So, in the baptism of the dead thread, we see that a lot of people have an emotional vested interest in their positions. Because of this, everyone has gone to great pains to not declare that the other side is wrong and should change. Everyone is basically o.k. with everyone else believing as they wish and acting accordingly, even though those beliefs are different.
I want to point out to those who have been saying legalization of homosexual marriage is the same as forcing everyone to 'accept' it, or that because something means 'everything' it means'nothing', that you can have several different beliefs and behaviors in a society which don't agree or are at cross ends to each other, and it doesn't mean that one side is any less legitimate than the other, or that the individual beliefs aren't important to those that believe them.
To further extrapolate the treatment of religion on this board and in our country to gay marriage, I want to point out that at (most) of our public schools, we have wisely chosen to make them ecumenical and areligious when it comes to the faculty, the courses, and the texts, but ahve allowed the students in the schools to pretty much do their own thing religiously.
The same can be done with homosexuality and gay marriage, can't it? If we can do it with religion, why not sexuality and gay marriage?
[ April 19, 2004, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
What then would be left to argue about, Stormy? Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
No one has to "accept" it. They just have to stop preventing people who are not harming them from having a normal life. It's the anti crowd that is "forcing" the "accept it" mentality.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Storm, I think you're wrong and should change.
Hobbes Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
O.K. What should I change into?
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Some shorts and a Hawaiian shirt. Sandals preferably.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I had a discussion about this with a friend the other day. I was explaining my "surrender" theory of why I think the same civil entity of "marriage" should be available to homosexual as to heterosexual couples, with the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities for both. Basically, I think it has become abundantly clear in the last 50 years that marriage is no longer the principle legal institution for the encouragement of procreation and family. Almost all legal benefits associated with providing child-raising benefits are available based on a person's status as guardian of a child, not as partner in a marriage. In general, this is a good thing, since it makes no sense to deny benefits to the children likely to need them the most. However, it means that the civil recognition of marriage has been reduced to those rights, privileges, and responsibilities.
He was more on the civil union side, with forced full faith and credit across state lines. For all intents and purposes, the two institutions would have the same legal rights, privileges, and responsibilities but maintain separate legal identities. His main reasoning is that the reason society dedicates resources to marriage is to help encourage families; he’s unwilling to surrender that aspect of the legal marriage, even though under his plan it would exist in name only. Interestingly, he’s in favor of offering covenant marriages, and allowing religious marriage celebrants to require them for couples getting married in their churches. Obviously, some churches would require them and some wouldn’t. Both covenant and non-covenant marriages would be available to anyone in a purely civil ceremony. He also would extend the same choice to homosexual civil unions.
My preferred method of handling the wide divergence between civil and religious marriages would be to rename the whole civil entity to “civil union” for both. Anyone who wants to be married would have to tack something onto the ceremony, even if it’s just saying it’s a marriage. Obviously, churches would just use their current ceremony. But that would have no legal effect, and in the records would still be a civil union. This goes along with my previous statement that gay marriage is available now, but without the civil benefits. However, the renaming is not as important to me as it was a couple months ago, mainly because as I’ve been going through my own wedding preparation with my priest I’ve realized the dichotomy already exists and is handled just fine.
Now this is two very conservative Catholic Republicans who both think that equal civil privileges should be extended to homosexual couples, although we differ on the details. I know the “separate but equal” argument that can be made against his version, and we discussed it at length. But I think this demonstrates that the same ecumenical spirit that exists on this board with regard to religion can exist within society with regard to homosexuality.
However, I think the proxy baptism thread demonstrated that even well-meaning people are going to cause great offense to each other. There will be many religious people who believe that homosexuality is a sin. There will also be many religious people who believe that denying the chance to form a loving binding marriage within a faith automatically makes it suspect with regard to the Christian virtue of love.
I suspect we’ll muddle through somehow.
Dagonee
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:
However, I think the proxy baptism thread demonstrated that even well-meaning people are going to cause great offense to each other.
Sure. Absolutely. It's all part of living in a free society. People think differently.
The problem for most people comes when you bring the state into it. Kind of along the same lines you, and many other people on this board, have been thinking, let me throw something out there. What do you think if, rather than an amendment defining marriage, we have an amendment that enshrines the seperation of 'sexuality' and state? Something along the same principle that many people follow for seperation of church and state, I think it would make many people who oppose gay marriage breathe a little easier, since one of their primary concerns is that schools will influence their children to believe a certain way about sexuality. So, whenever a school tries to do something like this, any judge can just point to this amendment and slap their attempt down.
Now, I know, the term sexuality is a big ball of worms, but before people start to chime in with objections of 'soon sex with children will be legal!', don't be silly. just as freedom of religion doesn't equate to the ability to harm others or their property, the same limitations would apply to freedom of sexuality.
John L.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote: he’s in favor of offering covenant marriages, and allowing religious marriage celebrants to require them for couples getting married in their churches. Obviously, some churches would require them and some wouldn’t. Both covenant and non-covenant marriages would be available to anyone in a purely civil ceremony. He also would extend the same choice to homosexual civil unions.
I'm not sure what you mean by "covenant" marriages. could you elaborate?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Basically, a couple getting married chooses to agree to some limits on the grounds they can use for divorce. There are also educational components.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Storm, I'm not a big fan of such an amendment, and not because of any "sex with marriage will be legal" argument. I'd need to think about it more, but the consequences of such an amendment are hard to predict before hand. The 14th amendment was used to strike down child labor laws, and did not reallys serve its intended purpose for almost 90 years except in a few cases.
Although I know you disagree with me on this, I'd also hate to see a constitutional prohibition on any restriction of public (as in viewable by unwarned passers-by on public streets) sexual expression.
I also have never worried that homosexual marriage will lead to "homosexuality is OK" being taught in schools, so the amendment provides no protection I think is needed for those who oppose gay marriage on those grounds.
Dagonee
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
That's fine. I'm just throwing it out as something to think about.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Understood. It's an intersting idea, and any acknowledgement of the fears of those opposing civil gay marriage can only help the dialog.
Dagonee
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
My question is that isn't the basic argument against homosexual marriage that it demeans a straight marriage? If that's the case then isn't that principle based on the religious meaning of marriage as opposed to the legal meaning? If both of those are true than why care about the legal meaning and just not define marriage the way you want within your religion? As some religions currently sanction homosexual marriage, why not some religions just continue not to sanction it?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
"I also have never worried that homosexual marriage will lead to "homosexuality is OK" being taught in schools"
To a large degree, it is taught in schools. In high school one of my liberal debate teachers adored the sound of her own voice and gave multiple lectures about how homosexuality was ok and it was ridiculous for anyone to say otherwise.
In college, professors speak as though it's a given that homosexuality is ok. While I don't think anyone would get in trouble for saying that they disagreed, it would definately be frowned upon.
If homosexual marraiges are recognized by the government, this will undoubtedly increase to the point where disagreement with homosexual marraiges will be viewed akin to disagreement with interracial marraiges. Bigoted and barely tolerable. Whether this is a good thing or not is another question.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
"We have diversity in X, so we can have diversity in Y" is not an argument that works, I think - not when Y is something that many people consider wrong.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: If homosexual marraiges are recognized by the government, this will undoubtedly increase to the point where disagreement with homosexual marraiges will be viewed akin to disagreement with interracial marraiges. Bigoted and barely tolerable. Whether this is a good thing or not is another question.
So the arguement is "We'd better keep the legal discrimination in tact because if we don't we won't be able to discriminate verbally either"? Sorry, I don't care how inconvenient it will be for people to wag their fingers at me in public.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
quote:"We have diversity in X, so we can have diversity in Y" is not an argument that works, I think - not when Y is something that many people consider wrong.
Tres,
If protestants and Mormons and Jews can all peacefully coexist, even if they each believe the others to be "wrong" about the nature of man's relationship to the Divine, why is it different for homosexuality? Why aren't my beliefs also able to come to the table of tolerance and free expression?
All parties of X are "wrong" to other members of X, just as all subjects of Y are wrong to most members of X. Why is it, do you think, that homosexuals and their beliefs are not also members of group X?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So is this a gay marriage thread or a gay thread? I ducked out of the other thread when I thought a lot of folks were apparently replying that hadn't read the front part of the thread. Also people kept saying there was no new info when I had introducted 3 new pieces of info. Anyway. I don't "prefer" diversity in either religion or sexuality. I keep being told they are not the same at all. I tend to agree since you can choose your religion, and having chosen it most people find it quite easy to abandon.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Storm,
I think this is a fascinating twist on the gay marriage argument, and I can't believe I hadn't heard it before. Honestly, you've got me utterly convinced by it.
The Protestants, for example, were persecuted and even killed by the Catholics because the Catholics thought they were saving their souls, and were worried because they thought Protestants would "corrupt" the Catholic Church and ultimately demean the religion.
Seems to me the arguments against gay marriage are awfully similar. We don't presume to legislate on the morality of an atheist as opposed to a religious person, and it seems to me that the whole gay marriage thing is a legislation on morality.
Although, I suppose, you could look at it as legislating a major social institution -- which it is -- but then Stormy's analogy only gets stronger. The Catholic Church, after all, was *the* major Western social institution. Those Protestants, man, they really messed with the social structure of society.
Seems to me we're a lot better for it.
I doubt many Mormons on this board would appreciate the government legislating as the Catholic Church yet, and dictating exactly which social institutions are and are not acceptable.
The world changes, people. Naturally, and inevitably. This change, like the evolution of freedom of religion, is a positive, life-affirming, liberty-enhancing change. What's not to embrace?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:All parties of X are "wrong" to other members of X, just as all subjects of Y are wrong to most members of X. Why is it, do you think, that homosexuals and their beliefs are not also members of group X?
Why not terrorists, for that matter? Or why not shoplifters, or drug dealers, and so on and so on? What if we were to ask "if we have diversity in religion, why not diversity in our attitudes about sex with young children?"
You can't just say we did it with religion, so we can do it with whatever. There are many many things in our culture that we don't tolerate, in the way we tolerate religious differences. Homosexuality is not a religion. We can't expect everyone to treat it like they treat religions, any more than we expect them to treat anything else like the treat religions.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
I have tried on numerous occasions to point out the irony present when a Mormon tries to argue that the State has a right to limit a person's freedom to marriage.
The real problem here is fear. X1 can get along with X2 thru X16 because they have no fear that X7's religion, though wrong in its beliefs, will have a detrimental effect on society, or cause god to rain fire down upon our country.
...
Homosexuals remain in the Y group because people are afraid of them; afraid of what we represent, afraid of a world where their children could choose to express non-traditional sexuality without consequence (and the corresponding fear that their children could somehow be enticed into participating in those relationships), and they are also afraid that their own faiths are in danger of evolving if large numbers of X members become sympathetic to Y beliefs.
Though I've been told not to assign motives to others, so I'll leave that as just being my opinion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I have tried on numerous occasions to point out the irony present when a Mormon tries to argue that the State has a right to limit a person's freedom to marriage.
To be fair, the Mormons can easily respond that they adapted their marriage practices for the good of society. This still leaves the question as to whether banning gay marriages is for the good of society, of course.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Homosexuals remain in the Y group because people are afraid of them; afraid of what we represent, afraid of a world where their children could choose to express non-traditional sexuality without consequence (and the corresponding fear that their children could somehow be enticed into participating in those relationships)
Well, yes, that is why. And so the question becomes "Should we be afraid of such a world, or should we not?"
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Okay, in all honesty, I think there's a major flaw in the argument that "society" is going to be negatively affected by allowing gay marriage.
The problem is that everyone treats "society" as static -- like it's always been this way, always will be this way, it won't change unless we actively work to change it.
That's baloney (to use the nice version of the word).
Society is *always changing* I think maybe some of the resistance to it comes from people who are afraid of change and feel powerless in the face of it. But honestly people, society is always changing and always evolving, and clinging desperately to the past ain't gonna change it. This whole human race thing is one giant experiment -- yes, there is bad and good within every culture and every society, but the whole thing in itself is neither one. We're not going to desecrate the human race or our "society" by letting gay people get married. Please. We don't have that sort of power.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: Why not terrorists, for that matter? Or why not shoplifters, or drug dealers, and so on and so on? What if we were to ask "if we have diversity in religion, why not diversity in our attitudes about sex with young children?"
Tres, I think it's fair, in the case of this discussion, to assume that the participants know that this isn't being implied. This particular "slippery slope" arguement is tired - at least I'm tired of explaining it to people who should know better.
Homosexuality is not terrorism, shoplifting, drug dealing, etc. It is not sex with children. In that it is something between two consenting adults, and does not harm a third party in any clear or demonstrable way, such "logic" above is pointless and insulting to just about everyone who has posted on this topic before.
quote: You can't just say we did it with religion, so we can do it with whatever.
He isn't saying "whatever". YOU are, and slyly attempting to credit him with the generality. He is saying specifically "we did it with religion, why can't we do it with homosexuality (gay marriage, etc.) This is a perfectly valid question and he points out common facets of the two situations to clarify his point.
In this regard, by throwing in the "whatever" you cheapen and dismiss the valid arguements of others in a way that should be beneath you. By specifically throwing in terrorism, shoplifting and pedophilia, you are making an insulting and tired comparison that adds nothing to this discussion.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Dag,
The irony isn't that that they got what they wanted. The irony is that they were persecuted for not living under the same social or spiritual norms as other American members of X, and in some cases the persecution was carried out by State entities. Today the rights of homosexuals are being legislated against in states around the country, and the prevailing attitude among Mormons is that it is within the State's power to do so.
[ April 19, 2004, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: JohnKeats ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Homosexuality is not terrorism, shoplifting, drug dealing, etc. It is not sex with children. In that it is something between two consenting adults, and does not harm a third party in any clear or demonstrable way, such "logic" above is pointless and insulting to just about everyone who has posted on this topic before.
But to those against it, homosexuality IS like these things.
This argument is attempting to circumvent discussion over whether homosexuality is actually a bad thing, and instead argue that people who consider it bad should just tolerate it anyway. But it's unfair to expect them to do that in the case of homosexuality, and yet not do it yourself in the cases I listed above, when the difference between homosexuality and the cases I listed is the very thing you disagree upon (the wrongness of and harm caused by homosexuality.)
In short, this argument just collapses into the division of two sides that it means to circumvent. To answer the question in the title of the thread, I suspect people don't apply the same tolerance of homosexuality that they do with religion because they think tolerating homosexuality harms society but tolerating other religions does not.
quote:He isn't saying "whatever". YOU are, and slyly attempting to credit him with the generality.
If you apply the argument to homosexuality, you must be willing to apply it generally to everything to which the same assumptions hold true, or else you are being unfair. Whenever you make an argument, this is true.
[ April 19, 2004, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
quote:Why not terrorists, for that matter? Or why not shoplifters, or drug dealers, and so on and so on? What if we were to ask "if we have diversity in religion, why not diversity in our attitudes about sex with young children?"
...
quote:If you apply the argument to homosexuality, you must be willing to apply it generally to everything to which the same assumptions hold true, or else you are being unfair.
At what intersection do assumptions about homosexuality and assumptions about terrorists meet, Tres?
quote:But to those against it, homosexuality IS like these things.
I doubt that. I know a lot of members of X that, while believing homosexuality to be a sin, are intelligent enough to realize that people don't fall in love with each other with the desire to break laws, tear down moral codes or intentionally harm others.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:JohnKeats said: The irony isn't that that they got what they wanted. The irony is that they were persecuted for not living under the same social or spiritual norms as other American members of X, and in some cases the persecution was carried out by State entities. Today the rights of homosexuals are being legislated against in states around the country, and the prevailing attitude among Mormons is that it is within the State's power to do so.
I agree, but they are at least insulated from a charge of hypocrisy by their prior acquiescence over bigamy, irony notwithstanding.
quote:Xaposert said: In short, this argument just collapses into the division of two sides that it means to circumvent. To answer the question in the title of the thread, I suspect people don't apply the same tolerance of homosexuality that they do with religion because they think tolerating homosexuality harms society but tolerating other religions does not.
If you apply the argument to homosexuality, you must be willing to apply it generally to everything to which the same assumptions hold true, or else you are being unfair. Whenever you make an argument, this is true.
Alright, I’ll outline what I assume Storm’s underlying assumptions were:
1. Religion is a private choice whose practice should be tolerated when it does not tangibly harm others. (i.e., no human sacrifices, at least with unwilling victims, no religiously mandated stealing.) 2. Homosexuality between two consenting adults is a private choice whose practice should be tolerated when it does not tangibly harm others.
Of terrorists, shoplifters, and drug dealers, only drug dealers have a colorable claim to the same tolerance, since the case can at least be made that private use of drugs which harms no one but the user should be tolerated. They can argue the societal ills anti-drug argument by pointing out that many of the ills result from illegalization and there are mechanisms in place to punish drug users who overstep the “not harming anyone else” boundary.
But terrorists and shoplifters both cause tangible harm. I guess Storm was assuming people reading his post would be able and willing to make that distinction if it wasn’t spelled out.
There seems to be a growing trend on this board to purposely stretch analogies until they break, and then batter the person who proposed the analogy with the inconsistencies introduced by the original extender.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:At what intersection do assumptions about homosexuality and assumptions about terrorists meet, Tres?
They are both behaviors that that people disagree upon and feel strongly about - which were the assumptions of the argument given.
quote:I know a lot of members of X that, while believing homosexuality to be a sin, are intelligent enough to realize that people don't fall in love with each other with the desire to break laws, tear down moral codes or intentionally harm others.
The other illegal things I mentioned aren't done simply to intentionally harm others, break laws, or tear down moral codes either, with the exception of terrorism. Shoplifting is done because of a desire to have something you don't want to pay for. Drug dealing is done because of a desire to get money and the availability of drugs. Child molestation is done to fulfill desires. And so on. Few cases of any law-braking are done simply for the sake of breaking laws or harming people.
quote:Alright, I’ll outline what I assume Storm’s underlying assumptions were:
1. Religion is a private choice whose practice should be tolerated when it does not tangibly harm others. (i.e., no human sacrifices, at least with unwilling victims, no religiously mandated stealing.) 2. Homosexuality between two consenting adults is a private choice whose practice should be tolerated when it does not tangibly harm others.
Yes, I suspected that these were the underlaying assumptions - but they weren't given and I think they significantly alter the effectiveness of the argument. The reason I say this is because assumption #2 is one that people on the anti-homosexuality side probably won't accept if they realize it's implicit in the argument - which means the argument really is only going to hold true for people who already accept homosexuality. Do you see why this is a problem, given what it is trying to convince us of?
[ April 19, 2004, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's different to disagree with an underlying assumption than to ignore it's existence. The purpose served by Storm's analogy is to focus the argument on that assumption, which isn't where it has been.
After all, religious differences could result in someone going to hell for all eternity. From some people's perspectives, LDS missionaries are actively trying to convince someone to take action that will result in his/her eternal damnation. Yet most of these people still manage to avoid calling for the illegalization of the LDS church. Why? Because almost everyone in this country realizes they could be vulnerable to the same complaint and argument. I.e., freedom of religion benefits everyone.
Now compare the possible consequences of allowing free proselytizing with the possible consequences of homosexual marriage. No matter how badly they are cast, they don't come close to active solicitation of people for damnation.
So why the disproportionate response?
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:It's different to disagree with an underlying assumption than to ignore it's existence. The purpose served by Storm's analogy is to focus the argument on that assumption, which isn't where it has been.
Well, that isn't what I had interpretted the argument to be getting at, but perhaps I'm wrong.
quote:Now compare the possible consequences of allowing free proselytizing with the possible consequences of homosexual marriage. No matter how badly they are cast, they don't come close to active solicitation of people for damnation.
Well, quite true.
But maybe the idea is that tolerance of proselytizing is nevertheless good for society, because although it protects "wrong" religions, it would also protect your religion as well - and also because it avoids religious warfare. Maybe folks don't think there are analogous benefits to tolerance of homosexual marriage.
Also... if we are talking about homosexual marriage rather than homosexuality, I'd add that the issue goes beyond tolerance. It's also a question of the government ENDORSING marriages, which is a little different. People might be more okay with homosexuals calling themselves married, but they might feel that if their government steps out to agree that they are married, then they are somehow being forced to endorse homosexual marriages themselves.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Also... if we are talking about homosexual marriage rather than homosexuality, I'd add that the issue goes beyond tolerance. It's also a question of the government ENDORSING marriages, which is a little different. People might be more okay with homosexuals calling themselves married, but they might feel that if their government steps out to agree that they are married, then they are somehow being forced to endorse homosexual marriages themselves.
Actually, for a lot of people, it's about getting the government out of the business of endorsing marriages. Both I and Dagonee specifically addressed this point. Also, to bring your statement to within the context of my first post, why is freedom of adult sexuality and the right of gay people to marry the equivalent of state endorsement? We have the same situation with religion, don' we? People are free to worship as they please exactly because the state endorses no one religion. Now, you say that some people consider homosexuality different than religion. Of course they do, and of course it is, in many ways. But my point speaks to this fact. Many people consider how it is best to worship God, or deny the existence of God, or believe in a different God. So it is with sexuality. My post is addressed specifically to this idea, and that by allowing freedom of religion and sexuality, those who oppose religion are supposedly forced to accept it or will be forced to practice it. My point is that if people can be tolerant of other religions, why not homosexuality and gay marriage. If you say that that is not so, give reasons why homosexuality and gay marriage cannot coexist like religions can. What makes the idea and practice of homosexuality such that heteros and homos can't live together?
And for the record, even though I said it explicitly in my second post regarding a marriage amendment, I'm not talking about legalizing sex with children or forcing people to have sex against their will, or any such sillyness. It should be pretty obvious to everyone that using such ideas to argue against homosexuality and gay marriage is absurd. It's not the aim of anyone in the pro-gay marriage camp. It's not a hidden agenda. Once people start explicitly arguing for those, feel free to rebut those arguments.
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
Storm Saxon, you and I actually agree on something. You have put the question of homosexual marriage in some cold hard terms that I agree with all the way: if I can trust people of other faiths (or none) to raise their children without my interference, why can't I trust people to live their married lives likewise (and, by further extension, gays to raise their children! whoa).
Very well laid out, bro.
EDIT: withOUT, du
[ April 19, 2004, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Unmaker ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Thanks, David.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Should I feel as if I'm forced to endorse Christianity when my government endorses faith-based charities for the public good? Should I feel as if I'm forced to endorse a god because I'm a citizen and our pledge of allegience contains the line "one nation under god"? Should I feel as if I'm forced to endorse Christianity if I'm a postal manager who can't ask employees to come in to work on Christmas Day?
Or here's another one:
If the government is allowed to "endorse" divorce and non-religious marriage, why would people only now ask that their government begin restricting marital rights based on their individual--and differing--religious ideals?
Tres, no matter how you word your way around it, I do not accept that gay marriage is on equal footing with terrorism, child molestation or shoplifting, even to Christians. These other things you mention are all punishable offenses that are illegal. Show me a gay man who's in prison because he's gay and I'll let you slide with saying "to some people, they ARE the same thing."
Because they are not. Terrorists and Child Molestors end up on CNN, NPR, and America's Most Wanted. Gays end up on NBC, ABC, Bravo and Showtime. Significant difference in public opinion between the two.
Child molestors and the terrorists break specific rules and, in our society, they give up almost all of their rights in return for carrying out their actions. I am a member of group Y, here, and I take on exactly zero characteristics of your group Z, thank you very much.
Frankly, Tres, I'm having trouble understanding how you miss the basic premise here: that our beliefs about sexuality can be just as contradictory yet peacefully coexistant as our beliefs about, say, Baptisms.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Show me a gay man who's in prison because he's gay and I'll let you slide with saying "to some people, they ARE the same thing."
That doesnt' make sense. Just because they are not legally the same doesn't make "to some people, they ARE the same thing" false.
Here's some speculation as to why people are willing to tolerate other religions more than other sexualities. Perhaps it's because most religious people realize that if it weren't because of religious toleraion, then their religion wouldn't have been able to come into existence. At least, that's the case for all non-catholic Christian religions. That's the majority of the US.
But the majority of Americans do not have a similar vested interest in sexual tolerance.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Thanks for an honest appraisal, mph. I really appreciate it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Xaposert said: But maybe the idea is that tolerance of proselytizing is nevertheless good for society, because although it protects "wrong" religions, it would also protect your religion as well - and also because it avoids religious warfare. Maybe folks don't think there are analogous benefits to tolerance of homosexual marriage.
quote:mr_porteiro_head said: Here's some speculation as to why people are willing to tolerate other religions more than other sexualities. Perhaps it's because most religious people realize that if it weren't because of religious toleraion, then their religion wouldn't have been able to come into existence.
But the majority of Americans do not have a similar vested interest in sexual tolerance.
Both these sentiments are even more disturbing, because they recognize the need for incredible tolerance in order for society to remain civil and for people to be able to follow their individual consciences, but only when it affects them.
I mean, the reason we’re not worried about a sexual war is that homosexuals are vastly outnumbered, so there’s no real mutuality of threat. Do we really want to say that we don’t repress other beliefs only because the opposing believers have the capacity to do us harm if we try to repress them?
In other words, do we limit tolerance only to that which we have a vested interest in? Sounds like a hollow form of tolerance to me.
quote:mr_porteiro_head said: At least, that's the case for all non-catholic Christian religions. That's the majority of the US.
In the U.S., Catholics had to rely on that tolerance a lot more than most Protestants.
Dagonee
[ April 19, 2004, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Dags, it's one reason, I think, that when anti-gay marriage people talk about why hetero relationships are more legitimate than gay relationships, they bring in potentiality of biological children. I think they know that if they tried to say that all childless marriages were illegitimate until children came into the picture, their base of support would collapse.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:And for the record, even though I said it explicitly in my second post regarding a marriage amendment, I'm not talking about legalizing sex with children or forcing people to have sex against their will, or any such sillyness. It should be pretty obvious to everyone that using such ideas to argue against homosexuality and gay marriage is absurd. It's not the aim of anyone in the pro-gay marriage camp. It's not a hidden agenda. Once people start explicitly arguing for those, feel free to rebut those arguments.
I think you miss the point of those sort of arguments. It's not that allowing homosexuality is some secret plot to also allow sex with children. It's that if gay marriage should be allowed for reasons that also apply to sex with children, then sex with children should be allowed if we are being fair and impartial. You can't allow one thing and not allow another if the same argument applies the same to both, even if you want to.
This is the same type of argument as you are using here. You say if we treat religion a given way, we should treat homosexuality the same way. It has the same basic argument structure as saying that if we treat homosexuality a given way, we should treat sex with children the same way.
The difference just comes down to lines being drawn. You say children can't consent to sex. You say sex with children is by definition harmful. You say this is enough to make it intolerable. They say gay marriage is unholy and dirties marriage. They say gay marriage is by nature harmful and wrong. They say this is enough to make it intolerable. Then you say your lines are obviously far less trivial than their lines. But is that how they feel?
This is why such arguments about child sex and so on are brought up: To point out that you too have lines that you won't cross in the name of tolerance, so one can't give blanket statements like intolerance is always wrong or so noone can claim they don't ever enforce morality upon the population - and ultimately to bring the argument to the question of who's lines are right and who's are mistaken? That is the real question, in my view, but I have no idea how to go about proving mine are better than theirs.
quote:Tres, no matter how you word your way around it, I do not accept that gay marriage is on equal footing with terrorism, child molestation or shoplifting, even to Christians.
I don't expect you to. I'm just saying that you should not expect the anti-homosexuality camp to accept that religious opinion is on equal footing with gay marriage either. They can draw distinctions between different issues too - even if they have to use religious claims to do it, or whatever.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Edit: To Storm.
My friend (the one I discussed in my first post in this thread) admitted the difficulty of limited the definition based on procreation, since we allow the elderly to marry as well as the infertile. His response was that the male/female rule for legal marriage an overinclusive concept. This is a common feature of bright line legal rules, and is not as squishy as it sounds. But I still think the equities of the situation, and the nature of the benefits currently extended to married couples, speaks against removing the rule.
Dagonee
[ April 19, 2004, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:In other words, do we limit tolerance only to that which we have a vested interest in?
No, but I was just speculating on what their reasons might be, not whether I think they are good reasons. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Fair enough.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I understand what you are saying, Tres. If that is the case, then why don't we, then, hear these same arguments being used to nullify freedom of religion, or the right to vote, or driving, or anything else? See, you are bringing in a standard of impartiality and fairness that isn't being used for anything else. Your standard might be useful if it was used by society, but it's already a clear principle in society NOT bound to sex, that is, sex being an outgrowth of this principle, that children are not adults and that they are not privy to all the rights of adults--and this includes sex in general. So, I don't see how your point is useful.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Karl Ed-
"So the arguement is "We'd better keep the legal discrimination in tact because if we don't we won't be able to discriminate verbally either"? Sorry, I don't care how inconvenient it will be for people to wag their fingers at me in public."
To be clear, I wasn't arguing for legal discrimination. I was simply responding to the comment that "I also have never worried that homosexual marriage will lead to "homosexuality is OK" being taught in schools." I think this statement is false because inevitably legalization of homosexual marriage will certainly lead to "homosexuality is ok" being taught in schools. Teachers are a part of society, and when same sex marraiges become societally acceptable, teachers will indeed teach that it's ok. I'm not saying it's going to be in a curriculum, but it will be taught nonetheless. I'm not claiming that this is necessarily a bad thing, but I don't see any point to ignoring the truth of it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I never said it wouldn't happen. I said I wasn't worried about it. There's a difference.
Dagonee
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I think this statement is false because inevitably legalization of homosexual marriage will certainly lead to "homosexuality is ok" being taught in schools. Teachers are a part of society, and when same sex marraiges become societally acceptable, teachers will indeed teach that it's ok. I'm not saying it's going to be in a curriculum, but it will be taught nonetheless. I'm not claiming that this is necessarily a bad thing, but I don't see any point to ignoring the truth of it.
To extend the analogy I've created between religion and sexuality, if your statement is true, why wouldn't we see teachers advocating Catholicism, or Mormonism,etc, explicitly in public schools? I don't see them doing so because religion is regarded as a private matter, up to the conscience of the individual. Couldn't sexuality and gay marriage be looked at in the same way?
Your phrase 'homosexuality is o.k.' is a little confusing to me. Are you saying that our schools will say that it exists and not condemn it, which to you means that they will endorse it? Or are you saying that our schools must, or will, actually advocate it?
I look at it in terms of, say, a Religion 101 class being taught. Sure, in the survey of the religions that are out there, a teacher will say, here's what's out there, people believe these things and do them. The teacher can, and should, teach the class in such a way that no religion is advocated or denounced. Why not the same way for sexuality and gay marriage? If it has to be talked about in schools at all, why can't it be talked about using the same standard that our society used, by and large, regarding religion, or the clothes we wear, or the cars we drive? That is, it's a personal choice.
I want to point out, incidentally, that this whole problem could be avoided if you just had schools tailored to individual groups, rather than schools designed to be unobjectionable to everyone in society. For instance, if we as a society handed out vouchers to families and said, spend this on the school of your choice, wouldn't everyone be able to get what they want? If society said, we don't care what your school teaches as long as your child has 'X' standard of literacy and mathematical ability, and leave all the moral standards up to the group that family belongs to or, god help us, the family itself, wouldn't it avoid all the problems of 'bad teachers' that both sides fear?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Is it absurd to think that as homosexuality and homosexual marriage becomes more and more accpeted by society, we will see more textbooks with examples of Bob and Doug's daughter Jill or Sue and Jane's son Mike? It would be un-PC not to include such examples. There will be more pictures depicting families with same-sex parents.
Would that harm or help society? I imagine how you answer that question has a lot to do with your feelings on homosexuality.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
So, we allow freedom of religion because, practically, all religion is basically a meaningless concept outside of the abstract? That is, I could be a Muslim or a Hindu or a Mormon, and the effects on society are meaningless?
Edit: Actually, as far as that goes, isn't a person's immortal soul important? If you believe that unless a person follows your religion, they will go go to hell/not achieve heaven, then isn't it important for the state to advocate the best religion, too?
[ April 19, 2004, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Hmm...I had always thought/hoped that the State wasn't going to give a damn about my immortal soul. But now this guy GW Bush comes along, talking about Manifest Destiny all over again...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well, it took a page, but someone managed to complain about Bush in a Hatrack thread utterly unrelated to him.
Raise your hand if you're surprised.
*looks around.
What, no one?
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
"I believe marriage has served society well and I believe it is important to affirm that marriage of a man and woman is ideal, and the job of the president is to drive policy toward the ideal,"
"stand up and say I don't support gay marriage."
"The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society."
"Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress. Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not itself be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage."
"If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America,"
"Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country."
"Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society."
"Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we're to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America,"
Yes, he has nothing to do with the question of gay marriage in America. Nothing at all.
[ April 19, 2004, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: Suneun ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Give me a freakin' break. The thread is about people's attitudes about gay marriage and a means of reconciling two factions in society. Explain again how Bush is relevant to it?
Dagonee
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Bush isn't doing very well on the "reconciliation" side, and if people want the civil discourse to be civil, they might find it better not to vote for him this fall.
He's certainly not as random to the discussion as you pretend he is. He's taken it upon himself to push this as far as possible. There's a chance he may well succeed before he leaves office. And that IS relevant.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Bush has taken up one side of the issue, over the other.
He has also said that it is America's divine responsibiility to bring freedom to the world (recent press conference).
Clearly, he is on a religious crusade.
Do you not think he's part of the problem?
He wants a constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage.
How can people not feel threateened by him?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I think Dagonee is right. Bush's attitudes towards gay marriage, unless you are using his beliefs to illustrate a point towards the overall discussion we are making, are not relevant.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
As a reminder, here's the topic of the debate--
"If we have diversity in religion, why not in sexuality? "
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
"We shouldn't have diversity of religion [Non Christian], therefore we shouldn't have diversity in sexuality"
How about that?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, it's not relevant. We're talking about the philosophy behind people's attitudes here, and ssywak makes a nonsensical comment utterly unrelated to the topic, just to get his mandatory swipe at Bush in.
Since it seems to be the pasttime around here, why don't you start another Bush-bashing thread instead of contaminating what was the most civil discussion this board has had on this contentious topic yet.
And you can mischaracterize the press conference all you like. He said NOTHING about another war for freedom. He talked about policies to encourage freedom.
quote:"We shouldn't have diversity of religion [Non Christian], therefore we shouldn't have diversity in sexuality"
And what the f&^% is this supposed to mean? Who's stated that we shouldn't have diversity of religions on this or any other thread.
Dagonee
[ April 19, 2004, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Shrug. I honestly don't care much about whether or not this stays derailed.
It was a suggestion that perhaps those who feel that one religion is the only religion may also feel that one sexuality is the only sexuality.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't know why the hell I bother to try to see both sides of the issue. Apparantly that's a one way street.
Dagonee
[ April 19, 2004, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Nobody has said that they feel that way. AFAIK, I hvae met nobody in my entire life that feels that way.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
I kinda felt the thread was a discussion about the way people like US go at each other over this issue.
Hm.
The Bush-swipe wasn't technically in context of the discussion, but I don't really see the point of getting ticked off at it. Politics is something people discuss at random sometimes. A lot of people who are on the internet to discuss their political views are often using it to vent among their intellectual peers. In a place like Hatrack the comment is politics itself; it's a challenge and a claim and a platform all rolled into one.
It may be possible to have that within the context of other discussions without inciting civil war, I suppose.
But of course the thread was really about how people like us are unable to compromise on this issue, and the temperament of our debates when attempting to reconcile. Hm.
[ April 19, 2004, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: JohnKeats ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: The Bush-swipe wasn't technically in context of the discussion, but I don't really see the point of getting ticked off at it.
Because it's not necessary to talk about Bush within this topic and it just pisses people off because they see that you are bringing it in out of context to make a swipe at Bush.
People are emotionally invested in certain politicians, and the the head of their respective parties in particular. Trotting out Bush during a discussion where it isn't necessary is exactly like trotting out Clinton. It just pisses people off and the disussion then shifts to Bush's views on the subject rather than their own. It encourages partisan rancor rather than some kind of objectivity. In other words, it torpedoes the topic completely.
quote: But of course the thread was really about how people like us are unable to compromise on this issue, and the temperament of our debates when attempting to reconcile. Hm.
I am vastly tempted to roll my eyes at you. You know this isn't true.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Storm, thanks. I realize my tone was less than civil. I'm glad you understand why I was ticked, even if I did overreact a little.
Dagonee
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
NP, Dags.
By the way, Keats. I like you. You are my friend. I am totally sympathetic to not liking Bush. I just don't think it adds anything to the discussion in this thread.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And just to clarify, I have not problem with people saying bad things about him. I'm just tired of the one-line throwaway insults.
Dagonee
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Storm-
quote: Your phrase 'homosexuality is o.k.' is a little confusing to me. Are you saying that our schools will say that it exists and not condemn it, which to you means that they will endorse it? Or are you saying that our schools must, or will, actually advocate it?
I look at it in terms of, say, a Religion 101 class being taught. Sure, in the survey of the religions that are out there, a teacher will say, here's what's out there, people believe these things and do them. The teacher can, and should, teach the class in such a way that no religion is advocated or denounced. Why not the same way for sexuality and gay marriage? If it has to be talked about in schools at all, why can't it be talked about using the same standard that our society used, by and large, regarding religion, or the clothes we wear, or the cars we drive? That is, it's a personal choice.
I think that your second paragraphed explained exactly what will happen. Homosexuality will be viewed as a valid personal choice. This is endorsing it. Why does it have to brought up? Look at Beverly's post.
quote: I want to point out, incidentally, that this whole problem could be avoided if you just had schools tailored to individual groups, rather than schools designed to be unobjectionable to everyone in society.
I'm going to answer, even though it's side tracking the topic. While private schools exist for those that insist upon sepearting their children from mainstream society, I think it would be horrible to make everyone go to their own little groups and never give them the experience of dealing with people who have different views than them. Tolerance and learning to respect others come through experience and are incredibly vital aspects of any education.
[ April 19, 2004, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: Amanecer ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I think that your second paragraphed explained exactly what will happen. Homosexuality will be viewed as a valid personal choice. This is endorsing it. Why does it have to brought up? Look at Beverly's post.
No, it will just be listed as a choice some people make. No one will say whether it will be 'valid' or not. There is a distinct difference, I think. For instance, ignoring gay marriage for a second, homosexuality is already being taught in that context. In studies of sexuality, homosexuality is already listed as a choice that some people make. No one makes any value judgements. Are you arguing that rose bushes should be drawn over the behavior to protect society?
quote: While private schools exist for those that insist upon sepearting their children from mainstream society, I think it would be horrible to make everyone go to their own little groups and never give them the experience of dealing with people who have different views than them. Tolerance and learning to respect others come through experience and are an incredibly vital aspect of any education.
Sure. And you get to meet lots of different people outside of school. People still exist within a society, but just as all girl schools aren't detrimental to girls; or all Muslim schools detrimental to Muslims; or all Catholic schools detrimental to Catholics, etc, so schools that are left up to the culture or the family which the person belongs to not detrimental to them. Are you arguing that any of the types of schools I've mentioned are 'bad'?
Let's take it further. Families raise their children to believe particular things without having to refer to any manual or program. Should families give up their children so that the state can raise their children? Aren't parents qualified to raise their children as they see fit? At core, this is the essence of my argument for 'private schools' for everyone. We already follow this model for colleges. Why not all the other schools?
[ April 19, 2004, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: No, it will just be listed as a choice some people make. No one will say whether it will be 'valid' or not. There is a distinct difference, I think. For instance, ignoring gay marriage for a second, homosexuality is already being taught in that context. In studies of sexuality, homosexuality is already listed as a choice that some people make. No one makes any value judgements. Are you arguing that rose bushes should be drawn over the behavior to protect society?
I'm not asking for rose bushes. In fact, I personally have no problems with consenting adults doing whatever they want that doesn't harm anyone else. But you wanted to put sexuality on the same terms as religion. In schools, I believe that all religions are displayed as valid choices. This was certainly the indication that I recieved. It's not simply, some people are Catholic, some are Mormon, and some are Hindu. Instead it's all of these groups have good things to offer and a lot of similarities. If they weren't portrayed as valid choices than there would have been outcry from every group. I believe it will be the same way with homosexuality. Just as it's "ok" for Janie to be Catholic, it will be taught that it's "ok" for Janie to have two dads. For those who have moral problems with homosexuality, I can see how this would be a very detrimental thing. It would be pitting the school's lessons against the parent's lessons. For them, it would be akin to teaching children that drug use is perfectly acceptable.
quote: you get to meet lots of different people outside of school. People still exist within a society, but just as all girl schools aren't detrimental to girls; or all Muslim schools detrimental to Muslims; or all Catholic schools detrimental to Catholics, etc, so schools that are left up to the culture or the family which the person belongs to not detrimental to them. Are you arguing that any of the types of schools I've mentioned are 'bad'?
Let's take it further. Families raise their children to believe particular things without having to refer to any manual or program. Should families give up their children so that the state can raise their children? Aren't parents qualified to raise their children as they see fit? At core, this is the essence of my argument for 'private schools' for everyone. We already follow this model for colleges. Why not all the other schools?
To be honest I'm not against all schools being privitized, and honestly I missed this part of your argument before. I have very strong libertarian tendancies and do not like the idea of the government monopoly.
However, I do not like the idea of all Muslim or all Catholic schools. While I wouldn't call them bad and I believe that people have the right to educate their children in whatever enviornment they desire, I certainly wouldn't call it good. While other types of people exist in the world, how often would you be likely to personally interact with them? I know that in high school everyone I knew was either from my school or chruch. If those environments were full of exteremly similar types of people, then I think children would miss the beauty of interacting with others that were not like them. This would inadequately prepare them for the real world.
That being said, I really don't know how you would get a nice diversity with privitization of schools. If people had to create their own schools, they would certainly do it based on similar traits: class, religion, race, parents are all fans of OSC, etc. Any ideas?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Just as it's "ok" for Janie to be Catholic, it will be taught that it's "ok" for Janie to have two dads. For those who have moral problems with homosexuality, I can see how this would be a very detrimental thing. It would be pitting the school's lessons against the parent's lessons. For them, it would be akin to teaching children that drug use is perfectly acceptable.
Exactly. That states one of the concerns very well. Thanks.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I have to admit to having this concern, too. And yet it comes down to the fact that people are being denied a very basic of package rights because we're afraid of how our children will be taught about this in school. I just can't make that leap.
Dagonee
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I'm not asking for rose bushes. In fact, I personally have no problems with consenting adults doing whatever they want that doesn't harm anyone else. But you wanted to put sexuality on the same terms as religion. In schools, I believe that all religions are displayed as valid choices. This was certainly the indication that I recieved. It's not simply, some people are Catholic, some are Mormon, and some are Hindu. Instead it's all of these groups have good things to offer and a lot of similarities. If they weren't portrayed as valid choices than there would have been outcry from every group. I believe it will be the same way with homosexuality. Just as it's "ok" for Janie to be Catholic, it will be taught that it's "ok" for Janie to have two dads. For those who have moral problems with homosexuality, I can see how this would be a very detrimental thing. It would be pitting the school's lessons against the parent's lessons. For them, it would be akin to teaching children that drug use is perfectly acceptable.
O.K. Your response doesn't really answer my point about how homosexuality is taught in sex ed classes. What do you think about the fact that homosexuality is taught as an option? Should this be allowed or no in public schools?
There are people that have problems with Mormons and Catholics, what have you. There is no way that they would want their children to be Mormons or Catholics or what have you. They believe their religion is the correct one. Should their children be exposed to the idea that other religions are valid choices for other people, or should their children be kept in an environment that maintains that those other religions are 100% wrong?
quote: To be honest I'm not against all schools being privitized, and honestly I missed this part of your argument before. I have very strong libertarian tendancies and do not like the idea of the government monopoly.
However, I do not like the idea of all Muslim or all Catholic schools. While I wouldn't call them bad and I believe that people have the right to educate their children in whatever enviornment they desire, I certainly wouldn't call it good. While other types of people exist in the world, how often would you be likely to personally interact with them? I know that in high school everyone I knew was either from my school or chruch. If those environments were full of exteremly similar types of people, then I think children would miss the beauty of interacting with others that were not like them. This would inadequately prepare them for the real world.
That being said, I really don't know how you would get a nice diversity with privitization of schools. If people had to create their own schools, they would certainly do it based on similar traits: class, religion, race, parents are all fans of OSC, etc. Any ideas?
I totally understand where you are coming from. I think tolerance of people who are different than you are is important. It's why I'm having a hard time reconciling your views (if I'm understanding them correctly) on homosexuality and gay marriage being taught in schools and total 'privatization' of schools.
To answer your question, the ideal that I would shoot for is that in your private space, or your group's private space, your rules are the ones that are followed as far as custom and the like. In public space, I would prefer that rather than follow the ideal of a total sterile, non-objectionable space that is devoid of any individual or individual group's markings, we just let anything go. People should be allowed to do and say as they see fit. Of course there have to be limits to self expression and the ones that I've always gotten behind on this board revolve around something like observable harm or trying to cause observable harm. Something in that ballpark. Thus, in order to go from point a to point b, and to exist in public, everyone would have to get along. People would be exposed to others of different faiths, beliefs and ideals, no matter what they were taught at home, because in order to do business and to travel anywhere outside of their community's borders, they would need to do so. And, of course, if someone wants to ignore what other people are saying or doing, they are free to do so.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Your response doesn't really answer my point about how homosexuality is taught in sex ed classes. What do you think about the fact that homosexuality is taught as an option? Should this be allowed or no in public schools?
I'm not sure how homosexuality is taught in most public schools. I only have my own experience to speak from, and from what I remember there might have been a minor blurb in the book saying that some people were homosexual and the causes were unknown or something similar. I know that it was certainly not taught as a valid option. Instead, it was not spoken of much at all in health class. If our government states it is ok for homosexuals to marry, then our government schools will undoubtedly teach that it's ok. I know I still haven't answered what do I think should be done, but I haven't been arguing what I think should or shouldn't be done. I have mixed feelings on the issue. I'm simply trying to point out a consequence of what you're saying, one that somebody dismissed prematurely.
quote: Should their children be exposed to the idea that other religions are valid choices for other people, or should their children be kept in an environment that maintains that those other religions are 100% wrong?
I don't know that those two options are exclusive. Just because something's a valid choice, or seen as societally acceptable, doesn't mean that it's not wrong. For example, drinking alcohol is seen as societally accepable and a valid choice, but many religions (Muslims and Mormons for example) believe that it is wrong.
I think you're trying to equate homosexuality to a perfectly acceptable religion like Catholicism or Islam. But the problem is that many people just won't see it as Catholicism or Islam, they'll see it as a wierd goat sacrificing religion. Sure, most aren't going to deny their right to sacrifice, but they'll think it's wrong and they sure won't want it want to be elevated to the social acceptability of Catholicism or Islam, etc.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
O.K. Thanks for your responses. I'll chew over what you've said. Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Um, Goat sacrifices aside...
Just what exactly is the problem with letting the state tell your kids that homosexuality is okay? Would it help if they added a state's-point-of-view disclaimer whenever they said it?
From the State's perspective, homosexuality is okay.
Well here's a question.
Science class. You learn about the weather. No value judgments are made. Facts are presented, words are memorized, concepts grasped. No value judgments there.
You learn about human sexuality. No value judgments are made. Facts are presented, words are memorized, concepts grasped. No value judgments there, either.
What's the big deal? Or is the problem here that having homosexuality be taught about in school gives it the APPEARANCE of a "valid choice", simply by being in the curriculum? Is the problem that you want classes to mention that homosexuality is thought of by many to be a sin? Or would you prefer that it not be mentioned at all--and in doing so effectively teach that homosexuality is NOT a "valid choice", or at the least that it is inconsequential.
Cuz that reasoning is great, really great; especially since people by-and-large DO NOT CHOOSE THEIR SEXUALITY ANYWAY.
Any of you ever stop to think that maybe kids NEED to learn that it is primarily (if not only) religious institutions who see homosexuality as "invalid"?
Is the fear here that religious kids who are gay might get a chance to learn about themselves? Or that religious kids who are straight might make friends with them and end up rejecting portions or perhaps all of their belief systems? And if so, how is that the public school's problem and not yours?
Seriously, what is this huge "concern" that you have about "consequences"? What part of society are homosexuals--or the mere mentioning of them--going to destroy this time?
[ April 20, 2004, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: JohnKeats ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
OK, I'm broken. I just wrote a huge post in response to many points on this thread and when I was done all I could feel was "What's the point?".
I guess I just need a break from this place. Or at least these threads.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Karl, I understand. I felt the same way with that post because it just made me angry and I know exactly how far this will probably go: nowhere.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
John,
My concerns (and you'll note I didn't say they justified discrimination) stem directly from how abortion was taught at my public school. The basic attitude presented was, "right-thinking people think this is a perfectly moral choice and the only people who oppose it are religious wackos." So it's not that I'm worried about homosexuality being presented as "OK" in the sense that it's legal and pretty much no one else's business. I'm worried about students being told that anyone who considers homosexual actions sinful is repressed and just needs to get over it. Of course, I have no problem with that view being expressed outside of a public school context, where authority and separation make it easier to refute.
The proper way to prevent this problem is parental involvement in school, which I intend to have, probably to an annoying extent. This is why I'm not "worried" about it.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I understand what you are saying, Tres. If that is the case, then why don't we, then, hear these same arguments being used to nullify freedom of religion, or the right to vote, or driving, or anything else? See, you are bringing in a standard of impartiality and fairness that isn't being used for anything else. Your standard might be useful if it was used by society, but it's already a clear principle in society NOT bound to sex, that is, sex being an outgrowth of this principle, that children are not adults and that they are not privy to all the rights of adults--and this includes sex in general. So, I don't see how your point is useful.
The fact that society is not fair does not mean we shouldn't try to be fair in our own arguments. I'm well aware that issues in America aren't often decided in a fair or impartial way, but that does not mean we should give up on that goal. Isn't that the goal of your argument too - to determine the fair answer to the question?
quote:Cuz that reasoning is great, really great; especially since people by-and-large DO NOT CHOOSE THEIR SEXUALITY ANYWAY.
But you DO have a choice whether or not to act upon your sexual desires. So, I think in some cases their fear is that kids with homosexual desires might get the idea that it's okay to act on their desires if the government makes it sound "okay".
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
I think that people are (and should) generally be concerned about conflicts between the morals they believe and teach their children and what is taught in school.
The reason for concern, at least in my opinion, has nothing to do with "sheltering from alternative viewpoints" or "burying your head in the sand". Rather, it is about authority figures and presentation as factual or right things which are not (at least from the parent's point of view).
Here's an example: in highschool I was taught about evolution and the origin of life. That is good, it is fundamental to biology. I was presented with the Urrey/Miller experiment (amino acids from electricity and basic chemicals) and told that this was the end of the story- the experiment had proved the possibility of the spontaneous creation of life from inanimate matter. It was only much later that I learned that I had been cheated, that the above experiment has nothing at all to say about the question it addressed. So what is the problem? Folks who believe in creationism were surely shaken when they were told that science could prove life needed no God to start it. They were taught this concept in school by the same authority figure who taught anatomy and the difference between reptiles and mammals. They were forced to make a decision between trusted authority figures. None of that is necessarily a bad thing, but the bad thing is that the authority figure charged with teaching science was teaching bad science and in so doing was forcing a point of view contrary to what many students learned from church and parents.
Some people are undoubtedly stil saying "So?" and "Bury your head in the sand why don't you", but imagine if the opposite case were being taught- if creationism was taught as solid science to kids who you taught otherwise.
Keats suggestion actually has some merit- if homosexuality were simply presented during biology class as something, say bonobos and humans and other creatures sometimes do then all is well. However, I very much doubt that it could be left at that by most teachers. They would feel compelled either to point out that homosexuality is a filthy, sinful practice or that it is a perfectly normal and natural lifestyle. Either way the repercussions are the same as say, a school program which teaches kids that it is pretty much expected that they will have sex in high school, so here are your condoms and go enjoy yourself.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
So, the real problem in schools is that we can't trust our teachers to be impartial if we tell them to?
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
quote:Either way the repercussions are the same as say, a school program which teaches kids that it is pretty much expected that they will have sex in high school, so here are your condoms and go enjoy yourself.
How exactly does "it is a perfectly normal and natural lifestyle" lead to the above statement? And why is it that you attach this idea to 'validated homosexuality'? Is there some reason that "heterosexuality is a perfectly normal and natural lifestyle" does not lead to the same thing? And again, why is it the SCHOOL'S job to make sure YOUR child's sexuality and sexual activity lines up with your personal beliefs?
I guess I can understand that you feel slighted by a school system that gave you the impression that there was no such thing as creation science. Although I find myself doubting that you were really put in such a crisis as to which authority figures you were able to trust. As far as I know they are still calling it the "theory" of evolution, not the "history" of evolution.
Your mileage may vary, I guess.
Not that that matters to this subject, anyway.
What if in High School kids had to read a fictional novel whose main character--and point of view--was homosexual? Do you ban this because it might make YOUR kids think homosexuality is "okay"? Would you let a homosexual teach your kids? Which one is more frightening, the fictional character or the teacher? Would you protect your children from learning about prominent homosexuals in history? Can they be allowed to learn Shakespearean sonnets because some of them have homosexual undertones? Would you ban Oscar Wilde because you don't want some homosexual 'giving your kids the idea' that homosexaulity is "okay"?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Exactly how would it be a bad thing? Teaching young people to accept gays would at least lesson the amount of boys who get the crap beat out of them for even acting the SLIGHTEST bit gay.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
John,
I largely agree with your points. What you aren't addressing is the potential problem of an authority figure marginalizing the moral teachings of parents in a dismissive way (as evidenced by my example above). That, at least, is what my concerns are. And it's not a homosexuality issue, it's an education issue.
However, refusing to acknowledge the potential for problems is not going to assuage fears, whether they are overhyped or not.
Dagonee Edit: And let me ackowledge up front that there is an element of unfairness in asking the party discriminated against to assuage majority fears. However, as a practical matter, it is necessary to get public acceptance of change, even if unfair. Second, there is always a heavier burden on the side advocating change - it's a fact of rhetoric.
[ April 20, 2004, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Keats- read what I said and not what you wanted me to say.
quote:How exactly does "it is a perfectly normal and natural lifestyle" lead to the above statement?
That should be obvious. People who believe that homosexuality is a sin do not consider it a perfectly normal and natural (and therefore acceptable) lifestyle.
quote: And again, why is it the SCHOOL'S job to make sure YOUR child's sexuality and sexual activity lines up with your personal beliefs?
It is the school's job to NOT take any position on such questions. When they teach a given position they do so at the detriment to other positions.
quote: I guess I can understand that you feel slighted by a school system that gave you the impression that there was no such thing as creation science
You have completely mischaracterized me. I am certainly not a creationist. I use the story to illustrate a case in which the teacher took an anti-religious stance based on bad science.
quote: Although I find myself doubting that you were really put in such a crisis as to which authority figures you were able to trust.
Indeed I was not. The story wasn't about a crisis of my faith, though I have indeed often had to work to reconcile religious and scientific beliefs. However, I certainly know many people who were brought to a crisis of faith by this and other similar school teachings.
quote: What if in High School kids had to read a fictional novel whose main character--and point of view--was homosexual? Do you ban this because it might make YOUR kids think homosexuality is "okay"?
It depends completely on why the book was assigned. In this day and age I suspect it would be used as a platform for support of homosexual marriage and to condemn any who do not support it as bigots. In that case I would certainly opt out for my kids. If however the teacher were to use the book to make the point that homosexuals are people too and not different from anyone else then yes, by all means let's read it. At any rate i would read the book and visit the teacher first.
quote: Would you let a homosexual teach your kids?
Sure, assuming he or she was a good teacher.
quote: Which one is more frightening, the fictional character or the teacher?
It all depends on the agenda. Neither one is inherently frightening.
quote: Would you protect your children from learning about prominent homosexuals in history?
I certainly would like them to learn about important historical figures who happen to be homosexual. I definitely would not support some history unit based solely on that criterion, however, because that would once again indicate that the teacher has an axe to gring. I hate the idea in general of teaching history based on the hot-button topics of the day. If the homosexuality of some historical person- Ernst Roehm, for example, is key to understanding their place in history then by all means talk about it. Otherwise who cares?
quote: Can they be allowed to learn Shakespearean sonnets because some of them have homosexual undertones? Would you ban Oscar Wilde because you don't want some homosexual 'giving your kids the idea' that homosexaulity is "okay"?
Depends if the sonnets are any good. I'd ban Oscar WIlde because he sucks, not because he is homosexual.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Dag,
Forgive my cynicsm, then. It's not like these questions are even applicable for today's world, since governments around the country are currently busy trying to project the unscientific idea that homosexuality is, to use the word of the day, invalid. With a few notable exceptions, this is the future we seem to be headed for.
I only wish we could really be arguing about whether kids can be told that homosexuality is a perfectly natural alignment experienced by millions of humans and animals everywhere.
Jacare,
I didn't mean to mischaracterize your quandry with your teacher's bad science, I was merely trying to sum it up. I assumed 'creation science' to be an umbrella under which your other theories could be contained; I didn't mean to unfairly assign you to creation science. I apologize.
quote:That should be obvious. People who believe that homosexuality is a sin do not consider it a perfectly normal and natural (and therefore acceptable) lifestyle.
Well it's not that obvious because you didn't answer the question. Please tell me specifically how teaching "homosexuality is perfectly natural" leads to "it is pretty much expected that you will have sex in high school, so here are your condoms and go enjoy yourself".
Or is that just a projection of prejudice since you think these kids will be influenced to "try" homosexuality and, since homosexuals are so damned promiscuous the school is basically inciting your children to orgy?
And how am I not supposed to get this impression from your previous post?
quote:It is the school's job to NOT take any position on such questions. When they teach a given position they do so at the detriment to other positions.
So in your view a school should not even mention homosexuality beyond acknowledging its presence in society? Just because your religion says it's bad everyone else just has to live with treating homosexuals as the proverbial ugly duckling. So a homosexual high school student gets the message: "we know you're out there, but we can't really address any of your concerns or help other people understand you better because some people find you unacceptable".
quote:In this day and age I suspect it would be used as a platform for support of homosexual marriage and to condemn any who do not support it as bigots.
This is getting good.
So in order for kids to be allowed to read a book with a homosexual point of view, you have to make sure that it doesn't accurately represent the homosexual point of view? I mean, I understand that what you're really worried about here is propaganda (apparently schools where you come from are more political than educational) but come on. What if I wrote a book about my life and it ended up in somebody's Sophomore English class? Surely I'm going to include elements from my perspective such as being completely justified and at peace with my sexuality, or perhaps some of the many challenges I've had to face dealing with family and friends of more Biblical persuasions. You're damn right that my book would at the very least send the message that homosexuality is okay.
So would you ban my book because I suck, or because you don't want homosexual opinions contaminating your children's minds? At what point do my opinions cease to be relevant to my character and begin to become propoganda to teach kids that their parents are bigots? I assume this is just a judgment you'd make on a case-by-case basis?
quote:Sure, assuming he or she was a good teacher.
Okay. Let's say Teacher Loras is a great social studies teacher and an unrepentant homosexual who's been living with his partner Tyrell for 14 years. Loras keeps a picture of himself and Tyrell on his desk, in plain sight. It is a picture of a Vermont Civil Union ceremony--that legally means nothing where he teaches in the state of Oklahoma. Let's say this is a Junior course in High School.
Now, as an Authority Figure, is Loras violating your educational prime directives by showing with his very existence that homosexuality is okay? Should he be expected to give no impression of his homosexuality, since that might give your kids an example of a successful and happy homosexual who is accepted?
Of course, you know, this situation would do far more to encourage homosexual students to accept themselves--note that I did not say have-sex-with-everyone--than just mentioning homosexuality in a sex-ed course. Is it an Agenda for Loras to be himself here? Should he have to keep his private life separate from his work life, even while other teachers bring their babies and spouses into schools all the time? Is it okay for the principle and his wife to kiss each other in the hallway but not alright for Loras and Tyrel to kiss good-bye in the parking lot; it is public property after all and we wouldn't want YOUR kids thinking that homosexuality is "okay".
The Shakespearean sonnets are fantastic.
[ April 20, 2004, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: JohnKeats ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Dag,
Sorry about the Bush wisecrack. However, his recent statements make it clear that he is pursuing a one-religion agenda in this country. And since we apparently may talk about teachers as being authority figures, I thought that the President of the United States also fell under that category. But I'll stop noe (of course, after I make that one, last JAB!)
And can anyone explain to me just how homosexuality is a bad thing? Except for, of course, the Bible thing stating that it's a sin and an abomination. Yes, we've gotten some of our morality and laws from the Bible--but not all. And if we are to add more Biblical constraints to our constitution, let's at least acknowledge them for what they are.
But asides from the Biblical references (strike them from your mind--for the moment), how is homosexuality bad? Really: how is it "not a valid choice"?
HIV/AIDS? Promiscuous heterosexual sex will get you there as well. And HIV/AIDS will not just spring from monogamous homosexual sex like [insert yourt favorite abiogenesis reference here].
The fact that you really don't want the image floating in your head of two gay men going at it? You probably don't want the picture in your head of your parents going at it either. Neither do I. I mean, my parents. Not yours. What I mean is...well, you get what I mean.
We've raised our kids to understand (note the pointed use of words) that homosexuiality is perfectly fine. We've banned the use of the term "Gay" as a derogatory term in our household (our son is 12, it's apparently in common usage at his school). They're both perfectly fine.
And I know that as "things come up" we'll at least have the language available to us to discuss it; and they won't be afraid to come to us with questions or problems.
But back to my question: other than the Bible, why is homosexuality "wrong?"
And sorry about the Bush thing.
Even though he deserved it.
Sorry.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
ssywak,
Thanks. You'll have to ask others about non-religious reasons for homosexual actions being sinful. In my faith, sex outside marriage is sinful, and marriage is restricted to men and women. I believe these restrictions reflect a description of the family life as intended by God. However, this ideal is not lived up to by many people, not just homosexuals.
I have no other reasons, which is why I'm against societal restrictions on homosexual actions. As I explained earlier, the only justification for having civil heterosexual-only marriages would be to allow provision of benefits for raising children. Since our society has found means to provide these benefits almost entirely outside the context of marriage, there is no state interest justifying the denial of equal marriage rights to homosexuals.
Dagonee
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Well it's not that obvious because you didn't answer the question. Please tell me specifically how teaching "homosexuality is perfectly natural" leads to "it is pretty much expected that you will have sex in high school, so here are your condoms and go enjoy yourself".
One doesn't lead to the other. I was giving the second as an example of how political positions on hot-button topics can lead to endorsement of actions which I consider wrong. In this case, that means that I think it is not the place of any educational institution to distribute condoms on campus.
quote: So in your view a school should not even mention homosexuality beyond acknowledging its presence in society? Just because your religion says it's bad everyone else just has to live with treating homosexuals as the proverbial ugly duckling.
Sure, acknowledge its presence and leave it at that. The same as say, extramarital sex or even marital sex. I don't see any reason why it needs to be endorsed or condemned, do you?
quote: So in order for kids to be allowed to read a book with a homosexual point of view, you have to make sure that it doesn't accurately represent the homosexual point of view?
Of course it will represent what the author and/or main character think. So what? What I am talking about is the class discussion. What will the teacher say? "See class, there are some hateful groups in our society who would do anything to destroy the character, Johnny's, happiness. These bigots are so prejudiced that if they have their way Johnny won't be allowed to marry Bill, who he loves so much!" If this is the case then of course I don't want my kid to be subjected to it.
quote: I mean, I understand that what you're really worried about here is propaganda (apparently schools where you come from are more political than educational) but come on.
ARight. Are you saying there are programs that aren't like this? Everything in the humanities tends to be slanted to a specific viewpoint.
quote: So would you ban my book because I suck, or because you don't want homosexual opinions contaminating your children's minds?
I said nothing like this. What I have been talking about the entire time is the use of authority figures of their pulpit to preach their point of view.
quote: At what point do my opinions cease to be relevant to my character and begin to become propoganda to teach kids that their parents are bigots? I assume this is just a judgment you'd make on a case-by-case basis?
Of course it is, and I don't believe that you would do any differently. If you had a child would you allow them to attend a worksop at school explaining why homosexuality is laying the foundation for the destruction of society?
quote: Okay. Let's say Teacher Loras is a great social studies teacher and an unrepentant homosexual who's been living with his partner Tyrell for 14 years. Loras keeps a picture of himself and Tyrell on his desk, in plain sight. It is a picture of a Vermont Civil Union ceremony--that legally means nothing where he teaches in the state of Oklahoma. Let's say this is a Junior course in High School.
Now, as an Authority Figure, is Loras violating your educational prime directives by showing with his very existence that homosexuality is okay?
Of course not. The teacher needn't hide personal facts. However, I would get angry if the teacher used his position to suggest that some of the students would be happier if they embraced a homosexual lifestyle, just as I would if a single teacher suggested to students that it is perfectly acceptable to live together with one's boyfriend/girlfriend before marriage.
quote: In my faith, sex outside marriage is sinful, and marriage is restricted to men and women. I believe these restrictions reflect a description of the family life as intended by God. However, this ideal is not lived up to by many people, not just homosexuals.
I agree with Dagonee on this.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Can I just ask if anyone else has an opinion on the whole idea of 'seperate but equal' schools that I presented? Would you guys who are opposed to gay marriage be opposed to gay marriage if you knew that the issue would never come up in school? In talking to you guys in previous threads, I thought this was a serious concern. However, in talking with Amenecer,and from the lack of responses to my point, it has became obvious from that the whole issue of what is taught in schools is a smoke screen for some people. That is, even if their children aren't taught about gay marriage in school, or if their children are taught exactly the morality that the parents want them to have, these people are still opposed to gay marriage. So, if you're just arguing the point about schools, but it really doesn't matter one way or another, can you admit it, please? Likewise, if it does mean that you would 'allow' gay marriage, could you say that, too?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Storm, I can say that the fear of how something is presented in school has never informed my opinion on a policy matter not directly associated with schools, nor can I conceive of a situation where it would.
Dagonee
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
JohnK, Your analogy is all wrong. Teacher Loras's partner was Renly, not Tyrell.
I apologize in advance for anyone who has no idea what I'm talking about. Just ignore me, it was a stupid joke anyway.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Oops, wrong character. Sorry.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
John, I just noticed your post to me earlier, not sure why I missed it. I think your cynicism is well earned in this case.
Dagonee
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: I want to point out, incidentally, that this whole problem could be avoided if you just had schools tailored to individual groups, rather than schools designed to be unobjectionable to everyone in society. For instance, if we as a society handed out vouchers to families and said, spend this on the school of your choice, wouldn't everyone be able to get what they want? If society said, we don't care what your school teaches as long as your child has 'X' standard of literacy and mathematical ability, and leave all the moral standards up to the group that family belongs to or, god help us, the family itself, wouldn't it avoid all the problems of 'bad teachers' that both sides fear?
These schools exist. There are catholic schools and christian schools and so on precisely because there are groups which believe that it is better to have an education combined with moral values held by that group. For that matter, that is why teh Mormon church supports 3 universities. The problem in most cases is twofold: cost and availibility. Private school is expensive and it also requires paying for school twice (through taxes and through tuition). The other problem is that any such school at the level of high school and below requires a certain population density of like-minded people. Some folks that I know- a lot of oflks actually, have decided that homse schooling is the best option. They look at the public schools and don't like what they see. Of course, such a decision also requires an enormous time investment on the part of the parents.
It is probably also important in the context of this thread to point out that homosexuality specifically isn't the reason these parents I know are homeschooling.
I personally like the idea of forming a parents' coalition of like-minded individuals in which a group of parents take turns teaching the children. My daughters are too young for school, but they do attend a preschool group run by six families taking turns giving a short class once a week.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Well then, off to get some cheese with my wine...
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Jacare, that is why you have vouchers and the like to pay for those schools. The solution that I propose is just to give all parents of school age children the same amount of money/vouchers for schools. Only these vouchers could be used to pay for school. So, the cost would still be borne by the state.
quote: It is probably also important in the context of this thread to point out that homosexuality specifically isn't the reason these parents I know are homeschooling.
That may be so, but have you and others on this board not been arguing against gay marriage because it will be taught to your children in school as normative? If your children AREN'T, in fact, going to be taught this in school, does this change your position on gay marriage, or not?
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: If your children AREN'T, in fact, going to be taught this in school, does this change your position on gay marriage, or not?
Understand, gay marriage isn't something which impacts me much at all. It is simply symptomatic of a much broader range of societal trends that I am concerned about. Do I care about gay marriage if my kids don't have to get harangued by liberal teachers? Sure I do. I care about it in exactly the same way that I care about the ubiquitous portrayal of "falling in love= sex two scenes later" in hollywood and the fact that so many people simply live together rather than marrying nowadays. Or the way everyone is looking for a scapegoat (preferably with deep pockets) to blame their problems on.
To summarize it, my worry is this: I believe that healthy families are the foundation of society. Children raised in a home with a loving and interested father and a mother, in my opinion, is what society should aspire for. I think that the farther away from that we get the more likely we are to have serious problems. So, do I advocate forcing a boyfriend and girlfriend who are living together to marry? Of course not. But I do think it my right and duty as a parent to censor (There's that evil word!) what my children are exposed to and what they are taught until they are old enough to make wise decisions for themselves. This means that we don't watch rated R movies at my house and we try to avoid movies that are likely to glorify mystical love and sex at the expense of commitment and respect. I view this discussion on homosexuality in the same way. If my kids were to attend a school where they were guaranteed not to be propagandized with the current liberal view of homosexual marriage that would be fine, but it is such a small concern amongst a lot of larger ones that I guess I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Understand, gay marriage isn't something which impacts me much at all. It is simply symptomatic of a much broader range of societal trends that I am concerned about. Do I care about gay marriage if my kids don't have to get harangued by liberal teachers? Sure I do. I care about it in exactly the same way that I care about the ubiquitous portrayal of "falling in love= sex two scenes later" in hollywood and the fact that so many people simply live together rather than marrying nowadays. Or the way everyone is looking for a scapegoat (preferably with deep pockets) to blame their problems on.
quote: So, do I advocate forcing a boyfriend and girlfriend who are living together to marry? Of course not. But I do think it my right and duty as a parent to censor (There's that evil word!) what my children are exposed to and what they are taught until they are old enough to make wise decisions for themselves. This means that we don't watch rated R movies at my house and we try to avoid movies that are likely to glorify mystical love and sex at the expense of commitment and respect.
So, given that you can't censor your children's exposure in public to those other people who follow different lifestyles, and you're not against making those things illegal, I guess you're all for legalizing gay marriage as long as your children aren't taught about it in school? And then you'll still advocate that it's wrong? Or do you believe all those other things should be made illegal, as well, for the sake of your children, just to make sure we can have a healthy society?
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: So, given that you can't censor your children's exposure in public to those other people who follow different lifestyles, and you're not against making those things illegal, I guess you're all for legalizing gay marriage as long as your children aren't taught about it in school? And then you'll still advocate that it's wrong? Or do you believe all those other things should be made illegal, as well, for the sake of your children, just to make sure we can have a healthy society?
First "being taught about it in school" is not my worry, rather them being propagandized in school. Second, I support the right of gays to live as they like without being attacked for it. However, I don't support homosexual marriage because in my view marriage is between a man and a woman. If it is difficult for gays to have all the legal rights (hospital visitation, inheritance etc) that they would like in their relationship then by all means make it easier for them to obtain them, but I simply don't think that two men or two women can be married because that is not what marriage is.
Edit to comment specifically on this part of the above quote:
quote:Or do you believe all those other things should be made illegal, as well, for the sake of your children, just to make sure we can have a healthy society?
I believe that whether they are illigal or not is mostly immaterial. What is important is what the attitudes of society are towards these things. Agitating for a law is not likely to change anything. What I can do is teach my children what I think is right. With my friends and family I can encourage the type of behavior that I think is right and discourage what I think is wrong. All the laws in the world will make not one bit of difference if people are determined to live in a certain way.
[ April 20, 2004, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: Jacare Sorridente ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
You make my head hurt, Jacare. You're for not legalizing gay marriage, even if it's not taught to your children at school, because it would set a bad example for your children specifically and effect society negatively in general. Yet, other things that you are also against and think are a sin and, I'm guessing, you think effect society negatively, you think should remain legal.
And just as a reminder, this whole thread is based on the premise that just like people of other religions can teach and go to school and not 'propagandize', so,too, can this be done with homosexuality and gay marriage. Gay marriage and homosexuality aren't any more important to its advocates than Jesus or Allah are to their respective followers. If those people can control themselves and not proselytize, I think gay people and gay marriage proponents can control themselves, too.
I mean, I throw this out, but on the other hand, we run up against another contradiction in your statements. You're saying that propagandizement is really your concern, yet earlier you said that just presenting it in a neutral fashion as choice some people make was unacceptable. Which is it?
[ April 20, 2004, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: You make my head hurt, Jacare. You're for not legalizing gay marriage, even if it's not taught to your children at school, because it would set a bad example for your children specifically and effect society negatively in general. Yet, other things that you are also against and think are a sin and, I'm guessing, you think effect society negatively, you think should remain legal.
I think your headache is more likely due to a difference in our definitions than in contradictions. As far as gay marriage I said:
quote: I support the right of gays to live as they like without being attacked for it. However, I don't support homosexual marriage because in my view marriage is between a man and a woman. If it is difficult for gays to have all the legal rights (hospital visitation, inheritance etc) that they would like in their relationship then by all means make it easier for them to obtain them, but I simply don't think that two men or two women can be married because that is not what marriage is.
I suspect that you are equating gay equal rights with gay marriage. Folks that I have seen who support gay marriage generally view marriage as two people in love making some vows. I think that it requires a broadened definition in order to make marriage mean that.
Let me illustrate by analogy: Dogs may be generally characterized as four legged carnivorous furry mammals. Let us suppose that someone uses this as their definition of what a dog is. When a cat walks by he says to his friend: "There is a dog". His friend replies- "That isn't a dog, it's a cat!" "It's a four legged carnivorous furry mammal isn't it?" the first man replies. "Yes," the other concedes. "But that doesn't mean it's a dog." "Look," the first replies. "There are all kinds of dogs- St. Bernards and German Shepherds and chihuahuas and so on. They are all very different. That animal there is more like a Chihuahua than a st Bernard is, so it must be a dog." "No, no," the friend answers. "The chihuahua and st bernard all descend from a common ancestor where this cat doesn't. Their genetic history is not the same." "History schmistory. Dogs and cats share a common ancestor as well." The friend gets flustered. "Your definition is just ridiculous. Are we going to start calling lions and hyenas and jackals dogs?" "Don't be silly. Anyone can see that those aren't dogs, while this animal here is."
quote: I mean, I throw this out, but on the other hand, we run up against another contradiction in your statements. You're saying that propagandizement is really your concern, yet earlier you said that just presenting it in a neutral fashion as choice some people make was unacceptable. Which is it?
I did indeed say that propaganda was my concern as far as it affects my children in school. But I don't recall saying that presenting it neutrally was unacceptable. To Keats I said:
quote: Keats suggestion actually has some merit- if homosexuality were simply presented during biology class as something, say bonobos and humans and other creatures sometimes do then all is well. However, I very much doubt that it could be left at that by most teachers. They would feel compelled either to point out that homosexuality is a filthy, sinful practice or that it is a perfectly normal and natural lifestyle
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
John L.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)