Let’S Face It, We Want To Indoctrinate Children

[Mordecai]

...more like when you are wrong about something, and someone points that out and you are faced with either admitting your wrong or something else, you choose something else rather than admit that you misrepresented the article.

I wasn't wrong in any relevant way, so I don't care if I was wrong. Why do you care so much? You're snarky. That's why.

...and what point do you make? If ss couples and hetero couples are different, as you and many other have stated in various ways and many times, then what applicability does the molestation rate of unmarried heterosexual couples have to do with married ss couples? Also, it is a very poor argument to present stats about one type of couple, and use that same stat to claim it is equally applicable to another type of couple, a couple which you and others claim in various ways in not equal too the first couple from which the molestation stat was taken.

Poor reading comprehension anyone? Try understanding my argument before responding next time. Thanks.

...but if you are going to treat ss couples equal to hetero couples, then the article proves that ss couples should be permitted to marry and given the same legal status as hetro couples.

Really? The article proves that ss couples should be permitted to marry? Wow. You should present it in Federal court, since it is proof. Then you'll get the gov't to adopt your gay dogma. Oh, wait, it's impossible to prove that a gay union is the same as a straight union, so you've lost before you started. They aren't the same and never will be.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

frankenstein:

Human sexuality comes in all colors of the rainbow.

This is not a good thing, speaking biologically and for the survival of man…also as far as the commandments. Rainbow’s are beautiful, sexual sin is not.

[frankenstein]

I wasn't wrong in any relevant way, so I don't care if I was wrong. Why do you care so much?

Lets see, you do not care that you make claims that are not supported by the article you cite; very interesting way of thinking you have. And why do I care, because I care about being honest and truthful, that is why I care. Your not caring about your false statement just continues to prove how much the "anti-gay agenda crowd" is not concerned with facts and the truth, thank you for proving this once again.

Oh, wait, it's impossible to prove that a gay union is the same as a straight union, so you've lost before you started. They aren't the same and never will be.

Do you know what irony is? You present an article seemingly as a presentation against ss couples, you want everyone to accept that the stats from the article are just as applicable to ss couples as they are to hetero sexual couples, but now you claim that ss and hetero couple are not the same and never will be.....so your article is entirely meaningless in any application to ss couples.

Maybe you should just admit you made a mistake about what is in the article and move on.

[frankenstein]

frankenstein:

Human sexuality comes in all colors of the rainbow.

thanks, and from reading Dan Savage I have learned much about different flavors of human but never knew about the rainbow.

[thesometimesaint]

frankenstein:

I listen every once in a while to Dan. When he makes sense I agree, but am under no obligation to when he doesn't.

[Mordecai]

Lets see, you do not care that you make claims that are not supported by the article you cite; very interesting way of thinking you have. And why do I care, because I care about being honest and truthful, that is why I care. Your not caring about your false statement just continues to prove how much the "anti-gay agenda crowd" is not concerned with facts and the truth, thank you for proving this once again.

My "false statement" amounts to using a near-synonym instead of the exact word. Step-father is basically the same as a live-in boyfriend, if there are children in the home. Hardly a false statement. Again, no relevant difference. If you had a real case that a gay union was the same as a marriage, you would have made it already. You don't have one.

You present an article seemingly as a presentation against ss couples, you want everyone to accept that the stats from the article are just as applicable to ss couples as they are to hetero sexual couples, but now you claim that ss and hetero couple are not the same and never will be.....so your article is entirely meaningless in any application to ss couples.

You've completely missed the point of those statistics. Do you even know where you are, what year it is and what forum you're on? How many times must I repeat this: MY ISSUE IS NOT WITH GAY UNIONS. Do you understand? If I could speak more slowly, I would. But since I'm typing, I can't help you anymore than I have. Maybe I could make a youtube video of me speaking slowly. Maybe that would help.

[frankenstein]

My "false statement" amounts to using a near-synonym instead of the exact word. Step-father is basically the same as a live-in boyfriend, if there are children in the home. Hardly a false statement. Again, no relevant difference.

You made a claim about the article you posted, the claim you made is false. No matter how you twist it, you made a false claim about the article, one must wonder if you even read the article or understand what the article is about. You are too childish (which you have admitted in another thread) to admit that you were mistaken about the article.

You claim you are unconcerned with the details, which in this case is, you are unconcerned with the truth. Perhaps you can find another article that supports your false claim about the article you posted, but that still will not change the undeniable fact that you have made a false claim about the article you posted.

Your are unconcerned with the truth that much has been proven and you have admitted as much.

[Mordecai]

You made a claim about the article you posted, the claim you made is false...

In your opinion, using a near-synonym instead of the exact word, having no bearing on the debate whatsoever, that doesn't help nor hurt your case nor mine means the entire statement is false. Well, frankly, I think that's a silly point of view, but to each his own. Whatever.

You claim you are unconcerned with the details... Your [sic] are unconcerned with the truth

Now who is making false claims? I said I am unconcerned with irrelevant details. I never said I wasn't concerned with details. Also, if you're so concerned with details, or "the truth," as you describe them, why did you put an adjective where a pronoun should be? GOTCHA!! Admit you're wrong! Admit it! It's a falsehood, because you got an irrelevant detail wrong!!!

This is what I actually said:

I'm not a big detail guy, personally, so when there are irrelevant differences I ignore them.

Pot calling the kettle black, it seems. Honestly, I am somewhat of a detail guy but not so big of a detail guy that I have to get every single solitary irrelevant one perfect. Could we move on, please? This is absurd and much worse, boring. Discussing the difference between a step-father and a live-in boyfriend with a child in the home, doesn't excite me much.

[frankenstein]

In your opinion, using a near-synonym instead of the exact word, having no bearing on the debate whatsoever, that doesn't help nor hurt your case nor mine means the entire statement is false. Well, frankly, I think that's a silly point of view, but to each his own.

A man who does an honorable thing, such as marrying a woman with a child that is not his own, is no different than a live in boyfriend?

Hmmmmm.....I am sure Jesus, Mary and Joseph would have something to say to you about that.

[Mordecai]

A man who does an honorable thing, such as marrying a woman with a child that is not his own, is no different than a live in boyfriend? Hmmmmm.....I am sure Jesus, Mary and Joseph would have something to say to you about that.

Interestingly, Jesus suggests that marrying a divorced woman constitutes adultery. That said... :::snoooore:::

[frankenstein]

Interestingly, Jesus suggests that marrying a divorced woman constitutes adultery. That said... :::snoooore:::

my how you like to move the goal post when you can't come up with anything else....Joseph was a step parent, but according to you that makes him and mary no different than a fornicating cohabitants.

[california boy]

So what's your point? I never denied this stuff.

What? It's not true that step fathers are more prone to abuse? I never said adoptive gay couples are abusive and have never said that.

What difference does it make? Step fathers that are married are more abusive anyway. How do you not understand this argument? Your gay-marriage dogma implies that biological fatherhood is irrelevant. That is not a claim that gay people are abusive. It's a claim that your gay dogma demotes proven family-values.

I don't really see higher abuse by step fathers as being a gay issue at all. Statistically there are very few gay step fathers. This is pretty much a heterosexual issue; not a "gay agenda" issue.

If you feel this is a gay agenda issue, then you would be fighting for gay couples to adopt in those few circumstances where one of the partners has a child. And you would be fighting for gay marriage to further stabalize the relationship. Both issues are very worthy causes for you to pick up for the children of gay men.

[california boy]

You made a claim about the article you posted, the claim you made is false. No matter how you twist it, you made a false claim about the article, one must wonder if you even read the article or understand what the article is about. You are too childish (which you have admitted in another thread) to admit that you were mistaken about the article.

You claim you are unconcerned with the details, which in this case is, you are unconcerned with the truth. Perhaps you can find another article that supports your false claim about the article you posted, but that still will not change the undeniable fact that you have made a false claim about the article you posted.

Your are unconcerned with the truth that much has been proven and you have admitted as much.

Frankenstein, perhaps this will help you better understand how Mordecal comes to his conclusions.

(A) The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart

attacks than the British or Americans.

(B) On the other hand, the French eat a lot of fat and also

suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.

© The Japanese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer

heart attacks than the British or Americans.

(D) The Italians drink excessive amounts of red wine and also

suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans

(E) Conclusion: Eat & drink what you like. It's speaking English that kills you

[Mordecai]

I don't really see higher abuse by step fathers as being a gay issue at all. Statistically there are very few gay step fathers. This is pretty much a heterosexual issue; not a "gay agenda" issue.

If a gay union is the same as a straight union, clearly, biological parenthood must not be important at all. If it's not important at all, why should biological fathers stick around to take care of their children?

If the gov't adopts gay-marriage dogma, i.e. the obviously false premise that a gay union is the same as a straight union, they have officially adopted the position that biological parenthood is irrelevant. The lack of value of biological parenthood becomes integrated into the American psyche ala Orwellian Newspeak. If marriage is defined as a union of any two genders, people learning English, still in their sensitive stage for language (up to about 6 or 7), will have that idea hard-wired into their brains more profoundly than anyone else, which doesn't bode well for the future of American family values.

France's lawmakers rejected "gay marriage" on the basis of them having adopted the U.N. Children's Bill of Rights. The two are in opposition, philosophically.

And you would be fighting for gay marriage to further stabalize the relationship.

"Gay marriage" results in having at least one non-biological parent for any children involved. There will, inevitably, be step parents involved, which will put children at risk, just as it does for straight unions. If we could see some studies on step children of gay couples (as opposed to adoptive parents), we should see behavior that is typical of step parents. I don't see why we wouldn't.

Having a married step parent isn't useful in preventing child abuse, as far as the statistics show. Step parents, especially step fathers, typically just lack protective and nurturing instincts of biological parents.

[Daniel2]

May 26, 2011

MAYOR BLOOMBERG DELIVERS MAJOR ADDRESS ON URGENT NEED FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY

The following are Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s remarks as prepared for delivery at The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art. Please check against delivery.

“I want to thank Rachel and our hosts here at The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art.

“I think it’s fair to say that no institute of higher learning has had a more profound impact on the course of American history than Cooper Union. By opening the doors of its Great Hall to Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and so many other pioneering leaders, and by hosting the founding of the NAACP, Cooper Union has helped push American freedom ever higher, and ever wider.

“Today, we gather in this innovative and striking new academic building – a symbol of how Cooper Union has always looked forward and always championed progress. We gather – in the tradition of those who came before us – to discuss a momentous question before our nation and our great State of New York: Should government permit men and women of the same sex to marry?

“It is a question that cuts to the core of who we are as a country – and as a city. It is a question that deserves to be answered here in New York – which was the birthplace of the gay rights movement, more than 40 years ago. And it is a question that requires us to step back from the platitudes and partisanship of the everyday political debate and consider the principles that must lead us forward.

“The principles that have guided our nation since its founding – freedom, liberty, equality – are the principles that have animated generations of Americans to expand opportunity to an ever wider circle of our citizenry. At our founding, African-Americans were held in bondage. Catholics in New York could not hold office. Those without property could not vote. Women could not vote or hold office. And homosexuality was, in some places, a crime punishable by death.

“One by one, over many long years, the legal prohibitions to freedom and equality were overcome: Some on the battlefield, some at the State House and some in the courthouse. Throughout our history, each and every generation has expanded upon the freedoms won by their parents and grandparents. Each and every generation has removed some barrier to full participation in the American dream. Each and every generation has helped our country take another step on the road to a more perfect union for all our citizens. That is the arc of American history. That is the march of freedom. That is the journey that we must never stop traveling. And that is the reason we are here today.

“The next great barrier standing before our generation is the prohibition on marriage for same-sex couples. The question is: Why now? And why New York? I believe both answers start at the Stonewall Inn. When the Village erupted in protest 42 years ago next month, New York – and every other state in the union, save one – still had laws on the books that made same-sex relationships a crime. A couple could go to prison for years, just for being intimate in the privacy of their own home. For men and women of that era, an era many of us remember well, being in a gay relationship meant living in fear:

“Fear of police harassment.

“Fear of public humiliation

“Fear of workplace discrimination.

“Fear of physical violence.

“Today, in some places, those fears still linger. But as a nation, we have come a long way since Stonewall. Today, two women in a committed relationship – who years ago would have hidden their relationship from family and friends – will instead take part in a wedding ceremony in front of their family and friends. Today, two men who are long-time partners – who years ago would never even have entertained the idea – will adopt a child and begin a family.

“Both events are possible because thousands of courageous individuals risked everything to come out and speak out. And because they did – because they organized and protested, because they poured their hearts out to friends and family and neighbors, because they stood up for their rights and marched for equality and ran for office – laws banning same-sex relationships have been struck down by the Supreme Court. More than 20 states have adopted laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. And beginning this year, patriotic men and women will be able to enlist in the U.S. military without having to hide their identity.

“We owe all of those pioneers a deep debt of gratitude. And although the work is far from over, there is no doubt that we have passed the tipping point.

“Today, a majority of Americans support marriage equality – and young people increasingly view marriage equality in much the same way as young people in the 1960s viewed civil rights. Eventually, as happened with civil rights for African-Americans, they will be a majority of voters. And they will pass laws that reflect their values and elect presidents who personify them.

“It is not a matter of if – but when.

“And the question for every New York State lawmaker is: Do you want to be remembered as a leader on civil rights? Or an obstructionist? On matters of freedom and equality, history has not remembered obstructionists kindly.

“Not on abolition.

“Not on women’s suffrage.

“Not on workers’ rights.

“Not on civil rights.

“And it will be no different on marriage rights.

“So the question really is: So, why now? Because this is our time to stand up for equality. This is our time to conquer the next frontier of freedom. This is our time to be as bold and brave as the pioneers who came before us. And this is our time to lead the American journey forward.

“It’s fitting that the gay rights movement began in our City, because New Yorkers have always been at the forefront of movements to expand American freedoms – and guarantee American liberties. Long before our founding fathers wisely decided to separate church from state, leading citizens of our City petitioned their colonial rulers for religious freedom. Long before Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, many New Yorkers – including the founder of this college, Peter Cooper – crusaded against slavery. Long before the nation adopted the 19th Amendment, New Yorkers helped lead the movement for women’s suffrage. And long before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, New Yorkers played a pivotal role in advancing a color-blind society.

“So why should New York now lead on marriage equality? Because we have always led the charge for freedom – and we have always led by example. No place in the world is more committed to freedom of expression – religious, artistic, political, social, personal – than New York City. And no place in the world is more welcoming of all people, no matter what their ethnicity or orientation.

“That has always been what sets us apart. In our city, there is no shame in being true to yourself. There is only pride. We take you as you are – and we let you be who you wish to be. That is the essence of New York City.

“That is what makes us a safe haven for people of every background and orientation… and a magnet for talented and creative people. It’s the reason why we are the economic engine for the country and the greatest city in the world.

“But it’s up to us to keep it that way. As other states recognize the rights of same-sex couples to marry, we cannot stand by and watch. To do so would be to betray our civic values and history – and it would harm our competitive edge in the global economy. This is an issue of democratic principles – but make no mistake, it carries economic consequences.

"We are the freest city in the freest country in the world – but freedom is not frozen in time. And if we are to remain the freest city, with the most dynamic and innovative economy, we must lead on this issue – just as we have on so many other matters of fundamental civil rights.

“In talking to State legislators who do not yet support marriage equality, I can sense that many of them are searching their souls for answers – and they are torn. Like all of us, they have friends and family and colleagues who are gay and lesbian. They know gay and lesbian couples who are deeply in love with each other – many of whom are loving and devoted parents, too. They know those couples yearn to be seen and treated as equal to all other couples. And they often hear from their own families – especially their children – that this is a civil rights issue. I hope they listen to their kids carefully and make them proud with their foresight and courage.

“Now, I understand the desire by some to seek guidance from their religious teachings. But this is not a religious issue. It is a civil issue. And that is why, under the bill proposed in Albany, no church or synagogue or mosque would be required to perform or sanction a same-sex wedding – as is the case in every state that has legalized marriage equality.

Some faith communities would perform them; others would not. That is their right. I have enormous respect for religious leaders on both sides of the issue, but government has no business taking sides in these debates – none.

“As private individuals, we may be part of a faith community that forbids divorce or birth control or alcohol. But as public citizens, we do not impose those prohibitions on society. We may place our personal faith in the Torah, or the New Testament, or the Koran, or anything else. But as a civil society, we place our public faith in the U.S. Constitution: the principles and protections that define it, and the values that have guided its evolution. And as elected officials, our responsibility is not to any one creed or congregation, but to all citizens. “It is my hope that members of the State Senate majority will recognize that supporting marriage equality is not only consistent with our civic principles – it is consistent with conservative principles. Conservatives believe that government should not intrude into people’s personal lives – and it’s just none of government’s business who you love.

“Conservatives also believe that government should not stand in the way of free markets and private associations – including contracts between consenting parties. And that’s exactly what marriage is: a contract, a legal bond, between two adults who vow to support one another, in sickness and in health.

“There is no State interest in denying one class of couples a right to that contract. Just the opposite, in fact. Marriage has always been a force for stability in families and communities – because it fosters responsibility. That’s why conservatives promote marriage – and that’s why marriage equality would be healthy for society, healthy for couples and healthy for children.

“Right now, sadly, children of same-sex couples often ask their parents: ‘Why haven’t you gotten married like all our friends’ parents?’ That’s a heartbreaking question to answer.

"And it’s an early expression of the profound principle that sets our country apart: that all people are created equal, with equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is the American dream – but for gay and lesbian couples, it is still only that: A dream.

“The plain reality is, if we are to recognize same-sex and opposite sex couples as equals, that equality must extend to obtaining civil marriage licenses. Now, some people ask: Why not just grant gay couples civil unions?

“That is a fair and honest question. But the answer is simple and unavoidable: Long ago, the Supreme Court declared that ‘separate but equal’ opportunities are inherently unequal. It took the U.S. Supreme Court nearly 60 years after Plessy vs. Ferguson, which upheld disparate treatment of non-whites, to come to that conclusion.

“But justice finally prevailed. It took the Supreme Court another 13 years to strike down laws barring inter-racial marriage and another 36 years after that to strike down laws criminalizing same-sex relationships. The march for equality and tolerance in America has sometimes been slow, but it has never stopped.

“Since our nation’s earliest days, when the first Congress adopted the Bill of Rights, the Constitution’s protections of liberty have grown broader and stronger, and the law of the land has grown increasingly neutral on matters of race, nationality, gender, and sexual orientation.

“That inexorable progress is the genius of our constitutional system. In fact, we have had major social change without violence because the revolution we seek is contained within our founding documents. We have no king to overthrow – only our own ideals to live up to.

“In the weeks ahead, I will continue doing everything I can to convince our state legislators to take the long view and consider their place in history – and consider the kind of world they want to leave their children.

“Governor Cuomo and Governor Paterson both deserve great credit for advancing this issue in Albany, and I strongly believe that just as New Yorkers are discussing and debating it openly – so should both houses of the State Legislature.

“That’s democracy. And the essence of democracy is a public debate and a public vote. New Yorkers have a right to know where their elected officials stand. We deserve a vote not next year, or after the 2012 elections, but in this legislative session.

“There’s a reason I’m so passionate about this issue – and so determined to push for change. I see the pain the status quo causes – and I cannot defend it. When I meet a New Yorker who is gay, when I speak with friends and members of my staff who are gay, or when I look into the eyes of my niece, Rachel, I cannot tell them that their government is correct in denying them the right to marry. I cannot tell them that marriage is not for them. I cannot tell them that a civil union is good enough.

“In our democracy, near equality is no equality. Government either treats everyone the same, or it doesn’t. And right now, it doesn’t.

“Tonight, two New Yorkers who are in a committed relationship will come home, cook dinner, help their kids with their homework and turn in for the night. They want desperately to be married – not for the piece of paper they will get. Not for the ceremony or the reception or the wedding cake. But for the recognition that the lifelong commitment they have made to each other is not less than anyone else’s and not second-class in any way. And they want it not just for themselves – but for their children. They want their children to know that their family is as healthy and legitimate as all other families.

“That desire for equal standing in society is extraordinarily powerful and it has led to extraordinary advances in American freedom.

“It has never been defeated.

“It cannot be defeated.

“And on marriage equality, it will not be defeated.

“There is no retreating to a past that has disappeared. There is no holding back a wave that has crested. And there is no denying a freedom that belongs to us all.

The time has come for us to fulfill the dreams that exploded onto Sheridan Square 42 years ago: to allow thousands of men and women to become full members of the American family, and to take the next step on the inspired journey our founding fathers first began.

“Together, we can work across the aisle to pass a bill allowing all New Yorkers to walk down the aisle and lead our state and country toward a more perfect union. Thank you.”

[bold added]

Change is in the air... Bloomberg's position is boldly and publically framing the debate in a fashion that, according to at least six polls over the last year, is now the majority (and growing) consensus in the United States in support of marriage equality for both opposite-sex and same-sex couples. Moreover, he's making his case from a politcally-conservative stand-point, and its one that religious conservatives opposed to marriage equality will have to confront or give up.

My view,

Darin

[Daniel2]

If a gay union is the same as a straight union, clearly, biological parenthood must not be important at all. If it's not important at all, why should biological fathers stick around to take care of their children?

Once again, Mordecai, you're setting up a straw man arguement, and then vigoriously tearning him down, as if you've won the debate.

A gay union is not the same as every straight union in every measurable way, but it is in some ways (and vice-versa). A straight union is not the same as every other straight union in every measuarable way, but it is in some ways. A gay union is not the same as every other gay union in every measurable way, but it is in some ways. And a straight union is not the same as every gay union in every measurable way, but it is in some ways (and vice-versa).

Those of us who support marriage equality for both opposite- and same-sex couples believe the similarities are greater than the differences, so far as how the law should label such unions, due to our nation's requirement for equal treatment under the law.

"Equal in the eyes of the law" is NOT synonmyous with "the same." And NO ONE I know is attempting to make the case you repeatedly attempt to defend and then subsequently proclaim victory.

By the way, for what it's worth, not all biological fathers or mothers are fit parents, and shouldn't stick around to care for their children--in fact, some children are safer and healthier when raised by someone other than one or both of their biological parent/s. Sweeping generalizations are inadequate to answer the needs of real-life individuals, children, and families.

Darin

[california boy]

If a gay union is the same as a straight union, clearly, biological parenthood must not be important at all. If it's not important at all, why should biological fathers stick around to take care of their children?

Are you really stating here that if gaysare allowed to marry, biological fathers will be abandoning their children in mass because of it? Have you actually talked to any intelligent person about this concept? Has anyone agreed with your speculation? Does anyone on this board agree with this theory of yours? Do you have any and I mean just a little tinny crap of evidence for this incredible assertion? It is just so absurd I can't possibly believe that any rational person thinks this would happen. I do realize that biological fathers abandon their children but I have never heard the assertion that the gays made me do it.

If the gov't adopts gay-marriage dogma, i.e. the obviously false premise that a gay union is the same as a straight union, they have officially adopted the position that biological parenthood is irrelevant. The lack of value of biological parenthood becomes integrated into the American psyche ala Orwellian Newspeak. If marriage is defined as a union of any two genders, people learning English, still in their sensitive stage for language (up to about 6 or 7), will have that idea hard-wired into their brains more profoundly than anyone else, which doesn't bode well for the future of American family values.

So you are against gay marriage because the meaning of marriage will change? I guess I will agree with you on this one. Whenever equality has been extended to a wider group, the meaning of words have changed. For example:

The word vote. At one time it ment in order to vote, you owned land, were white, a male and an American citizen.

The word vote changed to mean you were white, male and an American citizen

The word vote changed again to mean you were male and an American citizen

And finally the word vote changed to mean you were an American citizen.

i am sure people learning English at the time of these changes, still in their sensitive stage for language (up to about 6 or 7) were hardwired to think that now all Americans can vote. I agree with you that they may be confused that at one time, to be able to vote ment you owned land, were white, a male and an American citizen. Personally I like the current definition of the word vote. I am going to like the new definition of marriage when it is extended to all Americans. I don't think it will be much longer. The case for equality in marriage is just too strong. Absurd arguments like the one you are suggesting are not going to change the course of this movement. You gotta come up with something better Mordecai and you are running out of time.

[Jeff K.]

So you are against gay marriage because the meaning of marriage will change? I guess I will agree with you on this one. Whenever equality has been extended to a wider group, the meaning of words have changed.

Such as pedophiles, pederasts and so on. Now you know why changing the definition isn't always a good thing. Or do you still maintain it is?

I guess that is what "you" are really saying....

[Jeff K.]

"Equal in the eyes of the law" is NOT synonmyous with "the same." And NO ONE I know is attempting to make the case you repeatedly attempt to defend and then subsequently proclaim victory.

Then why are you against Prop 8. In California gay unions had all of the rights of marriage, but they were not called marriage. However that isn't good enough. Why is it? If all the rights are protected so that you can act as a couple, why do you want to go so far as change the very definition of marriage?

[Jeff K.]

Those of us who support marriage equality for both opposite- and same-sex couples believe the similarities are greater than the differences, so far as how the law should label such unions, due to our nation's requirement for equal treatment under the law.

The similarities between chimps and man are greater than the differences, that does not make a chimpanzee a man. Talk about strawmen.

[frankenstein]

If a gay union is the same as a straight union, clearly, biological parenthood must not be important at all. If it's not important at all, why should biological fathers stick around to take care of their children?

what a silly unsupported argument. why do some marriages last, because they just do. why do some parents stick around when kids come along, because they just do. The 8 letters of the english language that make up the term "marriage" , have little if nothing to do with why a parent sticks around.

still waiting on you to provide evidence about you step parent claim.

[Jeff K.]

As to indoctrination.

In an elementary school:

Oakland Elementary School Teaches Pupils That There Are More Than Two GendersCity: Oakland, CA

Date: 05/19/2011

Oakland Elementary School Teaches Pupils That There Are More Than Two Genders

On May 23-24 Redwood Heights Elementary School will be teaching children in grades kindergarten through fifth that there are more than two genders. The two days calendared for this are entitled “Gender Spectrum Diversity Training.” In documents released by the school, students will be taught that “gender is not inherently nor solely connected to one’s physical anatomy.” Further, gender is a “complex interrelationship between [physical traits] and one’s internal sense of self as male, female, both or neither as well as one’s outward presentations and behaviors related to that perception.” Another document from the school advises parents: “When you discuss gender with your child, you may hear them [sic] exploring where they [sic] fit on the gender spectrum and why.”

The activities and reading list include: Grades K-1: “Boy, girl or both? Which Outfit, Which Hairdo? (Reading) My Princess Boy.” Grades 2-3 “What is gender? (Reading) 10,000 Dresses.” Grades 4-5: “Three dimensions of gender. (Reading/Song) All I Want to be is Me.”

“This instruction does not represent the values of the majority of families in Oakland,” said attorney Kevin Snider of the Pacific Justice Institute. PJI has been providing legal counsel to parents in the Oakland Unified School District on this matter. “Though to many this may seem extreme, based upon some of the bills now pending in the Capitol such as SB 48, this will be the new normal in California’s K-12 public schools,” Snider continued.

At this point, it is not known if this is the only campus in the Oakland Unified School District which has gender diversity training for children. Unfortunately, many parents in the school are unaware that this is being taught. If you are a parent of a child enrolled in a school where this instruction is taking place, you may consider keeping your child home on days when this material is being presented. Please contact the PJI Legal Department if you are a parent and have questions about truancy or absence issues with your child.

pacific justice

Flint said state law doesn't permit children to "opt out" of lessons other than sex education while they are at school. At least one Redwood Heights student stayed home Monday, he said, and three other families inquired about it.

I recall stating that over a year ago and beng told by Darin and others that it wasn't the case. And yet, here it is again...

Mercury San Jose News

It is indeed about indoctrination and using the false flag of bullying in order to emphasize gay lifestyles. One wonders why gay men and women are less than honest when confrnted with this issue?

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

I'll let the "activists" on both sides of the issue address motivations.

Gender has always been more about roles than mere body parts. For instance what is appropriate dress in one culture may be totally inappropriate in another. Not many of us run around in a toga anymore.

Teaching used to be considered a male occupation, but now is largely a female one. Who is to say which is the right one, sanctioned by God?

[Daniel2]

pacific justice

I recall stating that over a year ago and beng told by Darin and others that it wasn't the case. And yet, here it is again...

Mercury San Jose News

Jeff,

I don't understand your last post concerning what you think I said a year or so ago. Specifically, what is it you think I said...?

It is indeed about indoctrination and using the false flag of bullying in order to emphasize gay lifestyles. One wonders why gay men and women are less than honest when confrnted with this issue?

Curious. The link you posted discusses gender curriculum, but not homosexuality.

Are you aware that gender identity is an altogether distinct and different issue than sexual orientation (or "gayness")...?

I've often seen and heard LDS Leaders mention "gender confusion" when apparently referring to homosexuality. I've often thought that the Brethren's use of "gender confusion" may result in further confusion over the distinction between gender issues vs. gay issues among LDS membership, and I wonder if that's the case, here.

Darin

[Daniel2]

"Equal in the eyes of the law" is NOT synonmyous with "the same." And NO ONE I know is attempting to make the case you repeatedly attempt to defend and then subsequently proclaim victory.

Then why are you against Prop 8. In California gay unions had all of the rights of marriage, but they were not called marriage. However that isn't good enough. Why is it? If all the rights are protected so that you can act as a couple, why do you want to go so far as change the very definition of marriage?

It appears you misunderstand my point.

As a matter of equality, I believe both straight and gay couples should be legally recognized and labeled by the designation of "civil marriage."

This does not mean, however, that every straight union is "the same" as every gay union.

Designating both straight and gay unions by the same civil term would mean that the law recognizes both types of families as "equals," in the eyes of the government, even though no two marriages (whether speaking of the marriages of any given two STRAIGHT couples, the marriages of any given two GAY couples, or the marriages of one given STRAIGHT couple vs. the marriage of one given GAY couple) are "the same."

It really isn't that complicated, despite any who may wish to conflagrate the issue into something complicated in an effort to prove a point that doing so would be 'confusing.' The fact that men and women should have "equal" voter's rights, for example, doesn't mean that men and women are "the same."

Darin