At Day-Care: a nice story of homo families at play

[fastfish 0]

nuthin' smokes torrid outta his hiding place faster than a chance to defend gay-indoctrination of kids eh?

 

let's review the facts of this case before we are led into deep obfuscation ala torrid:

 

1. this is daycare and these books are beginning level reading

 

2. so for little Freddie's first book, we help him read how little Sue went to the GAY-PRIDE MARDI-GRAS...where she and her two mums met little Davie and his two dads.

 

3. who here will deny that this is homo-agenda driven curriculum?

 

4. who here believes this shouldn't be happening to our children?

 

Don't be so PC that you forget how to be outraged...the looney left wants to lull US to sleep their "tolerance lullaby"...and when we wake up, we will all be living in the nation of San Francisco.

[torridjoe 41]

No I don't. I keep responding to your post where you quoted every post BUT the one you wanted a response to, and asked where Islam was in those posts. LOL. But nevermind. We'd never agree on why it's ok to force students to practice the Muslim religion while forbidding that they even voluntarily practice Christianity in the classroom. Because I'm an American and you're a traitor.

 

where are they practicing the Muslim religion? Not in California. Or if you think that constitutes "practice," what makes you think they can't do the same for Christianity?

 

We'd never agree because I'm using references (cf Brown and Foley); you're using your poor ignorant brain.

[Jeremy 0]

We agree on the first part...that is the legislators.

 

But, I think you're being a bit harsh on voters. Those who truly believe in keeping a traditional marriage definition intact are very cautious at this point about giving ground on the issue. At some point, I would hope that both groups can be respected and a middle ground solution figured out....but I don't think it's necessarily lazy or irresponsible. It's the fear of giving too much ground that prompts the voting...something I can understand, even if it's not a good long-term stance.

 

Just my take on the matter. I can see your points, too.

 

Well, we can agree on the legislators, then. Torrid can correct me if I'm wrong, but if memory serves the polls indicate about a 1/3 believe gays should be allowed to marry, 1/3 believe gays should not be allowed to be married, but be given marriage rights in the form of civil unions, and 1/3 don't believe gays should have either. Kind of frustrating that the third of the population that believes in bigotry and discrimination are getting what they want, in a country as great as ours.

[Bigtraine 24]

That's just it. If you were going to teach that Muslims believe X and Y, Jews believe A and B and Christians believe C and D, that's one thing. But to make someone dress up in a robe, say an islamic prayer and perform ritual crosses the line. I would even go so far as to say that it is sacriligious if you do not follow that faith. You can teach WWII history without having the kids light a menora. You can teach about the Crusades without having the kids go to confession.

 

I can agree with that.

[Snoopy1 0]

Well...as long as your being rational and staying on the subject...

 

alsonotreally

 

I mean, is it really so inconceivable...in our litigious, confrontational society...to imagine that if a law was passed granting gay marriage that someone would sue the Church (or another intolerant religious group) under the guise of their rights being violated?

 

ETA: Hence why I prefer to differentiate between civil unions and religiously sponsored/approved marriage.

 

MY god what don't you friggin get...

 

 

 

It's called the FIRST AMENDMENT...no judge would even bother to hear the case, the ACLU would laugh...what don't you get. wall.gif wall.gif wall.gif wall.gif

 

 

Your arguement is the equivalent to a jewish couple suing to get "married" in a Catholic Church cause they like the decorations...holds no water, State/Feds cannot force the church to marry anyone. If this is seriously why you are against so-called gay marriages, you are sad or extremely uneducated.

[torridjoe 41]

That's just it. If you were going to teach that Muslims believe X and Y, Jews believe A and B and Christians believe C and D, that's one thing. But to make someone dress up in a robe, say an islamic prayer and perform ritual crosses the line. I would even go so far as to say that it is sacriligious if you do not follow that faith. You can teach WWII history without having the kids light a menora. You can teach about the Crusades without having the kids go to confession.

 

as you say, that's just it. The Supreme Court has been clear that role playing is a state curriculum issue, not a federal constitutional issue. Once it's determined that teaching Islam in a historical context is OK, HOW they teach it is not up for judicial debate.

[fastfish 0]

torrid...try to focus

 

is reading little Freddie his first ever book about a trip to the GAY-PRIDE MARDI-GRAS promoting the homo-agenda or not?

[Snoopy1 0]

torrid...try to focus

 

is reading little Freddie his first ever book about a trip to the GAY-PRIDE MARDI-GRAS promoting the homo-agenda or not?

 

 

Poor little Freddie, not going to ever have a book read to him until he gets to daycare...his parents suck!

[Fumbleweed 457]

Well, we can agree on the legislators, then. Torrid can correct me if I'm wrong, but if memory serves the polls indicate about a 1/3 believe gays should be allowed to marry, 1/3 believe gays should not be allowed to be married, but be given marriage rights in the form of civil unions, and 1/3 don't believe gays should have either. Kind of frustrating that the third of the population that believes in bigotry and discrimination are getting what they want, in a country as great as ours.

 

I wouldn't label everyone that believes in granting neither a bigot. It may be discrimination by definition, but like I said previously, I don't think everyone who dispproves of both is a bigot. There is a legitimate slippery slope fear that exists to which people don't want to give up ground. If they could be assured it would stay at civil unions and not progress beyond that, many of the discriminatory third would be open to being part of the second group you mentioned.

 

I think it's a more complex issue than maybe you're giving it credit for.

[torridjoe 41]

Until someone sues them for forcing their child to perform an act that many religious people (Christian, Jewish, whatever) would deem as sacreligious. Then, when they win and the school district has to pay out, guess who pays that? Me. and you.

 

They did that. That's what we're talking about here--the 9th Circuit ruling upholding the district court dismissal of the parents' case. Why? Because they didn't have one.

[Voltaire 4,619]

I often teach five and six year olds. I teach English but the curiculum is already vey well plotted and there is no books like this.

 

A children's book about gay and lesbian families isn't something that I'd like to introduce to a class of five or six year old. I think it would confuse kids. Now, if there was a child in the class from a gay/lesbian family -and I don't have any that I know of- I may consider it. Still probably not.

 

But if that student from a gay family in my class was facing harassment from other kids, then I would be happy that such a book was availible. And I'd feel compelled to talk about tolerance too.

 

I don't think introducing gay/lesbian issues into the classroom of young kids is a good idea unless there really is a kid with two moms or two dads in it and the other kids find it strange.

 

*******

On another point, gay people say they knew early in their lives that they were gay and want to help identify/counsel kids that are homosexuals. I can see how it would help. I only know what it's like to be me and I knew I was straight early on so I can understand if gay kids are confused or have low self esteem. Still, I really don't do anything in this regard. Even when I see feminine boys or masculine girls, that doesn't make them gay. I just treat them all the same.

[Jeremy 0]

I wouldn't label everyone that believes in granting neither a bigot. It may be discrimination by definition, but like I said previously, I don't think everyone who dispproves of both is a bigot. There is a legitimate slippery slope fear that exists to which people don't want to give up ground. If they could be assured it would stay at civil unions and not progress beyond that, many of the discriminatory third would be open to being part of the second group you mentioned.

 

I think it's a more complex issue than maybe you're giving it credit for.

 

Maybe it is more complex than I'm giving it credit for. I usually don't look at issues in terms of black and white, but this one doesn't seem that tough to me. I don't see a downside to allowing civil unions, or even marriage to same sex couples. Why wouldn't we promote monogomous, loving relationships? What promotes that better than marriage?

 

Even if I concede that labeling everyone in that last 3rd a bigot is unfair, I think we agree that they are promoting discrimination. Having discrimination in America is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. It just doesn't fit with the American philosophy, IMO.

 

I guess I've never understood this whole, "if we give them an inch, they'll take a mile" kind of thinking. It's based in fear, and an irrational fear at that. What are we afraid of exactly? There's the fastfish take that allowing these things will turn our kids into homosexuals. Kind of disappointing that this is the kind of people the politicians are catering to.

[Fumbleweed 457]

Maybe it is more complex than I'm giving it credit for. I usually don't look at issues in terms of black and white, but this one doesn't seem that tough to me. I don't see a downside to allowing civil unions, or even marriage to same sex couples. Why wouldn't we promote monogomous, loving relationships? What promotes that better than marriage?

 

Even if I concede that labeling everyone in that last 3rd a bigot is unfair, I think we agree that they are promoting discrimination. Having discrimination in America is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. It just doesn't fit with the American philosophy, IMO.

 

I guess I've never understood this whole, "if we give them an inch, they'll take a mile" kind of thinking. It's based in fear, and an irrational fear at that. What are we afraid of exactly? There's the fastfish take that allowing these things will turn our kids into homosexuals. Kind of disappointing that this is the kind of people the politicians are catering to.

 

The fear you describe as "fastfish take" is irrational. The fear that granted unions moves us one step closer to changing the traditional definition of marriage is, however, rational, I think. Fear isn't always a bad thing. It is when combined with hate, but otherwise it just reflects strong concern.

[MDC 6,005]

I wouldn't label everyone that believes in granting neither a bigot. It may be discrimination by definition, but like I said previously, I don't think everyone who dispproves of both is a bigot. There is a legitimate slippery slope fear that exists to which people don't want to give up ground. If they could be assured it would stay at civil unions and not progress beyond that, many of the discriminatory third would be open to being part of the second group you mentioned.

 

There are churches marrying gay people right now. For this last third you're talking about, I don't think they care about the term "marriage" so much as they just want to somehow elevate their own marriages above those of same-sex couples, at least in the eyes of the law. You can perfume it up in any language you want, but that is the definition of bigotry.

[Fumbleweed 457]

There are churches marrying gay people right now. For this last third you're talking about, I don't think they care about the term "marriage" so much as they just want to somehow elevate their own marriages above those of same-sex couples, at least in the eyes of the law. You can perfume it up in any language you want, but that is the definition of bigotry.

 

What do you base this opinion of yours on? How can you be so familiar with the inner thoughts of 1/3 of the population?

[parrot 789]

What do you base this opinion of yours on? How can you be so familiar with the inner thoughts of 1/3 of the population?

Maybe the same way you can?

 

If they could be assured it would stay at civil unions and not progress beyond that, many of the discriminatory third would be open to being part of the second group you mentioned.

[davebg 0]

What do you base this opinion of yours on? How can you be so familiar with the inner thoughts of 1/3 of the population?

Being a secretary is only his cover...his alter-ego, if you will. In reality he is an all-knowing super hero who champions the rights of inflatable ho-wahs across the city of Brotherly Love.

[MDC 6,005]

What do you base this opinion of yours on? How can you be so familiar with the inner thoughts of 1/3 of the population?

 

Mainly I base it on the lack of any compelling arguments against gay marriage.

[Fumbleweed 457]

Maybe the same way you can?

 

Point taken. But, I did say "many".....I do know many people who feel that way, so I was basing it on some level of experience. For me to presume to know "how many" would be speculation without any solid reasoning to back it up.

 

MDC operates in more absolutes. He rarely says "some" or "many"......just ascribes pervasive characteristics to a larger body of people.

 

Mainly I base it on the lack of any compelling arguments against gay marriage.

 

[MDC 6,005]

Point taken. But, I did say "many".....I do know many people who feel that way, so I was basing it on some level of experience. For me to presume to know "how many" would be speculation without any solid reasoning to back it up.

 

MDC operates in more absolutes. He rarely says "some" or "many"......just ascribes pervasive characteristics to a larger body of people.

 

OK, I'll explain.

 

Whenever I see this issue debated, the anti- gay marriage crowd always seems to fall back on circular logic and emotional arguments to make their case. So what that tells me is that all this stuff about the "sanctity of marriage" and how we've always done things a certain way, etc. is really just a smokescreen for people who want to somehow elevate their own relationships above those of gay people. Why else would people be open to civil unions that are identical in every way except for the terminology? "Marriage" in the eyes of the state is just a legal term, but opponents of gay marriage want to deny that to same sex couples because they insist that their relationships are more valuable and worth more than those of gays. Again, that is the definition of bigotry.

 

I don't deal in absolutes. I just make the assumption that when I say something about "opponents of gay marriage," you'll understand that I'm not talking about every single opponent of gay marriage on earth.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Point taken. But, I did say "many".....I do know many people who feel that way, so I was basing it on some level of experience. For me to presume to know "how many" would be speculation without any solid reasoning to back it up.

 

MDC operates in more absolutes. He rarely says "some" or "many"......just ascribes pervasive characteristics to a larger body of people.

 

While I understand folks wanting to preserve the "sanctity of marriage", what is the slippery slope in allowing gay "civil unions" where the same sex couple has the same legal status as the hetero-couple marriage?

 

Are we concerned that this will allow us to marry sheep? or children?

 

What is the problem with a gay couple having the same rights under the law?

 

ETA: and there is no way that 5-6 year olds need to be confronted with this issue in this manner. Teaching them to understand that some people are different than others and that we should accept those differences is good enough.

[MDC 6,005]

While I understand folks wanting to preserve the "sanctity of marriage", what is the slippery slope in allowing gay "civil unions" where the same sex couple has the same legal status as the hetero-couple marriage?

 

I understand religious folks who don't want their own churches to recognize same-sex unions; I don't understand their opposition to gays being officially "married" by the state at all. It's a legal term. Do these people really not understand the difference between being married by a priest vs. a justice of the peace?

[Strike 4,120]

I understand religious folks who don't want their own churches to recognize same-sex unions; I don't understand their opposition to gays being officially "married" by the state at all. It's a legal term. Do these people really not understand the difference between being married by a priest vs. a justice of the peace?

 

It's not JUST a legal term. The better question is why do gay people feel the need to use the same terminology for their union as has traditionally been given to unions of men and women only? I have no problem with them having a legally recognized union. I just see no reason to change the traditional definition of marriage.

[Toro 1]

It's not JUST a legal term. The better question is why do gay people feel the need to use the same terminology for their union as has traditionally been given to unions of men and women only? I have no problem with them having a legally recognized union. I just see no reason to change the traditional definition of marriage.

 

 

I agree.

 

Marriage = Adam and Eve

Civil Union = Adam and Edjr.

[jerryskids 5,442]

It's not JUST a legal term. The better question is why do gay people feel the need to use the same terminology for their union as has traditionally been given to unions of men and women only? I have no problem with them having a legally recognized union. I just see no reason to change the traditional definition of marriage.

Because a different name implies a difference, and emotionally, gay people want their union to be considered exactly the same.

 

ETA: IMO

[parrot 789]

It's not JUST a legal term. The better question is why do gay people feel the need to use the same terminology for their union as has traditionally been given to unions of men and women only? I have no problem with them having a legally recognized union. I just see no reason to change the traditional definition of marriage.

Gay people can be married in a church right now. The question is entirely about their legal standing.

[Fumbleweed 457]

I don't deal in absolutes. I just make the assumption that when I say something about "opponents of gay marriage," you'll understand that I'm not talking about every single opponent of gay marriage on earth.

 

Fair enough. My bad.

[Franknbeans 46]

It is the same, other than the fact that they are two dudes and they fock each other in the ass.

lesbos count too

I could see where you'd fixate on the dudes though

[Toro 1]

lesbos count too

I could see where you'd fixate on the dudes though

 

Two chicks don't gross me out. I have no problem giving them whatever they want.

[Franknbeans 46]

Two chicks don't gross me out. I have no problem giving them whatever they want.

hypocrite?

[MDC 6,005]

It's not JUST a legal term. The better question is why do gay people feel the need to use the same terminology for their union as has traditionally been given to unions of men and women only? I have no problem with them having a legally recognized union. I just see no reason to change the traditional definition of marriage.

 

The argument is about a legal term. Gay people are being "married" by churches right now. What we're arguing about is a legal term that is accompanied by a set of rights.

 

And when I say that the anti- gay marriage crowd doesn't have any compelling arguments, this is what I mean. "Because we always did it that way" isn't much of a reason. At one time women couldn't vote and we forbid interracial marriage. No doubt people at that time were trotting out the same tired arguments you're using now.

[Strike 4,120]

Gay people can be married in a church right now. The question is entirely about their legal standing.

 

They can be married in a church but not any church. And I'm not religous so that doesn't really matter to me. You do realize that it's possible for a word to have meaning legally, religously, and in other ways as well? I mean, it is possible for someone to consider a word to have a specific meaning that isn't associated with the law or a church. You do realize that don't you? So no, it's not just about legal standing.

[parrot 789]

Yes. What's your point?

What is the Libertarian view on gay marriage?

[Strike 4,120]

The argument is about a legal term. Gay people are being "married" by churches right now. What we're arguing about is a legal term that is accompanied by a set of rights.

 

And when I say that the anti- gay marriage crowd doesn't have any compelling arguments, this is what I mean. "Because we always did it that way" isn't much of a reason. At one time women couldn't vote and we forbid interracial marriage. No doubt people at that time were trotting out the same tired arguments you're using now.

 

While I wouldn't phrase it as "because we always did it that way", that is certainly part of the issue. I'm not going to debate this with you because this is simply a matter of opinion. It's sad that people such as yourself can't allow for the possibility that some words might be sacred simply because of stupid things like tradition. LOL.

[Toro 1]

What is the Libertarian view on gay marriage?

 

Let them do whatever the fock they want.

 

(Libertarian view on pretty much every issue)

 

In all seriousness, I think the whole thing is just crap. If they want to get married, let them. It doesn't bother me. The only time I start to have issues is for gay adoption. And before you say it, I know what you are going to say:

 

"Two dads are better than no dads."

 

But I have a hard time believing that a child being raised by two gay parents are not going to suffer some definite harm. Now, I will be the first to admit, there are gay parents out there that do a great job. I am not making a blanket generalization. I am just saying that in the average case, it would not be a healthy environment to raise a child.

[Fumbleweed 457]

"Because we always did it that way" isn't much of a reason.

 

That's too simplistic. I'm not getting into my views with you yet again, but it falls along the lines of needing to maintain some traditional ideals with respect to family. When the boundaries are completely eroded with respect to institutions like marriage, I think the ramifications are enormous. I know you don't agree and I wouldn't ask you to of course, but it runs deeper than what you're saying.

 

Man-woman marriage needs to stay the ideal for society for a number of reasons, IMO. I have said all along that I am in favor of civil unions or whatever is necessary to eliminate discrimination, but while every family in America should be considered "ok", it is still appropriate, I believe, to have ideals with respect to institutions and relationships.

 

I won't get more specific as we have done this same thread a hundred times. I just wanted to explain that the reasons aren't as simple as you're making them out to be in my opinion.

[MDC 6,005]

While I wouldn't phrase it as "because we always did it that way", that is certainly part of the issue. I'm not going to debate this with you because this is simply a matter of opinion. It's sad that people such as yourself can't allow for the possibility that some words might be sacred simply because of stupid things like tradition. LOL.

 

It's partly a matter of opinion, but at least I have a few coherent arguments on my side. You've got nothing. It's OK though - within our lifetime many if not all states will offer some form of civil unions for gay couples, if not marriage. You are on the wrong side of history.

[Toro 1]

It's partly a matter of opinion, but at least I have a few coherent arguments on my side. You've got nothing. It's OK though - within our lifetime many if not all states will offer some form of civil unions for gay couples, if not marriage. You are on the wrong side of history.

 

Texas - No.

 

HTH

[parrot 789]

They can be married in a church but not any church. And I'm not religous so that doesn't really matter to me. You do realize that it's possible for a word to have meaning legally, religously, and in other ways as well? I mean, it is possible for someone to consider a word to have a specific meaning that isn't associated with the law or a church. You do realize that don't you? So no, it's not just about legal standing.

I agree that a word can have different meanings in different contexts, that's kinda the point.

 

Gay people are already being married by in the religious sense, so the idea that the legal prohibition somehow protects the traditional religious sense of the word makes no sense to me. If churches are interested in protecting the religious sense of the word then their real beef is with the churches marrying gay people.

 

When a church shows me a copywright on the term "marriage" then I guess I'll concede that they have a right to decide who can use it and who can't.

[MDC 6,005]

That's too simplistic. I'm not getting into my views with you yet again, but it falls along the lines of needing to maintain some traditional ideals with respect to family. When the boundaries are completely eroded with respect to institutions like marriage, I think the ramifications are enormous. I know you don't agree and I wouldn't ask you to of course, but it runs deeper than what you're saying.

 

Man-woman marriage needs to stay the ideal for society for a number of reasons, IMO. I have said all along that I am in favor of civil unions or whatever is necessary to eliminate discrimination, but while every family in America should be considered "ok", it is still appropriate, I believe, to have ideals with respect to institutions and relationships.

 

I won't get more specific as we have done this same thread a hundred times. I just wanted to explain that the reasons aren't as simple as you're making them out to be in my opinion.

 

Fumble, why do you assume that the ramifications of gay marriage would be negative? Seems to me that monogamy and greater social stability - since you now have a committed couple and not just long-term boyfriends or whatever - would be the expected result.

 

I also don't get what this has to do with the "ideal" family unit. Same-sex adoption is a different issue. Why would the existence of married gay couples change your ideal? Obviously you'd go on believing that man-woman marriage is superior.

 

It's not so much that I disagree with you - I just think all of this stuff is a canard.