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.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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?
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
Printer-friendly view of this topic
