Legalized gay marriage deprives straight parents of the right to educate their kids

Gosh I hope this turns out many, many voters who thought they could just stay home and not vote in this election. I didn’t see the film tonight - was this part of it?

Great post linked to it (on the side bar) from The sky is not falling vs your vote

* The sky will not fall … if we are at war 100 years in Iraq - We are at war today, people can buy gas, go to work, buy food and watch a movie.
* The sky will not fall … if we do not drill for oil - gas stations are open.
* The sky will not fall … if the housing market bursts - It has and the sky is still there.
* The sky will not fall … if we don’t cure AIDs.
* The sky will not fall … when you die.
* The sky will not fall … if Gays get married - No it has not but devaluation of other people’s rights has taken place; Children will suffer if it is allowed to stand; The ACLU will use the court ruling and the fact people are “legally” married to change marriage across the country … more

If taking action is only done when the sky falls, there will never be a time to take action. If speaking out is only done when the sky falls, then there will never be a need to speak out. If getting involved is only needed when the sky is falling, nobody needs to get involved. If voting is done only when the sky is falling, then there will never be a need. The “Sky will not fall” argument is an argument for you to go climb under a rock.

The credibility of the Family Research Council is rather low in my opinion. In the past 2 years they’ve said that “The average age of all prostitutes in the US is 13.” which is pretty much imposible. They’ve said that 90% of all prostitutes in the US are trafficked which is the exact opposite of fact, they’ve said that “virtually every prostitute out there has an STD or AIDs.” which again is false. STD’s are very likely higher in the average church youth group than among prostitutes. The FRC believes in hyperbole and hype over truth depending on which will serve their needs the best. My regard for these folks and people like James Dobson are is thus rather low. Not for their beliefs, which I agree with them on, but for their complete lack of integrity.

They are also making arguments similar to some of those that Muslims have made and are complaining similar to Muslims, yet when a Muslim does it we all get up in arms that we must do something about the Muslim problem.

I believe homosexuality is a sin. We cannot legislate sinlessness though. Many people believe that drinking any alcohol at all is a sin, yet their children are taught that drinking, as an adult, is legal and OK. Why are these people not fighting for parental notification on any time alcohol is mentioned to their children? As Pliggy mentioned most public schools already teach evolution and not creationism, why are people not fighting that? Depending on your beliefs there’s likely a very long list of other things far worse than homosexuality that get taught in our schools.

We need to decide if we are a theocracy or a democracy. If a theocracy, then what are our beliefs? Do we want to be similar to Iran? Indonesia? Great Britain a few years ago when, depending on who was in power either the Catholics or the Protestants were strung up?

Intolerance… As FRC founder James Dobson said in 2004 “allowing gay marriage will lead to far worse things like polygamy if we’re not careful.”

Theocracy or Democracy?

Joey, there are a myriad of elements of our legal and business systems that rely on some legal definition of a marriage of some type. This is critical to insurance companies and to employers who offer benefits to family members. It’s critical to determining inheritance in the absence of a will. It’s critical in determining who has responsibility and authority with regard to children. And on and on… So, some form of legal recognition is necessary. Must it agree with religious definitions? Must it preclude religious unions that are outside of it? No to both.

These conflicts between public schools and parents over homosexuality and other controversial issues are prevalent all across the US; these questions should remain separate from the issues surrounding “gay marriage”. How can we defend the rights of polygamists to practice their lifestyle while denying the same rights to homosexuals? It is only fair that gays through civil unions or “marriage” should be granted the same legal rights as straight couples and hopefully in the future-polygamists. I wish plygs would realize that the fight for homosexual rights, especially when it comes to marriage, is their fight as well.

Whether or not the “militant” gay community becomes empowered as a result of legal recognition of gay unions is irrelevant. That sounds like a “slippery slope” fallacy to me.

I agree 100% with Kurt in his #12 statement. And that should apply to every heterosexual marriage as well. The government should be defending INDIVIDUAL rights, not the rights of one GROUP and not another GROUP. Groups start with the number “2″.

And I completely agree with Crusty.

And your local public school is already as totalitarian as the one in the film. Just on different subjects thus far. Conservatism is not taught in school. Socialism, or the “parent state” must be indoctrinated, and it IS. Darwinism is not Evolution, Darwinism is “Origin of Species”, Evolution is “progress through change”

Gays are not trying to force the state to “license” their lifestyle, gay couples simply want the same legal rights concerning property, inheritance, powers of attorney, and other rights that same sex couples take for granted.

There are similarities between plyg rights and gay rights as well as significant differences. I was thinking of the similarities when I made those comments. Remember that as a result of Lawrence vs. Texas, which involved a gay couple, the states are afraid of prosecuting a case solely for bigamy. This court decision may very likely pave the way for legalization of polygamy.

The only exception I take to Duane is the athiest mindset that Creationism is non-scientific. Or even that it is any LESS religious than Darwinism.

evolution and creationism is not mutually exclusive. Darwinism and God IS.

“Gays are not trying to force the state to “license” their lifestyle”

Not true. There is an active movement among the gays and some in Hollywood to force the government to grant them the right of legal marriage, even in states where they already have all the benefits of marriage, minus changing the definition of marriage. Prop. 8 does not interfere with their rights to benefits, it just protects the definition of marriage.

“How can we defend the rights of polygamists to practice their lifestyle while denying the same rights to homosexuals?”

Polygamists are not asking the government to redefine the meaning of marriage. They are not even asking to be given the same benefits of marriage. They just want to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit. If the gays would keep quiet and live their lives as they see fit, there wouldn’t be a Prop. 8.

“I believe “creationism” has no business being in a science classroom since it is based solely on religious beliefs.”

I know of a number of well-established scientists who would argue with you. I read a great book once, Of Heaven and Earth, which argued, through essays written by prominent scientists, that Science can not exist with out Religion and Religion can not exist without Science. There is sound scientific evidence that the world could not have been created without an intelligent being directing the organization of matter after “the big bang”. Creationism doesn’t have to define who God is to explain that some being organized the matter. My Geology instructor in a public institution in California told our class that was his belief. He explained how great the odds were against the matter organizing itself as it did, to create and support life, without a controlled environment.

“Homosexuality is NOT a sustainable lifestyle”.
Many couples choose to be childless, if everyone did this, our population would not be able to sustain itself. Enough people have children to make discussion about whether homosexuality is sustainable or not academic.

Evolution Theory (Darwinism) and God are not mutually exclusive. The Big Bang theory was initially rejected by many scientists because it implied a creator. Evolution theory is supported by broad scientific research. Creation theory is firmly rooted in religious beliefs. To the extent that creationism is scientific, it merely attempts to discredit evolution theory.

By the way, “being gay” doesn’t rub off to anyone thats straight!

Kurt: You would deny someone a fundemental right and say that you do not hate them. You lack crediblity. No matter how the vote turns out in California, this would still be a free country. You would still be free to preach hate or love to your children.
The fact that some polygamists or homosexuals may make poor choices that make either lifestyle inherently harmful.
I remind you that some men and women get married and never have children. Catholics still make vows of chastity. Does the above lead to extinctioon? Considering the billions of people living on this planet, I think that there is enough babies being born.

By the way people, let’s get off this creationist vs. evolutionist thing. It’s REALLY off topic. We could go in circles all day, but this post isn’t the right place.

I wonder if in the future, we will be told by the government that we must allow gay marriage in our hollies of hollies?

Call it anything you want, but marriage is a religious designation and is meant for a man and a woman.

Please, don’t tell me that gays don’t want to shove it down your throat - take a gander at any sit com, or any other show (I don’t watch any of them) and everyone will have a gay who throws it in your face.
Look at the gay parade in san fran. It’s exactly what we don’t ever want our children to see.
They ridiculed Justice Roberts because he didn’t want to take his children to DisneyLand during gay week.
Thank goodness he stood on his right not to go.

By the way, Did you know that Aids is more prevelant amoung Hetros than gays now?

Kurt, excuse me? Your all for polygamy which is and has been against Federal law since 1890. And reinforced at least 3 times by other SCUS 3 other times.
Im not afraid that a gay person will turn my children gay!
Being gay isnt a choice for those who are, they are born that way.
The fact, they pay taxes just like everyone else, and yet they are denied a right as adults to marry, is ridiculus.
This what you wrote Kurt:
Homosexuality is NOT a sustainable lifestyle. It’s pursuit by everyone — as everyone knows — would destroy the nation. What other behavior with such destructive force is granted special legal protection by our government?

I know a gay couple who have been married over 25yrs, they are both Educated, engineers. They never wanted children, just as some monogomus couples decide NOT to have children.
Yes, their life is sustainable! Home schools arent required to teach the same subjects as public schools, so if you dont like the fact there are gays in the world, seculde yourself or better yet, join Flds, Im sure they would welcome you.:)

“Home schools arent required to teach the same subjects as public schools”

Homeschool laws vary from state to state.

Besides, you shouldn’t have to homeschool because the state wants to teach your children about something you don’t want them taught. You should have the legal option to opt out while that topic is covered.

“Evolution theory is supported by broad scientific research. Creation theory is firmly rooted in religious beliefs. To the extent that creationism is scientific, it merely attempts to discredit evolution theory.”

Evolution is just a THEORY. There is also broad scientific research that discredits much of evolution theory. When neither creationism nor evolution has been scientifically proven, why should students be taught one or the other, rather than both? They are both just theory.

Creationism is much more than discrediting evolution. It is also attempting to understand the laws of physics, chemistry and biology that led to the creation of our world.

“Evolution Theory (Darwinism) and God are not mutually exclusive. ”

No. They don’t have to be, but the way my high school biology teacher taught it was. The way my college anthropology teacher taught it, it was.

“I know a gay couple who have been married over 25yrs, they are both Educated, engineers.”

Where were they married? Gay marriage wasn’t legal anywhere 25 years ago. If they want to play house and consider themselves married, I’ve no problem with that. But, I don’t believe in changing meaning of marriage to accomdate them. And, it is wrong to deprive children of having both a mother and a father because two people of the same gender want to play house.

I agree with Mac. I was friends with several gay co-workers. We got along so well that we’d go out to dinner and shop at the mall together after work. I was fine as long as they didn’t make an issue out of their gayness; I never made an issue out of my straightness. But, on one visit to the mall and I overheard their comments as they lusted after adolescent boys, it made me sick. I also used to hang out with friends in Midtown in Sacramento. It is a huge gay area. In the restaurants, I’d also notice the same behavior from gay men there checking out younger boys.

This doesn’t mean that all gays are pedophiles, but enough are that it is clear they are not a positive influence in our society. There are some decent gay men, but they aren’t the rule. It is hard to be decent when you are involved in a sinful behavior.

Talk about Hypercritical! LOL
Most people here don’t see anything wrong with ONE legal wives and a whole bunch of “celestial ” wives. But bring in Gay marriage, and the place goes manic, lol

Polygamy is TODAY against the law in every state, and Federal Laws.
If gay people want to fight for the right to marriage, what makes them any different than polygamist want to institute MANY marriages?
I think there are LOTS of homophobes here, lol
md
The couple I know arent married legally by law, they were married with a ceremony, but not legally till this year in California. Now if something happens to one of them, legally in california, they have the same rights as a spouse when it comes to insurance, etc.

md, its up to each state what is taught in thier curriculum. Just Because Kurt say, it will be taught. Theres NO proof of that. And each education agency in each state decides.

Whats wrong with not having children at all md?
In the 2000 census there was a reported 105.5 million households.
5.5 million were consisted of unmarried partnerships, of these 595,o00 were same sex partners.

Im not worried, lol

I know people who are gay who are not pedophiles at all. I don’t think a few people having pedophilic behaviors is really the debate here.

Once again I ask, still waiting for someone to face the question, how do homosexuals’ have a right to have their marriage recognized?

Heterosexual marriage is recognize because it’s beneficial to society, homosexual relationships have shown no such thing. Until someone can show a benefit to society that would proceed from homosexual marriages being recognized, or demonstrate that it’s homosexuals’ right to have their marriages recognized, there is no reason why we should recognize them.

Oops, I meant to say at the end “There is really not basis for the claims…that we are being hypocritical”.

I’m just too stupid to write coherently. ;).

That’s not much of an argument Abby.

Wow, this stack of comments has more responses that altogether miss the point–with a few welcome exceptions- than any I have seen at this blog.
1) The point of Proposition 8 is NOT to take away any rights that gay and lesbian couples already have, and they DO already have everything anyone needs in the form of civil unions and/or domestic partnerships.
2) There is no gay bashing involved in the Prop 8 campaign. Gays are entitled to live how they choose. They will lose no rights if 8 passes.
3) But they are NOT (morally, at least) entitled to cram their lifestyle down the throats of other people’s children, or to overturn charitable societies and religious faiths that have legitimate objections to their life style. But they are aggressively doing just that, seeking out in one instance in California a gynecologist who refused to perform artificial insemination (in 1999; there was no law requiring her to do that at that time) in order to test the law. Recently, in a retroactive application of the law, the California State Supreme Court found the doctor guilty as charged. Her attorney said the court’s decision could well result in many doctors refusing to perform artificial insemination for any patient.
4) Catholic Charities in Massachusetts, faced with being forced to arrange adoptions of children for same sex couples, after providing adoption services in Boston for over 100 years, has quit providing adoption services altogether.
5) ” …Just last year, two women filed a complaint in New Jersey because they were denied use of a pavilion for their civil union ceremony. The pavilion was owned by a Methodist ministry. It had been rented out for marriages, but the ministry refused to rent it for civil unions because it is a religious structure, and civil unions are not recognized in the United Methodist Church Book of Discipline.” (See The Unintended Consequences of ‘Same Sex Marriage’ By Ronald J. Rychlak)

Many of you who are dismissing the importance of those consequences will soon, if 8 does not pass, have reason to regret your current views. It may be wise to reconsider while you still have time.
A take-no-prisoners attitude of intolerance is vastly more in evidence among the opponents of 8 than its proponents, who are simply trying to protect their right to teach their own children their own moral values, to protect their freedom of religion and their freedom of speech.
All of which will be aggressively destroyed if California does not pass Prop 8. That state has 12% of the population of the United States. What happens there, happens where you are very soon.

This whole debate is — or should be — about the welfare of children. Not about the rights of adults to have sex with whom they will.
Children need a mother and a father. Study after study shows the best situation for children is with a loving mother and father. While the ideal is not always possible, arrangements that are less than ideal for the child should be advocated as of equal value to the child, or therefore, to the State.

Thanks April, that was very well said. I do worry about the state forcing religions to preform gay marriages. And don’t think the gays will not go after that next and the way the younger generation is being bombarded by it on tv and in schools and in politics they will be for it. So it won’t take long before all of the older generation who will fight against it will not be around anymore. It didn’t take Germany long to turn into a hitler group, it hasn’t taken Canada long to become socialized. And it won’t take the US long if we don’t stand up against it now.
And I meant liberal, after all that is who supports obama and the rest of the dems.

Kleiglights-

While I agree on homosexuality being against God’s laws, that seems more of an argument against homosexuality in general, than of the intrusion of homosexuality into the institution of marriage.

The proper reason to prohibit gay marriage is that homosexual unions have proven themselves detrimental to society. We do not, therefore, confer the special status of marriage or the benefits thereof, on them.

We do not however prohibit the homosexual behavior, despite its obvious discord with God’s laws, natural laws, or moral laws; however you want to style it.

I just found it funny the guy presented it as though he was arrested because he asked for parental rights. No… you were arrested because you refused to leave an office in which you had no right to remain in past your welcome. This is an isolated and over-dramatized case that could have been dealt much better than the people in the video handle it.

I’ll just leave my comment at that I guess.

Dream on, David. That father was arrested because if they had given him what Massachusetts law requires, parental notice for any sex education, then the gay agenda to indoctrinate his AND other parents’ children would have been exposed and undermined.
There is every reason to believe he was made an example to other parents. He had been *invited* to the school principal’s office to discuss the question they had exchanged emails about for four months. He had been led to believe they were going to finally give him a commitment — to honor that law.
They promised notification, then withdrew the promise when he was in the office. They hoped for more than a passive sit-in. They hoped he would scream and rage and threaten, but he didn’t. So they had to settle for a trespassing charge — it was a set-up.
Read the facts at the blog on David Parker.

No, I did not read the Boston Globe. All I had read and seen was this site at the time, actually. I deduced that merely from the circumstances presented here. It says on this page that he wouldn’t leave until he got what he wanted… well, that would mean they’d have to escort him from the premises eventually, because you have the right to express an opinion but not refuse to leave someone’s office.

Sage, you claim knowledge of many things you weren’t present to know. You claim knowledge of what the school board hoped for (their wicked scheme to get this man in the office to yell and scream wildly) You get your information from blogs with the agenda to present it a certain way. Those aren’t, de facto, “the facts” as you claim in the end of your comment.

And the state law you refer to deals with the teaching of sexual subjects. Mentioning a family with two mothers does not deal with anything sexual. If you argue it does, then you’d have to argue that teaching about families with a mother and father deals with sexuality as well. And that the law requires notification for any time a mother and father are represented in any lesson. Which is certainly not what the law refers to. If what is done in the privacy of bedrooms were mentioned in the lesson… then it would fall under the law.