Gay marriage is now the issue through which the elite advertises its superiority over redneck masses

Originally posted by cuervo
What rights?! The rights to trample on others? To tell others how to act? Nobody is trying to "gay marry" you. Stay out of peoples love lives.

Oh good. So you agree that gay education should stay out of the classroom - in other words stay out of the life of children and their parents?

Thanks. We have finally found a point we agree on.

Unless of course, you see things only working in one direction - gay rights get forced into children and parents lives but parents have no right to force their views into gays lives?

Originally posted by jlv70
reply to post by ollncasino

 

So, people don't get to have the same rights as everyone else because you want to shelter your children from reality? That makes sense.

Reality is that small children don't need to be taught about 'the prince who kissed the prince' but the gay movement has already succeeded in getting such packs sent out to primary school kids' teachers in the UK.

Why on earth would a 5 year old need to learn about 2 gay men kissing?

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by cuervo
What rights?! The rights to trample on others? To tell others how to act? Nobody is trying to "gay marry" you. Stay out of peoples love lives.

Oh good. So you agree that gay education should stay out of the classroom - in other words stay out of the life of children and their parents?

Thanks. We have finally found a point we agree on.

Unless of course, you see things only working in one direction - gay rights get forced into children and parents lives but parents have no right to force their views into gays lives?

I agree that neither should be pushed. If there is a childrens' book that stands on its own literary merit, I don't care if it showcases a gay or hetero couple. You do care. That's the difference. Being indifferent to the facts of life isn't "pushing an agenda" in school.

Nobody should go out of their way to restrict school curriculum to only hetero-based themes. If we are to live in a truly free and liberty-loving nation, we cannot dictate these sort of things. Nobody is endorsing gay lifestyles in school any more than they are endorsing hetero lifestyle.

Parents being afraid of their children learning about the existence of an entire demographic they will either be a part of or, at least, live with... need to realize they are not only fighting a losing battle but they are only harming their kids in the long run.

reply to post by ollncasino

Why on earth would a 5 year old need to learn about 2 gay men kissing?

Children from same sex marriages tend to learn it as young as 1 years old.
For some reference, children from hetro families have to learn about men and women kissing at the same age.
That's not even from any school pack being sent out. It's from observing adult's behavior.

Who gives a flying #*$! about gay marriage..... IMO they should not call it marriage since the term "Marriage" was given for man and woman.... Call it "Immoral Partnership..."

The solution to all of this has already been presented. In fact it was presented to is 230 years ago in our US Constitution. The government has no business involved in anyone's sex lives or in the educating of children period, much less about sexual orientation.

Read the constitution and it's amendments, it states very clearly the powers and limits as well as the duty of the government. This is the problem with our government, they feel it is their job to promote "social equality" and social issues yet they thwart their true duty of securing our borders, providing for the national defense and regulating commerce between the states. They have no business regulating between the sheets.

This is all part of the governments divisiveness plan to continue to keep the people preoccupied with "social issues" in order to keep us to busy to notice the true wrongdoings of our government.

If only people would put as much passion into their vigilance of government malfeasance as they do into arguing over these stupid government created social issue arguments then we wouldn't be faced with issues such as these because our government wouldn't be involved in every aspect of our lives.

Originally posted by cuervo
Nobody should go out of their way to restrict school curriculum to only hetero-based themes.

By the same token, no one should force homosexual based themes into the classroom. But that is exactly what is happening.

California Passes Gay History Education Bill

A bill to require gay and lesbian history to be taught in schools passed the California State Assembly.

www.theatlanticwire.com...

Note that people in general and parents in particular were not given an option to vote on this matter.

Pro-gay rights activists are constantly touting the issue of rights.

Yet parents rights of whether they want their kids to be taught about homosexuality appears to be happily ignored by these 'rights' activists.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by cuervo
Nobody should go out of their way to restrict school curriculum to only hetero-based themes.

By the same token, no one should force homosexual based themes into the classroom. But that is exactly what is happening.

California Passes Gay History Education Bill

A bill to require gay and lesbian history to be taught in schools passed the California State Assembly.

www.theatlanticwire.com...

Note that people in general and parents in particular were not given an option to vote on this matter.

Pro-gay rights activists are constantly touting the issue of rights.

Yet parents rights of whether they want their kids to be taught about homosexuality appears to be happily ignored by these 'rights' activists.

How can you really be seeing this so backwards? It's not forcing them to do anything. This is about a bill that would essentially lift the restriction (taboo) that has been there on teaching about historical figures who are gay. They did the same thing with black people in history and kids suddenly realized that there were tons of interesting figures in history who's stories have been oppressed because of racism. It wasn't pushing a "black agenda".

Removing the blinders isn't forcing you to see. It's allowing you to see what should have never been hidden.

Originally posted by cuervo
How can you really be seeing this so backwards? It's not forcing them to do anything. This is about a bill that would essentially lift the restriction (taboo) that has been there on teaching about historical figures who are gay.

Perhaps you are looking at this backwards.

There was never a restriction on teaching children about the deeds of historical figures who were gay. There was however a restriction on teaching children about the sexual habits of historical figures.

You are also incorrect in stating that the bill is to "lift the restriction (taboo) that has been there on teaching about historical figures who are gay"

Introduced by Democratic State Senator Mark Leno, of San Francisco, the bill "would require schools to teach at all grade levels the historical contributions of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people," the San Francisco Examiner reported

www.theatlanticwire.com...

You appear to missunderstand the nature of the bill.

It will force schools to teach children about the "historical contributions of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people."

When an issue such as the non-stop glorification of homosexuality requires indoctrination and brainwashing, then most adults do have the right to protest. When a completely controlled media is needed to force their "agenda" down the throats of an almost entirely heterosexual community, then yes, there is a problem. When those with the "agenda" need to resort to indoctrination to deceptively force a change in beliefs, then yes, there is an "agenda". When such a small minority has the power to FORCE their sexual practices and beliefs on the innocent children of the overwhelming majority, then yes, their is an "agenda".

It could never have been done without resorting to brainwashing and propaganda techniques.
And therein lies the anger of most people who wake up to the agenda. But by this point, those people can now be called "bigots" and that powerful word is used to silence.

Forcing the homosexual lifestyle into the consciousness of five years old is a new PATHETIC LOW, and demonstrates loud and clearly to all parents that their own beliefs are not to be tolerated in the raising of their children. It's disgusting and morally bankrupting to promote a sexual practice and denegerate lifestyle that is instinctively wrong to most human beings.

Originally posted by ollncasino
The bizarre emptying-out of political debate from the issue of gay marriage, and its transformation instead into a clear-cut moral matter that separates the good from the bad, shows what its backers really get out of it – a moral buzz, a rush of superiority as they declare, to anyone who will listen, that they are For Gay Marriage.

This just seems like a steaming pile of projection.

Religious people have been trying to turn the debate about gay marriage into a moral one for ... how long now? Why should anyone be surprised when the answer to their pushing that homosexuality is immoral is ... "no it isn't?" That, and the concept that homosexuality is some tool of some 'mythical' elite is completely and utterly random. Which upper echelons are using it to distinguish their class?

And assuming that everyone that is for gay marriage gets a buzz out of it is just odd. It would be the exact same as me saying 'Catholics think they're better than me'.

Gay-marriage activists have not had to march for years on end, carry out mass boycotts, face water cannons, get attacked by dogs or run the risk of being thrown in jail for their campaign to achieve almost saintly status, winning the backing of leading politicians and commentators.

So this is how we distribute rights now? Take a half brick to the face and you may now have an opinion? Alright, so you want some rights, lets unleash a pack of dogs and if you live then we will give you a gold star? It doesn't make sense.

Also, the stone wall riots. Link

The article is just poorly formed and making far too many assumptions in my opinion.

As for the education stuff ... the article being pointed at is from March 2011 and from the Daily Mail. I could go dig up a fundamentalist hate web page and use that as example, too.

Ultimately, you have much more control over your children than you realise. They're going to come into contact with things that you think are wrong, and you're going to have to guide them. If you want your child's first contact with gay rights to be during a bullying episode or on the internet behind your back ... that's your choice. Or it could happen in a classroom environment and your school could warn you before hand so you can prepare your child according to your beliefs.

Don't know about other persons, but if my child was learning about a controversial topic I would like the opportunity to discuss it with them.

Yeah, it is a liberal thing. "Everyone should be free to do anything! Unless, you disagree with me then you should be shot you bigoted NAZI!!!!!!"

Originally posted by Pinke
This just seems like a steaming pile of projection.

Religious people have been trying to turn the debate about gay marriage into a moral one for ... how long now?

Yet, I am not religious and I disagree with homosexual 'marriage'. Homosexual civil unions are fine. Homosexual 'marriage' is not.

This is not a religious issue.

Originally posted by Pinke
As for the education stuff ... the article being pointed at is from March 2011 and from the Daily Mail. I could go dig up a fundamentalist hate web page and use that as example, too.

Are you arguing that 'digging up a fundamentalist hate web page' justifies children as young as five being taught about gay relationships in schools with teachers urged to ‘celebrate difference’ by using books such as King And King, a story about a fairytale prince who kisses and marries another prince?

The DailyMail

I really don't understand your logic.

Originally posted by Pinke
If you want your child's first contact with gay rights to be during a bullying episode or on the internet behind your back ... that's your choice. Or it could happen in a classroom environment and your school could warn you before hand so you can prepare your child according to your beliefs.

I will go out on a limb here and venture that while the majority of the gay rights movement want homosexuality taught to children in the classroom, the majority of parents do not.

Yet, the rights of parents seem to count for little in the eyes of gay rights activists in comparison to the 'right' of gay activists to force homosexuality into the classroom.

reply to post by ollncasino


Croesus' advice to Cyrus concerning how to conquer the Lydians:

"Pardon the Lydians, yet lay upon them these edicts, that they may revolt no more nor be any danger to you: send them an injunction that they carry no more arms; bid them wear tunics under their cloaks and soft slippers on their feet; and give them orders that they themselves shall play the flute and the lyre and educate their children to be shopkeepers. Soon enough, my lord, you shall see them become women instead of men, so that they will be no further threat to you as rebels." Herodotus Histories

Originally posted by ollncasino
Yet, I am not religious and I disagree with homosexual 'marriage'. Homosexual civil unions are fine. Homosexual 'marriage' is not.

This is not a religious issue.

I was referring to the article. This has been classed a moral issue for quite sometime. To ignore that makes no sense. There is better literature than this out there to illustrate your point. The article was pretty fluffy.

Are you arguing that 'digging up a fundamentalist hate web page' justifies children as young as five being taught about gay relationships in schools with teachers urged to ‘celebrate difference’ by using books such as King And King, a story about a fairytale prince who kisses and marries another prince?

I'm saying that throwing out random articles from the daily mail about teaching packages that likely have never been implemented is a poor way to debate unless you just want drama. You're basically telling your fellow posters what their point of view is and comparing it to your own using a daily mail article.

Find a different source. Find something that is actually happening. Find me something that's actually being taught in a school perhaps. I'd probably then suggest making another thread about it because the original article you presented isn't about gay education as far as I'm concerned.

I will go out on a limb here and venture that while the majority of the gay rights movement want homosexuality taught to children in the classroom, the majority of parents do not.

If you incredulously imply children are going to be taught about anal sex or the 'fantastical' gay life style you might be right. Again, incredulous article from the daily mail used to support incredulous statements.

Yet, the rights of parents seem to count for little in the eyes of gay rights activists in comparison to the 'right' of gay activists to force homosexuality into the classroom.

To me this is all just rhetoric. I'd like to see a nicely presented version of what you're saying based on reality and not just on buzz phrases etc ... If you're at all asking if I think children should learn about the outside world in school, yes I do. It's no different from children learning about sex in a mixed religion public school that doesn't have a stance on premarital relations.

I've seen homosexuality brought up in school systems, and it really didn't injure or endanger anyone's belief systems despite the fears of brain washing and the rest.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by ollncasino

 

This isn't a left-right issue.

This is an issue that concerns life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Indeed I think it's anti-conservative to be anti-gay marriage. You don't have to personally approve, or endorse it, or encourage it any way. You just have to ... not try to suppress people. Perhaps that's hard.

I do also agree with the article, simply with the ease in which, through the media, gay marriage as a social issue seems to have triumphed (even though there are still a larger percentage of people against it..)

The only thing I personally have an issue with is the radical progressiveness behind it.. which we see in California for instance where children have to be taught about the "historical importance of gay people" or to teach young children about homosexuality.

My take is what you do in your own time is your own thing, I shouldn't judge. Forcing your alternative views on my children without my consent ... meh .. then we have a problem..

There are plenty of gays that are against gay marriage, but they are not automatically branded as religious or conservative.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Yet, I am not religious and I disagree with homosexual 'marriage'. Homosexual civil unions are fine. Homosexual 'marriage' is not.

This is not a religious issue.

Why do you disagree with homosexual "marriage"?

Here is a website that explains: "That's a Family".

Hardly invasive or teaching anything about sexual acts.

With courage and humor, the children in That’s a Family! take viewers on a tour through their lives as they speak candidly about what it’s like to grow up in a family with parents of different races or religions, divorced parents, a single parent, gay or lesbian parents, adoptive parents or grandparents as guardians. groundspark.org...

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Why do you disagree with homosexual "marriage"?

I don't disagree with homosexuals having a civil union and having the same civil rights as hetrosexuals.

But why call it a 'marriage'?

Traditionally marriage has denoted a union between a man and a women.

Let gays have a civil union but don't call it a 'marriage'. That's just a recipe for confusion.