Let’S Face It, We Want To Indoctrinate Children

[Jeff K.]

Gender confusion and homosexuality is the equivalent of the Japan and Germany in WWII, both have the same agenda, both are allied with the same tactics, both wish to dominate the field.

[Daniel2]

Gender confusion and homosexuality ... both have the same agenda, both are allied with the same tactics, both wish to dominate the field.

CFR on the above claim.

What is "the agenda" of homosexuality?

Who is the spokesperson that can authoritatively articulate this "agenda," and from whence does he/she/it dictate his/her/its "tactics"?

What sort of "domination" do you claim "homosexuality" seeks?

Darin

[Jeff K.]

One does not need to CFR the son is shining. The obvious agenda of all such groups is to make the gay lifestyle an accepted and moral part of the landscape. The best way to do it is to of course get the schools to indoctrinate the children.

What better way than to force children to sit through non academic classes that enhance the lifestyle. And better still, in elementary school.

Can one honestly state that such isn't the idea? Or will you again dance around the issues Darin? Let us be forthright and honest about this.

[thesometimesaint]

Darin:

That is why I see Civil Unions as defined by California as the key. Equal in every legal respect, but a different name.

[Jeff K.]

Yes, and it just wasn't good enough for the gay community.

[frankenstein]

Yes, and it just wasn't good enough for the gay community.

just as many LDS 'fight" to be recognized as Christian among a group that considers the LDS second class or less of religion, so too do those who ask to treated as an equal to those of the hetero only marriage crowd. It wasn't good enough because ss couples were still treated as lesser and second class.

[Jeff K.]

just as many LDS 'fight" to be recognized as Christian among a group that considers the LDS second class or less of religion, so too do those who ask to treated as an equal to those of the hetero only marriage crowd. It wasn't good enough because ss couples were still treated as lesser and second class.

We don't seek a law to force people to see our way of it. Indeed if they do not, we respect that right and allow them to do so. The gay community could learn from that.

[frankenstein]

We don't seek a law to force people to see our way of it. Indeed if they do not, we respect that right and allow them to do so. The gay community could learn from that.

two different concepts, but the motivation for recognition can be the same, that being to be treated as a equal or not to be treated as second class or less.

one secular, that is matter of homosexuality, which is entitled to seek the law for redress

and one religious, that is who or what constitutes a christian, which is not entitled to seek the law for redress of who or what is a christian.

[Daniel2]

Hey, Sometimesaint,

I understand that "equal in every legal respect, except by name" was the intent of Civil Unions in California.

Unfortunately, as Jeff points out, "almost" equal wasn't good enough for many of us, and the simple truth is most of us won't settle for anything less than full marriage equality.

Even in California, 1000+ Federal benefits were (and are still being) denied to civilly united couples being the easiest starting point to demonstrate that.

However, even if federal law was changed to consider straight "marriages" to be logstically the same as gay "unions," the concept of "separate, but equal" still isn't really "equal."

I know many who are opposed to same-sex marriage are adament that marriage can only mean "a man and a woman." The world changes--and has changed--around them; the definition already has changed.

Darin

[Daniel2]

One does not need to CFR

In other words, no, you can't answer the CFR.

The obvious agenda of all such groups is to make the gay lifestyle an accepted and moral part of the landscape. The best way to do it is to of course get the schools to indoctrinate the children.

Yes, I think it's fairly safe to say that pro-gay organizations share a common goal to make homosexuality "an accepted and moral part of the landscape."

I think it's also fairly safe to say one way of doing so is to encourage children to "indoctrinate" children in the ways of tolerace towards gays and lesbians.

What better way than to force children to sit through non academic classes that enhance the lifestyle. And better still, in elementary school.

Here's where I do not agree with your spin.

It's certainly true that there are many "non-academic classes" in elementary, secondary, and high schools--and I suppose one could make the case that anti-bullying curriculum or diversity curriculum could be considered to be a "non-academic" aspect of one's education.

But I do NOT believe that such classes "enhance the lifestyle"--at least, until you define what that phrase even means.

Can one honestly state that such isn't the idea? Or will you again dance around the issues Darin? Let us be forthright and honest about this.

For all your claims of evasiveness and an implication of a lack of forthrightness and honesty on my part, I note that while I attempt to answer all of your questions candidly and honestly, it's you who refuse to answer a simple CFR.

Darin

[frankenstein]

are adament that marriage can only mean "a man and a woman." The world changes--and has changed--around them; the definition already has changed.

Darin

moses on his own volition change marriage, so what the big to do about a group of Judges doing the same?

[Mordecai]

moses on his own volition change marriage, so what the big to do about a group of Judges doing the same?

This is not a libtatorship, where judges were granted that right. You've just exposed yourself as an advocate of oligarchies and an enemy of the Constitution. Clearly, your position is, "I'm right. You're wrong. We will rule over you with our unproven and unprovable dogma, and we don't care what you have to say about it."

[Mordecai]

[duplicate post]

[Jeff K.]

two different concepts, but the motivation for recognition can be the same, that being to be treated as a equal or not to be treated as second class or less.

one secular, that is matter of homosexuality, which is entitled to seek the law for redress

and one religious, that is who or what constitutes a christian, which is not entitled to seek the law for redress of who or what is a christian.

Not different. Latter-day Saints don't require other people to let us into their homes, indoctrinate their kids with out doctrine. We don't try to tell people that our lifestyle is equal to theirs. We let them choose.

It appears the gay community has less tolerance than Mormons do. Of course, that is obvious to most of those who have been on the but end of their attacks.

[Mordecai]

Are you really stating here that if gaysare allowed to marry, biological fathers will be abandoning their children in mass because of it?

Biological fathers are already abandoning their children in droves. I'm suggesting that you'll take away some of the current motivation, which is the belief that biological fathers raising their own children is important. Your dogma implies that it's not important, providing just one more excuse for biological fathers to leave their children.

I do realize that biological fathers abandon their children but I have never heard the assertion that the gays made me do it.

Strawman. The assertion is not "Gays made straight people do it." The assertion is that if the government officially adopts the position that biological parenthood is irrelevant (which is gay dogma), that will take away from family values, putting children at greater risk. You say this is absurd. However, the statistics in the Netherlands show that it is a problem. First born children in the Netherlands are more typically born out of wedlock, since they adopted "gay marriage." That means that when the mother of that child marries (or not), it's much more common that the biological father is absent, putting that child at greater risk.

NOT SO ABSURD: http://old.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200406030910.asp

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.

Wow. That's a stretch. Because prior to the the Civil Rights movement, they were saying, "The negro has no right to vote." See? They had the same meaning. But I say, "Gay people have every right to marry, provided they actually have a potential spouse (meaning, a person of the opposite sex)."

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.

Nope. They knew that vote meant that you had a say in how gov't ran. They just believed in the inferiority of black people, a dogma that the gov't had adopted implicitly, not unlike how you want them to adopt gay-marriage dogma. Sorry.

[frankenstein]

"I'm right. You're wrong. We will rule over you with our unproven and unprovable dogma, and we don't care what you have to say about it."

you have yet to prove anything as well, you spout off with this or that, yet you have no causation you can on present two events, and in a back breaking stretch you claim "A" caused "B", yet you can not prove such, so who is the one trying to force an unprovable dogma and you do not care what another person has to say about it? Also, the Constitution allows for the Judges to interpret the laws and the Constitution.

The fact still remains, Moses on his own choosing and apparent weakness changed the institution of marriage. And it can on and on, marriage did not allow mixing of races; marriage subjugated woman, by way of women lost their rights as a person, for a time; marriage involved more than one wife. All these changes throughout religious history and secular history yet there are not many to who complain about the changes to the institution of marriage at the hands of religion or the state.

[Mordecai]

you have yet to prove anything as well, you spout off with this or that, yet you have no causation you can on present two events, and in a back breaking stretch you claim "A" caused "B", yet you can not prove such...

Here's the thing. It's not my job to prove that your dogma is false, before people have a right to not be ruled over by it. It's your job to prove it's true and convince people that it won't cause harm. The evidence seems to suggest that my common sense explanation for why out-of-wedlock births went up in the Netherlands is the correct one. My background in language, not to mention my study of cognition/psychology also leads me to believe I am correct in the harm gay-marriage dogma can cause. You have no case that a gay union is the same as a marriage. Since that is the case, you're not going to convince someone with an understanding of the natural laws of language and the implications of your gay Orwellian Newspeak.

...so who is the one trying to force an unprovable dogma and you do not care what another person has to say about it?

The only "dogma" I am espousing here is that a gay union is different from a marriage. Logically, they get different designations. That keeps speech clear and unmuddled, which is necessary for people to remain rational.

Also, the Constitution allows for the Judges to interpret the laws and the Constitution.

True. But not rewrite it. The Federal Constitution says all powers not granted to the Feds by the Constitution belong to the states. Does the Constitution grant any power whatsoever to the Feds to regulate language? No.

The fact still remains, Moses on his own choosing and apparent weakness changed the institution of marriage.

So you want a theocracy, I take it? Well, as soon as the prophet says it's time for a theocracy, and the ducks start lining up in a row for that to happen, I'll stand behind that. Until then...

And it can on and on, marriage did not allow mixing of races; marriage subjugated woman, by way of women lost their rights as a person, for a time; marriage involved more than one wife. All these changes throughout religious history and secular history yet there are not many to who complain about the changes to the institution of marriage at the hands of religion or the state.

What does that have to do with my opposition to the gov't adopting an obviously false dogma? You know for a fact that you can't prove that a gay union is the same as a marriage, so why do you want to indoctrinate people into believing that they have no relevant difference? You know it's a false dogma, but you still are so anxious to control how people think on this issue, you want the gov't to impose it on everyone. That's completely insane. Please explain why you want the gov't to adopt an obviously false dogma, when the rational thing to do is to provide civil unions instead.

[frankenstein]

so why do you want to indoctrinate people into believing that they have no relevant difference?

You know it's a false dogma,

but you still are so power hungry,

you want the gov't to impose it on everyone.

Please explain why you want the gov't to adopt an obviously false dogma, when the rational thing to do is to provide civil unions instead.

Again with the mind-reading. Read my palm next?

and who is the promoting insanity? try practicing what you preach.

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

CFR that I want to indoctrinate people into believing there is no relevant difference?

CFR that I am power hungry

CFR I want the gov't to impose what ever it you are talking about on everyone

If anything I have only taken a stand against lies, faslehood and deliberate misrepresentation.

[Mordecai]

CFR that I want to indoctrinate people into believing there is no relevant difference?...

You said you want the gov't to adopt gay-marriage dogma; you have repeatedly argued for "gay marriage," which implies that a gay union is the same as a marriage. That's a dogma.

CFR that I am [anxious to control people's thoughts and feelings on marriage]

You implied that you'd prefer that judges ought to rule that "gay marriage" is a right, instead of going through actual Constitutional channels, e.g. elected officials or putting it to a vote.

CFR I want the gov't to impose what ever it you are talking about on everyone...

That's what it means, when the gov't adopts "gay marriage." They have adopted the dogma that a gay union is the same as a real marriage. It's an implied dogma. Anyone reading this thread knows you are for "gay marriage." As I've argued repeatedly, if the gov't adopts "gay marriage," it has adopted an obviously false dogma. Must I explain why AGAIN?

For evidence that you are for an oligarchical libtatorship, that espouses gay dogma:

moses on his own volition change marriage, so what the big to do about a group of Judges doing the same?

[frankenstein]

You said you want the gov't to adopt gay-marriage dogma;

CFR.

You implied that you'd prefer that judges ought to rule that "gay marriage" is a right, instead of going through actual Constitutional channels, e.g. elected officials or putting it to a vote.

The courts are a Constitutional channel. Also you are violating board rules by altering my quotes.

Anyone reading this thread knows you are for "gay marriage."

Mind reading again. I have only challenged first your false claims, and second challenged your arguments, challenging your false claims and challenging your arguments is all I have done.

For evidence that you are for an oligarchical libtatorship, that espouses gay dogma:

I simply presented some history and asked a question. If Moses, acting as a man and by his own personal choice and possibly personal weakness can change marriage, what is the big to do about a group of Judges doing the same.

It is very telling that rather than answer the issue, Moses acting on his own v. Judges applying the Law, that you just revert to typical name calling and inflammatory language; perhaps you could address the why one man can change marriage but a group men and woman can not change marriage.

[Mordecai]

The courts are a Constitutional channel.

Not in this context.

Also you are violating board rules by altering my quotes.

Report me. Somehow, I don't think rewording something I said in brackets is going to get me banned. Are you a moderator? Thought not.

Mind reading again. I have only challenged first your false claims, and second challenged your arguments, challenging your false claims and challenging your arguments is all I have done.

I asserted that you're for "gay marriage." Here's a quote:

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?

Note that at the end, you refer to ss couples as "married." That suggests you're for "gay marriage."

I simply presented some history and asked a question. If Moses, acting as a man and by his own personal choice and possibly personal weakness can change marriage, what is the big to do about a group of Judges doing the same.

Sounds like spin to me. This whole time you've been debating against my arguments, implying that you are for "gay marriage." There have been strong implications that you are fine with "gay marriage" infecting our government and by extension, our public schools. This whole thread implies that you are for gay-marriage dogma. Your lack of a statement to the contrary, this entire time, speaks volumes.

It is very telling that rather than answer the issue, Moses acting on his own v. Judges applying the Law...

CFR that imposing gay dogma on American is applying the law.

...that you just revert to typical name calling and inflammatory language; perhaps you could address the why one man can change marriage but a group men and woman can not change marriage.

CFR that I name called. Also, I already answered you on this issue. Again, when we have a theocracy, "Moses" or some other great prophet can impose a change in marriage. Until then, we ought to abide by the laws of the land.

[california boy]

Biological fathers are already abandoning their children in droves. I'm suggesting that you'll take away some of the current motivation, which is the belief that biological fathers raising their own children is important. Your dogma implies that it's not important, providing just one more excuse for biological fathers to leave their children.

Ok, if that is your assertion that gay marriage will devalue biological fathers, then run with it. If that is your best argument against gay marrriage, then I say spread your idea as much as you can. Perhaps write the lawyers defending prop 8. I don't think they brought this argument up in defending prop 8. And heaven knows they need to come up with SOME argument to defend prop 8. Perhaps NOM will start running TV commercial declaring that if gay marriages are adopted then biological fathers raising their own children is not important any more. Personally I would love to see them spend millions promoting this crazy idea. Perhaps your idea here will be the brilliant argument that stems the tide against gay marriage. Certainly the other unfounded fears they have been promoting don't seem to be working. (insert the last 8 surveys on support of gay marriage here) You go Mordecal!

Strawman. The assertion is not "Gays made straight people do it." The assertion is that if the government officially adopts the position that biological parenthood is irrelevant (which is gay dogma), that will take away from family values, putting children at greater risk. You say this is absurd. However, the statistics in the Netherlands show that it is a problem. First born children in the Netherlands are more typically born out of wedlock, since they adopted "gay marriage." That means that when the mother of that child marries (or not), it's much more common that the biological father is absent, putting that child at greater risk.

NOT SO ABSURD: http://old.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200406030910.asp

So government allowing for adoption must also be sending the exact same message that to be a family you do not have to be the biological father. Are you against adoption by straight couples for the exact same reason? Do you blame this government policy on gay dogma as well?

Wow. That's a stretch. Because prior to the the Civil Rights movement, they were saying, "The negro has no right to vote." See? They had the same meaning. But I say, "Gay people have every right to marry, provided they actually have a potential spouse (meaning, a person of the opposite sex)."

Sorry I assumed you were more educated than this. I was not referring to the civil rights legislation, I was referring to an earlier period in American history when a black persons vote was not equal to a white persons vote. Were you unaware of this government practice? Do I need to provide documentation to you on this practice?

Nope. They knew that vote meant that you had a say in how gov't ran. They just believed in the inferiority of black people, a dogma that the gov't had adopted implicitly, not unlike how you want them to adopt gay-marriage dogma. Sorry.

This statement is just to jumbled for me to understand what you are saying. I have no idea if you are making a point here or not. Perhaps you are saying that at one time the goverment believe black people were inferior so they could not vote the same as white people. And currently the government are saying that gay couples are inferior to straight couples so we won't allow them to be married.

[california boy]

For those that would like to actually listen to the rational around the court case of prop 8, here is a very precise discussion on this issue by the Cato Institute panel earlier this month on The Case for Marriage Equality.

[Mordecai]

Ok, if that is your assertion that gay marriage will devalue biological fathers, then run with it. If that is your best argument against gay marrriage, then I say spread your idea as much as you can.

That's one of several reasons for the gov't to not adopt an obviously false dogma. That, and it violates the principles this country was founded on. Need I bring up the fact that muddling the language is a violation of free speech?

Perhaps write the lawyers defending prop 8. I don't think they brought this argument up in defending prop 8. And heaven knows they need to come up with SOME argument to defend prop 8.

Like a couple hundred years of case law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman and also allowing states to handle marriage, not the Feds? The Feds have no right to control marriage in any way whatsoever, according to legal tradition, not to mention the 10th amendment. Keep in mind that while the Feds will make exceptions to that rule, when it comes to "protected classes," the Feds have never considered homosexuals a protected class.

Besides, the lawyers defending prop. 8 can't bring in evidence unless it's relevant to the particular case at hand. Prop. 8 passed, your side made an argument and our side refuted it in our state courts. Then it went to Walker, whose real motive seems to have been to validate his own sexual behavior, so he refused to allow our side to even make their case. He kept throwing out evidence based on extremely spurious claims about what should and shouldn't be allowed, with no legal precedent whatsoever.

Perhaps NOM will start running TV commercial declaring that if gay marriages are adopted then biological fathers raising their own children is not important any more.

Many have suggested exactly that, like Stanley Kurtz and http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04G01 (click the previous link and see a list of problems your obviously false dogma comes up against). Unfortunately, these kinds of arguments don't appeal well in sound bites so well. With a good enough writer, perhaps they could communicate it. That said, if I have trouble explaining it so everyone can understand the first time they hear it, that's good evidence it's not a simple argument. That doesn't mean it's not true, though.

Certainly the other unfounded fears they have been promoting don't seem to be working.

You lefties made claims about "unfounded fears" regarding abortion and no-fault divorce. You made lots of claims, as if you knew the future. That turned out horribly, just as "gay marriage" will. You guys think you're above nature, so that you should have power over life and death and cultural evolution. Pride always comes before a fall. It was the progressives that promoted eugenics as well, all based on their belief that they could control the future and predict outcomes. The imagined ends justifies the means, for those that wish to play God.

So government allowing for adoption must also be sending the exact same message that to be a family you do not have to be the biological father.

False analogy. Adoption is a means to fix the problem caused by a lack of biological parents or perhaps just a lack of fit biological parents. That's simply utility and not a claim about the value of biological parenthood. There is no utility in the gov't pretending that a gay union is a marriage, other than to trick people that homosexual behavior has no relevant differences than straight. The dogma is found in the gov't manipulating the language. In adoption, there is no such manipulation.

Sorry I assumed you were more educated than this. I was not referring to the civil rights legislation, I was referring to an earlier period in American history when a black persons vote was not equal to a white persons vote. Were you unaware of this government practice? Do I need to provide documentation to you on this practice?

My education is not the problem. I just gave you too much credit for intelligence. So black people were allowed to vote... so how does that support your original claim that the definition of vote was different? That claim is so baseless, it boggles the mind. There is no historical support for that claim. None. Does it matter which part of history I thought you might be talking about? None of it helps your case... at all.

And currently the government are saying that gay couples are inferior to straight couples so we won't allow them to be married.

Nope. Giving something a different name is not a claim about its value any more than giving people different social security numbers.

[Hestia]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: gone as far as it can with civil discourse and everything is getting repeated.

Kind regards,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff