“Teen Sex Forum to Include Gay Speakers”
March 8th, 2007 by Peter
Our opponents say it is FIC that is focused on sex and “social engineering.” But I didn’t write the headline for this thread–today’s Connecticut Post did. What our opponents really mean is that when things like this happen FIC should keep mum.
Well, we politely decline their invitation to avert our eyes from the sex-related social engineering that our opponents themselves are pushing on our state’s youth. Here’s a link and an excerpt to go with that headine:
MILFORD — Gays and lesbians will be invited to participate in an upcoming forum on teen sexuality, officials said Wednesday, after at least one complaint that they were being excluded.
“This isn’t about values,” Mayor James L. Richetelli Jr. said. “This is about keeping our young people safe in their relationships.”
The decision to include gays and lesbians in the March 29 “Sex in the Suburbs” forum comes after one person complained to Milford Library Director Jean Tsang that homosexual relationships did not seem to be covered in the presentation.
Tsang said she referred the matter to the Milford Youth Services Network, the forum’s chief sponsor, at its monthly meeting.
Marcia Winter, the city’s grants administrator and a member of the Mary Taylor Memorial United Methodist Church, said the church’s Open and Affirming Committee will be asked to help in the outreach to gay and lesbian teens.
The congregation, as a matter of policy, welcomes all to worship, regardless of their sexual orientation, according to the Rev. Robert Whitfield.
Mary Taylor Church and the Milford Library will host a screening of the documentary “That’s a Family” at 10:30 a.m. Saturday at the library and will follow the film with a discussion.
The award-winning documentary, recommended for children in grades 1 through 6, shows that different family structures are all based on love and trust, according to church spokeswoman Gina Bonfietti. [emphasis added]
This effort to indoctrinate children is just one of many. But tell our opponents that same-sex “marriage” would alter the definition of marriage and the family for all of society and you will be greeted with (at best) a blank stare.
Yet we have this story suggesting that the 9th Circuit Court may now view the phrase “natural family, marriage and family values” as sufficient to create a hostile work environment for gays and lesbians in California. If this is true it is just another instance of a global agenda to redefine society’s basic institutions:
Use of ‘Mom’ and ‘Dad’ Too “Homophobic”, Scottish Nurses Told
By Gudrun Schultz
EDINBURGH, Scotland, February 16, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Nurses and other health care professionals should avoid using the terms ‘mom’ and ‘dad’ to refer to family relationships since the terms could be offensive to homosexual couples with children, a new directive published by Scotland’s National Health Service recommends…
Along the same lines, the directive points out, use of the terms ‘husband’, ‘wife’ and ‘marriage’ is not acceptable since such terms exclude lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Instead, health care workers should use the terms ‘partners’ and ‘next of kin’. Since ‘next of kin’ is often understood to mean nearest blood relative, however, the booklet recommends that it may be preferable to use ‘partner, close friend or close relative’ to avoid confusion.
In the face of these increasing assaults on faith, family and common sense we will not be silenced and we will not be diverted–and especially not at the request of those pushing this nonsense in the first place. Make no mistake: our opponents are the cultural aggressors, we’re the ones playing defense. If they want us to go away or do something else they must first take Steve’s advice in the previous thread:
Stop pushing for radical changes in marriage and stop killing unborn children. If you guys on the left would stop initiating & pushing for all this nutty stuff, then we on the right will stop our opposition. Simple…
Indeed, the problems facing the family are serious. Why then are you attempting to further complicate the matter by performing yet another crazy liberal social experiment on the next generation? Stop already.
Loading ...
Yeah, why won’t we stop pretending like women and homos have rights?
The film, “That’s a Family”, is portrayed by its makers (Women’s Educational Media) as an “education tool” about “family diversity” … but a more honest description is that it’s LBGT propaganda intended to indoctrinate our youth and undermine traditional family values. Aimed at children in kindergarten and elementary school, it is designed to instill the values that activists have been trying to foist upon our society in support of same-sex marriage and devaluing the tranditional family unit with a mother and father.
The handouts distributed to children along with this film drive home this message by saying, “It doesn’t really matter who’s in the family. What matters is that you love each other and take care of each other - That’s a Family!” Sounds pretty much like the same drivel put out by LMF, doens’t it?
But why worry? After all, it’s a highly acclaimed film! With awards like these … “Best Documentary, San Francisco International Lesbian and Gay Film Festival” … “Best Short Film, Barcelona Gay and Lesbian Film Festival” … it should be very clear this is a brazen attempt by activists to inculcate their warped values in our children.
And consider the other films produced by this company:
Straightlaced - encouraging gender confusion and LBGT behavior in teenagers
It’s Elementary - labeling traditional family values as homophobic and bigoted
One Wedding an a Revlolution - celebrating San Francisco’s mayoral decision to grant gay and lesbian marriage licenses
Choosing Children - enouraging acceptance of child rearing by two lesbian mothers, or two gay fathers
This is a bold-faced attempt to indoctrinate our youth, thereby establishing inroads to advance the revisionist agenda within the next generation. What a cowardly and shameful tactic. Rather than engaging in open and honest debate among adults in determining our public policy, the LBGT crowd wants to gain leverage by using our own children as the fulcrum.
Man, if you righties have kids, I pray that they are not gay.
“[S]ex-related social engineering”?
Keep digging, Peter. Keep digging.
Where can you get a job as a sex-related social engineer? I think I would be good at it. Would I get a hat?
Teaching children tolerance. The horror! The horror!!
Anyone familiar with the musical “South Pacific”?
“You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You’ve got to be carefully taught!”
Quick… where can we find a film that will teach our children that diversity is evil? That they should not tolerate anyone who lives differently than we do?
grade “six or seven or eight” is about where your critics on this blog peaked in their debating skills, Peter.
Gabe, I know you’d be good at it!
There are a lot of good answers for the hat, I’ll let someone with a less offensive sense of humour get that one
Hmmm… In the spirit of diversity - you Lefty types sure have little tolerance for people who think differently from you. In fact, you are downright hateful and show more disgust and vitriol for religious folk then they do for people who believe homosexuality is ungodly. You prefer to shove your ideology down everyone’s throat and call that tolerance. Tolerance does not mean that one has to embrace or believe in something they feel is against their own morals and beliefs. Sorry - but I won’t be tolerant of people or ideology that I do not agree with. That’s called hypocrisy. Furthermore, YOU are teaching hate to your own kids by showing them how debase and undermine others beliefs. Why does it bother you so that some people feel strongly that traditional marriage is not only important to our society - but also to the continuance of our species. Hate is hate and you exhibit a grand amount of it. Teach your own kids tolerance of religious doctrines and I might listen to you one day.
Ah yes, now there’s a sober, reality-based appraisal of our modern world: the greatest dangers to humanity are gay marriage and underpopulation. Wonderful.
Correction and let me clarify a sentence: In fact, you are downright hateful and show more disgust and vitriol for religious folk then religious folk do towards people who believe homosexuality is ungodly.
Yeah - that’s what I meant.
Ah yes, another sober post by matt. Your only debating tool seems to be to set up exagerated straw-men and to knock them down. Quite sophmoric. Try engaging the crowd with evidence instead of epithets.
Your right Simon - we’re social conservatives. So we don’t love our children as much as you do. In fact, why don’t you take them away from us and try to re-educate them. Show them films designed to elicit guilt and moral ambiguity. Oh wait, that is what you already do at Teen Sex Forums. THANKS
Uh, not to impose my far-left secularist grammar on you, but I think you messed up your clarification as well.
You’re making a tremendous argument for the benefits of public schools!
And MF, my debating tool in this thread is to quote you guys and point out the absurdity of what you’re saying. A question: by “elicit guilt and moral ambiguity,” do you mean “teaching tolerance for homosexuality?” If you don’t, what do you mean by “elicit[ing] guilt”?
(Not so) Modern Femme
My point is limited. It seems to me that there is a lot of repressed anger/intolerance/bigotry toward homosexuals among some of the conservative posters here. I know some of you here are very principled in your defense of marriage and I don’t really mean to impugn everyone.
Anyway, Did I suggest you don’t/wouldn’t love your children? Um, no. Would I be concerned for your (collective) kids, whom I am sure you would love, if they were gay? Yes. Do I think that they would be racked with guilt for being who they are and who God made them to be? Um, yes. Do I know gay people who were raised by loving but intolerant parents that were probably themselves raised on a message about homosexuality being wrong? Um, yes. Would I call it tragic what those children had to endure, who were loved by their parents while at the same time tortured about their homosexuality. Yup.
Did I suggest your kids be removed? No.
Maybe my point was a little harsh, but unfortunately I don’t think it is too far off. I hope I am wrong.
But, responding with your hyperbole is not helpful.
Matt -
I was picturing an engineer’s hat (the guy who drives the train) - get your mind out of the gutter, you dirty effen hippie!
yeah matt - I guess I had a public school moment, twice. LOL
Reading leftwing propaganda does that to me.
You know what I meant:
In fact, you are downright hateful and show more disgust and vitriol for religious folk then religious folk do towards people who believe homosexuality is ok.
and …If you want to slam me as a homeschool parent I will match my kids to yours any day of the week - and that’s a fact pal. Has your 15 year old been to college yet? Mine has. Nuff said. Don’t even go there with me.
You show disdain to everyone who doesn’t match your idea of how life should be lived. That is pretty sad.
An organization that is committed to promoting and enforcing discrimination against gays and denouncing them as immoral and inferior is bigoted at best and a hate group at worst. This is apparent to anyone who doesn’t hate gay people. This transparent fact is publicly inadmissible for FIC bigots who try to fashion a crazed, self-serving conspiracy theory about their own “victimization” by gays and their supporters.
It’s always 1984 in FIC world.
While protesting at the state capitol, I noticed Gay partners, next of kin, and unionized people, (I prefer to call them sinners) wearing stickers that read “equality”. I frimly believe that everyone has the right to be equal, therefore I suggest that at the “True Colors” conference, that Brain, Peter, or Steve get to give a presentation on the horros of hell. Oh that’s right you people don’t believe in hell. Well when you get there you can tell Satan that your “next of kin”, will be down shortly and you prefer smoking.
Regarding the first story, if Mayor Richetelli is so concerend about protecting our kids and keeping them safe, then he should not be encouraging, either passively or aggressively, the practice of a clinical and treatable sexual deviance, stricken from psychiatric journals for no better reason than cowardice and political correctness, and one that contributes nothing more to society than lust, selfishness, denial and the furtherring of fatal sexually transmitted diseases. Considering Mayor Richetelli’s Catholic upbringing and education, shame on him!
Regarding the second story, perhaps the courts might also want to consider that the terms “gay” and lesbian” could equally be construed as being “hetero-phobic,” or doesn’t the “offense” taken by the less impaired and more moral majority matter any more?
I suggest that at the “True Colors” conference, that Brain, Peter, or Steve get to give a presentation on the horros of hell. Oh that’s right you people don’t believe in hell. Well when you get there you can tell Satan that your “next of kin”, will be down shortly and you prefer smoking.
Keep the comments coming, Bryce and FICers. The more you talk the faster gay marriage will come.
Nice of Bryce to come along and make Yawn’s point.
Much as FIC might try to present themselves as clear-thinking rational citizens out to protect the children of the world in a purely secular way, at the end of the day it’s really all about religious belief and religious bias — and their attempt to create a theocracy, forcing us all to live by their religious beliefs.
Right now in Connecticut and throughout the country, the FICers (FICites?) are completely free to believe as they wish, build churches and schools, worship as they believe they should, take any job they are qualified for, marry whom they please, live wherever they’d like and can afford, have as many children as they’d like to have, raise and educate their children as they believe is correct, and carry their beliefs on to succeeding generations.
The government does not stop them from believing and worshipping as they please. The government doesn’t stop them from building churches and schools. The government doesn’t dictate to them how many children to have or not have. The government doesn’t force them to have abortions. The government doesn’t stop them from preaching/teaching that abortion is wrong. The government doesn’t tell them who to marry or stop them from marrying who they please. The government doesn’t stop them from teaching their children the things they believe, even if those things are bigoted or prejudicial.
But this isn’t enough for them. Why?
We “lefties” are perfectly happy with everyone having the freedom to believe and live as they wish, so long as they do not impose their will or beliefs on others. We’re not anti-religion at all. We’re anti-theocracy. We’re against forcing people to live by other people’s religious beliefs and bigotries.
There’s the heart of the matter. Most Americans feel the same. When push comes to shove, most Americans will come down on the side of civil rights, equality and freedom.
In order to overcome that, and fire up the masses, the radical religious right has a two-prong strategy: invent a “war” on Christianity that doesn’t exist and create a smokescreen of secular “concern for the family” to hide a religious agenda.
But what is their agenda, really?
Is it truly religious in nature, or is it a political agenda cynically using religious beliefs to create a “base” for radical right wing political power?
Chele,
You are correct…The government does not “keep us down”. We have religious freedom, we can teach our kids in the ways of the truth, we can build churches, etc…That is what make this country great. I can practice my religion without the interference of the government, big brother isn’t knocking on my door telling me who I should or shouldn’t worship. It is the sad fact of society that my church can’t say what needs to be said to “rally” the troops for this “war on Christianity”, because if they did people would leave the church. When faced with the “truth”, be it homosexuality, pre-matital sex, abortion, rape, drunk driving, homicide, suicide, domestic violence, if they don’t agree with it they will leave. It’s only human nature, if you don’t agree with something or someone you will make it known that you don’t agree. You can be silent, you can be loud, you could leave, or you could stay and try to change the world. That is all that I am doing. The world is heading in a downward spial, all that I can do from the “quiet corner” is try to make some noise. I will rally as many troops that I can. It isn’t a “war on Christianity”, it is a war on morals, and a attack on the family structure.
Oh yea isn’t it bigotry to call a “bigot”, a bigot?
Bravo, Doug. Well said! Their motto on the Left is apparently “tolerance for me, but not for thee”.
Not sure if I got the blockquote thing to work or not…
Chele,
It would appear that you believe one thing but certainly another is being conveyed altogether. You do not want the Right “forcing people to live by other people’s religious beliefs and bigotries”, yet that is exactly what you and LMaF are doing. You are going into the schools to push your agenda, yet children are not allowed to say grace before a meal. You can go into schools and “teach” children how to have “safe sex” with each other and with members of the same sex and tell them that it’s okay to “explore”. But they are not allowed to discuss God in any way shape or form.
You accuse FIC of making “sex” and “gay marriage” their one and only agenda (another thread) yet that seems to be all you guys can yell about.
Apparently all of Scotland is now “The Left.” Interesting.
And just of note, Dave, all the liberal folks that I know that’ve been writing around here are heterosexual. People can actually take moral stands on issues not relevant to themselves.
Somehow I suspect many folks in Scotland don’t agree with these recommendations, but are being cowed into submission by activists just as we are seeing here in the USA.
By the way, did you all notice this part in the referenced article:
It’s not enough that people have to change terminology to avoid offense. They must foist upon us even more visual and written propaganda to boot. Unbelieveable.
And even more absurd, in regard to medical forms:
Other? Are we still on planet Earth?
Matt,
Yes, I fully understand that some people who advocate for same-sex marriage are themselves heterosexual. Moreover, I personally have no hatred towards anyone regardless of their sexual orientation. Nor do I despise those who do not share my religious beliefs and moral values.
It is the lobbying for unwarranted privileges under the law that compels me to express my opposition.
What I meant to point out, when I implied that the motto of the Left is “tolerance for me, but not for thee”, is their propensity for SELECTIVE TOLERANCE. Time and again, the evidence shows that liberals are tolerant of all opinions - except those that disagree with their opinions!
Oh for goodness’ sake, Steph,
First off, what is this “agenda” you people are always accusing gays of having? Do you think they’re trying to convert everyone to queerism? Is it their goal that by 2020, the entire U.S. will be homosexual — or is it the entire planet? Is it just an anti-American agenda, or is it worldwide — some kind of HomoEndTimes? Please be specific about this agenda — give me the bullet points.
(I’ve asked my gay friends about this agenda, and they deny it exists. They simply say they’d like to live safely and have the same civil rights as everyone else. I know they must be lying; there must be something sinister afoot.)
I am unaware of any child being stopped from saying a private grace over his/her lunch at school. Do you have children? Did they attend public schools? Did you teach them to say grace before eating their school lunch? Were they ever stopped from doing that?
God and or religion were discussed in my children’s public school classes from time to time, when it was appropriate to the subject matter. My daughter took a class in the Bible while in public high school. Were they taught Christian dogma of any kind, or religiously trained in school? No. It’s a PUBLIC (i.e. secular) school. If I wanted them to get religious indoctrination with their algebra, I’d have sent them to a religious school. Duh.
By the same token, if you don’t want your child to be taught about sex, safe or otherwise, you can excuse your child from those classes. It’s quite easy to do; it simply requires that parents be aware of what is going on at their childrens’ schools and in their curriculum. Which of course they should be in any event.
Public schools are just that: public. As such, they have a diverse clientele that they must teach. A diverse array of children who must be made to feel comfortable, safe and included and whose educational needs must be met. Some of those children are gay, whether you like it or not. And therefore it is necessary to address homosexuality in sex ed classes.
If such discussion will make your child uncomfortable, while the majority of students will NOT be, then it is your duty and right as a parent to either excuse your child from the class that day, or have a discussion about the subject with your child, explaining your point of view, your morality, and your belief system.
Take some ownership and stop expecting the public school systems to be your nannies.
A 2004 poll undertaken by NPR, the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government showed that only 7% of Americans say sex education should not be taught in schools. Only 15% want abstinence-only taught. 46% want “abstinence plus” - that abstinence is best but condoms/contraceptives should be taught. Re: homosexuality, “…only 19 percent said schools should not teach about it at all. For the most part, Americans want teachers to talk about homosexuality, but they want them to do so in a neutral way. Fifty-two percent said schools should teach “only what homosexuality is, without discussing whether it is wrong or acceptable,” compared with 18 percent who said schools should teach that homosexuality is wrong and 8 percent who said schools should teach that homosexuality is acceptable.”
As for sex being the only thing we’re yelling about, that’s just here, because that’s the only thing this blog addresses. Look in the archives — there are only a handful of postings over the years dealing with non-sex related topics. Everyone I know who’s writing here also writes elsewhere on a myriad of topics both political and not.
Which has been our point; FIC is concerned with sexual matters, not the broad array of issues facing families.
Matt:
The men wear skirts in Scotland. ‘Nuff said.
Bryce,
I have no objection to you preaching what you believe is correct and moral — to those who want to hear it.
As a former Catholic I understand, and agree, that priests have a duty to teach what they believe and require Catholics to live by it. That goes for other religious denominations as well.
However, your religious beliefs are yours, not everyone’s.
You don’t have the right to create secular laws that force the rest of us to live according to your religious beliefs.
You do not have the right to marginalize a group of people within secular society because you believe they’re sinners.
As for calling a bigot a “bigot” — no, that’s not bigotry, any more than calling a horse a “horse” would be. When something is, it simply is. Nothing wrong in saying what’s true.
You leftwingers need to lighten up and get a sense of humor. But then again, I guess I would be as depressed as you if my life had no future. If we all become gay, eventually the human race will end. It isnt too difficult to comprehend, is it? Frankly, I prefer the opposite sex and deep down inside, I know you do too.
Chele and all public schoolers:
I got this off a website that Brian gave me, I didn’t go to college during the computer revolution, and this isn’t my own thoughts, theses are facts, I just don’t want to get accused of plagirism here:
“In the 1960’s at the beginning of the “sexual revolution” the dominant diseases related to sexual activity were syphilis and gonorrhea. Today there are more than 20 widespread STDs, infecting an average of more than 15,000,000 individuals each year. Two thirds of all STDs occur in people who are 25 years of age or younger. Each year, 3,000,000 teens contract an STD, overall one out of every four sexually active teens have an STD. The leading viral STD is the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) with 5,500,000 cases reported every year. This disease is incurable, and can cause cervical cancer that kills 4,800 women per year. Our government wants to start vaccinating girls as young as 11 for this deadly disease (condoms don’t protect against this disease). Our government as well as private companies are spending millions of dollars in sex-ed programs in our public, and some private schools. These programs include the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SEICUS), Planned Parenthood, and the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights action League (NARAL). These programs push the idea that if you do indeed decide to have sex this is how you should do it. Guidelines developed by SECIUS, include but are not limited to, teaching children ages 5-8 about masturbation, teaching youths aged 9-12 about “alternative” sexual activities such as mutual masturbation, “outcourse”, and oral sex. They are “informing” youth from the ages of 16-18 that sexual activity can include, but are not limited to, bathing or showering together as well as ALL forms of intercourse, and they encourage the use of pornography, to “enhance” their sexual fantasies while alone or with a partner.”
This is what is being taught in public schools, and unfortunatley because of society they are slowly being brought into the private school curriculum.
As far as the Holy Mother Church teaches:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
2393 By creating the human being man and woman, God gives personal dignity equally to the one and the other. Each of them, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity.
2394 Christ is the model of chastity. EVERY baptized personas called to lead a chaste life, each according to his particular state in life.
2395 Christ means the integration of sexuality within each person. It includes an apprenticeship in SELF-MASTERY.
2396 Among the sins GRAVELY contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.
So call me a religious zealot, a bigot, a racist, whatever you want I’ll just offer it up as pennance for the salvation of your souls.
You leftwingers need to lighten up and get a sense of humor.
Why else do you think I come here? The self-parody is brilliant here!
If we all become gay, eventually the human race will end. It isnt too difficult to comprehend, is it?
A better case for discrimination against single, post-menopausal, or childless people has never been made. Not to mention priests - clearly, they’re depraved and immoral, unless they’re sleeping with the nuns and reproducing.
Frankly, I prefer the opposite sex and deep down inside, I know you do too.
Given a choice of guys like Rich, I choose women, too.
Chele,
For once, I agree with you. Parents should have the right to notified in advance when matters relating to sexuality will be discussed in school, and the right to excuse their children from attending those classes if they deem the material to be objectionable from the perspective of their own religious or moral beliefs.
Sadly that is not what is happening in our public schools. Parents are not being notified in advance, and are not being given the opportunity to “opt out” of these sexuality-related lessons for their children, when it relates to the question of homosexuality. For example, consider the case in Lexington, MA, where the books “King and King”, “Molly’s Family”, and “Who’s in a Famliy” were presented to 2nd grade students, including those whose parents had previously indicated that they objected to such material being taught to their children. The parental rights of Mr. & Mrs. Parker and Mr. & Mrs. Wirthlin were not properly honored by the school system. And what does School Superintendent Paul Ash have to say about this? He flatly refuses to acknowledge parental rights in this type of situation, saying that the school system has no legal obligation to notify parents about such classes or materials.
Massachusetts even has an explicitly defined “opt out” statute, which was intended to safeguard parental rights by requiring prior notification of educational materials relating to sexuality, and enabling them to excuse their children from these classes. Regrettably the school districts are trying to wiggle around this law, saying it only applies to high-school “sex-ed” classes, and not to other material (including what we traditionalists would consider “sexual orientation indoctrination”) aimed at even more vulnerable elementary-school children in their formative years. Although the courts have thus far ruled against Parker and Wirthlin, the matter is likely to be appealed.
So I’m wondering … do you stand behind your original comments in saying that parents should have the right to excuse their children from these classes? Would you join in condemning the actions of the Lexington school officials which denied the rights of these parents?
I love the “OMG THE HUMAN RACE IS GOING TO END IF WE DONT STOP GAY MARAGE!!!!!11!!” hyperventilating. Look, I understand that whoever is selling you your script on marriage needs to convince you that the world is really in the balance, and extinction of the human race is one justification that I guess would provide you with motivation.
Sadly, it is a CRAZY justification. If the human race goes extinct, it’ll be because of pollution or nuclear war or a super genetically modified disease.
There will never be a time when everyone will be gay, just as there will never be a time when everyone will be heterosexual - and there has never been a time when everyone was heterosexual. (I’m looking at you, Abel!) Just so we’re clear, gays and lesbians tend to make up the minority of the human breeding stock, and allowing them to marry won’t change that dramatically.
And Dave, just so we’re clear on the whole “hate” angle, no one around here thinks Christianity is a disease that needs to be cured, though I’m pretty sure FIC orthodoxy is that homosexuality is, as Doug said above, a “clinical and treatable sexual deviance, stricken from psychiatric journals for no better reason than cowardice and political correctness.” So tell me a little more about “selective tolerance,” mmkay?
“…that traditional marriage is not only important to our society - but also to the continuance of our species.”
Judy, that’s a surprisingly Darwinian statement.
I’m trying to understand the mechanism by which same-sex marriage will hurt the continuance of our species. Do you believe that, given the choice, heterosexual men and women would start to marry members of the same sex and stop procreating?
I can’t figure out what else you could be suggesting. _How_ would legal same-sex marriage (as opposed to, say, _mandatory_ same-sex marriage) prevent the continuance of our species?
In my public school they sent home notice.
I never understand why knowledge is dangerous to your worldview though. Obviously, you can keep any information you want from your kids: the way reproductive systems work, the existence of families with gay parents, specific letters of the alphabet, etc. At a certain point, you could just be feeding your children paints chips, too: why should the government take an interest if you damage your own kids?
I was raised thinking that you couldn’t be literate if you didn’t know what happened in the bible, and that the 700 club was important to watch on occasion to see what that particular subculture was thinking about the world. I mean, c’mon guys, Adam and Eve ate the apple, the damage is done: we wear clothes to cover our naughty bits, and we take in as much knowledge as we can to make informed, rational decisions about the world. How any kid is supposed to be better off not knowing about urethras or lesbians is a mystery to me.
Hey Bryce, none of that is being taught in the public schools. Do any of the liberal folks around here even know about this SIECUS group? I’ve never heard of them. I’m interested to hear if they have any sway over policy in the state.
Oh my. You seem to have a handicap related to understanding plurals, friend. No wonder the FIC is taking such a public stand against polygamy.
Matt, using blog comment grammatical errors to take jabs is just weak. Please don’t force me to moderate the cheapness of your cheap shots.
You could moderate some errors in, then my comments would be available for 50% off.
Honestly though, do what you have to do so far as moderation is concerned. I’ll just offer it up for the salvation of the English language.
This followed a line about liberals not having a sense of humor and preceded a statement that all gay people are lying because deep down, Rich still isn’t gay.
I am going to contemplate my futureless life - after all, once gay marriage is passed in CT and everyone turns gay, the human race will end.
GBCW.
Alright. One more time. I’ve tried posting this 3 times to no avial…
Not to burst your bubble chele, but the right for parents to know and direct what their children are being taught in public school has been regulated to the ash heap. For example, in the recent US District Court case Parker v Hurley (of which the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal), Judge Mark Wolf wrote (among other things):
In this Boston Globe piece, columnist Jeff Jacoby comments on details of this decision and suggests that there is very little choice left for families that do not buy into the liberal elitist mentality which currently prevails in public schools. Indeed, public schools have become so politically marginalized that groups like this one have begun to spring up and are gaining steam. Do religious families have a choice? Sure. We can allow our children to be indoctrinated into all this hookey, left-wing claptrap, or we can pull them out of public school altogether. Some choice. Regardless, a large and growing segment are choosing the latter.
C’mon chele. There’s no gay agenda because some of your gay friends said so? Of course there’s a gay agenda. To suggest otherwise is plain silly.
Thanks, Dave.
Matt, you spoke of people not considering Christianity as a disease as if you took umbrage to my comments. To clarify, no offense was intended. As for tolerance, I do tolerate gays, just not their practice, and “tolerance,” as often construed, is over-rated. Lots of people will tell you what you want to hear, even if it is hurtful to you. That’s easy. Few less will stand up to tell you something that you won’t want to hear, or isn’t even that easy to say, espescially if it is helpful to you. And by your own quote from me, I did not call homosexuality a disease, but a deviance. And also by your own quote of me, I did not cay “cured,” I said, “treatable.”
It would not surprise me if you were 34 years old or younger. Gay activists forced their way into the American Psychiatric Association’s annual convention, I think, in 1970, in San Francisco because they viewed the APA as their biggest obstacle. They were right, and they continued their fight. In 1973, the APA capitulated, in a rushed meeting to delete the entry of homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) as a deviance. Since then, vast numbers of APA members have protested in surveys and polls against that decision, which by one account, was a closed-door session. Since then, and on an incremental basis, the practice of homosexuality has been increasingly “normalized” in public perception. The result is that children born on or after 1973 don’t remember what happened with the APA and are indoctrinated by political correctness, and yes, by at least some, agenda. Thus, proponents of homosexuality 34 years old and younger are becoming the most ardent supporters because that is what they were always taught as what is “normal,” or even “wholesome,” and they don’t know any better, so those who disagree with them must be “the bad guys.”
I encourage you to read the work of Dr. Jefffrey Satinover, Dr. Bill Maier, Glenn Stanton, Ronald Bayer and others.
And yes, “treatment” does exist. The general concensus now seems to be that no one is born gay, but it is not necessarily a choice, either. It is beleived that gays evolve into their compulsion by influencing events in their individual environements at home, in school and through adolescence. Treatments are available through both secular and religious venues, such as mental health professionals, or groups such as Homosexuals Anonymous, Courage Apostolate and Exodus International, the latter being run by a gay himself. How treatable, or even if curable homosexulaity is is primarily up to the individual him or her self.
And as long as you invoked Christianity, yes, sexual activity, outside the the bounds of marriage for anyone, or between two members of the same sex, is a mortal sin, which if unconfessed and unrepenetd for will lead you to eternity in Hell. I doubt you beleive that, or much practice the Christian faith, and you probably think all that is drivel. What if you are wrong and I am right? Are you so sure that you are willing to gamble all of eternity on your beleifs? I once heard a story about a man who decided to commit suicide by jumping off the roof of a 30 story building. As the man was plummetting to the ground and had just passed the 15th floor as he was falling, sadly, he changed his mind. Too often in today’s society, we are taught and beleive that there is never any “point of no return,” because we are either scared or do not wish to reform from hedonistic and even enjoyable acts. That is like closing your eyes when your house is on fire while you are in it. The end result will be the same. You just won’t see it coming.
For anyone whio is gay and wants to look into these organizations or methods of help, no one needs to know but you.
For all the anti-Christian rant I read, any gay person could also approach just about any priest, minister or rabbi for counselling and I am sure they would be welcomed with open arms.
The rest is up to you.
I’ll say it again; I have nothing against gays, but I detest their practice. It hurts people, and for that matter, it hurts gays more than anyone else, and I don’t like seeing anyone get hurt. There are often close links between homosexuality and depression, substance abuse and other self-destructive behaviors and maladies. And those who promote this practice, or even passively look the other way while it occurs, do even further harm than those who just engage in it.
I sincerely wish you well.
Doug
Chelle,
Not that it really matters, but I will try to address some of your questions/comments…
No, a child is probably not physically stopped from saying a private grace before his meal, however way back when (when I was in public school) the whole school said grace, as a whole, before a meal. Yes, indeed I do have children, 10 of them. Yes, they were taught to say grace before a meal and no they are not stopped as they are home.
FYI religious schools do not teach religion with their algebra, it’s a seperate class. Also, they no longer include the faith in any of their subjects, except for a specific religion class, thanks to secular pressure.
Precisely. My whole point, perhaps I wasn’t clear, is that anyone from LMaF can come into a public school and teach the kids that homosexuality is fine it’s okay you’re just born that way, yet a minister or a religious speaker cannot come in and teach kids morals.
I can assure you that not everything that goes on in a public school is sent home with a notifaction so you can give your yey or ney. Case in point.. a very large public highschool (over 2,000 students) in our area had a “gay presention” under the guise of a required assembly. The kids had no idea what it was gong to be about. The parents were not notified hence were not given the right to object and keep their kids home. Even in Parochial schools parents have to jump through many hoops to “opt out” and still have been reduced to keeping children home on “sex ed” day, as they have been told “no, you cannot keep them out of class”. I cannot believe that all the heterosexual people out there, religious or not, truly feel that it is in the public schools right to teach their children about sex, in any form. Also, let me clarify, Health and Sex Ed are two very different classes.
And, forgive me, but when did sexual orientation become a civil rights matter? I don’t care if you or any of your friends are gay. However, it is not a civil right to decide who your sex partner is, it’s a personal choice.
Gay agenda? Just look around you, look at your representatives and how they vote, look at the schools and what is going on there. Look at the kids. I don’t know how old you are but I remember when girls knew how to be girls and boys knew how to be boys and the ones in between were few and far between. The Gay “agenda” is taking these normally “confused” (they are teens afterall) rebellious teens and pointing them in a direction, telling them to “explore”, giving them an alternative while telling them that fundamental christians don’t understand them, that the conservative Right doesn’t care about them. They are pushing their thoughts and mindset on none other than.. your children.
So Bryce,
What you’re saying is that every single man, woman and child in the United States — or perhaps the world — should be bound by the catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. Doesn’t matter if they’re Jewish, Moslem, Protestant, Jehovah’s Witness, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Agnostic or Atheist?
And will you please direct me to exactly where in the New Testament Jesus addresses masturbation?
“The general concensus now seems to be that no one is born gay, but it is not necessarily a choice, either. ”
Doug, can you direct me to a source for this general consensus? I’m aware that people have made that hypothesis, but as far as I know the latest research indicated that homosexuality may have a biological origin (albeit not necessarily genetic.) AT any rate, it matters among whom this consensus is held–the general public? Biologists? Credentialed researchers of sexual attraction? Religious counselors?
It’s a stretch to say that anything close to consensus has ever been reached about the origins of sexual orientation. But many theories exist.
(In case you’re interested, here are articles about some recent studies:)
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/06/26/brothers-gay.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/26/health/main1753553.shtml?source=RSS&attr=Health_1753553
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060118100238.htm
Phil,
I cited my references. With regard to “concensus” or “many theories” I think we are talking about semantics.
Thank you for the links, however, two of them referred to the same study.
Doug,
When you say that you cited your references, are you talking about the writers you mentioned? Satinover, Maier, Stanton, Bayer…?
I’m not sure it’s accurate to call it “semantics.” I’d say a tiny minority of researchers believe that sexual orientation is _caused_ by environmental factors. Use of the passive voice might lead to semantic noise (”It is believed that gays evolve into their compulsion…”), but if you’re suggesting that anything close to half of credible researchers are running with a “nurture, not nature,” theory, you’re pretty much wildly inaccurate.
Phil,
Given your argument as you phrased it, how do we know how many researchers are out there, and thus from that fact, how do we know what “half” of them think?
Chele,
The information your looking for is listed several times in the Old Testament, mostly in the Pentatuch (all major western religions based off), how a man is not to “spill his seed”, that it was a crime in jewish law. As for Jesus, He says in the New Testament, “I didn’t come to abolish the law but rather to fulfill it.”
Now for eastern religions I do not know what their take is on this self indulgent subject, I would hope to guess that they frown upon it as well. I don’t know. If your agnostic, well then you will just have to go by your own moral beliefs or non-beliefs. If your Atheist your confused, due to the fact that in order for you not to “believe” in something, there has to be something there for you not to “believe” in. Let’s not forget that God himself doens’t believe in Atheists.
Let’s call it quits on this subject. Can we at least agree on that parnets need to parent, and it shoudln’t be left up to the school system to for the innocent, impresionable minds of our youth.
See you on the next thread. God bless, Ave Maria.
Bryce
Bryce,
“If your Atheist your confused, due to the fact that in order for you not to “believe” in something, there has to be something there for you not to “believe” in.”
I hate to pick a fight, but this seems like pretty convoluted logic. I don’t believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, does that mean they must exist?
Please don’t think I’m comparing belief in God to belief in the Tooth Fairy per se, but I don’t see how the logic of your statement applies in any meaningful way to atheists. (I can see how “belief in God” exists, and I’m sure most atheists would agree on that point.)
Can you explain?
Doug,
It’s true that we can’t conduct a census of every researcher, but it doesn’t follow that the default position is “all hypotheses about the collective beliefs of researchers are true.”
I’ll admit that I’m basing my speculation about the conclusions of researchers based on a limited sample: the published materials which come to my attention and oral reports from the small circle of evolutionary biologists I include among my friends.
Do you propose the opposite contention to be true, that is, that more than half of researchers in the field believe sexual orientation is caused primarily by environmental factors? Or do you insist that, per the fallacy of Loki’s Wager, such a conjecture is simply unknowable?
You didn’t answer me, Bryce, as to whether you believe everyone should be forced to live by Catholic doctrine, and whether state and federal laws should be based on Catholic doctrine.
At the risk of being a nitpicker, the “seed” reference to which Bryce is referring actually has nothing to do with, well, you know.
It actually is a reference to a man with whom God was angry for avoiding the obligation of levirate marriage. Levirate marriage was the custom of a man taking his deceased kinsman’s wife and having children by her so that the dead man’s family line would not be extinguished.
You can read about the seed episode in Genesis 38. The idea of levirate marriage also features prominently in the Book of Ruth.
Nick,
At the risk of being a nitpicker of a nitpicker, the punishment for violating the levirate law was public humiliation, not death. See Deuteronomy 25:5 - 10. But when Onan “spilled his seed”, (the episode in Genesis 38) he was punished with death.
Many scholars and saints have commented on this. For example, Saint Augustine: “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”
I would say that Bryce is on pretty firm ground given the above.
When will FIC introduce an anti-Masturbation bill at the legislature?
That certainly would be a hoot! I could just see you at the public hearing extolling its benefits…
Certainly would be more of a hoot hearing you guys talk about how you don’t spill your seed and nobody else should either — unless it’s into an appropriate, maritally-approved female vagina. Oh. Or through that rape thing. Just so long as that seed is directed at an egg, willing or not.
I’m all in favor of guys masturbating if it will stop them from raping people — and that goes for all these priests who assault little boys.
Yikes! Is there still any hope for Chele having a sense of humor after that last response to Steve? Quick, Chele! Send us the dancing cat video again!
Phil,
You are trying to paint me into a corner that you painted.
I did not mention “half.”
You did, right after you mentioned “wildly inaccurate.”
Chele,
God gave us free will to choose to serve him or not. Therefore your question is null and void due to the fact that God does not “force” anything upon us. Therefore as followers of Christ, we can not “force” others to love God, because He doesn’t “force” us.
However God does expect us to proclaim our faith, and live it out in our daily lives. He wants us to be shepards to the “lost” flocks of sheep.
It is in my humble opinion that if indeed our society was Catholic in laws and morals than there wouldn’t be a need for the FIC. There wouldn’t be any practicing homosexuals, premartial sex, contraception, abortion, drugs, murder… Don’t worry the end times are coming, you’ll find out.
Doug,
I seem to have misinterpreted your use of the word “consensus.” Did you mean anything by it?
I have a great sense of humor, Peter. And honestly, I do spend time with other people, laughing at you guys. Because… gosh, just read this stuff!! You’ve got guys ranting about “self-abuse” and I’m expecting to hear about hair on their palms next.
But. Truth is, after the giggles, it remains that I really think you guys are a threat. I think you’re a threat to faith and religion, cynically using them for partisan politics. I think you’re a threat to women. I think you’re a threat to freedom and Constitutional rights. So at the end of the day, you’re really not all that funny.
Jeepers Peter. You’re a threat to faith, religion, women, freedom and constitutional rights. I didn’t realize that you guys had such an impact. (My check’s in the mail.) What’s remarkable is how you have managed to become such a threat without a shred of credibility…
Hat’s off.
BTW, the phrase “without a shred of credibility” is a link…
(Question to geeks - How does one highlight a hyperlink in the threads?)