You seem bored; have something to read:One of the biggest reasons conservatives say they are against gay marriage, and even the normalization of homosexuality in general, is the worry that the gay life style and same-sex marriage will be taught in public schools and will sway confused children to experiment with immorality.
So much about this argument drives me beyond crazy. (and if you happen to be a conservative who would like to clarify or rephrase this stand feel free)
So, did you watch the video? The one that anonymous kindly suggested for you? About Robb and Robin who's little 2nd grader had to sit through a reading of King and King? And they sued? And lost?Did you read the article? The one that called the mom "dutiful if somewhat dour" and the dad "handsome, bright, hard-working" and said my church's "real concern is preventing gay and lesbian people from accessing equal rights." Because Mormons are a bunch of bigots. (Thank Dan Aiello for that bit of unbiased journalism).
I dismiss both pieces of evidence. They are both full of lies, misrepresentations, and seek to further an agenda rather than expose truth. Hateful, ignorant lies, with a dash of truth to make it go down easier, but swallowing either of those whole will make you sick. (makes me sick anyway)
YOU silly people who think that legalizing gay marriage will mean that SUDDENLY your kids will be taught to accept and embrace the homosexual lifestyle: YOU ARE THE PARENTS. You are responsible to teach your children right from wrong, as best you can. If you're child comes home saying that the speed of light is 1,255,466 gazzillion bubillion miles an hour, you tell them, "No, no, sweetie, it's 299,792,458 m/s". And if they ask you to prove it? Then you have to go into how we just have faith and because that's what the scientists say is true.
And YOU silly people, on both sides, who CLEARLY have not been volunteering in elementary schools lately. They already know. The big brothers have been calling the little brothers "gay" every time they wanted to hug for their whole life. The problem is, just like all of us, for the most part, gay is used as an insult. Of course, so is being a girl. So is every other physical detail or behavior that fails to conform with whatever standard the childish think is right.
I volunteered on Friday to chaperon a walking field trip to the local grocery store. "Find a buddy," teacher yells. "Hold your buddy's hand and stick together!"
"EWWW! NO WAY! That's gay," says two boys in front of me. Then, they see two other boys complying with the teacher's orders and respond, "You guys are gay!" At which point these boys stop obeying teacher to maintain respect with peers.
Later that day, my 3 year old Canon got it in his head that he really, really wanted to kiss and hug on his big brother. A lot. He was being obnoxious and silly. "Canon, get off me, you're being gay."
They were tumbling just to the side of me (I'm almost always sitting on the floor - ring side seats, watch the action) and I said, in a completely casual, almost mocking tone, "Do you know what that means?" (he and I have discussed it once before, a bit, but he'd never used it as an adjective; he asked me if I knew what it meant, as if to educate me, in case I was out of the loop - yeah, he doesn't read the blog much).
Here's what 1st graders know: "It's when a boy and a boy wanna be all smoochy smoochy or a girl and a girl wanna be all smoochy smoochy. Or even if a husband and wife want to be smoochy smoochy with another boy or girl. That would be gay too, for one of them."
"Who told you that?"
"[My teacher?]"
"[Your teacher]? Why would she tell you that?"
"I don't know."
Me either. But I'm not offended. Maybe the kids in class kept calling each other gay inappropriately (as opposed to the appropriate usage examples they demonstrated when I was there). Maybe one of the students asked her, and, being a professional educator, she answered the question. When my kids ask me something, I try to give them the right, true answer.
Except for the polygamy confusion, he knows what it means. He just can't quite wrap his head around the concept that it's a sometimes accurate description of behavior, not an always accurate description. Boys can hold hands, hug, kiss and be totally not gay. Or they might be. 1st graders just aren't elegant thinkers.
That's all I wanted to say: Don't be so naive. It's being taught, they already know ... it's not a big deal. Go about your business of teaching your kid right from wrong, as you see fit. But just FYI, this is the real world and you should probably start talking to your kids NOW. Or yesterday. Tolerance is good; very, very good. Let's be tolerant.
The end.
24 Brilliant Bits of Inspiration:
And this is really the REAL issue behind all or at least most of our social problems today- parents are not parenting their children. (and by "parenting" I mean: educating, teaching values, holding them to standards, etc, etc) People are having children for heaven knows what self centered reason, maybe to find the love they never got from their parents, and then they dont want to follow through on the commitment they made.
I know this might be a little off the topic of educating kids about what gay means, but I think that is part of the whole issue.
Teach your kids and then they will have something to say, something positive when other kids say "thats so gay" or teachers talk about two mommies or whatever.
I am so off topic, but whatever:)
Nice call back to Earth, Brandy. You are such a good mom, laundry baskets 'n all.
If we simply must filter reality for our kids, there's always home school - or The Village...we aren't without options.
Sometimes parents are "educating" their kids; educating them to be intolerant of differences, which might also be part of the problem. I think that part of the parental (and educational) responsibility is to be neutral in teaching kids about sensitive topics, not forcing personal opinions on them. Just throwing that in the mix :)
I love this post and thank you for being so blunt.
the crap that the kids I work with have seen, endured, been exposed to, etc. is so major and terrible and completely traumatic, nothing compared to *gasp* being exposed to a gay male couple with really nice decorating sensibilities or a gay female couple who like basketball. Okay, those are silly generalizations but I think you get my point.
I'm so impressed that despite spending my childhood in the middle of Texas, I grew up to be such an extremely liberal person. even if someone doesn't agree with my opinions, which is fine, it does show that my parents were able to teach and model things to me that differed from what everyone around was doing and it had a big influence on me.
That is the role parents should take.
Right on, Mrs B Roth
I'm for separation of state and school. This would be one of many, many disputes that could go away then.
I will keep my kids out of government schools as long as I possibly can. I wish I could do the same with my money. I hear things are better in Utah, but in some states the government schools are ususable.
That being said, reserving the legal definition of marriage to the bride+groom pair would give parents a little leverage in opting their kid out of anything that presented a brideless or groomless pairing as marriage.
If the "other" side was being more honest with the general public about all of this, they'd say, "Yes, kids will be taught that same-sex marriage is no different, and that is the right thing to do!"
As for me, I don't think a school should be teaching that there is no difference between a a both-sexes pairing and one absent one of the sexes. Clearly there is, pimarily because there is a difference between homosexual behavior and heterosexual behavior.
Notice I'm not saying one is immoral.
"ususable" should read "unusable". Sorry...
Sorry, I still think there is a difference between what kids pick up on the playground and what teachers are implementing in the classroom, especially at Kindergarten levels. I agree parents should be teaching their kids at home, but when kids are at such an impressionable age, sometimes they hear something from a teacher and question the parents. Don't say it's never happened that little Tommy is at home fighting with mom because "well teacher said this." Why not wait to introduce adult subjects when they are more ready to weigh the options and make up their own mind about it.
I don't think I'm teaching my kid to be a bigot or hateful towards gays if I teach them the behavior is unacceptable. I personally think I can be accepting of the person, not the action. Big difference.
Isn't it ironic that, as a nation, we are spending billions (or has it reached a trillion?) to fight religious extremists abroad.....and yet we say nothing about our own extremism in action?
Love, peace, an tolerance is what we need. Is hate and intolerance what Christianity about?
Sorry to repeat myself, but WWJD?
Catherine
PS...I 'highly' recommend the NY Times article I previously posted....in particular, I am curious what your thoughts are on it, Brandy.
If the "other" side was being more honest with the general public about all of this, they'd say, "Yes, kids will be taught that same-sex marriage is no different, and that is the right thing to do!"
Ken, that's a pointless generalization, and you have to know it. Of course there are behavioral differences between gay and straight marriage, and if THAT subject came up in Sex Ed where it belongs, I'm sure the kids would learn about it then. But I doubt that even this batty teacher would think seven an appropriate age for any such discussion.
Just because you get hung up in the "sex" of it, doesn't mean that's what this is about for everybody else. For the "others" that you've cited in ominous quotes, this is about having access to the same rights and life potential as their peers, and if we run the risk of our kids being taught that the rights and privileges of gay married couples should be no different than those of straight people, then with all due respect, it sounds like you've already taken adequate steps to "protect" yours.
When my oldest was in kindergarten one of her classmates had two moms. She didn't seem to think it was odd and never said anything about it until one day in first grade she said this "Hey mom, I like this boy in my class named Billy (name changed cuz I don't remember the names, they weren't the important part of the story) but Billy says he likes Johnny. Boys can't like boys can they? I know that girls can like girls like Marissa's mommies, but boys can't like boys, can they?" So there I was thrust into answering this question for my 5 year old (she skipped a grade) which I really didn't think would come up until she was a little older and maybe a bit more able to understand the answer, but nonetheless it was out there and needed an answer. What I told her was this "Yes honey some boys do like each other, and just like Marissa has two mommies, some people have two daddies, and some people have a mommy and a daddy like you do. It really doesn't matter as long as their parents love them and take good care of them." And that was all the answer she needed. I didn't have to go into the mechanics of how any of those arrangements work.
In the same token I have no problem with the schools teaching about gays from a tollerance aspect. Just as we teach them to be tollerant of the disabled, other religions and nationalities, I think they should be taught to be tollerant of sexual orientation, especially since discrimination against those things is protected in most workplaces, etc. I think that even parents who believe wholeheartedly that it is wrong and a sin to be gay, can still tell their children "Yes, people are like this. Yes, mommy and daddy think it's wrong for this and that reason. HOWEVER, that does not mean that you can make fun of them, be mean to them, or hurt them.
I would only be upset if the teacher was explaining the nitty gritty of how anyone heterosexual included consumated their relationships. Like the 7th grade teacher at my children's school who was telling her students about oral sex. Way not cool. Had my child been in her class you can bet heads would have rolled.
The highest rate of suicide in the US is for the teenage population. And the highest rate of teen suicide is teens who are sexual minorities (gay, transgendered, bisexual).
Does it matter that attempts towards speaking about some of this, whether it is to help kids be more tolerant of one another or to help kids feel less alone, this could be saving people's LIVES?
Recent research into the brain development of younger children reveals that the trauma a child feels from being bullied FEELS AS SERIOUS to them as the trauma of being neglected or, for many males, the trauma of being sexually abused.
This information seems to beg us to look at what is being presented within the classroom as well as how that may influence what is said on the playground.
Not to get nit-picky, because I hate when people do that, but the population with the highest suicide rate is elderly white males.
Catherine, you said:
"Love, peace, an tolerance is what we need. Is hate and intolerance what Christianity about?
Sorry to repeat myself, but WWJD?"
Asking WWJD is not a simple question for Christians. Jesus indeed preached love, he stated that the two greatest commandments were to love God and love your neighbor as yourself.
I guess where our opinions might differ is in the definition of the word "LOVE".
What does it really mean to love someone?
Does loving someone mean you love embrace everything about them?
If so, then even those"religious extremists" should be embraced and shown love.
Why would you ask them to change something about themselves if you really love them?
Lori Ann, you missed my overall point....I was trying to draw attention to the fact that we all tend take such entrenched sides on this issue...and the illogic of it when we think about how we, as a nation, are supposedly against that. That is also why I kept trying to draw attention to the New York Times article, which, if you have read it, is titled "Gay Marriage: A Reconciliation." If you haven't yet read it, I encourage you to do so.
The WWJD example serves as a MODEL for me (and hopefully for everyone else who professes to be a Christian) It reminds me to act with love and forgiveness. It does not require me to 'be' Jesus---I do not have to have unconditional love for everyone, but I do have to think and try to model my actions and reactions to people based upon that unconditional love. The end result of all that is not universal acceptance of everyone, but rather tolerance (I don't agree with you necessarily, but I accept your right to exist and be happy)
So to answer that question, no, I do not have to accept and embrace religious extremists as they are and not want them to try to change and be more TOLERANT of people who are different than themselves.
Tolerance is not the same thing as unconditional love.
And tolerance is the ultimate result of the WWJD question, if you ask me.
Catherine (Baby O's mom)
And yes, there ARE religious extremists who are violent in this country....just look at the guy who gunned down the abortion doctor in Kansas. Or there is the example of the Nazis who wanted to march in Skokie and the response to it.
darn you, Lori Ann I wanted to sound all smart and you ruined it, lol!
Thanks for the nit pickiness, the last thing I want is to is spread bullcrap information. I didn't know that suicide numbers were so high for older populations until looking at some of the information out there. Very sad.
Suicide is the third leading cause of death for teens (after car accidents and homicides) and risk factors include depression, social isolation, family violence, community violence, etc.
More general info on suicide:
http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewpage&page_id=050FEA9F-B064-4092-B1135C3A70DE1FDA
Catherine (Baby O's mom),
That is how I roll in blog commenting. Catching little things but missing the overall point.
I think that since this is an internet community it is easy to get caught up in the semantics and miss the overall message:)
I think our views are probably more alike then we realize.
Thanks for the clarification.
p.s.- it bothers me when someone does something extreme (like killing an abortion doctor) because it makes the rest of us look crazy too!
And then to pin the label of a 'religious act' to it. So sad.
I've waited so...well, impatiently, to ring in on this subject until I could get to a desktop and not my blackberry - makes for hard commenting!
Anyway, I know I'm putting myself out there for some persecution, but I am wholeheartedly against homosexuality, gay marriages and/or civil unions. I am a Christian and feel that I am still being a Christian, even with my views. I have had gay friends whom I did and still do love. I do not have to love their choices. As Jesus said, "Love the sinners, hate the sin."
God has given us a set of rules to live by - a way back to him, and if we choose not to live by them, then we don't get to have all that he has promised. Just as I am with my children. If they don't live by the rules we have set, they don't get the rewards and priveleges that they could if they chose to follow the rules.
We are all given free agency. We can choose to follow our desires and give in to the 'natural man'. We can aslo choose to not act on those desires and come closer to God. I'm faced with temptations every day, but there is always a choice.
God does not tempt us above our ability to withstand. Sometimes it is easier just to give in and then blame the rest of the world for making our lives so hard because of the choices we have made. I truly believe that being gay is a choice. God would not "make" us something that is so against all of his teachings.
King James Version
1 Cor 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
1 Cor 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
1 Cor 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the awife depart from her husband
Titus 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of ariot or unruly.
Nowhere in there does it say that man can be with man or woman can be with woman - it even states in the last citation that it is the husband of one wife - the ultimate definition of marriage.
I cannot support gay marriage or civil unions for these reasons. Marriage is not just a social construct - it is the ultimate union sanctified by God and just by saying that it was created for some other reason, does not make it so. Just by saying that we should be tolerant, or teach our children tolerance, does not mean that we, as Christians, can or should condone such immoral acts.
I will never teach my children to hate anybody, whether it be for the color of their skin, religion, sexual preference, what have you, but I will teach them what is moral and immoral and what is needed to attain the Kingdom of God. Homosexuality is immoral and is a choice. You have the choice to act or not act on any impulse, feeling, desire - sexual or not. If you want to be gay, so be it, but don't think that it gives you the right to things that are saved for those who are choosing to live a life which has been sanctified by God.
WWJD? He would condemn the sin of homosexualtiy, give the chance to change and love the sinner.
Just my opinion, which, obviously, many of you disagree with.
Angela - thank you for having the courage to stand up and proclaim your view. I appreciate the courage it takes to put yourself out there, lay it out so frankly, and sign your name to it.
While I may not agree with your exact and strict interpretation, I agree with some of what you have said. I believe that homosexuality is a natural tendency in some, genetic or environment, and there is always a choice to act on impulses or control them. I think all fornication (defined as sex with someone not your spouse) is a sin. I also believe strongly in the atonement of Christ which gives all of us the opportunity to repent for sins.
If we were to adhere to your strict interpretation, based on religious conviction - a man or women who had sex before marriage would not be eligible for marriage. A man or woman who had committed adultry would not be able to marry new spouses after divorce. Are these laws you wish to present and enforce?
If you want to take the religious stand: Fornication is fornication. You are punishing one group of fornicators and turning a blind eye to the rest. When it comes to numbers, I bet you a million dollars that heterosexuals have got the fornication in the bag!
Nevertheless, when it comes to government and law, I prefer they treat all people equally, without regard to race, religion, sex, etc. Furthermore, government can not show preference to one religion (or religious interpretation) over any another.
You've got your scripture references, what about simple Love one another? What about all the other wacky things the Bible calls abominations? Calamari is an abomination ... just like homosexuality.
We have to be fair in our laws, even if we don't like it what it gives to people who make choices we don't approve of.
I tell you, adultery is a million times more damaging to society, children, and families than homosexuality ever could be and yet you don't see people blocking an adulterer's right to remarry.
Fair is right. No?
So what do we do?
Once again, I am always a little off topic and just picking up on little things..
Mrs. B, you said "Fair is right, no?"
I don't agree. I think people being so focused on making things "fair" has really been deterimental to our society.
There are a few things in life that need to be fair. I won't name them all but a few that come to mind are: access to quality education, children having healthcare, voting rights, etc.
However, other then things like this, why is fair right? Or even better?
And if we are talking about fairness, especially in regards to the subject of gay marriage and civil unions, is granting gay marriage legal status really FAIR to everyone? What about polygamists? And single people? And disabled people who never marry? Why arent we all entitled to some kind of union with all the benefits it entails?
I really admire people who are honest in their beliefs (liberal or conservative) and who aren't afraid to state them, whatever the consequence..that being said, here is what I really think..
I think that that there is such a push for gay MARRIAGE (as opposed to civil unions) because gay people want everyone to HAVE TO recognize them as a married couple. To make them "as special" as a heterosexual couple. To make them "the same" and yet, at the same, retain their identity as different and unique.
I think some part of it is about the legal rights, but, in my opinion, its more about the cultural acceptance.
I don't know what kind of point I am even making in saying this. (and its making me nauseated to even write it..I am a Libra and I hate conflict and making people angry)
I guess I feel like, even if all 50 states approved gay marriage, it wouldnt end there.
Then it would become discriminatory to not have a certain percentage of pics of gay couples in text books or it would be discriminatory to refuse to be a photographer at a gay wedding or whatever. I know I am not making much sense.
I guess my overall point is that it never ends at "tolerance"
Tolerance leads to acceptance which leads to embracing.
And I dont want that for my kids.
PLEASE DONT HATE ME.
And then we're back with the only solution to preserve equal rights for all citizens is to do away with marriage as a government institution. It's not just (forget fair) to discriminate against a segment of the population because they believe or behave differently than you do. Neither is it just to force YOU to believe or behave differently (unless my behavior or belief has direct detrimental impact on your rights- for instance, if I steal your stuff or try to kill you that directly impacts YOUR rights).
I've waited to comment because my argument never changes and you've all read it before. I carefully read everyone's comments and truly tried to analyze the opposing arguments impartially. Neither side of the gay marriage issue is going to budge. Both sides believe they have God on their side. The only JUST solution (and justice for everyone is what American's claim to strive for- yes?) is to move towards civil unions or some other simplified legal method of sharing property, finances, and legal responsibilities.
Brandi - (or is it Brandy?)
I am not comdemning those who choose to be homosexual. I also view all fornication as a sin, but if the sinner repents and changes their way, whether heterosexul or homosexual, then they can be forgiven and go on to marry, remarry, whatever. I was only using homosexaulity as the example because that is what the debate was about.
I also believe in the Atonement, and thank heavens for it because without it, I would be doomed, truly. The atonement covers gays, heteros, asexuals, whoever. It is for everybody. I did not mean to imply that there was no forgiveness for homosexuality, just that it is a very grave sin.
I agree with Lori Ann - fair is not always right and homosexuality is destroying the very meaning of family - less detrimental than adultry? I am not so sure.
"Tolerance leads to acceptance which leads to embracing." I agree with my whole being. It is true of our now semi-socialist country, too - we take it little by little and then all of a sudden (not really) it is all we know. Not acceptable for me.
Remember when it was a sin for the races to intermarry?
Remember when it was a sin for women to own property or make any sort of legal decisions (because they didn't have souls)?
Remember when it was considered heretic to believe that salvation came through faith in Christ and not through dispensation bought from the church?
How many abominations have been committed by religious people who've used their interpretation of faith to strip minorities of civil rights?
Janet,
It is true what my dad always says..
The best defense is a good offense.
Although I think that some of the issues you cite had more of a cultural basis than a religious one, I don't think any argument I make will change your mind.
I just don't think it helps the dialouge when one side is villified to improve the standing of the other side.
How many amazing things have been accomplished by religious people who have used their interpertation of their faith to better the world?
Post a Comment