Battlecry: Christian kids have lost it

[Nienna]

Actually, a large part of the problem lies with the simple fact that our schools fail to provide our children with the critical thinking skills they need to make sound decisions about sex, money, science, religion or anything else. All they serve up is rote memorization in preparation for standardized tests. And once the information is regurgitated, it's forgotten. Bring back education in the classics as well as a solid foundation in the basics, including human reproduction, and we'll be alot better off.

Actually, I have been apalled at how LITTLE rote memorization my kids have done in school. For instance, my daughter was in fits of confusion over the multiplication facts. The teachers were telling her many different "shortcuts" to help her remember the facts. It wasn't until I told her to forget the "shortcuts," and began drilling her every evening (rote memorization) that she finally began to learn the facts.

 

[liberalogic]

Why?

Because my watching (as a legal adult) of a violent movie or listening to explicit lyrics is not at all infringing upon anyone else's rights. But an attempt to ban such things for all adults because they are deemed immoral is an infringement upon my freedom. Again, I'm not telling christians to do the same, I'm just asking that they don't stop me from watching when I'm not stopping them from not watching.

If the teacher thinks sex with dogs, pigs, donkeys, camels is cool, should they espouse that? Why not? What if they like 'it' with toes? Should they tell their students that? How about they like it to 'hurt'? A good thing, for your child? Should there be a curriculum that encompasses all life's deviancies? It's impossible. As the previous example show, a kindergarten child, even a middle school child cannot have the experiences, we hope, to make a judgement on such. They should not be exposed to such.

This is why we have a curriculum and we don't leave these issues up to the discretion of a teacher who practices bestiality or pedophilia. The "deviance" of homosexuality is based on consent between two adults. Legally, it breaches no laws prohibiting other, more radical sexual activities. And we are not teaching kindergarteners sex education here. Do we teach them how mommy and daddy made them? No-- because they can't comprehend such things. But there is no reason why they can't understand that some people have two mommies and some people have two daddies. We leave it at that. No moral preaching of whether it's right or wrong-- simply, this is how it is for some.

Now we are at the heart of the current, but not final, brouhaha. It's not up to 'mainstream' to codify the 'other' categories, it's only a recent phenomena that we are all supposed to bend down and pay homage to homosexuals. BTW, I haven't a problem with anyone of age doing whatever behind closed doors, which should remain closed, IMHO, from all levels of government.

I wouldn't bend down if I were you. :teeth:

I'm not attempting to pay homage to homosexuals; in fact, the stereotypical ones (who i see a lot of in college) annoy me because they are so materialistic and are drama queens who don't shut up.

With that said, though, when we look at this issue from a legal perspective, if they are both human beings and they can consent to marriage, there is no need to deny them that privilege. To me, it's beyond the "mainstream" influence-- it's fair and it can be productive. People who refuse to allow it do so because they claim it's immoral. But law is not based on a slanted version of morality, it boils down to infringement of our inalienable rights-- and gay marriage violates none of yours, mine, or anyone else's.

I will reiterate that pushing gayness on families who think it's immoral is wrong. Gay activists can often be pushy and attempt to make all of society conducive to ALL of their demands (similar to what I despise about Battlecry). It's a sensitive topic and should be treated as such, which is why I'm not for indoctrinating kids in school, just for raising some awareness to eliminate discriminatory tensions.

 

[Annie]

Because my watching (as a legal adult) of a violent movie or listening to explicit lyrics is not at all infringing upon anyone else's rights. But an attempt to ban such things for all adults because they are deemed immoral is an infringement upon my freedom. Again, I'm not telling christians to do the same, I'm just asking that they don't stop me from watching when I'm not stopping them from not watching.



This is why we have a curriculum and we don't leave these issues up to the discretion of a teacher who practices bestiality or pedophilia. The "deviance" of homosexuality is based on consent between two adults. Legally, it breaches no laws prohibiting other, more radical sexual activities. And we are not teaching kindergarteners sex education here. Do we teach them how mommy and daddy made them? No-- because they can't comprehend such things. But there is no reason why they can't understand that some people have two mommies and some people have two daddies. We leave it at that. No moral preaching of whether it's right or wrong-- simply, this is how it is for some.




I wouldn't bend down if I were you. :teeth:

I'm not attempting to pay homage to homosexuals; in fact, the stereotypical ones (who i see a lot of in college) annoy me because they are so materialistic and are drama queens who don't shut up.

With that said, though, when we look at this issue from a legal perspective, if they are both human beings and they can consent to marriage, there is no need to deny them that privilege. To me, it's beyond the "mainstream" influence-- it's fair and it can be productive. People who refuse to allow it do so because they claim it's immoral. But law is not based on a slanted version of morality, it boils down to infringement of our inalienable rights-- and gay marriage violates none of yours, mine, or anyone else's.

I will reiterate that pushing gayness on families who think it's immoral is wrong. Gay activists can often be pushy and attempt to make all of society conducive to ALL of their demands (similar to what I despise about Battlecry). It's a sensitive topic and should be treated as such, which is why I'm not for indoctrinating kids in school, just for raising some awareness to eliminate discriminatory tensions.

Teaching kindergarteners that having two daddies or two mommies is 'ok' and just different, is the first step in indoctrination to the 'correctness of homosexuality.' Again, the idea that a public school curriculum were to include teaching that it's 'sick', 'warped', or any other often applied term would be wrong. On the other hand, if acceptance is going to be part of the curriculum, which it often is, then all sexual differences should also be given equal coverage. Including bestiality, S-M, etc. I mean, who should be passing judgement?

As for the airwaves, literature, etc. No fight from me. Turn the channel, don't buy garbage, etc.

 

[liberalogic]

ALL laws are made out of SOMEONE'S beliefs. Why can't some of them be made out of mine?

And, I do not see how I am forcing gays to live their lives differently. I can't stop them from having homosexual sex in their own homes, and I wouldn't try to.

Studies in the Netherlands show that once gay "marriage" was legalized, the ENTIRE marriage rate fell. I'm sure there are some homosexuals who would "marry" and live their lives out together. However, the majority of homosexuals do not want commitment or restrictions on their sexual behavior, and monogamy is kinda the whole point of marriage.

So, changing the marriage laws to include homosexuals doesn't change their behavior.

Take a look at heterosexual divorce rates. It can't really get much worse than what's happened over the past 50 years.

Part of my problem with objections to gay marriage is that we are attempting to protect an institution that is no longer taken as seriously as it once was. Marriage used to be a commitment, now it's just a contract on paper. I suggest that all opponents of gay marriage look into strengthening the union and make it into what they claim they are protecting. If that was the case and if marriage was really as stable as it is portrayed, then I'd be all ears.

 

[liberalogic]

Teaching kindergarteners that having two daddies or two mommies is 'ok' and just different, is the first step in indoctrination to the 'correctness of homosexuality.' Again, the idea that a public school curriculum were to include teaching that it's 'sick', 'warped', or any other often applied term would be wrong. On the other hand, if acceptance is going to be part of the curriculum, which it often is, then all sexual differences should also be given equal coverage. Including bestiality, S-M, etc. I mean, who should be passing judgement?

As for the airwaves, literature, etc. No fight from me. Turn the channel, don't buy garbage, etc.

Again, though, the magnitude of "deviance" is within the confines of law. Bestiality is not because there is no consent. Consent, consent, consent-- it's the difference that separates homosexuality and other practices.

 

[Annie]

Take a look at heterosexual divorce rates. It can't really get much worse than what's happened over the past 50 years.

Part of my problem with objections to gay marriage is that we are attempting to protect an institution that is no longer taken as seriously as it once was. Marriage used to be a commitment, now it's just a contract on paper. I suggest that all opponents of gay marriage look into strengthening the union and make it into what they claim they are protecting. If that was the case and if marriage was really as stable as it is portrayed, then I'd be all ears.

Along with the 'women's liberation movement', The Feminine Mystique opened the era of divorce as no biggie; actually it would 'help the children' to be with 'happy parents' rather than a mommy and daddy that were frustrated. Then came 'no fault divorce', and now we have the higher, though now falling slightly divorce rates.

To say that now so many couple's lack of committment justifies gay marriage is a bit of a logical stretch.

 

[liberalogic]

Along with the 'women's liberation movement', The Feminine Mystique opened the era of divorce as no biggie; actually it would 'help the children' to be with 'happy parents' rather than a mommy and daddy that were frustrated. Then came 'no fault divorce', and now we have the higher, though now falling slightly divorce rates.

To say that now so many couple's lack of committment justifies gay marriage is a bit of a logical stretch.

I'm not saying it justifies it, I'm saying that an argument protecting marriage as it is lacks a backbone. We're protecting the sanctity of marriage, but there's little sanctity left. That's not my justification for gay marriage, it's just a tremendous flaw in the opposing argument.

 

[Annie]

I'm not saying it justifies it, I'm saying that an argument protecting marriage as it is lacks a backbone. We're protecting the sanctity of marriage, but there's little sanctity left. That's not my justification for gay marriage, it's just a tremendous flaw in the opposing argument.

Actually as a society we should be working to build up the sanctity and purpose of marriage. Truly, in most circumstances, that is the best environment for children. Two parents, one of each sex.

 

[liberalogic]

Actually as a society we should be working to build up the sanctity and purpose of marriage. Truly, in most circumstances, that is the best environment for children. Two parents, one of each sex.

And if we had that, I would be more open to arguments against gay marriage.

 

[Annie]

And if we had that, I would be more open to arguments against gay marriage.

I believe you are pretty young? It starts with you and what you teach others.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

And if we had that, I would be more open to arguments against gay marriage.

LL: The King Of Cirular Logic

 

[Nienna]

Take a look at heterosexual divorce rates. It can't really get much worse than what's happened over the past 50 years.

Part of my problem with objections to gay marriage is that we are attempting to protect an institution that is no longer taken as seriously as it once was. Marriage used to be a commitment, now it's just a contract on paper. I suggest that all opponents of gay marriage look into strengthening the union and make it into what they claim they are protecting. If that was the case and if marriage was really as stable as it is portrayed, then I'd be all ears.

I completely agree that steps need to be taken to strengthen traditional marriages, and that the divorce rate is nothing less than a national tragedy. But, given what has happened in the Netherlands, I don't think that permitting gay marriage will do anything to strengthen it. Just bc the traditional institution of marriage has problems doesn't mean we should just chuck the whole idea of what "marriage" means.

 

[MissileMan]

I completely agree that steps need to be taken to strengthen traditional marriages, and that the divorce rate is nothing less than a national tragedy. But, given what has happened in the Netherlands, I don't think that permitting gay marriage will do anything to strengthen it. Just bc the traditional institution of marriage has problems doesn't mean we should just chuck the whole idea of what "marriage" means.

What kind of steps are you thinking of? You can't make divorce illegal.

Where does it say that one of the required outcomes of gay marriage is it has to strengthen hetero marriages? What if it has no effect on hetero marriage at all and only serves to strengthen the relationships of half of the gays that enter into it? Why don't you see a benefit to society if a significant percentage of gays leave their life of carousing and enter into a monogamous lifestyle?

Is your (or anyone's for that matter) marriage affected by the divorce rate? Would your marriage be better if the divorce rate were lower...worse if it were higher?

 

[5stringJeff]

What kind of steps are you thinking of? You can't make divorce illegal.

...

Is your (or anyone's for that matter) marriage affected by the divorce rate? Would your marriage be better if the divorce rate were lower...worse if it were higher?

I don't want to jump into the gay marriage issue again. However, I will say that divorce ought to be illegal, except for cases of adultery, abuse, and/or abandonment. And all 50 states could make laws to that effect. Heck, they could even insert a grandfather clause for those married before the laws went into effect. That would have more effect on preserving the sanctity of marriage, IMO, than a one-man-one-woman Constitutional ammendment, though I would favor both.

 

[liberalogic]

I don't want to jump into the gay marriage issue again. However, I will say that divorce ought to be illegal, except for cases of adultery, abuse, and/or abandonment. And all 50 states could make laws to that effect. Heck, they could even insert a grandfather clause for those married before the laws went into effect. That would have more effect on preserving the sanctity of marriage, IMO, than a one-man-one-woman Constitutional ammendment, though I would favor both.

What about people who just hate each other after a while and cause miserable situations for the kids because of it?

 

[MissileMan]

I don't want to jump into the gay marriage issue again. However, I will say that divorce ought to be illegal, except for cases of adultery, abuse, and/or abandonment. And all 50 states could make laws to that effect. Heck, they could even insert a grandfather clause for those married before the laws went into effect. That would have more effect on preserving the sanctity of marriage, IMO, than a one-man-one-woman Constitutional ammendment, though I would favor both.

I would imagine that those are probably the cause of the vast majority of divorces anyways, but under this new law, all someone would need to do if they weren't already guilty of one of the "big 3" is become guilty of one. What's that going to solve?

 

[MissileMan]

What about people who just hate each other after a while and cause miserable situations for the kids because of it?

That's easy...just become an adulterer, abuser, or just go away...divorce granted!

 

[Hobbit]

What about people who just hate each other after a while and cause miserable situations for the kids because of it?

Do what Arkansas has done with their new covenant marriage (completely optional, because the Supreme Court won't allow otherwise, but binding after signed). Except in cases of abuse and infidelity, all couples married under this contract must undergo at least one year of marriage counseling before presenting their case for divorce before the court.

 

[5stringJeff]

I would imagine that those are probably the cause of the vast majority of divorces anyways, but under this new law, all someone would need to do if they weren't already guilty of one of the "big 3" is become guilty of one. What's that going to solve?

What I'm proposing wouldn't quite work so simply. If a husband committed adultery, it would be up to the wife to decide whether they would divorce, since she was wronged.

 

[acludem]

So if we adopt this proposal can we allow gays to marry so long as they accept these conditions?

acludem