posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 02:19 AM
I am seeing alot of ignorance and intollerance on both sides of the issue. This is extremely disturbing.
First off, while I feel that this politician is little more than a book burning fascist, I certainly do not believe that homosexuality should be
taught in schools to children, period. Not as an alternative lifestyle, nor as an "abomination. Teaching homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle is
in clear violation of the constitional rights of the parents. Freedom of religon means more than allowing people to attend church or read bibles.
Freedom of religon also means the right for parents to raise and teach their children their religous beliefs and convictions. Thus, teaching
homosexuality as something normal, acceptable, natural, ect, is violating the religous beliefs of some parents, who, because of their religous
convictions, believe homosexuality is immoral and sinful. They do not want their children to be taught acceptance of something that is at odds with
their own religous beliefs. The state has no right to indoctrinate their political agendas or beliefs into the minds of children. Ultimately,
homosexuality is something that parents need to teach their children about, in accordance with whatever belief system they cherish. If the parents
believe homosexuality is ok, then let them teach their children that. The state needs to keep out of such issues. The job of the schools should be
restricted to teaching reading, writing, math, science, history, geography, and the like. Their job is not to indoctrinate or try and teach tolerance
or acceptance of certain lifestyles, and if the liberals would stop trying to bring indoctrination as part of the educational system, and concentrated
more on getting kids to learn the basics, they would gain alot more acceptance. But tolerance and acceptance of different races, religons, or sexual
preferences is something that can not and should not be forced on people, it is something people must learn and come to terms with on their own. leave
the moral and ethical questions to the parents, the state should be banned from any sort of moral or ethical teaching in regards to homosexuality or
any other controversial issue. The rights of parental consent and religous rights far outweigh and trump any desire of the state. And its not only
Christians who view homosexuality as an abomination and sinful: Muslims and Jews also view it as wickedness and immorality.
Second, marriage is not a monotheistic invention. Anyone with any knowldge of history and ancient civilization knows marriage existed in the first
civilizations, which were polytheistic. The Romans, Greeks, Hindus, Chinese, Egyptians, and Persians, all were polytheists, and all had marriage. In
fact, these civilizations had gods and goddesses who were the patrons of marriage. The word hymen, which is the flap of skin that covers a girls
vagaina when she is still a virgin, comes from the Greek god Hymen, who was the god of marriage and commitment. hera, who was also the Roman Juno, was
the goddess of married women. Marriage is a universal institution that transcends religons, cultures, and races. it is universal in all people, and
existed for thousands of years before monotheism ever reared its ugly head. Monotheism is relatively new, being only about 3000 years old, when
compared to 7,000 years of recorded civilization, the first 4,000 years consisted of polytheist religons. Even after monotheism came about, it would
be about 1500 years before monotheism ever became a major religous feature. Polytheism has by far been more prevailent. And these polytheists also
held marriage in the highest regard. We know this from ruins and tombs of many cultures, like the Etruscans, in whose tombs we find husbands and wives
not only buried together, but their resting places decorated with images to insure the married couple would be reunited in happieness in the
afterlife. Even the bible has many parts that distinctly show that non Hebrews had marriage as a building block of their society. Remember the
egyptians? Phaeroh's WIFE?
There also seems to be confusion on the status of homosexuality in the bible. Anyone who has honestly read the bible knows, that without a doubt, that
homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of the Christian/Jewish god.
"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Levitcus 18:22-23
"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to
death." Leviticus 20:13
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals" 1 Corinthians 6:9
"realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for
the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and
perjurers" 1 Timothy 1:9-10
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the
same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts
and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." Romans 1:26-27
And of course, theres Sodom and Gommorah, but everyone knows about that.
Now, my point is, is that liberals who claim that the bible does not condemn homosexuality have never read the bible, obviously. Its very clear the
Christian God has problems with man-man woman woman love. I have talked to some Christian ministers about the subject, however, and the Christian
fundementalists are also incorrect in their behavior towards homosexuals. A couple pastors basically have told me, that while homosexuality is wrong,
Christians who engage in "fag bashing" or those lovely people who stand around carrying signs saying "god hates fags" are committing terrible sins
themselves. According to the ministers, while it is the duty of Christians to reject homosexuality as a sin, Christians are still supposed to love and
forgive the homosexual for their sins. As I was told by them: love the sinner, but hate their sin. In otherwords, while churchs should still embrace
homosexuals as people, they are to reject the lifestyle of homosexuality and to kindly, but firmly, implore the homosexual to turn away from their
immoral lifestyle, ask god for forgiveness, and from then on, refrain from homosexual activity.
Thus, both sides are wrong. The liberals are wrong in saying that Christianity accepts or allows homosexual behavipr, and the fundementalists are
wrong when they say homosexuals are evil worthless people. The Christian faith believes all people sin, need forgiveness, and should turn away from
sinful lifestyles and refrain from it. It is the lifestyle that is condemned in the bible, not the homosexuals themselves, whom, despite their sins,
Jesus still loves, forgives, and only wants them to turn away from it.
The sad thing about this all, is that I am not even a Christian, or a liberal, or a conservative, yet I find myself having to educate the above about
their own beliefs, doctrines, ect, since none of them seem to have any clue about what their respective groups actually believe in or preach.
Denying ignorance begins with actually knowing a bit about the belief system you supposedly are enspousing.