman.

It is my God-given right as a parant to determine if my child is taught algebra. In my household, when we want to know what x equals, we take it to the Lord in prayer. x equals what God says it does- pure and simple. And I don't want no New World Order schools trying to dilute the Christian American values that I am trying to pass down to my child. Biblical values like rape, incest and genocide.

But gay men can use their semen to inseminate a woman artificially, even if they're against the idea of having sex with a woman.

Your serious response is bringing down my smart ass comment . . .:(

Let's look at gay marriage (or civil union or whatever) this way.

The main argument for gay unions is that "people should be able to love whoever they want." That's great, however, let's look at this hypothetical situation.

Everyone in the world decides to love someone of the same gender.

What happens now? Well you end up with the world ending because men physically cannot reproduce with other men, women cannot reproduce with other women. What happens? No more children. No more future. No more humans.

So you see, it is not only about loving who you want. It goes against nature (or God or whatever you want) to have same-sex marriages.


Cute...:rolleyes:

And could you please explain my 7 month pregnant lesbian neighbour?

no ?

thought not.

Nice try trolly-boy, but no dice.

Let's look at gay marriage (or civil union or whatever) this way.

The main argument for gay unions is that "people should be able to love whoever they want." That's great, however, let's look at this hypothetical situation.

Everyone in the world decides to love someone of the same gender.

What happens now? Well you end up with the world ending because men physically cannot reproduce with other men, women cannot reproduce with other women. What happens? No more children. No more future. No more humans.

So you see, it is not only about loving who you want. It goes against nature (or God or whatever you want) to have same-sex marriages.Hey, bright one. Married ten years. No kids. Never want kids. If I got pregnant I'd have an abortion. If every woman in the world thought that way, no next genertion. Planning to bar me from marraige?

Give yourself a minute to think.

::sigh::

How I see it is this:

It is a parent's right to teach their children about their (a parent's) views about various morals and ethics.

It is a school's right to educate children in other people's views about various morals and ethics.

That story is not intended as a "How To" guide for homosexual sex anymore than a story talking about a mother and a father is a "How To" on heterosexual sex.

It would probably surprise the Parker family to learn that there are MANY children's books about same-sex families, along with interracial families, single-parent families, grandparent-as-primary-parent families, foster families and so on.

Unfortunately, these "family" groups are only interested in perpetuating the MYTH of the "nuclear" family - one husband (who works at the office all day), one wife (who stays at home, raising children and cooking in pearls), 2.5 children (not joking on that stat either), one dog and a white-picket fence.

They have no knowledge, no compassion, no concern and no insight into what it ACTUALLY means to be a family. They are blinded by a burning desire to indoctrinate Americans into believing that there is only ONE correct way to live. They exist solely to instigate fear and perpetuate discrimination against a majority because they are so miserable with their own wretched existence.

I forgot to add something, they also like to bolster the suburban housewife practice of putting your nose in other people's business - where it doesn't fucking belong.

::sigh::

How I see it is this:

It is a parent's right to teach their children about their (a parent's) views about various morals and ethics.

It is a school's right to educate children in other people's views about various morals and ethics.

That story is not intended as a "How To" guide for homosexual sex anymore than a story talking about a mother and a father is a "How To" on heterosexual sex.

It would probably surprise the Parker family to learn that there are MANY children's books about same-sex families, along with interracial families, single-parent families, grandparent-as-primary-parent families, foster families and so on.

Unfortunately, these "family" groups are only interested in perpetuating the MYTH of the "nuclear" family - one husband (who works at the office all day), one wife (who stays at home, raising children and cooking in pearls), 2.5 children (not joking on that stat either), one dog and a white-picket fence.

They have no knowledge, no compassion, no concern and no insight into what it ACTUALLY means to be a family. They are blinded by a burning desire to indoctrinate Americans into believing that there is only ONE correct way to live. They exist solely to instigate fear and perpetuate discrimination against a majority because they are so miserable with their own wretched existence.

I forgot to add something, they also like to bolster the suburban housewife practice of putting your nose in other people's business - where it doesn't fucking belong.

The real irony of adhering to the nuclear family myth is - of course - that it didn't exist a hundred years ago.

Let's look at gay marriage (or civil union or whatever) this way. [...]
Everyone in the world decides to love someone of the same gender.
What happens now? Well you end up with the world ending because men physically cannot reproduce with other men, women cannot reproduce with other women. What happens? No more children. No more future. No more humans.
Nonsense. Women can reproduce with other women, and men can reproduce with other men using artificial womb.


But the ONLY WAY to reproduce is through a man and woman.
Not only isn't it the only way, but it's an old, inefficient, and wasteful one. It puts a woman out of the workforce for half a year, and she has to follow fairly strict rules (no smoking, no alcohol, low stress) not to endanger the child.
A woman's childbirth capacity is limited, and a reproducible woman takes at least 12 years to grow; or 18 if we don't want to damage her body. And, being a human, a woman is fairly high-maintenance. Artificial womb technologies promise much cheaper and faster reproduction - to the point that even middle-class people will be able to afford individually-grown spare parts in the future.

However let's look at this hypothetical situation. What if everyone in the world...turned into rabbits.

Now wait a minute, I know what you're going to say, but bare with me here. Everyone is rabbits, rabbits as far as the eye can see. But not just rabbits. Giant, intelligent rabbits. And these hyper intelligent rabbits develop weapons of mass carrot destruction.

And the evil carrot people of Vergon VII, perceiving these once man now rabbit people with their carrot destroying technology as a threat, so they declare war on Earth/Planet Watership Down. This war continues for thirty million years, with massive casualties on both sides. however one brave rabbit, and one brave carrot person of Vergon VII, flaunt the age old hostilities between their people, and give in to their forbidden love.

Shortly thereafter, a half man, half carrot, half rabbit, half Winnebago child is born, and hailed as the new messiah. The war is ended, old grudges put aside, and in time, the two species become one, and what was once humanity has now turned into a mishmash of fuzzy ears and carrotine.

Is this what you want? I know I sure as hell don't.

So, kill the fucking carrots.

And if you consider this post nonsensical and absurd, yours is not any better.

I really want to see this made into a movie now. :D

I don't think any of the posts so far have addressed one of the more disturbing details of that video: why are the Parkers storing paperback books on the stove? Sure, they try to hide it and make the family seem normal, but you can clearly see in the video (at about 1:55 in) that the father pulls out the book they're discussing from its storage spot -- on the stove's front burner.

Now I know it's not PC to criticize the many pro-arson families out there, but I'm going to put my foot down on this one: that kind of attitude toward fire safety is immoral. Those parents shouldn't be allowed to have their kids opt out of learning about the dangers of fire (which is what they clearly want, they're just using the whole gay-marriage issue as a smokescreen,) and they should be ashamed of themselves for duping poor Tony Perkins into becoming an unwitting mouthpiece for the radical Burnist agenda.

In a proper Christian-centered household, books are for burning.

When they got to the 'indoctrination' and 'religious' BS I had to quit watching or kill my computer...

Then you missed the laugh when the father almost began to cry :-)

Re: the video

I did a google search on the book mentioned and here is a link to a site that posts the "objectionable" passages. Who's in a family (http://www.article8.org/docs/news_events/parker/diversity_book.htm).

For those who don't want to follow the link, the parts they're objecting to are . . .

Text: "A family can be made up in many different ways." (Note how they place the same-sex partners among the regular families, interracial family, to reinforce in the child's mind that homosexual relationships are no different.)

Text: "Laura and Kyle live with their two moms, Joyce and Emily, and a poodle named Daisy. It takes all four of them to give Daisy her bath." The book uses subtle but powerful emotions to normalize homosexual relationships in the minds of the young children.

Text: "Robin's family is made up of her dad, Clifford, her dad's partner, Henry, and Robin's cat, Sassy. Clifford and Henry take turns making dinner for their family."

(the bold bits are from the sites author, the underlined bit is a statement I found . . . interesting to say the least).

Anyone still want to argue that this is any way about "introducing children to sexuality prepubescently" any more than Snow White marrying Prince Charming is?

Cute...:rolleyes:

And could you please explain my 7 month pregnant lesbian neighbour?

no ?

thought not.

Nice try trolly-boy, but no dice.

Easy, she isn't a true lesbian.:wink:

Ok, I confess to being relatively conservative in my views (politically I consider myself to be more of a Libertarian than anything else) however, this just floored me. It is clearly staged and a bit over the top, however, I do see the flip side and think the parents have a bit of a legitimate gripe (assuming that the facts are as claimed and portrayed).

So, what do you guys think? Should a parent be allowed to "opt out" for his/her kid when it comes to discussions of marriage (gay or otherwise)?

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1815825713/bctid1819819843

Irony number 1) The parents in question think school is intolerant of their views. Intolerant.

2) Abrahamic religions at it again.

NEVERTHELESS, parents have the right for their child's education within certain boundaries. I mean necrophiliac parents shouldnt be able to teach their "values" to children. Of course, I guess christianity is more acceptable than necrophilia. However, I think theres a good possibility that these parents may be "bad parents" if one of their children is gay while the video clip portrays them as good parents. But anyway, as I said they have a right to their childrens education. It seems gay marriage seems to represent something greater than itself so I guess a reasonable strategy would be to divorce issues. Like making gay marriage just about civil rights for gays rather than having any implications on education.

Irony number 1) The parents in question think school is intolerant of their views. Intolerant.

2) Abrahamic religions at it again.

NEVERTHELESS, parents have the right for their child's education within certain boundaries. I mean necrophiliac parents shouldnt be able to teach their "values" to children. Of course, I guess christianity is more acceptable than necrophilia. However, I think theres a good possibility that these parents may be "bad parents" if one of their children is gay while the video clip portrays them as good parents. But anyway, as I said they have a right to their childrens education. It seems gay marriage seems to represent something greater than itself so I guess a reasonable strategy would be to divorce issues. Like making gay marriage just about civil rights for gays rather than having any implications on education.
Impossible. One of a schools primary functions is to socialize students. Remember, schools mirror society and all that good stuff. It is impossible to change society and not have it reflected in schools. Gay families now legally exist in the same capacity as heterosexual families in the state of Massachusetts. As such, they can no longer be ignored or marginalized. This isn't a moral lesson. It isn't a value session or judgement call...gay families exist.

It is in the interest of the state to have this concept introduced to all students in the interest of a cohesive society that is tolerant of law abiding citizens.

Is anyone else reminded of Scooby Doo?

I wanted to raise my kids to be ignorant bigots like myself, and I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddlesome schools!

Wait, parents have a right to raise their kids to be homophobic douchebags now?

*Rummages to find where in the constitution this is written*

Nope, can't find it. Halp plox?

they still have the ability to have them

When did gay people become sterile?

However let's look at this hypothetical situation. What if everyone in the world...turned into rabbits.

Now wait a minute, I know what you're going to say, but bare with me here. Everyone is rabbits, rabbits as far as the eye can see. But not just rabbits. Giant, intelligent rabbits. And these hyper intelligent rabbits develop weapons of mass carrot destruction.

And the evil carrot people of Vergon VII, perceiving these once man now rabbit people with their carrot destroying technology as a threat, so they declare war on Earth/Planet Watership Down. This war continues for thirty million years, with massive casualties on both sides. however one brave rabbit, and one brave carrot person of Vergon VII, flaunt the age old hostilities between their people, and give in to their forbidden love.

Shortly thereafter, a half man, half carrot, half rabbit, half Winnebago child is born, and hailed as the new messiah. The war is ended, old grudges put aside, and in time, the two species become one, and what was once humanity has now turned into a mishmash of fuzzy ears and carrotine.

Is this what you want? I know I sure as hell don't.

So, kill the fucking carrots.

And if you consider this post nonsensical and absurd, yours is not any better.
This is SO going in my quote archive to call up at some later date :)

I really want to see this made into a movie now. :D

I am thinking a Mel Brooks style of film myself

It is, indeed, a form of civil union. The suggestion is to offer other forms.

US is not a part of "most of the world"; what do you expect from the only country that still isn't metricated?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act



It's not changing the name. Rather, it's building, from the ground up, a system of civil union between individuals, which offers more flexible solutions, benefiting all of them, including simple heterosexual couples. For instance, it will allow to recognize a relationship between people who don't want yet to enter such a binding deal as marriage, but want some of the mutual rights it grants.
Such a union can equate to marriage or not, at will of the partners. The word "marriage" will become a popular name for most forms of it, rather than a legal term.

It exists. It's called a common law marriage.

There's no point in re-creating something we've already got. All we need to do is extend the exisiting legislation.

It exists. It's called a common law marriage.
There's no point in re-creating something we've already got. All we need to do is extend the exisiting legislation.
It's not the same. Common law marriage is an inherently flawed mechanism for recognition of never legally registered fact, which can easily go wrong either way.

Rather than cure the symptoms by half-recognizing half-marriages, it would be better to cure the cause - binding of certain legal rights to one arbitrarily selected variety of relationships.

Just before logging on here I was helping the MP, for whom I work, with her speech that she will be giving in the Victorian Parliament this evening. She is speaking in support of the Assisted Reproductive Technologies Bill which, among other things, will allow IVF treatment and surrogacy to single women and gay couples.

At work today a constituent rang and I quote, "Lesbianism and homosexuality are an abomination under the Lord. They have no rights."

So much hate.

It's not the same. Common law marriage is an inherently flawed mechanism for recognition of never legally registered fact, which can easily go wrong either way.

Rather than cure the symptoms by half-recognizing half-marriages, it would be better to cure the cause - binding of certain legal rights to one arbitrarily selected variety of relationships.

How is it flawed? It gives couples living together as couples but unwilling to take the legal step of becoming married the option to have some of the same rights as actually married couples.
Or are you seriously suggesting people should be made to register each tep of their relationship legally? That should be fun... "Where can I register for taking someone out for a date?" - "Do I need a special registration for having sex at the first date rather than the 3rd?" - "We're opening a joint bank account... were do we register that now? And how will it affect our car insurance?"

Currently, homosexuals have the right to marry in the great state of California.

A yes vote on Prop 8 is a vote to take away people's rights.

There's no way around that, no matter how much the Republicans would like people to think that there is. In my opinion, you may as well be taking away their right to vote. Or the right of people of different races to marry, as was once illegal in many parts of the nation.

The California Republicans are liars and authoritarian bigots. Any campaign ads from them should be taken with an enormous quantity of salt.

How is it flawed? It gives couples living together as couples but unwilling to take the legal step of becoming married the option to have some of the same rights as actually married couples.
Or are you seriously suggesting people should be made to register each tep of their relationship legally? That should be fun... "Where can I register for taking someone out for a date?" - "Do I need a special registration for having sex at the first date rather than the 3rd?" - "We're opening a joint bank account... were do we register that now? And how will it affect our car insurance?"

Hey if I was a bureaucrat I would be in full support of that idea.

Of course you need to get a license and pass the test, the same goes for picking up a random unless you have gone through special training then you aren't allowed, and we will have undercover agents in the bars to ensure no one is cheating the system. You even have to get register before you propose and when engaged and pay for a special engagement license.

That idea might just help the US government and their little debt problem.

How is it flawed? It gives couples living together as couples but unwilling to take the legal step of becoming married the option to have some of the same rights as actually married couples.
Some, and if they are recognized as living together.

Or are you seriously suggesting people should be made to register each tep of their relationship legally?
No, I suggest the ability to register it at a desired level, with desired rights, rather than just the boolean "take the whole package or go away" approach.

Logically speaking, this video has no valid points to make. It takes one extreme example all the way down a slippery slope, claiming that "Oh my god, if same-sex marriage is allowed, mothers and fathers have no rights and will be sent to jail for disagreeing." It plays on emotions and fears, telling one side of a biased story.

What rubbish.

No, I suggest the ability to register it at a desired level, with desired rights, rather than just the boolean "take the whole package or go away" approach.
If you want a particular package of mutual obligations, you can draft a contract with precisely what you want in it.

If you want a particular package of mutual obligations, you can draft a contract with precisely what you want in it.

I've never liked this option. Why should one group (hetero couples) get an automatic contract by filling out a marriage license and paying a small fee, while other groups must engage a lawyer and create a complex web of documentation at significant expense?

Later, when you're at the hospital following a car accident, the hetero partner can attend and make life-changing decisions by answering one simple question ("Are you the spouse?"), and the other must head home to dig out the documentation to 'prove' their relationship.

It's a combination of contract law and societal mores, leavened with an unhealthy dose of emotion. Even straight couples have to deal with the emotional component if they want to vary the standard contract. ("Honey, I want you to sign this pre-nup." "Waaah, you don't love me!")

Vault 10's À la carte menu idea has merit for both groups. Let committed partners chose the legal ramifications that are right for them when they register their marriage / union with the state. That way, no one is discriminated against.

I think I should be able to opt out of having my children hear about arithmetic.

*nodnod*

I love the end.

Paraphrased:

"Do you understand the implications? If same-sex marriage is legalized, you'll actually have to TALK TO YOUR KIDS. Oh, the horror!"

Why should one group (hetero couples) get an automatic contract by filling out a marriage license and paying a small fee, while other groups must engage a lawyer and create a complex web of documentation at significant expense?
I am totally in favor of everyone being able to get the default contract. He seems to be arguing for the need to set up hundreds of different default contracts, although I do not see what the point of that is.

I love the end.

Paraphrased:

"Do you understand the implications? If same-sex marriage is legalized, you'll actually have to TALK TO YOUR KIDS. Oh, the horror!"

Call me a masochist but if and when I do have kids... I am looking forward to being able to talk openly about it and be their guide to the world. I want to have kids that ask tough questions. :p I sure as hell may not have all the answers but that shouldn't stop kids from asking.

Currently, homosexuals have the right to marry in the great state of California.

A yes vote on Prop 8 is a vote to take away people's rights.

There's no way around that, no matter how much the Republicans would like people to think that there is. In my opinion, you may as well be taking away their right to vote. Or the right of people of different races to marry, as was once illegal in many parts of the nation.

The California Republicans are liars and authoritarian bigots. Any campaign ads from them should be taken with an enormous quantity of salt.

:hail:

Call me a masochist but if and when I do have kids... I am looking forward to being able to talk openly about it and be their guide to the world. I want to have kids that ask tough questions. :p I sure as hell may not have all the answers but that shouldn't stop kids from asking.

"Why are roads always black, and not for instance blue, yellow or green ?"
"Why is the sky blue ?"

"Why are roads always black, and not for instance blue, yellow or green ?"
"Why is the sky blue ?"

"The roads are black because it hides the stain." ;)

"The sky is blue because of the way the atmosphere interacts with the various gases in the air. The hidden gases and particles you can't see reflect light allowing us to see the sky has "blue" during the day and it's 'black" at night because there is an absence of light."

Call me a masochist but if and when I do have kids... I am looking forward to being able to talk openly about it and be their guide to the world. I want to have kids that ask tough questions. :p I sure as hell may not have all the answers but that shouldn't stop kids from asking.

Curiosity in children is a good thing. =)

My mother's policy was essentially that if we were old enough to ask, we were old enough to know the answer. I don't see how that's a problem.

"Why are roads always black, and not for instance blue, yellow or green ?"
"Why is the sky blue ?"
Mommy? Why is the bride wearing white? -- Because this is the happiest day of her life!

Mommy? Why is the groom wearing black?

I think its brainwashing right wing nutjobs that are pushing this. Nor do I think that its a real video. It doesn't "confuse children", what confuses them is when their parents don't teach them about it first. I think its fine, unless they get into, "a straight man and woman fuck each other this way" and "two men/women fuck each other that way". I think parents should be notified, but parents have no right to , as someone else said "indoctrinate their children into their beliefs".

Mommy? Why is the bride wearing white? --

Because she expects us to believe she's actually a virgin.

Ok, I confess to being relatively conservative in my views (politically I consider myself to be more of a Libertarian than anything else) however, this just floored me. It is clearly staged and a bit over the top, however, I do see the flip side and think the parents have a bit of a legitimate gripe (assuming that the facts are as claimed and portrayed).

So, what do you guys think? Should a parent be allowed to "opt out" for his/her kid when it comes to discussions of marriage (gay or otherwise)?

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1815825713/bctid1819819843

After I got through vomiting, I had a few thoughts:


You gotta love an extended slippery slope argument.


How they dare teach anything to kids that their parents may not agree with 100%???!!!


They had better notify me before they teach that damn Euclidean geometry!!


They do a nice job of skipping over the fact that Parker was arrested -- not for his views on homosexuality -- but rather for trespassing after he refused to leave school property and Parker, at the time, claimed he was committing an act of "civil disobedience" and was willing to accept the consequences, and declared, “If I’m not under arrest then I’m not leaving.” All charges against Parker were eventually dropped.

They do a nice job of skipping over the fact that Parker was arrested -- not for his views on homosexuality -- but rather for trespassing after he refused to leave school property and Parker, at the time, claimed he was committing an act of "civil disobedience" and was willing to accept the consequences, and declared, “If I’m not under arrest then I’m not leaving.” All charges against Parker were eventually dropped.

I thought that might be the case. Somebody should have told Parker how civil disobedience works. Rosa Parks wasn't all "OMG you're arresting me?! Whatever did I do?" Pointing out the absurdity of what you're being arrested for works; faux naivete doesn't.

Curiosity in children is a good thing. =)

Then it's a good thing they aren't cats. :D

I think its brainwashing right wing nutjobs that are pushing this. Nor do I think that its a real video. It doesn't "confuse children", what confuses them is when their parents don't teach them about it first. I think its fine, unless they get into, "a straight man and woman fuck each other this way" and "two men/women fuck each other that way". I think parents should be notified, but parents have no right to , as someone else said "indoctrinate their children into their beliefs".

Why should parents be notified?

They talk about the child bringing home a 'diversity' book bag... which, I assume, is a set of books that the children are supposed to read that deal with topics of diversity. Further - the fact that they're bringing this bookbag HOME suggests that the parents are supposed to get involved.

Does the book teach about sex? Nothing in the clip suggests it does. Does it suggest anything about morality? Nothing in the clip EXCEPT for the parents CLAIMING that mentioning it equates to endorsing it as moral, suggests it does... and their argument is a bullshit argument.

So - what IS the content? It mentions that these sorts of families exist.

Why does THAT need notification?

Does the book teach about sex? Nothing in the clip suggests it does. Does it suggest anything about morality? Nothing in the clip EXCEPT for the parents CLAIMING that mentioning it equates to endorsing it as moral, suggests it does... and their argument is a bullshit argument.

Back in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14074488&postcount=199) I dug up information on the book, including the passages that people (including the parents in the video) are complaining about.

The worst part seems to be the claim that it takes Laura and Kyle as well as both their mommies to give their dog Daisy a bath.

OK, sorry for coming to this party late, but I have some comments.

Do you have kids? Do you want unknown adults talking to them about sensitive subjects without your knowledge? This was done, if the video is truthful, without first informing the parents. Do you think that children should be taught sensitive subjects without the parents being informed?

1. Unknown adults? We aren't talking about random strangers approaching children, we are talking about teachers in public schools.

2. Sensitive subject? The parents in the video are objecting to a picture book in which a single image is a family with two men and a child. What other than the extreme bigotry of the Parker's makes this sensitive?

Honestly, as far as I remember, there was no explicit sexual bias at all. It was more or less "Here's a guy part, here's a girl part. Semen fertilizes egg. Yadda yadda yadda. Not so much "This is right" as "This is procreation."

I don't see why it should be taught - neither of them, I mean. Sexuality isn't something like math where there's one solution. Also, I wouldn't like to see kindergartners taught about homosexuality at that young of an age. Sex ed is taught around the 7th grade - why not then? I don't see any less of an impact then than very early in development.

Excellent strawman. Nobody is talking about teaching explicit sex education to kindergartners.

But, while we on the subject, some degree of comprehensive sex education that is age-appropriate need not wait until the 7th Grade.

This is actually one of my issues here. What makes the school system/government better at what deciding whether and when a child should be taught something than the child's parents?

The video claims a parent was jailed for objecting to his child being taught something was morally "ok" that he did not believe was morally "ok." Such a power grab by a government entity bothers me a great deal. If the government is such a great determiner of morality, then why do my Congressmen and Senators get indicted? Why is Wall Street such a mess? etc. To me, the government's ability to determine and teach what is and is not moral behavior is highly questionable. Gitmo anyone?

First, the video lies. The parent was not jailed for objecting to his child being taught anything.

Second, you pose a false dichotomy where either government or parents must have absolute control over all information given to children. It doesn't work that way.

Why? Probably a topic for another thread, but I'll ask why here. Why is it bigotry? Ask a psychiatrist, he'll be glad to tell you that, for example, a pedophile truly is attracted to children and cannot help how he feels about them. Why is it bigotry to compare that sexual predisposition to homosexuality if neither one of them can truly help it? I'll happily say the same for heterosexuality.

So, you'd happily say there is no moral difference between heterosexuality and pedophilia? Somehow I doubt it.

And, if you've checked with a psychiatrist in the last several decades, you'd find that homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder.

I regret that I have to disagree with you. While I have no problem with gay marriage, polygamy, polyandry or polygyny or any other form of marriage so long as all the participants agree to it and no one is harmed, I feel strongly, that parents must be able to determine when and how their children are taught about sex, marriage, gender differences and morality, even if I disagree with their opinions on said subjects.

So schools shouldn't show pictures of boy or girls to students of any age, because that would be teaching about gender differences?

Get real.

I am slightly disturbed at how many people are assuming parents are idiots...

>.>

No. People are assuming based on good evidence that the particular parents featured in the OP video are idiots. Big difference.

Why do I need any grounds? But if you insist, on the grounds that this is still, in spite of the efforts of some, a substantially free country and any attempt to subvert that freedom, like telling parents that they have no rights where the education of their children is concerned, is deleterious to that freedom.

Again, false dichotomy between parents having "no rights" regarding the education of their children and parents having absolute rights.

You're getting emotional. I support individual rights in the face of a government growing ever more monolithic and intrusive into the smallest facets of our lives. You would have children learn that they have no rights in the face of the government. I would have governments learn that their rights in the face of the people are to be severely limited.

Pot, meet kettle.

Parents do have the right to prevent what they consider to be inappropriate information from being presented to their kids at inappropriate times. I was always taught that the time to teach kids about sex and gender related issues was when they asked about it. Telling them before they're ready confuses them. Part of the problem is that the state is setting an arbitrary age of readiness for this information. Part of the problem is that they are gearing the information for mass consumption and not for the individual ability of the child. Whether you like it or not, the parent, who, presumably, has the most intimate contact with the child, is the best judge of readiness and ability. Unless, of course, you advocate removing children from the care of all parents whose views don't agree with yours. I am really mystified by the current notion that parents are to be denied the rights and tools needed to raise their children and are at the same time held responsible for how their kids grow up. Teaching kids about diversity before they have any context in which to put it is confusing to them and counterproductive.

Meh. We are talking about picture books. Are pictures of girls or boys inappropriate because that relates to gender? Are pictures of couples inappropriate because that relates to sex and/or marriage?

And, I'm not being hyperbolic: we are talking here about parents who object to a picture of two men with a child!!

They don't have the power to campaign for it. So legalizing gay marriage will just shove their concerns under the bed, at the same time insulting most Christians.

The one-step, real solution is to create a concept of civil union, which is not related to sex and gender, but has all the legal implications of marriage (or maybe even make it selective which to apply). Whoever enters it - straights, gays, a threesome, a man train, or a whole commune - is their business.

This gives everyone the ability to manage their status as they want, while at the same time bypassing any religious concerns, since it's not formally called marriage.

I know you clarify your position some later, but your initial thoughts strike me as off-base.

First, how does giving same-sex couples the same rights as different-sex couples "sweep their concerns under the bed"?

Second, why does giving same-sex couples equal access to marriage "insult Christians"? And why should we care?

Third, why do we have to destroy the village in order to save it? Perhaps we should fiddle with the institution of marriage, but that doesn't mean we have to abandon it lest we hurt some bigots feelings.

Many people in this world would contend the exact opposite - why are you right and they wrong? Last I heard, the evidence indicates that a child reared in a household with a male and female role model are, in a very broad sense, better off than those who are reared otherwise.

I'm not saying gay is "bad" just that there is at least some evidence that hetero is "better."

This is simply untrue. I think you've already been given some evidence to the contrary, but here is more: link (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgplgparents.html), link (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/marriage.pdf)

No, it doesn't. Realpolitik. A civil union will have less opposition from these rednecks. Easier to pass.

Not to hijack us onto another subject, but it is interesting to see you advocate "realpolitik" when you object so strongly to it regarding the criminalization of child pornography.

*ponders*

Wouldn't that be "this century"?

Unfortunately it was just a few decades ago that inter-racial marriage was still illegal in much of the United States. To some, it remains objectionable.

And, I'm not being hyperbolic: we are talking here about parents who object to a picture of two men with a child!!


And a lesbian couple with two.

Back in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14074488&postcount=199) I dug up information on the book, including the passages that people (including the parents in the video) are complaining about.

The worst part seems to be the claim that it takes Laura and Kyle as well as both their mommies to give their dog Daisy a bath.

Clearly, this couple has never owned a dog.

=)

Clearly, this couple has never owned a dog.

=)

It's a good thing they didn't need to wash a cat... :tongue:

And, I'm not being hyperbolic: we are talking here about parents who object to a picture of two men with a child!!:eek: That's unnatural!
Raising children is women's work.

:eek: That's unnatural!
Raising children is women's work.

My job is to nag you! :tongue: Get it straight!

You never read a story involving a happily ever after ending where prince charming goes off with the heroine, or one that included a male character interested in a female character? Or even a story that has has a kid with a mommy and a daddy?

Let me clarify: I wasn't taught about the dynamics or socioeconomic aspect of marriage in elementary school. It was not discussed or mentioned academically or for study, but as a part of literature, as you mentioned.


The only actual education I recieved on marriage in elementary school was a teacher completely overlooking the traditions and customs of the Chinese family we were reading about in the fifth grade to inform us that Western marriage for love was the only ethical form of mate selection.

I must compliment the interviewer on his choice of dress.

Anyway, here are my views on homosexuality: unless a condom is used, homosexual intercourse in highly unsanitary.

On homosexual marriage: I think the world has too many people in it as it is, and homosexual couples are good, because they generally adopt children who need homes, rather than create more people needlessly. Besides this, how is making homosexual marriage illegal going to stop homosexual relations? It will not; at the worst, homosexuals will be more promiscuous.

On the morality: homosexuality is not immoral in my eyes, because no one is harmed; whether or not it is "natural" is irrelevant. Murder is natural; monogamy (among primates) is not.

Should others be taught that homosexuality is moral? On the whole, yes, because it will eradicate bigotry and integrate society better. Still, it has to be taken slowly, in order not to upset parents. Schools should be more open day-by-day, but so little that no-one notices.

I must compliment the interviewer on his choice of dress.

Anyway, here are my views on homosexuality: unless a condom is used, homosexual intercourse in highly unsanitary.

What's so unsanitary about sucking someone's cock?

What about everyone is assigned wives, or husbands, based on a complex test that determines whom they should live, and literally love with every part of their being, so that we can get some major shits and giggles out of it.

What's so unsanitary about sucking someone's cock?

Condomless, there's a (relatively small, but non-negligible) risk of contracting an STD.

Of course, that's true of a variety of forms of sexual activity, between a man and a woman as well as between men... and in that respect, sex between women is safest of all.

By sending your child to public school you are saying you trust the public school to educate and take care of your child. If you don't trust them, you shouldn't put your kid in public school.

Parents shouldn't be able to "opt-out". If you want to "opt-out" find an alternative education option for your child.

I don't and have never understood why parents feel that they have a right to interfere in what their children are learning. If they want more control, send them to a religious or secular private school. State education should not, and must not kowtow to religious bigots.

On the actual book referred to in the video, there is no mention of inappropriate content. It was simply opening children to the idea that some families are not like theirs. Would they have the same complaint about single parent families being presented in the book?

Should others be taught that homosexuality is moral? On the whole, yes, because it will eradicate bigotry and integrate society better. Still, it has to be taken slowly, in order not to upset parents.

Fuck the parents. They have no more right to not be upset then I do.

I think parents should be notified, but parents have no right to , as someone else said "indoctrinate their children into their beliefs".

Yes, yes they do does anyone else?

Anyway, here are my views on homosexuality: unless a condom is used, homosexual intercourse in highly unsanitary.

You clearly have never had homosexual intercourse. Ergo, you have no idea what you're talking about. I respectfully suggest you remedy to that situation before you allow yourself to speak further on the subject. :D

Simple personal hygiene prior to sex makes it highly sanitary. Homosexual intercourse is neither more nor less sanitary than heterosexual intercourse.

I don't and have never understood why parents feel that they have a right to interfere in what their children are learning. If they want more control, send them to a religious or secular private school. State education should not, and must not kowtow to religious bigots.

While this does have some religious undertones, to say that parents should have a right in what their children are learning does not have to bee religious in nature. After all if I feel that my son should be learning about fractions and how to do basic calculations using fractions I should be able to lobby the State government to change their cirriculum. but I suppose you don't mind if other people have a right to say what should be taught to children.