No opting out of pro-gay school propaganda

[TAO]

Semlogo, you don't even have to the plans Jeff is talking of to see it is their plan, sadly =/.

From the document Jeff provided:

SB 71 makes it absolutely clear that instruction or materials that discuss human reproductive organs and their functions are "sexual health education." Anti-bias trainings covering gender, sexual orientation or family life are not sexual health education. Therefore, parents do not need to be notified of this instruction and they may not remove their children from it.

[semlogo]

Semlogo, you don't even have to the plans Jeff is talking of to see it is their plan, sadly =/.

From the document Jeff provided:

The plan is right there, in the open.

So yah, Jeff would be... correct. =/

Tao, this is the claim I'm trying to get Jeff to back up:

I can't they recently took the lesson plan off the website. My fault really, when I commented in a GLAAD website that I found it to be reprehensible stating that you should be gay before you decide whether its god or not. They removed it. But did not change their tactics.

That is not in the document.

[TAO]

That is not in the document.

True, that isn't in there. It wouldn't really surprise me if it was, but all the same, that is not in there.

[Jeff K.]

I have already said I couldn't find the lesson plans Tao. The link I provided was empty and I thought perhaps it would reflect the information I had seen before. Alas, it wasn't there, so Semilogo and Jaybear decide I am something of a liar and have therefore demanded I retract what I saw but could not prove. It may be why they struggle with the Mormon church today I do note, the link does fit quite well into how the group works and how they want to literally force people to their point of view, where children will have no choice but to listen to that and of course their suggested lesson plans.

Semi sees what he wants to see, and to him there is nothing wrong with what you pointed out Tao. He will justify it or avoid discussing it. It is always one or the other.

[TAO]

I have already said I couldn't find the lesson plans Tao. The link I provided was empty and I thought perhaps it would reflect the information I had seen before. Alas, it wasn't there, so Semilogo and Jaybear decide I am something of a liar and have therefore demanded I retract what I saw but could not prove. It may be why they struggle with the Mormon church today I do note, the link does fit quite well into how the group works and how they want to literally force people to their point of view, where children will have no choice but to listen to that and of course their suggested lesson plans.

Semi sees what he wants to see, and to him there is nothing wrong with what you pointed out Tao. He will justify it or avoid discussing it. It is always one or the other.

Nah, don't worry I trust what you said. It wouldn't be like you to be dishonest anyways.

It doesn't truly matter all that much anyways, tbh, either way, because people are going to do what they are going to do. There are people who try to push sexual education at very young ages, and even if they consider this 'anti-discrimination', due to the questions that will be asked, it technically constitutes 'sex education'. It's wrong, but I don't think people are going to stop arguing over it =P. And one more detail like this is hardly going to push people over the edge I think. =/

But yah... I don't know what I will do exactly, but I guess homeschooling, or, if I absolutely have to, a lawsuit, will be the options if it ever spreads to SoCal.

[semlogo]

I have already said I couldn't find the lesson plans Tao. The link I provided was empty and I thought perhaps it would reflect the information I had seen before. Alas, it wasn't there, so Semilogo and Jaybear decide I am something of a liar and have therefore demanded I retract what I saw but could not prove. It may be why they struggle with the Mormon church today I do note, the link does fit quite well into how the group works and how they want to literally force people to their point of view, where children will have no choice but to listen to that and of course their suggested lesson plans.

Semi sees what he wants to see, and to him there is nothing wrong with what you pointed out Tao. He will justify it or avoid discussing it. It is always one or the other.

More projection from you. I'm active and happy in the church. How about you?

You made a claim, provided a link knowing it was broken and hoping that no one would be able to check on your facts. Just admit you were wrong.

The fact that you think it's wrong to teach children to treat gay people equitably is very disturbing.

[Jeff K.]

You made a claim, provided a link knowing it was broken and hoping that no one would be able to check on your facts. Just admit you were wrong.

I hoped for no such thing. I witnessed something, I was honest about it, and you appear dead set upon making it a forum questioning my honesty. Fine, but you only make yourself look ridiculous.

The fact I am against bullying, and I am against indoctrination of the gay lifestyle seems to you a strange thing. I do not like the fact that people want to force my children to be indoctrinated in the gay lifestyle, that my teaching against bullying is insufficient for their agenda.

You embrace the agenda. I don't find it disturbing that you do. You tact regarding the church has generally been negative towards its goals, at least based on your posts here. Everyone is aware of that trend few would call what is so obvious a projection.

You are free to call me a liar, but then faithful church members who have witnessed things they could not prove at the moment have been called worse. I gladly accept being put in their column versus yours.

[semlogo]

I hoped for no such thing. I witnessed something, I was honest about it, and you appear dead set upon making it a forum questioning my honesty. Fine, but you only make yourself look ridiculous.

The fact I am against bullying, and I am against indoctrination of the gay lifestyle seems to you a strange thing. I do not like the fact that people want to force my children to be indoctrinated in the gay lifestyle, that my teaching against bullying is insufficient for their agenda.

You embrace the agenda. I don't find it disturbing that you do. You tact regarding the church has generally been negative towards its goals, at least based on your posts here. Everyone is aware of that trend few would call what is so obvious a projection.

You are free to call me a liar, but then faithful church members who have witnessed things they could not prove at the moment have been called worse. I gladly accept being put in their column versus yours.

Are you sure you witnessed something? Perhaps it's a false memory brought on during exposure to high levels of anti-gay propaganda?

I'm not negative toward the church - only those within it like you trying to turn it into an arm of The John Birch Society.

[Jaybear]

I'm not negative toward the church - only those within it like you trying to turn it into an arm of The John Birch Society.

I don't understand this mindset. My wife is a devout catholic and she supports gay marriage. No one has or would ever questioned her commitment to her faith. In that same sense, in a recent survey:

The Public Religion Research Institute report, based on surveys of 3,000 people, finds:

* 43% of Catholic favor allowing gay and lesbian people to marry

* 31% would allow them to form civil unions

* 22% say there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship.

Why don't more Mormons take the position that gays who are not mormon, ought to have the right to marry, if they so choose. That approach seems entirely consistent with:

1. Concept of free agency.

2. Limited role of government.

3. Respect and tolerance for other churches deciding who they are allowed to marry.

4. recognizing and extending the benefits of marriage to nontraditional families ... stability and lifelong commitments.

5. The importance of families, in this case families with gay parents.

6. The economic benefits to a community.

Mormons seem to have no problem with abstain from gambling, drinking, coffee drinking, working on the sabbath, but rejecting passage of state laws which would impose the same standards on nonmormons.

Its a puzzler.

[TAO]

The fact that you think it's wrong to teach children to treat gay people equitably is very disturbing.

Semlogo, this isn't what we think is wrong.

If you look back a few pages, I posted the video... and yes, it contains other material we object too - it goes farther than promoting equality. That is what we object to.

[Mordecai]

...Why don't more Mormons take the position that gays who are not mormon, ought to have the right to marry, if they so choose. That approach seems entirely consistent with:

1. Concept of free agency.

2. Limited role of government.

3. Respect and tolerance for other churches deciding who they are allowed to marry.

4. recognizing and extending the benefits of marriage to nontraditional families ... stability and lifelong commitments.

5. The importance of families, in this case families with gay parents.

6. The economic benefits to a community.

Mormons seem to have no problem with abstain from gambling, drinking, coffee drinking, working on the sabbath, but rejecting passage of state laws which would impose the same standards on nonmormons.

Its a puzzler.

It's not a puzzler. We're not banning "gay marriage." We're just against the gov't pretending that a gay union is the same as a real marriage. Nothing to do with agency, bigger or smaller gov't, religious freedoms (other than protecting ourselves from a zealous, dogmatic left-wing elitist regime), gay people having families or anything like that.

Gay people are 100% free to have children, live together "as husband and wife," or whatever else they want, other than have the gov't join them in a fantasy world where there are no differences between a gay union and a real marriage.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Why don't more Mormons take the position that gays who are not mormon, ought to have the right to marry, if they so choose. That approach seems entirely consistent with:

1. Concept of free agency.

2. Limited role of government.

3. Respect and tolerance for other churches deciding who they are allowed to marry.

4. recognizing and extending the benefits of marriage to nontraditional families ... stability and lifelong commitments.

5. The importance of families, in this case families with gay parents.

6. The economic benefits to a community.

Mormons seem to have no problem with abstain from gambling, drinking, coffee drinking, working on the sabbath, but rejecting passage of state laws which would impose the same standards on nonmormons.

Its a puzzler.

There is nothing puzzling here at all, Mormons see marriage as a the most sacred ordinance that God instituted, they also know that God made this ordinance and married the first couple by his own hands.

Now the State governments are seeking to violate the first amendment which protects the religious ordinance of marriage from intrusion and regulation by the State.

It isn't the Mormons who are breaking the Law here but the State, the Constitution protects marriage from State interference, the Constitution DOES NOT guarantee anyone the right to get married.

As previous posts have said repeatedly but the Church nor it's members are anti - gay or anti - equal protection under the law for same sex couples. The Church is anti- unconstitutionally changing the most sacred religious ordinance in the Church.

Many Church members support equal civil rights for same sex couples, the Church DOES NOT support, nor do the overwhelming majority of there members, Same Sex Marriage though.

To support Same Sex Marriage is to destroy the foundation of our religion, the foundation of our faith no longer exists if marriage is not between a man and a woman.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 28 March 2011 - 10:12 AM, said:

I hoped for no such thing. I witnessed something, I was honest about it, and you appear dead set upon making it a forum questioning my honesty. Fine, but you only make yourself look ridiculous.

The fact I am against bullying, and I am against indoctrination of the gay lifestyle seems to you a strange thing. I do not like the fact that people want to force my children to be indoctrinated in the gay lifestyle, that my teaching against bullying is insufficient for their agenda.

You embrace the agenda. I don't find it disturbing that you do. You tact regarding the church has generally been negative towards its goals, at least based on your posts here. Everyone is aware of that trend few would call what is so obvious a projection.

You are free to call me a liar, but then faithful church members who have witnessed things they could not prove at the moment have been called worse. I gladly accept being put in their column versus yours.

Are you sure you witnessed something? Perhaps it's a false memory brought on during exposure to high levels of anti-gay propaganda?

I'm not negative toward the church - only those within it like you trying to turn it into an arm of The John Birch Society.

Lets see, where to begin Semilogo. Oh yes. Your non sequitur attacks stating I belong to the John Birch society are rubbish and you accuse me of being delusional? That makes you a silly little journalist. Now lets move on the facts.

You have implied I lied, and you have implied that I am delusional. One wonders what else you will imply since you have no real position to defend. You haven't come up with anything that makes sense to this point beyond claiming surreptitiously that I am either a liar or crazy. Would you have stated the same to Joseph Smith as he was tarred and feathered? One can only conjecture that when cornered without an argument, this is the best you have got.

Your negativism is towards me and all I am doing is agreeing with the prophet and apostles. If you are negative towards me in such an overt and obvious manner, then do we presume you must certainly disdain the prophet and apostles? Or perhaps merely consider them misled idiots? Do you consider them perhaps delusional? That perhaps when they recieve revlelation they are not telling you the truth of the matter? Yours is a difficult position semilogo. I agree with church leadership, wholeheartedly, I try to follow what they tell us to do. I try to be a faithful member and of course live up to the covenants I make.

You call me a liar and delusional for doing so. I know atheists who do not attack my support of the prophet and apostles that way. And yet, you tell us you are a happy man in the church, but those who attempt to carry out the prophets will and the apostles, why they simply must be lying, and delusional.

Hmmmm... I detect an interesting conundrum here that I simply can't figure out. Are you really happy? I know I am. I don't worry about the church or its leaders because I know they are making the right decisions and they care for us, and they receive revelation to lead the church. I had my doubts about the success of Prop 8, but did my best as a member to carry out what they desired. Amazing how it passed, almost a miracle. And the firestorm against Mormons afterwards, even from Mormons within the church. Mormons who called those who campaigned liars, delusional, and other things. Are they really happy as members of the Lords church? Hard to say.

President Kimball had it right. With the proviso that some of those same people who would destroy the meaning of marriage would themselves claim to be faithful Mormons.

[semlogo]

You have implied I lied

You made a claim, and claimed that the proof was in a document that was unavailable in the link you provided. When that document surfaced, your claim was not born out. And yet still here we all are, days later, and still no retraction or apology from you.

[Jeff K.]

I see no need to apologize. It was the wrong document, which I could not check to begin with since I did not know it could be recovered. Given that, I did not lie. Though you generally accuse people of such, oh wait and delusion. Tell me, in your happy state how often do you accuse president Monson of lying and being delusional for supporting Prop 8?

As a teacher I often see agendas driven by different groups with lesson plans to gain acceptance. It is the height of naive ignorance for someone to believe it isn't so. Indeed the document does support me in the methods used to force people into a class that they may object to. In other words a class with a lesson plan that expects them to treat homosexuality as an acceptable behavior. You might be ok with that, indeed, your anger towards the prophets and apostles and the church for their support of NOT accepting such behavior is well known. You are on the other side, you have chosen who you do not support. Fine, but don't call the rest of us liars or delusional. Especially in the anonymity of the this forum. You wouldn't get away with it in your ward.

[semlogo]

I see no need to apologize. It was the wrong document, which I could not check to begin with since I did not know it could be recovered. Given that, I did not lie. Though you generally accuse people of such, oh wait and delusion. Tell me, in your happy state how often do you accuse president Monson of lying and being delusional for supporting Prop 8?

As a teacher I often see agendas driven by different groups with lesson plans to gain acceptance. It is the height of naive ignorance for someone to believe it isn't so. Indeed the document does support me in the methods used to force people into a class that they may object to. In other words a class with a lesson plan that expects them to treat homosexuality as an acceptable behavior. You might be ok with that, indeed, your anger towards the prophets and apostles and the church for their support of NOT accepting such behavior is well known. You are on the other side, you have chosen who you do not support. Fine, but don't call the rest of us liars or delusional. Especially in the anonymity of the this forum. You wouldn't get away with it in your ward.

Where's your evidence, Jeff? Where is it? Stop trying to deflect and project and just post your evidence.

In other words, CFR or drop your claim.

[Jeff K.]

I did a new google search...

Hidden Homophobia class

Ie if you do not feel the homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality then you are a homophobe. Now I suppose you might see the act of homosexuality as being equal semilogo, but I do not, and the lesson plan is geared to a group think where the individual is forced and focused by the group if they believe differently in the discussion. It is indoctrination for the most part.

Imagine year after year being told that homosexuality is an acceptable behavior when it isn't? You in essence take away choice and have the state forcing a standard on your kids that has nothing to do with curriculum.

Then there's SB48

A bill recently introduced in the California senate seeks to mandate that all public schools in California teach history and social studies with a deliberate slant toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons (LGBT).

The bill, SB 48, was introduced in the new legislative session by longtime LGBT activist Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), who has also authored a number of bills in past sessions designed to attack traditional marriage. Among other things, SB 48 states,

[semlogo]

I did a new google search...

Hidden Homophobia class

Ie if you do not feel the homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality then you are a homophobe. Now I suppose you might see the act of homosexuality as being equal semilogo, but I do not, and the lesson plan is geared to a group think where the individual is forced and focused by the group if they believe differently in the discussion. It is indoctrination for the most part.

Imagine year after year being told that homosexuality is an acceptable behavior when it isn't? You in essence take away choice and have the state forcing a standard on your kids that has nothing to do with curriculum.

Then there's SB48

Pacific Justice Institute

But for you semilogo its all good isn't.

You have your lesson plans, you have the plan that makes attending those classes mandatory and you see the laws being changed to ensure an indoctrination.

I bet to you its still all well and good isn't it?

Once I get past your political language, it boils don't to they're not teaching that gays are vile sinners but normal people deserving respect, and that makes you upset. Heaven forbid this prevents hazing of gay students.

Still nothing about teaching kids that they should try homosexuality, as you claimed. CFR stands.

[Hestia]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: it appears this topic has reaced the end of discussio and is going downhill.

Thank you,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff