Is Gay Marriage Really That Big Deal?

Ok, so, my good friend, who now has two moms in the Netherlands says that things are much better allowing people to be who they are and not making laws that are, in fact, governed by rule of religious doctrine and else. Has that litmus been passed, Lopez? Because, really, that is what is truly at the heart of this "gay marriage issue", that and the fact that the government is now in the business of defining what was once solely the realm of religion.

What say you about teaching anything about sex in school? I have very firm opinions and a very firm stance and practiced sexual education in the home with my boys, starting when they first showed an interest in why they had a penis and I didn't, why I sat down to pee and daddy didn't, and so on. Frankly, it's rather surprising to me that folks seem to think that young children, grade school age, would be being taught ANYTHING other than about their own bodies (about 5th grade is spot on in my opinion, that's when I started my period and HAD to start wearing a brassiere). Full-on sex education should begin in junior high to high school, but I don't expect that education to include, say, technique.

TheBrutalTruth said:

Are you prepared to let them have control of the curriculum too then?

Click to expand...

Paying taxes would give churches leverage over school district curricula? I don't quite see it, especially with specific regards to public schools. I doubt that states would allow inclusion of church (dogma) into the education system at this point because they have to be so careful these days. What I do see, what we all see, what is in action now is church parishioners having their say about curricula. Of course, in order for me to see where you're coming from I'd need a plausible scenario laid out.

I disagree, Public Education is a dismal failure at any rate, and needs to be axed, or at least opened to competition. Maybe with their jobs on the line the teachers will stop raping students, and start teaching students.

Click to expand...

Public education is necessary in order for the country as a whole to be literate. What is a failure is the Department of Education's meddling with education standards. What is a failure is any school system that pays people to educate when those people themselves are uneducated (i.e. can't fucking spell or do simple math). What is a problem is that it doesn't pay, either financially or in terms of respect within the community, to be a teacher anymore.

Of course, there are other reforms that would also make the education system better. One would be giving principals the ability to hire and fire instead of letting it reside in the board. The principals are like general managers. They are the one's that are responsible for making sure the schools are doing their job. If they don't have the ability to do that, then what's the point of their position, besides cheerleading and figure-heading?

Click to expand...

That's a touchy subject for me, I've known excellent principals and truly HORRID principals. I've also had my own children subjected to the mindset that holds that any children that have behavioral or learning issues should be "put in an institution" so they don't disrupt class or the learning process for other children not so affected. At first blush on this issue, I disagree with you.

ccodiane said:

"If this had been his ex-wife and he was Republican, I would bet every penny I have - or at least what’s not in the stock market - that this would be considered germane," added Gainor, a T. Boone Pickens Fellow. "But everybody wants to avoid it because he’s gay. It’s the quintessential double standard."

Click to expand...

Barney Frank is gay?? I just found out Lindsay Lohan is gay, too! Jesus Christ, do they have to either be a full-on butch dyke or a flaming queen for me to pick up on this shit?

"That's a touchy subject for me, I've known excellent principals and truly HORRID principals. I've also had my own children subjected to the mindset that holds that any children that have behavioral or learning issues should be "put in an institution" so they don't disrupt class or the learning process for other children not so affected. At first blush on this issue, I disagree with you."

I have a grandson who, when in the second grade, his teacher was insisting that he be put on Ritalin because he was "hyperactive." It turned out that this teacher had a history of getting her "hyperactive" kids on Ritalin. My daughter did some research into this teacher's activities and credentials. Turns out, the teacher was a complete idiot and unqualified ... eventually, my daughter got her fired. Good riddance.

Vi

If you see a car with one of those stupid "Marriage = Man & Woman" bumper stickers, just run them off the road.

Gays should have just as much right to do as they please as anyone else does.

GrowTech said:

If you see a car with one of those stupid "Marriage = Man & Woman" bumper stickers, just run them off the road.

Gays should have just as much right to do as they please as anyone else does.

Click to expand...

Wow, showing the true hypocrisy of the left are you?

At least the right never says we must be tolerant, and then turns around and makes itself look like a bunch of intolerant hypocrites.

But the left has never been for true free speech. It only wants "free" speech on its terms, with the vernacular reduced to its ideology.

Under the left words such as Family, Morals, Capitalism, and Freedom would be banned.

TheBrutalTruth said:

Reasons against Gay Marriage

1. Marriage was defined by the Church, thus any argument that leaving it as defined as a union between a Man and a Woman is a Church View, is circular. Of course it's a church view, because marriage was defined by the church. The State has nothing to do with the definition of marriage.

2. Civil Unions, I can not claim any responsibility for the failure of the State to ensure that under Civil Unions ( the only description you can give to any marriage issued under state auspices) Gays have the same rights.

3. Violation of the Pursuit of Happiness, ... Right, by telling them they can't marry, I'm violating their ability to pursue happiness. Maybe if I was telling them to stop being a bunch of homos, that might be a valid argument, but the truth is, that I don't give a damn what they do as long as they aren't shoving it in my face, or trying to assault the definition of marriage, which once again, was defined by religion, not the State.

As far as arguing that it is a violation of the pursuit of happiness. That's hypocritical. Having to grant them their desire to mock the institutions that so many hold dear, and hold to mean the union of a man of a woman would be a violation of their (the people that hold marriage to be the union of a man and a woman) ability to pursue happiness.

Click to expand...

1) Well, I was married in front of a judge and I never once saw a church in that courthouse.... Not to mention that people from other religions (there actually are other religions beyond Christianity) have been known to get married from time to time...

2) well, nothing to say really...

3) So if the man and a bunch of religious nuts said you can't get married (because it goes against their opinions) you would just be cool with that?

Seamaiden said:

Ok, so, my good friend, who now has two moms in the Netherlands says that things are much better allowing people to be who they are and not making laws that are, in fact, governed by rule of religious doctrine and else. Has that litmus been passed, Lopez? Because, really, that is what is truly at the heart of this "gay marriage issue", that and the fact that the government is now in the business of defining what was once solely the realm of religion.

What say you about teaching anything about sex in school? I have very firm opinions and a very firm stance and practiced sexual education in the home with my boys, starting when they first showed an interest in why they had a penis and I didn't, why I sat down to pee and daddy didn't, and so on. Frankly, it's rather surprising to me that folks seem to think that young children, grade school age, would be being taught ANYTHING other than about their own bodies (about 5th grade is spot on in my opinion, that's when I started my period and HAD to start wearing a brassiere). Full-on sex education should begin in junior high to high school, but I don't expect that education to include, say, technique.
Paying taxes would give churches leverage over school district curricula? I don't quite see it, especially with specific regards to public schools. I doubt that states would allow inclusion of church (dogma) into the education system at this point because they have to be so careful these days. What I do see, what we all see, what is in action now is church parishioners having their say about curricula. Of course, in order for me to see where you're coming from I'd need a plausible scenario laid out.
Public education is necessary in order for the country as a whole to be literate. What is a failure is the Department of Education's meddling with education standards. What is a failure is any school system that pays people to educate when those people themselves are uneducated (i.e. can't fucking spell or do simple math). What is a problem is that it doesn't pay, either financially or in terms of respect within the community, to be a teacher anymore.
That's a touchy subject for me, I've known excellent principals and truly HORRID principals. I've also had my own children subjected to the mindset that holds that any children that have behavioral or learning issues should be "put in an institution" so they don't disrupt class or the learning process for other children not so affected. At first blush on this issue, I disagree with you.
Barney Frank is gay?? I just found out Lindsay Lohan is gay, too! Jesus Christ, do they have to either be a full-on butch dyke or a flaming queen for me to pick up on this shit?

Click to expand...

I don't understand why this question is directed toward me specifically. I guess I'm not clear on what point of mine that I had made has you questioning me on religion and government. Can you please clarify. . . or maybe I'm just reading this wrong. I guess that's one reason that email and forums don't work as well as direct conversation - you lose voice inflect.

In regards to sex education in school, I think the basics should be taught to age appropriate children. You're right that the 5th grade is about that age. Anything younger than that should simply be about them understanding their bodies in regards to anatomy and what makes one body different from another but not in regards to sexual function. Once again in middle school I think that sex education can be addressed in a health course or anatomy course but there shouldn't be a whole course dedicated strictly to sex education. Also the emphasis during the sexual education part of the course should be on the functions of the body and the functions of reproduction, not on the practice of sex, who to have sex with, positioning or technique.

Why should the state teach children about anything sexual? Isn't that the job of the parents? I'd say, as soon as children are graduating high school with the ability of reading, composing written material, and having math skills at a senior level, then let's discuss other subjects.

Vi

Vi, the state has been forced to teach kids about their own bodies because, quite frankly, the majority of parents don't. Do you know that I knew what a penis, vas deferens, vagina and labia were LONG before I knew what a dick or pussy were? Why was that? Because my parents taught me, starting at a very young age.
Now, why didn't my friends know those terms as well? Because, their sexual indoctrination had occurred at the hands of teenaged siblings, and thusly was fraught with inaccuracies at the very least, and dangerously plain wrongness at the worst. If parents aren't going to handle it, then someone MUST.

Didn't you read one of my initial posts in this thread about people, parents even, who know nothing about their own school district, let alone the curriculum presented at each school, etcetera? Remember that it's these people who seem to believe that passing 8 is the only way to prevent "homosexuality from being taught in the schools!" Which is more precisely propaganda than anything based on any facts.

lopezri said:

I don't understand why this question is directed toward me specifically. I guess I'm not clear on what point of mine that I had made has you questioning me on religion and government. Can you please clarify. . . or maybe I'm just reading this wrong. I guess that's one reason that email and forums don't work as well as direct conversation - you lose voice inflect.

Click to expand...

Because, you're the only person in this thread who's come out as homosexual, but I am unsure as to your stance on the proposition being discussed. You mentioned that history shows we let Europe try it first, which I like (cracked me up, actually). So I'm saying that "they" have done it, and outside of religious zealots and those who are, quite plainly, "grossed out" by homosexuality (usually restricted to a disgust of male-on-male sexuality, most seem to accept lesbianism) have experienced no great social problems with allowing same sex marriage.

Besides, what other concrete reasons or reasoning does anyone have for denying what I personally consider an inalienable right to a whole group of people? The first problem we need to get around, and few are addressing except Brutal, is the idea of the government being in the business of defining what was previously a spiritual, church (and thusly separate from the state) concept or realm. But, here it is, ostensibly in the name of "public health", even. So, if the state's going to define it, then the state must subject that definition to a greater picture, and that picture began with the Bill of Rights, moved on through the Declaration and was finalized via the Constitution.

I have an inherent problem with any legislation that appears to remove rights rather than give them. This is Proposition 8, through and through. Did you choose to be born male? During this time and era? Your ethnicity? Your age? To be gay?

We cannot legally discriminate with regards to any of these factors EXCEPT sexuality. I see something deeply and morally wrong with this picture, and tend to speak out against such discrimination.

In regards to sex education in school, I think the basics should be taught to age appropriate children. You're right that the 5th grade is about that age. Anything younger than that should simple be about them understanding their bodies in regards to anatomy and what makes one body different from another but not in regards to sexual function. Once again in middle school I think that sex education can be addressed in a health course or anatomy course but there shouldn't be a whole course dedicated strictly to sex education. Also the emphasis during the sexual education part of the course should be on the functions of the body and the functions of reproduction, not on the practice of sex, who to have sex with, positioning or technique.

Click to expand...

We completely and totally agree. I also appreciate that you're able to form a complete sentence that makes sense, is grammatically correct, and that you can spell.

ViRedd said:

Why should the state teach children about anything sexual? Isn't that the job of the parents? I'd say, as soon as children are graduating high school with the ability of reading, composing written material, and having math skills at a senior level, then let's discuss other subjects.

Vi

Click to expand...

Well Vi - this one is difficult. I agree with you AND disagree with you. It is the job of the parents but unfortunatley we don't live in a day or age where we have that many great parents. I'd love to believe that we do but I have experienced it first hand. There are only a handful of parents who take any interest in their childs education or their lives for that matter. That's why the state intervenes when it comes to sex education.

I think at first the whole concept started out just to explain to girls and boys what was happening to their bodies when they were around the 5th grade, but then the liberals got into the whole thing and decided that since it's being taught anyway, let's see how far we can stretch the envelope and teach a comprehensive course on it. Once that happened they went even further. Particularly in areas like San Fransisco where they felt that they were being excluded from the curriculum because their lifestyle wasn't touched on.

Don't get me wrong. . . I don't condone the latter ideals here. But if parents aren't going to take the opportunity or initiative to teach their kids SOMEONE is going to and most likely those parents won't like what is being taught by that someone. And that someone is most likely going to go too far with it.

lopezri said:

Don't get me wrong. . . I don't condone the latter ideals here. But if parents aren't going to take the opportunity or initiative to teach their kids SOMEONE is going to and most likely those parents won't like what is being taught by that someone. And that someone is most likely going to go too far with it.

Click to expand...

I once got into MAJOR trouble as a teen because I was babysitting these kids, and they asked me. So.. I told 'em. Imagine my surprise to learn that a 5th grader really thought storks brought babies (but he thought it HAD to be at night because we haven't got storks in California). Never did like those babysitting gigs.

cleatis said:

1) Well, I was married in front of a judge and I never once saw a church in that courthouse.... Not to mention that people from other religions (there actually are other religions beyond Christianity) have been known to get married from time to time...

Click to expand...

That doesn't argue my point of saying that marriage was defined by religion.

2) well, nothing to say really...

Click to expand...

3) So if the man and a bunch of religious nuts said you can't get married (because it goes against their opinions) you would just be cool with that?

Click to expand...

Actually, I wouldn't really give a damn about their opinion.

The fact of the matter is, is that government is too intrusive, too regulatory, and too big.

The government shouldn't be trying to define marriage anyway, and the only role government has in marriage is forcing people to get marriage "licenses".

As far as judges performing marriages, those should be called civil unions. Not marriages, and thus, until the State stops calling its ceremonies marriages (thus stealing the phrase from religion) then the debate on what marriage is will still be there.

The State should stop trying to define terms that were created by others, and come up with its own terms, especially when it is going to change the definition from what those entities chose.

Though, I can not think of a religion that does not define marriage as being between a Man and a Woman.

Wicca, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, all define it in the same way.

Because, you're the only person in this thread who's come out as homosexual, but I am unsure as to your stance on the proposition being discussed. You mentioned that history shows we let Europe try it first, which I like (cracked me up, actually). So I'm saying that "they" have done it, and outside of religious zealots and those who are, quite plainly, "grossed out" by homosexuality (usually restricted to a disgust of male-on-male sexuality, most seem to accept lesbianism) have experienced no great social problems with allowing same sex marriage.

We completely and totally agree. I also appreciate that you're able to form a complete sentence that makes sense, is grammatically correct, and that you can spell.[/quote]

Oh, ok. I have to admit that I'm not completely sure what Prop 8 is about. Where is this Proposition taking place? California? I'm a state over so I'm not completely clear on the language of the proposition.

BTW, I included the other part of your quote because I actually did have a misspelled word in there. I put "simple" when I meant "simply". Sorry!

Seamaiden said:

I once got into MAJOR trouble as a teen because I was babysitting these kids, and they asked me. So.. I told 'em. Imagine my surprise to learn that a 5th grader really thought storks brought babies (but he thought it HAD to be at night because we haven't got storks in California). Never did like those babysitting gigs.

Click to expand...

LOL! That one was so funny I had to read it to my partner!

Proposition 8 is indeed in California. And, I sincerely hope it is once again ruled unconstitutional, because, frankly, it is.

TBT, I don't think I can agree with you more. But, do you think we'd be able to get the gubmint OUT of the "defining religious institutions" business? I don't. Rather like getting the next POTUS to give up all those shiny new expanded executive powers just because they're unconstitutional and, you know, wrong.

Btw, no one's addressed much the idea of taxing churches. Is there anything in the Constitution, as originally written or as amended, that dictates churches must not be taxed? I'm beginning to think it's a good idea, going with the Indian gaming model.

Seamaiden said:

Proposition 8 is indeed in California. And, I sincerely hope it is once again ruled unconstitutional, because, frankly, it is.

TBT, I don't think I can agree with you more. But, do you think we'd be able to get the gubmint OUT of the "defining religious institutions" business? I don't. Rather like getting the next POTUS to give up all those shiny new expanded executive powers just because they're unconstitutional and, you know, wrong.

Btw, no one's addressed much the idea of taxing churches. Is there anything in the Constitution, as originally written or as amended, that dictates churches must not be taxed? I'm beginning to think it's a good idea, going with the Indian gaming model.

Click to expand...

I really don't care if Church's are taxed or not. I distrust organized religion almost as much as I distrust Obama and the left.

Personally, I am a Deist.

It has nothing to do with trust of the organization. It has to do with the special status they've enjoyed for quite some time now. It has to do with how that special status allows them to build complexes so large it takes two full minutes to drive by, at freeway speeds. It has to do with the fact that our state (California for me) and our nation (U.S. of A. for me) are broke and riding on the backs of taxpayers, and I think it's come to a point where churches should enjoy no special advantages, especially if they want theological doctrine to become the law of the land.

Seamaiden said:

It has nothing to do with trust of the organization. It has to do with the special status they've enjoyed for quite some time now. It has to do with how that special status allows them to build complexes so large it takes two full minutes to drive by, at freeway speeds. It has to do with the fact that our state (California for me) and our nation (U.S. of A. for me) are broke and riding on the backs of taxpayers, and I think it's come to a point where churches should enjoy no special advantages, especially if they want theological doctrine to become the law of the land.

Click to expand...

Like I said, tax them it doesn't really matter to me.

But if you are going to tax them, are you also going to tax all the other nonprofits?

TheBrutalTruth said:

Actually, I wouldn't really give a damn about their opinion.

Click to expand...

back at u ******

****** said:

back at u ******

Click to expand...

****** You're being either deliberately confusing, or insulting me with out me even realizing it, or attacking me in retaliation for something. I'm not sure which, since I don't recall attacking you, nor was that quote an attack.

I think it was in reference to you asking what I would do if a bunch of religious nut jobs told me I couldn't get married, and I answered you, "I wouldn't give a fuck about their opinion."

I think string-of-asterisks-guy doesn't like your OPINIONS, TBT.

TheBrutalTruth said:

Like I said, tax them it doesn't really matter to me.

But if you are going to tax them, are you also going to tax all the other nonprofits?

Click to expand...

Ah.. but NPOs enjoy that status after going through an extensive and rigorous qualification procedure. Then, they must show exactly how their monies are being spent. And that's just the beginning. A church is definitely not the same as an honest-to-goodness NPO. With an NPO it can take YEARS to gain such status. A church merely has to open up a storefront and hire a preacher, et voila, non-taxable status.

Something is amiss! Make a church go through the exact same process, with the exact same oversights, and they, too, can enjoy NPO status, as long as they follow their own protocol, goals, and guidelines that gained them NPO status in the first place.