No opting out of pro-gay school propaganda

[Mordecai]

..(Middle School is iffy, High School I'm not so worried about)...

I'm fine with having the debate in high school, not indoctrination, as teachers have been doing. High school kids are incredibly insecure and easily manipulated by the adults with whom they spend the most time. Their brains are not fully developed, either, so it's not like they have strong critical thinking. The only way to get away from these treachers... er... teachers is to get charter schools going, home schooling and/or the voucher system. Otherwise, teachers can accomplish whatever treachery they want, while parents and administrators (assuming the administrators care) have their hands tied by insane union rules of tenure.

All the polls show the younger generation has largely been indoctrinated to accept "gay marriage" as if it were a real civil rights movement, when it's just mindless political dogma in disguise. We can also thank the unions for allowing bad teachers to waste student time instead of helping them with critical thinking.

[Jaybear]

All the polls show the younger generation has largely been indoctrinated to accept "gay marriage" as if it were a real civil rights movement, when it's just mindless political dogma in disguise. We can also thank the unions for allowing bad teachers to waste student time instead of helping them with critical thinking.

Your analysis of the issue dealing with bullies is shaped by an authoritative, indisputable dogmatic assertion ... Homosexuality is immoral.

My analysis of the issue begins without casting any moral judgment on the victims.

I look to the opinions and recommendations expressed by a consensus of the experts in the fields of psychology, child development, sociology to guide and shape my opinion. You look for the opinion of the experts who support and affirm your preexisting beliefs.

Yet, here you are lecturing on the dangers of dogma, and praising the value of critical thinking.

You are a funny guy.

[krose]

How are you unable to see that sometimes "an effort to be included" may sometimes have the effect -- unintended or otherwise -- of destroying something?

Please point out somewhere in history where expanding a right has been the cause of the loss of that right.

I don't think it's paranoia so much as an understanding that society is fragile. As you dilute the meaning of family, you undermine the principles of what makes a family work, introducing more dysfunction, neglect and abuse into society. As family values are destroyed, good parenting will become more and more scarce, ultimately resulting in a completely broken society.

How does the inclusion of others in a definition change the meaning and importance for those who still fit the original definition, and are still included? If excluding others is crucial to my "making a family work," I'm not seeing how.

Also, I'm intrigued as to what this expected slide down the slippery slope would look like. Some specifics, please. For example, do more hetero couples decide it's okay to have sex with their children because the lesbian couple down the street had a legal marriage ceremony?

Give countries that reject family values a few hundred years, and I'll show you miserable and weak countries that eventually get overrun with foreign cultures (often tyrannical in nature) and/or get outright conquered.

Okay, show me those countries, and then demonstrate how their demise was due to changing the definition of a family (preferably by including individuals who were previously excluded).

[ERayR]

how nice of you to make a Temple worthiness judgment against Toronto and call him a liar.

-------------

as for what the definition of family is, the Courts used the term family to describe unrelated people living together in a group home type setting.

-------------

depending on what is said in the video I can understand wanting to "opt out". however, a video about treating people with respect and dignity need not use labels other than "human being".

It was a valid question.

[krose]

LDSToronto, 100 years ago, the thoughts of gay civil unions was close to unthinkable.

We have that today.

Then, we have gay mairrages... when the civil unions passed... it was said gay marriages would not happen

They have passed in places.

That is certainly not surprising given the attitudes towards gays/lesbians at the time. These were people who, in order to survive, had to operate in secrecy. An awful lot has changed in the last 100 years. What other "unthinkable" changes since 1910 are you concerned about? Mixed-race neighborhoods, schools, and marriages? Women voting, working, playing sports, and even getting elected? Bare legs at the beach? Organ transplants?

And what do you worry will be the next step after SSM? What is now unthinkable that you fear will come from it?

There is a point where we have to say, 'no, we will not bend anymore'.

There is always a point where we have to say "no," and we always manage to do so. The challenge is always in coming to a consensus on where that point is.

What many of us consider genuine societal progress, others see as a declining society. Every advance has been fought in those terms, at every step. Whether it was about race, gender or sexual orientation, every change toward more equality has been met with dire warnings of society going to hell.

[Mordecai]

Your analysis of the issue dealing with bullies is shaped by an authoritative, indisputable dogmatic assertion ... Homosexuality is immoral.

LOL Where did this come from? I don't recall asserting this, and none of my points have anything to do with this.

My analysis of the issue begins without casting any moral judgment on the victims.

Wow. How righteous you are... Even if that's true, who cares? We're not debating who here is judgmental and who isn't. We're debating what makes sense; otherwise, it's not a debate. It's just what lawyers do, which is to try to trick people into agreeing with them.

I look to the opinions and recommendations expressed by a consensus of the experts in the fields of psychology, child development, sociology to guide and shape my opinion.

People looked to the opinions of experts to decide that eugenics were the right way to go, too. I'm more of a "depend on reason and what makes sense" kidn of guy. In fact, I took psychology, child development and sociology classes in college. Several of them. I took from them a lot, and at no point did I see any logical reason to normalize homosexuality.

You look for the opinion of the experts who support and affirm your preexisting beliefs.

Actually, I don't. I look to people who make sense, using facts and reason.

Yet, here you are lecturing on the dangers of dogma, and praising the value of critical thinking.

Judging by our debates here, it's obvious you're the one with the dogma, no matter how much you deny it. I keep advocating for reason. I'm 100% against bullying. I'm also 100% against trying to normalize homosexuality. You can actually be against both, believe it or not.

[Jason]

That you acknowledge that "guessing" is even involved about trying ascertain reasons God would be against same-sex behavior speaks directly to the point that there isn't a clear, concise, or explicit statement of such.

Alright, you've got me - there is no "Thou shalt not have sex with thy same gender because..." revelation. Does this really mean that God has no real reasons for prohibiting homosexual behavior? It must be entirely dogmatic and arbitrary?

Well, no, research in the real world shows that there really are problems with homosexual behavior and the homosexual lifestyle. Lack of fidelity, health concerns (not just STDs either), signs of mental disturbance, increased rates of suicide, etc. The constant mantra of the pro-gay is that all the problems result from societal pressure against the behavior, and that this societal pressure is the result of simple bigotry. But in nations with higher tolerance of homosexual behavior, such as the Netherlands, the same problems still exist. Perhaps they are inherent to the behavior? Maybe it really is a problem to use sex in a way it wasn't intended? Perhaps we owe it to our society to not promote this destructive behavior after all?

There are plenty of materials from the leaders of the Church concerning the perils of homosexuality. These are the writings of inspired prophets, and can be taken as God's view on the matter. I refer you to them.

[LDSToronto]

Alright, you've got me - there is no "Thou shalt not have sex with thy same gender because..." revelation. Does this really mean that God has no real reasons for prohibiting homosexual behavior? It must be entirely dogmatic and arbitrary?

If the mind of God can not be determined in the matter, then it follows that this next statement is not necessarily founded on the will of God:

There are plenty of materials from the leaders of the Church concerning the perils of homosexuality. These are the writings of inspired prophets, and can be taken as God's view on the matter. I refer you to them.

H.

[Jason]

If the mind of God can not be determined in the matter, then it follows that this next statement is not necessarily founded on the will of God:

I wasn't saying that the mind of God cannot be determined on the matter, merely that there was no explicit "because" revelation.

There is an explicit "thou shalt not" on the matter.

[Pahoran]

This does appear to contradict earlier statements, like:

No. It does not.

And you are the last person on this forum who can tell me -- or anyone else -- how to be a Latter-day Saint.

I suggest you don't try.

I just can't see why any member of the church wouldn't feel obligated to expound on LDS values.

That's quite ironic, coming from you; claiming to be a member of the Church, nevertheless you spend most of your bandwidth here opposing LDS values.

I'm unsure how answering either question will help this discussion, but I will.

I keep my identity on the internet chatboards secret because of the nature of the debate. The last thing I want is someone showing up in my ward, or worse, at my house, to harass me.

I respect the right of people to retain their anonymity. I should point out that no-one is going to your house, of course. You appear to be having another of your Proverbs 28:1 moments; no doubt due to the fear of exposure.

In person, I am completely open and honest about my beliefs. My views on LGBT acceptance and same-sex marriage are known. Some of my doubts are known. Regardless, I respect the faith of those around me, and I do not preach those views from the pulpit as doctrine, nor do I run around broadcasting my beliefs inappropriately.

Yet you demand that we broadcast our beliefs inappropriately. Then again, you have virtually no beliefs in common with the Latter-day Saints.

My bishop and my stake president both sign my temple recommend every two years. I trust both of those men, my stake president I trust above most, and have a deep respect and brotherly love for him. I have been forthright and honest with both of them. I have explained my doubts, my beliefs, and I have explained my desires with respect to church activity. I have offered to show them my writings, and they have seen some, but felt that my opinion was just that - my opinion, and I was entitled to express it anonymously. My temple recommend remains activated and in my wallet, I have not been released from my calling (nor will I, I have been assured), and I have not been disciplined (nor will I).

So, blowing aside the smoke, it comes down to this: your bishop and your stake president sign your temple recommend in ignorance of your active, two-faced, anonymous opposition to the Church.

Got it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[thesometimesaint]

Pahoran:

This is a very public forum, and anyone with a computer can access it. As a standing personal rule I don't put ANYTHING on the "Internets" that I don't want to be publicly known. I too see very good reason to remain anonymous if it is so desired.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran:

This is a very public forum, and anyone with a computer can access it. As a standing personal rule I don't put ANYTHING on the "Internets" that I don't want to be publicly known. I too see very good reason to remain anonymous if it is so desired.

I don't have a problem with anonymity; I prefer to remain anonymous too. I'm simply sniggering at the particular rationale given.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LDSToronto]

I don't have a problem with anonymity; I prefer to remain anonymous too. I'm simply sniggering at the particular rationale given.

Well, please tell me the correct rationale - why do you remain anonymous, and why is your rationale 'better' than mine? I'm unsure why 'avoiding harassment' is irrational, so I'm eager to hear.

H.

[LDSToronto]

Yet you demand that we broadcast our beliefs inappropriately.

No. I'm suggesting that in the public debate regarding homosexuality, expressing beliefs is entirely appropriate.

Then again, you have virtually no beliefs in common with the Latter-day Saints.

Not true. My beliefs are centred on the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ and his work, as mentioned here:

The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it

So, blowing aside the smoke, it comes down to this: your bishop and your stake president sign your temple recommend in ignorance of your active, two-faced, anonymous opposition to the Church.

I'm uncertain why you would say that my bishop and stake president are ignorant of my actions, when I've confessed those actions to them and provided evidence. They've declared my worthiness. I'm not sure what else to say. Perhaps you were hoping I'd have suffered some other consequence? Perhaps my bishop and stake president see something in me that you don't? Or maybe they are concerned for my eternal soul and want me and my family to continue to be fellowshipped with the saints?

Talking about this with both of them was nerve-wracking, and I wasn't sure what outcome to expect. Perhaps they truly understand how to apply the atonement in their callings. I will admit, both are better men than me.

Got it.

I don't think you do.

H.

[Hestia]

Pahoran, need we remind you again of board guides:

No Judging others

No Personal attacks. You may dispute a member

[TAO]

That is certainly not surprising given the attitudes towards gays/lesbians at the time. These were people who, in order to survive, had to operate in secrecy. An awful lot has changed in the last 100 years. What other "unthinkable" changes since 1910 are you concerned about? Mixed-race neighborhoods, schools, and marriages? Women voting, working, playing sports, and even getting elected? Bare legs at the beach? Organ transplants?

You missed what I was trying to say. I was saying that these changes were coming upon us, and we needed to be aware. Considering how and why I view homosexuality to be immoral, to even subtly teach children that it is acceptable is a bit of a no-no in my opinion. Rather than teach them it is acceptable, teach them that bullying is not okay.

And what do you worry will be the next step after SSM? What is now unthinkable that you fear will come from it?

The next step is already taking place... change in the education system and the media.

There is always a point where we have to say "no," and we always manage to do so. The challenge is always in coming to a consensus on where that point is.

I will say no on civil unions and marriages. What I meant though is where I will REALLY put my foot down is on education... so to say 'I will fight will all I have'.

What many of us consider genuine societal progress, others see as a declining society. Every advance has been fought in those terms, at every step. Whether it was about race, gender or sexual orientation, every change toward more equality has been met with dire warnings of society going to hell.

Alas, I am not doing it because they will be going to hell. I am doing what I do because I believe it will make some people drastically unhappy later on, because they aren't able to receive what they could have.

Even worse, children will suffer because of this. Because of the decisions made by others to educate them in that manner, things will get much much more difficult for them. Isaiah says, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" This is what is happening, right and wrong are being juxtaposed. I am against this.

[TAO]

I'm fine with having the debate in high school, not indoctrination, as teachers have been doing. High school kids are incredibly insecure and easily manipulated by the adults with whom they spend the most time.

I would disagree. You would be surprised... well at least for the Honors kids I hang around XD.

Their brains are not fully developed, either, so it's not like they have strong critical thinking.

Sir, I demand that you perform some critical thinking on that critical thinking of yours. ;-)

The only way to get away from these treachers... er... teachers is to get charter schools going, home schooling and/or the voucher system. Otherwise, teachers can accomplish whatever treachery they want, while parents and administrators (assuming the administrators care) have their hands tied by insane union rules of tenure.

Eventually, it might have to go to private schooling or home schooling, yes, eventually that might have to be the way it is.

All the polls show the younger generation has largely been indoctrinated to accept "gay marriage" as if it were a real civil rights movement, when it's just mindless political dogma in disguise. We can also thank the unions for allowing bad teachers to waste student time instead of helping them with critical thinking.

Actually, you should blame the media partially, it isn't all the teachers. Actually, in my school district, that subject is rarely mentioned by the teachers. And either way, I wouldn't be blaming. What is the problem though is that politics is being put into education.

Also... critical thinking is sometimes gone overboard with in school btw ;-).

[Mordecai]

...Actually, you should blame the media partially, it isn't all the teachers. Actually, in my school district, that subject is rarely mentioned by the teachers. And either way, I wouldn't be blaming. What is the problem though is that politics is being put into education.

Also... critical thinking is sometimes gone overboard with in school btw ;-).

It certainly depends on the school district, but in California, where I live, the treachers... er... teachers are awful and can get away with preaching liberal garbage all the time. Also, I would hope they teach a LOT of critical thinking in your school district! Kids these days are WAY too dumb, from my experience. Then again, I live in California.

[TAO]

It certainly depends on the school district, but in California, where I live, the treachers... er... teachers are awful and can get away with preaching liberal garbage all the time. Also, I would hope they teach a LOT of critical thinking in your school district! Kids these days are WAY too dumb, from my experience. Then again, I live in California.

Hehe, I also live in California, but in Orange County... which is generally more conservative than the average California county, but yah =P. I guess it all depends... California is hugely varietized.

[Mordecai]

Hehe, I also live in California, but in Orange County... which is generally more conservative than the average California county, but yah =P. I guess it all depends... California is hugely varietized.

Yeah, Orange County really helped with winning prop. 8. Thanks, guys!

[TAO]

Yeah, Orange County really helped with winning prop. 8. Thanks, guys!

Wasn't old enough to vote then... so I didn't get to contribute to that one, sorry.

I do feel bad for some people that I do though.

[Jaybear]

Wasn't old enough to vote then... so I didn't get to contribute to that one, sorry.

I do feel bad for some people that I do though.

Ah, so you are part of the younger generation that have been brainwashed by liberal media and entertainment to accept gays as "normal."

According to a recent CA poll: More than two-thirds of voters between the ages of 18 and 29 approve of allowing gay marriage, while a majority of those over 65 oppose it.

I am curious how Prop 8 plays with Mormon youth. For mormon youth in your peer group, what percentage would you estimate favors gay marriage? Is there much, if any push back, by the youth, or do they pretty much tow the party line like you do.

[Mordecai]

...do they pretty much tow the party line like you do...

It's not a party line. It's based on the rational belief that the idea of real marriage ought to be valued enough to not water down its meaning to include something sociologically irrelevant and historically almost non-existent/irrelevant.

[Jeff K.]

Hehe, I also live in California, but in Orange County... which is generally more conservative than the average California county, but yah =P. I guess it all depends... California is hugely varietized.

Orange County Tao? I live in Mission Viejo.

The AP European History teacher we have in CAPO is one of the most liberal you will ever see. He degrades religion of any sort and says Christianity is for stupid people. While forced to take sensitivity training classes after he was recorded degrading a students religion, he is fighting it because he doesn't think he did anything wrong. He believes he needs the academic freedom to teach in the manner he desires. He calls it "challenging the students". But you don't take a bunch of 10th graders as a captive audience, and as the person who controls your grades, give them political lectures and then call it challenging. Let him pick of people his own age.

He takes a significantly different tact when parents are in the room.

[Jaybear]

It's not a party line. It's based on the rational belief that the idea of real marriage ought to be valued enough to not water down its meaning to include something sociologically irrelevant and historically almost non-existent/irrelevant.

No. The party line is based on the dogmatic assertion that homosexuality is an abomination to God.

It is not merely coincidental that someone who is either well educated or not religious is more likely to support marital rights for gays. Likewise its not coincidental that people who are poorly educated, or deeply religious are more likely to share your view on the matter.

Moreover a person relying on reason and not rhetoric does not begin the discussion referring to a nebulous, subjective concept such as the "value of marriage". Marriage are not bought and sold on the free market.

Moreover when civil rights of individuals are at issue, reference to "meanings" of words, and appeal to history are two of the weakest arguments one can throw out.

Your "rational" arguments are so strained, and contrived that the real connection between your position and those of vast army of Mormons who donated time and money to the passage of prop 8 is the shared belief that homosexuality is an abomination to God.

You can try to spin in differently, but you are not fooling anyone.