|
Post by Dark Beauty on Oct 14, 2008 13:17:47 GMT -8
Watch this and then try to tell me that it should be legalized. link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815825713?bctid=1819819843I know many gay/lesbian couples out there, and it's not a problem. They're great people. But that doesn't mean that I condone their decisions. As such, I would only talk about gay marriage with my children when I felt the need to with my child. The fact that the schools are trying to take the parenting responsibility upon themselves and go as far to ARREST A FATHER for wanting parental notification makes me EXTREMELY angry. I cannot believe that, and I think it is VERY wrong. They have no right to infringe upon ANY family values like that. That is the main issue I have now. I am going to do everything I can possibly do to make sure I don't have to raise my children in such a world as this poor family is having to deal with now. I don't care what your sexual orientation is - you cannot think that's right. Taxpayer money should NEVER be used to put children at odds with their parents. The Supreme Court has made it clear that once a state orders gay marriage, public schools are going to be teaching about gay marriage, There is no parental opt-out. Voters in California — and Arizona and Florida — should take note. And if it is sanctioned in California, Washington will be next on the bandwagon. NO THANK YOU.
|
|
|
Post by silentstranger on Oct 14, 2008 15:53:49 GMT -8
I don't think so. I hope that it's vetoed
|
|
Detrevni
Gangsta'
"Balllttttttaaaaaaaaaarrr!!!"
I'm not a cylon!
Posts: 405
|
Post by Detrevni on Oct 14, 2008 16:17:05 GMT -8
So... wait. What's the fear here? That teaching a child that gay marriage exists will somehow make them gay in turn? It's already been scientifically proven that homosexuality is at least in part genetic. Keeping someone in ignorance of a fact does not change reality. I didn't watch the full video, I admit, but political ads are a terrible source of information.
I fail to see what family values are being infringed on. Just because the information is thewre does not mean that the school is impressing any kind of value system on the child.
If somehow I've gotten mixed up, feel free to clarify.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Beauty on Oct 14, 2008 19:00:20 GMT -8
Watch the video. The full video. I'm not listening to the man, I am listening to the mother and father.
The fear is that schools are quite literally taking over a parent's role in teaching their children about the world they live in. That makes me extremely angry. It's like a teacher talking about career pathways to kindergartners and telling them that they can grow up to be a stripper in a bar because that's legal. And then, when an upset parent comes in and requests parental notification to any of those morally touchy subjects, they have the police come in and arrest him. It's disgusting and it's wrong. My outrage has nothing to do with my moral views on Prop 8. However, due to the fact that this came to pass because of homosexuality becoming legalized, I can see reason to back it up. I have a really good friend that I work with who is in a lesbian relationship. That's fine. But I don't want kindergartners being taught that it's perfectly normal, because, frankly, it's not. Any socially iffy moral issue should NOT be brought up with such young children. Period.
|
|
|
Post by Zeffa! on Oct 14, 2008 19:01:50 GMT -8
Firstly, I agree fully with Detrevni, political ads are a terrible source of information. It's a form of propoganda, which is an incredibly useful tool for getting people to see things the way you want them to. It would be much better to look for something with an objective view. I mean come on, there's a piano playing soft, melancholy notes in the background.
Secondly, I agree that it is rediculuous that he would be arrested and removed. However, it is completely within the school's rights to teach homosexual marriage to children if it's made law in the state it's in, the same way that they are allowed to teach the children that murder and grand theft auto is wrong.
The issue that caused the man to be arrested was not that he believed homosexuality was wrong and they sent him to jail beacuse of it, it's because he refused to leave the building and staged, what ended up being, a sit in protest within school grounds. To behave like that is not the way you go about it, what he could do instead is to bring this up at a committee, or gather as many like-minded individuals and submit a formal request.
If they don't want to go through that issue, they could simply remove their child from the school in question, or, if the case is that it's happening in multiple schools, either homeschool or send him to a private christian school, similar to grace academy. There are plenty out there, and, while notably more costly, they are usually as good or better than public schools.
You say that "I don't care what your sexual orientation is - you cannot think that's right," well I guess I'm in opposition to that. It's within the school's rights, it doesn't infringe on my beliefs, it teaches children to accept that gays are a real thing, and hopefully if they learn that at a young age they will not be as intolerant or hostile toward such people, unlike what you see in middleschools, high schools, and adult society today.
It wasn't too long ago that parents were protesting having black children in schools for the very same reasons: God, immorality, and an illusion of supremacy.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Beauty on Oct 14, 2008 19:10:05 GMT -8
*sighs* First off, I never said political ads were a good source of information. That video is simply for the story, which is a true story. So stop bothering me about that.
Secondly: Okay. Maybe I am so upset about this because I have been a proxy-parent for quite literally as long as I can remember. Moral issues are confusing and should be brought to light in middle school at the earliest. At least when children are hitting puberty. Not before.
Murder and grand theft auto are morally wrong because it infinges upon other people's lives and property. The touchy moral issues, such as prostitution, fornication, abortion, and gay marriage are not so obvious and not easy subjects to approach, and children at that age are extremely impressionable. They are to be taught such things by their parents.
Thirdly: I see what you mean about the "blacks out of schools" comment, Zeph, don't get me wrong, but this has absolutely nothing to do with keeping gays out of school - this has to do with keeping teachers and schools from trying to take on a parent's job. Find me a gay kindergartner and I'll give you a lollypop or something.
Fourthly: If they don't want moral issues inside the school (such as religion), they'd dang well better not take up moral issues as a lesson. They're hypocrites. And the parents do have options with other schooling. HOWEVER, it shouldn't be an issue in the first place! For crying out loud, public school shouldn't be a place that parents don't want their kids.
I am not going any further with my knowledge in children unless you ask, because someone will jump down my throat. I can tell you, though, that no good will come of trying to brainwash children. I'd be just as angry if some teacher was telling kids that gay marriage was an abomination. And I mean that.
|
|
|
Post by Zeffa! on Oct 14, 2008 20:06:24 GMT -8
It would seem that the problem is that public schools are for the public, and as the world turns, not everyone does with it. For better or worse, things change and sometimes cultural standings don't follow. It's tricky indeed to tell a gradeschool kid that something exists so they aren't surprised by it, and then not explain that it's ontroversial until middle school, though the same is said for sex and the like. Early middle school, or perhaps late grade school (when they do the puberty talks and such) would be a good place to start with such education. If I were a teacher I agree, i wouldn't bother teaching things like this unless ordered to, there are more important things for grade school kids to be learning, and they won't be having to worry about such things as sexual identity and preference until then.
|
|
Detrevni
Gangsta'
"Balllttttttaaaaaaaaaarrr!!!"
I'm not a cylon!
Posts: 405
|
Post by Detrevni on Oct 15, 2008 3:27:43 GMT -8
However, due to the fact that this came to pass because of homosexuality becoming legalized, I can see reason to back it up. I have a really good friend that I work with who is in a lesbian relationship. That's fine. But I don't want kindergartners being taught that it's perfectly normal, because, frankly, it's not. Any socially iffy moral issue should NOT be brought up with such young children. Period. I was unaware that homosexuality was ever actually illegal in the United States.. I could be wrong but that's just that whole land of the free thing going on. I'm sure you meant same se x marriage. Who are you to define what is and is not "normal"? Normalcy is subjective. Fact: a significant portion (though by no means the majority) of this country's population is homosexual. That's not ever going to change. There will always be gays and lesbians. What would you call that if not normal? Looking at Zephyr's post, I see that the man staged a sit in. Of course he'd be arrested for refusing to leave school grounds. I can get arrested for doing that. He was not arrested for anything related to how he raises his child. You say that you have a lesbian friend and that's perfectly fine. But then you go and say that it's morally "iffy" and "not normal". While not mutually exclusive, the two don't seem to go hand in hand. Would it be safer to say that you don't feel comfortable around them because of the family values you were raised with? It's not a question of right or wrong, it's a matter of opinion. Subjectivities upon subjectivities. I find it irritating that the whole issue of gay marriage is even a blip on the radar. It affects what, 10 or 12% of the population? I mean come ON. Let's get on to issues that actually MATTER, like the "energy crisis", the plummeting dollar, that failing stock market, the 700 billion dollar bailout blunder. There is so much morality and religious fallout from elections it's ridiculous. Separation of church and state my as s. Religion and politics should never mix and yet in this country it seems that they always do.
|
|
|
Post by silentstranger on Oct 15, 2008 6:51:38 GMT -8
Well, that's America for you. "We do what we want, get over yourself."
|
|
|
Post by Dark Beauty on Oct 15, 2008 6:52:51 GMT -8
I'm sure you meant same sex marriage. Correct. My mistake. I know that there will always be gays and lesbians. I also know that there were never that many until recent years. So, in the sense that there was never an issue about it until maybe 20 years ago at the earliest, no, it's not "normal." Think about it before you lash out at me. I know they'll always be there now. I can see that he could be arrested, especially if it were during school hours (which I don't think it was - I'm pretty sure it was after school the day his child came home). The fact that they don't allow a parent opt-out at all is rediculous, though. They got upset about him even asking. You can opt out of the sex videos, the AIDS videos, and all that - there is ALWAYS an opt out. Except now. I'd probably sit in there, too. It's a parent's right to opt out. I was speaking in the whole of the country - it is "morally iffy" to the country, whether or not you or I would like to admit that. Just like abortion. Just like prostitution. Just like stem-cell research. And I am not comfortable when ANYONE makes out or talks about their sexual relationships, no matter if they are straight or gay. Jen and Bonnie are good friends of mine (Jen is at least) and I adore and respect them. I am not uncomfortable around them in the slightest. Don't tell me how I feel, because you don't know. *tips hat* Welcome to reality, my friend.
|
|
|
Post by Raiku on Oct 15, 2008 7:22:54 GMT -8
Holy cow, can we EVER have a 'discussion' where a person isn't personally attacked?! Seriously, it's pissing me off. Granted, I'm biased to who is being attacked at this point, but the thread was not about who believes that homosexuality is wrong, it was about the school situation.
Det, as much as I love you as a friend, and respect you greatly, you don't ALWAYS have to be right.
I don't agree with the homosexuality thing, but in all honesty, that is just one aspect of a person. You're right, part of it is genetic, but in a way, it's still a choice. I have no problem with it in the same sense that I have no issue with people who smoke or drink. A lot of my best friends have affiliations like that, and I love em to death. I just don't approve of the choice.
Attack me, if you want. I don't care. But leave the poor girl alone. Call me biased, ignorant, I don't care. If you're gonna attack her, at least do it on the right issue.
If this keeps up, this thread gets locked. And discussion threads will have to be disabled for a while.
|
|
Echo
Gangsta'
The Drill Sergent and resident Buffalo
Climber of trees and burner of un-shiny trees.
Posts: 148
|
Post by Echo on Oct 15, 2008 10:37:38 GMT -8
First off, Detrevni is not taking a stance that there is a 'right' solution to this but yet is pointing out that Dark's solution is not the right one.
Secondly, I found your nose Raiku - apparently Dark was sitting on it.
Thirdly, I am going to agree with both Zephyr and Detrevni on this issue.
Dark is a big girl and can handle herself in a debate, or else she wouldn't have brought up the issue. Just because she doesn't have the upper hand in this debate at the current time, doesn't mean you need to jump in to save the day.
Don't abuse your moderate powers.
|
|
|
Post by Raiku on Oct 15, 2008 13:22:28 GMT -8
Not trying to save the day...Just trying to say that the arguments wasn't even about the initial point.
And when it comes to personal attacks, it's not abusing the mod powers.
But hey, then again, maybe I'm the intolerant suck-up you know me to be? Who knows.
I'm done with this...
|
|
|
Post by Dark Beauty on Oct 15, 2008 13:50:27 GMT -8
Dark's solution is not the right one. ...What's my solution again? To what problem? *Looks to Det and Zephyr* Did you two wish to correct me on any type of solution? Did I ever allude to one? Help me. I'm lost. Unfortunately, I am unable to find your nose. It's buried too deep in something I'm not woman enough to touch. Thank you, kind sir. And you're such a strong man, Echo. You do a great job making sure others know you're a good person through your uplifting comments. I respect everyone and their views. Let it be known, though, that Raiku was the only one to note that the issue I didn't appreciate was the fact that they wouldn't let him opt out. Sex is real, but parents can opt out of that video. AIDS is real and is a huge problem in our society, but you can opt out of that video. Homosexuality is real, but you can.... wait... no you can't. Don't you see? Why is it that this is the only thing that they will refuse a parent his opt-out rights for? It's wrong. That's my issue. If you don't agree, fine. I respect that. The only reason my views on homosexuality were brought up was because you asked me about it. Please respect me, too. I can respect all of you. Why can't you repect me? If anyone is intolerant, it would be those of you who cannot tolerate me wanting to raise my own children. It hurts me very much. I'll go live in a protected rainforest or something. My animal intolerance is too terrible for this world, apparently, and I can't be allowed to raise my children with such animal ideals. Echo, if you have a problem with others trying to defend a position, you only have to disagree and kindly state your own opinion. If you have some sort of nasty comment to go along with that, I suggest you either be a man and keep it to yourself or take it up with that person personally.
|
|
|
Post by Zeffa! on Oct 15, 2008 15:31:31 GMT -8
One of the key things about tolerance and intolerance, as a happy episode of southpark detailed quite graphically, is that tolerance does not equate to acceptance. What I mean by that is that while we tolerate other's behavior that we personally don't agree with, we don't have to accept that it is right, we don't have to accept it in place of our own, we simply tolerate it. People will rarely ever agree with what they're tolerant of. I'm not saying that I think you're going to be a bad parent, I wasn't directing the conversation toward you personally. I think it's very hard to keep the line between yourself and your stance. Having known you closely for three years I have complete faith that you'll be a wonderful loving mother. I didn't intend to attack, I just like arguing. Let me catch up on a few things in here now. I never suggested you had a solution either, simply that you were stating the issue. Regarding the presence of gays and lesbians throughout thyme, this is a tough one to argue for many reasons. Firstly, until around the 1970's, many places in America criminalized sodomy, sexual devience, and with that homosexuality, so it would be tough to examine the gay/lesbian population of the past. It has been recorded (and scoffed at) that at a 1940's census it was 1% of America's population, and around the 1970's, just before the gay rights activism movement began in '72, it was mythically proclaimed 10%, which was partly accurate in some more densely populated areas. Really the 10% was used more as political leverage, it really being closer, on average, to around 8.2%. However, the problem with this sort of census is that even with anonyminity, some people are too afraid to admit in public they are gay, and some people don't want to conform simply to that label. Because it's hard to measure something that hid itself away from society it's a tough argument to say that there were never as many before as there are now. All I can do is point out the historical figures from the past, and note that they are there. One possible reasoning for this argument though is the genetic theory. That because of population growth, it is more likely that the gene is passing on and evolving as any other genetic disorder. Certainly breast cancer is on the rise. The Analogy to aids isn't a bad one. Certainly they have several similarities: Both don't usually become an issue until the children reach their sexual stage, both aren't something easily noticed (with variance on the side of homosexuality), and there's always been alot of hype about both in regards to social alienation. Both of them, as of yet, have no cure. However, Aids is something that can spread as a disease, and is destroying countries in Africa, whereas homosexuality is, arguably, a less lethal concern. To contrast the two, Aids is something that no parent should want their kid to contract. Aids is a disease, and as such, spreads through contamination the way contagions are like to do. Homosexuality is not a disease, you can't catch it from having sex with someone who secretly was a homosexual (by this i mean in the closet, wife and kids kind of homosexual, although this applies to all forms). There are laws in some states in the US that deem the knowing spread of HIV to an unknowing victim a crime, but not all of them, therefore it is important that the children know how to protect and defend themselves. If the parents want to opt out of that, however, it is not against the law for them to do so, although it's recommended that they speak with their own children on the matter instead. I can see, for the same argument I placed, that the parents would want to opt their children out of the homosexuality talk, but unless they are going to have a talk will billy about the matter on their own terms, this only serves to disarm the child and cause more confusion after they've grown up and think they've got a firmer grasp on things. Some schools may, and likely do give an opt-out form. I doubt many of them are required to, and i presume that many don't include the form. Billy just happened to be absent on the day the school gave the lecture. I think that it would be in the public's best interest to educate people at, say, 5th grade or 4th grade, whenever the puberty stages arise, about homosexuality. What harm could it do? Yes, it may confuse the child and they may have questions. They may think that it's perfectly normal, that it's societally accepted. If the teacher is good, they will announce that it is, in fact, a sociall touchy subject and that there is controversy about it. I don't think that this thread should be locked. There are a few swings at eachother in here, but I think that, for the most part, this has been a faily mature discussion. I like debates and discussions, especially if i get to write them out and take my time with my thoughts and evidence. It's something to do aside from writing about victorian literature...
|
|