Thread: Gays Indoctrinating Children

Originally Posted by Goshin

Actually we do allow that. To my knowlege, most child-protection departments will not pull children from a home only because their parents are teaching them bigotry.



I taught my son that homosexual activity is a sin in our religious beliefs. I also taught him that we should never hate anyone, or persecute anyone, for any reason whatsoever. I have worked hard to teach him not to hate his personal enemies, even, because that is part of our religion as well. (It's a part I struggle with myself, but... ideals are ideals.) Am I a bigot?

True, we allow it, but don't entertain it in our educational system or our policy.

The same should be true of bigotry against gays.

Are you bigot? Hard to say from that statement alone. I think condescension can be a form of bigotry, so perhaps. At the very least I think you're a bit judgmental, and possible ill-informed.

Goshin, that kind of begs the question - so what's with all the hate crimes? What's with using the words 'gay' and 'faggot' as pejoratives?

Originally Posted by MistressNomad

True, we allow it, but don't entertain it in our educational system or our policy.

The same should be true of bigotry against gays.

Are you bigot? Hard to say from that statement alone. I think condescension can be a form of bigotry, so perhaps. At the very least I think you're a bit judgmental, and possible ill-informed.

No, I'm actually very well-informed on this subject, mainly because people insist on telling me all about it even though I'm really not all that intrested.

For instance, I'm thoroughly aware that there is no proof that homosexuality is inborn. A gay gene was searched for and not found. No physiological difference has been found to be present at birth that accurately predicts sexual orientation as an adult. Experts differ on how sexual orientation is formed, and when.

I'm not being judgemental; I'm being true to what my religion teaches. At the same time, I don't go around being mean to homosexuals or getting in their face about it. I don't hate anyone; I don't treat anyone like **** just because of what they are. So I find it a smidge annoying to get tarred with the Archie Bunkerism of "bigoted" just because of a religious belief.

I believe habitual drunkenness is a sin too. I am actually LESS likely to associate with a habitual drunk than with a gay person, but no one calls me a bigot for that...

Originally Posted by BDBoop

Goshin, that kind of begs the question - so what's with all the hate crimes? What's with using the words 'gay' and 'faggot' as pejoratives?

Not sure I follow you... could you expand on what you mean a bit? I'm not sure what you're asking exactly.

Really? Scientists are able to predict sexuality in children from a very young age.

And genes are not the only thing that can result in an inborn trait. There is strong evidence that hormone levels in utero are a key factor in homosexuality.

I think you're just choosing to ignore the evidence, but neither here nor there.

Alcoholics tend to harm those around them. I've yet to hear of a gay person doing so, simply by being gay. I don't think the two compare.

Regardless, since your opinion is religious and you live in a secular democracy, public schools have every right and indeed an obligation to teach a neutral view of homosexuality.

If you don't like it, home school, private school, or move to a theocracy. But imposing religiosity on the public sector is quite clearly unconstitutional in the country in which you live.

Originally Posted by Goshin

No, I'm actually very well-informed on this subject, mainly because people insist on telling me all about it even though I'm really not all that intrested.

For instance, I'm thoroughly aware that there is no proof that homosexuality is inborn. A gay gene was searched for and not found. No physiological difference has been found to be present at birth that accurately predicts sexual orientation as an adult. Experts differ on how sexual orientation is formed, and when.

I'm not being judgemental; I'm being true to what my religion teaches. At the same time, I don't go around being mean to homosexuals or getting in their face about it. I don't hate anyone; I don't treat anyone like **** just because of what they are. So I find it a smidge annoying to get tarred with the Archie Bunkerism of "bigoted" just because of a religious belief.

I believe habitual drunkenness is a sin too. I am actually LESS likely to associate with a habitual drunk than with a gay person, but no one calls me a bigot for that...

you bigot



lol

nope I think your post is VERY good and how a lot of americans should be, I think the line for you gets blurred because people confuse it with hate.

Originally Posted by MistressNomad

Really? Scientists are able to predict sexuality in children from a very young age.

And genes are not the only thing that can result in an inborn trait. There is strong evidence that hormone levels in utero are a key factor in homosexuality.

I think you're just choosing to ignore the evidence, but neither here nor there.

Alcoholics tend to harm those around them. I've yet to hear of a gay person doing so, simply by being gay. I don't think the two compare.

Regardless, since your opinion is religious and you live in a secular democracy, public schools have every right and indeed an obligation to teach a neutral view of homosexuality.

If you don't like it, home school, private school, or move to a theocracy. But imposing religiosity on the public sector is quite clearly unconstitutional in the country in which you live.

while I agree with you I dont think thats whats goshin wants? I dont think he wants to force his religious views on schools? I could be wrong but I dont think so . . . . . . goshin?

Originally Posted by The Baron

Let's see...

Parents foot the bill for thier kids education via taxes.

Parent's values must not be taught at school...that's religion and morality has no place in the class room.

However, anything that may contradicts the parent's values (the state's morality) will be taught to thier children and paid for by the parent's tax dollars even if the parents object.

Yes...I can see why some people call public education child abuse.

With the variety of parents and the variety of beliefs of those parents living in a community, identifying exactly WHAT values should be taught is impossible. Further, I do not believe that values are really the issue. It is the job of the school to provide information. The parents can then spin or not spin that information in whatever way they choose... and the kids can either accept or not accept that spin. For example, if a school teaches about the Civil Rights Movement of the 50's and 60's and the kids, when telling their parents this, are told that the civil rights movement was a travesty and was nothing more than radical blacks, who will never be as good as whites, trying to destroy our society, that is the parents' right to do. Doesn't change the fact that the civil rights movement is part of our history and it is appropriate to be taught in history class. Again... difference between information and values.

Originally Posted by MistressNomad

Really? Scientists are able to predict sexuality in children from a very young age.

They can run a test on a baby and tell you for sure what its sexual orientation will be? I would have thought that would be big news... I need proof of this.

And genes are not the only thing that can result in an inborn trait. There is strong evidence that hormone levels in utero are a key factor in homosexuality.

I think you're just choosing to ignore the evidence, but neither here nor there.

Alcoholics tend to harm those around them. I've yet to hear of a gay person doing so, simply by being gay. I don't think the two compare.

Regardless, since your opinion is religious and you live in a secular democracy, public schools have every right and indeed an obligation to teach a neutral view of homosexuality.

If you don't like it, home school, private school, or move to a theocracy. But imposing religiosity on the public sector is quite clearly unconstitutional in the country in which you live.

Hmmm. You amaze me with your ability to put words into my mouth that I never said, and to construe things I did say in ways I never intended them... and to an extreme degree.

I never said anything about what schools teach. Not one word.

I said nothing about imposing religiousity on the public sector. Not one word.

I damn sure said nothing about theocracy, or anything that could be construed as relating to theocracy.... yet you're bringing it up as if I were advocating for one.

Most disingenuous. (That's a polite way of saying "dishonest", in case I wasn't clear again somehow.)


What I have actually said in this thread is as follows: I am religiously obligated to view homosexuality as a sin. I taught my son likewise. I do not mistreat homosexuals because of this belief; I have a homosexual friend at work who I have been quite kind and helpful to. I do not hate or persecute anyone because of what they are, and have taught my son likewise.

As I said, I don't like being tarred as a "bigot", and lumped together with haters and bashers, as if there were only a difference of degree between me and Matthew Shepherd's killers, simply because of a religious obligation that does NOT cause me to act like a jackass towards gays in daily life.

By acting as if my position were vastly more extreme than anything I actually said, you've done serious damage to your own credibility.

Personally, I have no issue with anyone being against SSM for purely religious reasons. Your beliefs are your beliefs, and I respect that. However, the problem starts when that person tries to prove that their religious beliefs are either valid, universally, or that they can be proven logically, universally. Neither of these are accurate. I also have a problem with the religious who are against SSM and then use faulty evidence to justify their claim.