Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Forced Down Throats

This article describes one of the downsides I once pointed out in a past post. How long before we have to deal with this crap in this country? How often is it now happening, in places like Massachussetts? I understand California schools promote this perversion as well. The problem comes when parents complain. Some are accused of being backward religionists, while others are accused of bigotry and other such nonsense.

I am looking to reprint a great response to a misguided high school teacher which speaks to some of this garbage. There is no way that the homosex agenda can co-exist with the already Constitutionally acknowledged right of religious expression. The more the sinful practice of homosexual behavior is codified into our laws, the more conflict will result as Bible-believing Christians WILL be further marginalized in favor of the imaginary rights of 2% of the population.

24 comments:

4simpsons said...

Looks like they aren't "pro-choice" when requesting that your kids opt out of teaching perversions as normal.

We live in a conservative district but I'm still glad that my youngest will be doing her last two years of school online. I wonder if they'll come after home schooling next. Seriously. Obama wants to educate them from the cradle through college. How can he trust you to teach your own kids? Better let the state take care of that.

4simpsons said...

This was amusing because a friendly foe was just accusing me of "forcing" my beliefs just for being pro-Prop-8. I'll ask him if he thinks the behavior described in your link qualifies as forcing.

Marty said...

Oh my.

What if it were a heterosexual history month? Yuck. I don't like the sound of that either.

I don't understand the need for a history month with regard to someone's sexuality.

On the surface it all sounds kinda weird. Think I'll dig a little deeper.

Mark said...

This may be a way to force the Muslims out of England.

There are upsides to many things.

4simpsons said...

Interesting point, Mark. I've been wondering when and how the pro-gay and pro-Islamic forces would collide. It is telling that the chosen enemy of the pro-gay groups is the really-quite-tolerant Christian church and they don't make a peep about Islam.

Les said...

"...one of the downsides..."

To what, specifically?

Marshall Art said...

Les,

That would be one of the downsides to legitimizing homosexual marriage and, for that matter, the continuing to promote the fallacy that they are in the same boat as blacks and women in terms of civil rights. This article illustrates what will happen in this country, which is the strife between people of faith who promote the truth vs. the supporters and enablers of homosexual "rights" who promote lies. One must take a back seat to the other should life lead them both to cross paths. Who's rights will take precedence?

In the article, we see parents being told their kids MUST be indoctrinated with the lies of the homosexual community. They're being told their religious beliefs are insignificant by comparison.

Les said...

"...what will happen..."

Perhaps you haven't understood where I stand on this. As I've mentioned before, I don't play the "slippery slope" game. You have to realize, I formulate my positions like a politician would use a line-item veto, and my overt support for any particular cause is treated the same. Just because I support equal marital recognition under the law doesn't mean I support each and every thing the vocal homosexual community is pushing. I see no need whatsoever for classes that "promote" whatever species of the homosexual agenda you guys find offensive here, because I simply don't believe it falls within the purview of our education system. In addition, I agree there's no need for some sort of gay history month. Guess what? I also think the concept of a black history month is no longer relevant, as American and African-American history is inherently interconnected and ultimately redundant. I guess you can think of my stance this way - I like beef, but I'd rather not eat the cow's liver, its brain, or its tongue. I believe this simple philosophy can absolutely apply to how one chooses to build his or her own moral or political platform. Again, I take my issues with a big fat side dish of nuance, and I'm sure you'll find an unlikely ally in me on many subjects related to the gay issue. Just not marriage. I don't see the same threat there that you guys do, and thus can't share your concern.

"Who's rights will take precedence?"

Again, I don't see it that way in terms of the marriage question, and that's what we (or at least I) have been talking about here.

"...the strife between people of faith who promote the truth vs. the supporters and enablers of homosexual 'rights'..."

This strife already exists, and will continue to do so until the end of time.

Marty said...

"I agree there's no need for some sort of gay history month. Guess what? I also think the concept of a black history month is no longer relevant, as American and African-American history is inherently interconnected and ultimately redundant."

I totally agree.

I do not agree, however, with the mindset that the sky will fall in and "sin" will reign and abound if LGBT persons are allowed to be married under the law.

Marshall Art said...

Les,

Toward the end of your last comments, you seem to miss the nuance of how allowing marriage is indeed connected to all the rest. This is particularly a concern as it relates to the clash of rights. The more recognition the homosex community gains from the state as a group that is on par with racial or gender issues, that is, that they are also unable to change, which isn't true at all, the more the state will have to protect them in the manner they do blacks and women. The last forty years or so of their activism has brought about a growing feeling that they are indeed the same as blacks and women in their struggles, and as in the subject of marriage, suffering in the same way that racially mixed marriages have suffered. Well, perhaps they are indeed "suffering", but not for the same reasons. The point is they are insisting it is for the same reasons, that is, outright bigotry and prejudice. That is nonsense, of course. And what has been the result? That those who speak truthfully of the sinfulness of homosex behavior are marginalized as some kind of backwards superstitious fools. But the true fools are those who see their "orientation" as some kind of benign thing, harmless as a bunny.

Regarding your side dish, I'm bored with this crap about "nuance". It's condescending and a veiled insult to the intelligence of the person with whom you're conversing. It implies a deeper look at the subject, a more studied look when in fact it's a throw-away term to try to end the discussion, such as "consensus". There's no nuance about people who want to change the culture over how they want to get their sexual jollies.

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

Sin abounds already. That's not the point at all. Look through my archives and you'll find about three posts on the topic of the downsides of allowing homosex marriages. None of them have to do with religion, except for how hit will stifle the free expression of it. Or, feel free to continue ignoring the obvious.

Les said...

"...you seem to miss the nuance of how allowing marriage is indeed connected to all the rest."

No, I don't. I just don't agree with your concerns.

"...I'm bored with this crap about 'nuance'. It's condescending..."

Do you support taxes?

Les said...

(crickets chirping)

Marshall Art said...

Les,

Of course there's crickets chirping. Everyone's moved on to newer threads.

But I'll respond. Are you referring to specific taxes or taxes in general? I'm gonna take a stab at where you might be going by saying that at one time, the thought of income taxes was unheard of. Then, they were established, as if they would never exceed what was initially implemented. Now, we can see that a billion pages of the tax code refers to income taxes specifically.

Am I close? Were you going to make some analogy referring to consequences of instituting homosexual marriage?

Les said...

Taxes in general.

Marshall Art said...

In general, taxes are necessary for the upkeep of our government, military, infrastructure, and precious little else, if you're referring to federal taxation. So I support taxation to an extent, or more to the point, I do not support no taxation whatsoever.

Les said...

"...to an extent..."

Which is an exact description of my support when dealing with the gay issue. I support them on some, not all, of their positions. Hence the aforementioned side dish - a side dish you obviously share on issues like taxation by your own admission.

Nothing condescending about pointing out nuance, and I wasn't implying I think more deeply about political issues. Just differently. Any condescension, on this particular issue at least, is strictly in your head.

Marshall Art said...

But I support taxes to the extent they are required for the benefit of all citizens. That means that I intend there should be limitations beyond which taxes are less beneficial, if not outright harmful.

There is no benefit for all citizens derived from altering the meaning of marriage to include homosexual or other arrangements of spouses. As I've indicated exhaustively, the opposite is true in that there would be little but downsides from this change. My support for "gay" issues goes as far as allowing them their little fantasies without being beaten and killed for it. Much more infringes upon the rights of others to accomodate them. Other "issues" over which they feel deprived can be dealt with individually, as many of them affect other groups as well, such as hospital visitation and such.

Les said...

Nice tap dance. You just made my point for me. Sounds to me like your basis for support for any given cause/issue/whatever depends upon your own personal evaluation of its specific merits when broken down and analyzed. How is such an acknowledgment of nuanced analysis ok for you but considered condescension when I mention it in relation to my points of view? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm????

Marshall Art said...

Sorry, I don't dance (though if I did, tap would be a personal fave---that Cagney, dancing down the steps at the end of Yankee Doodle Dandy...way cool).

I don't need to do a whole lot of nuanced thinking to decide when the feds have overstepped the boundaries of spending and the taxes they suck out of us to get it done. The duties of the feds are spelled out plainly in the Constitution. Indeed, nuanced thinking about the Constitution has brought about all sorts of trouble, abortion and homosexual issues to name just two.

Similarly, not a whole lot of nuance is required to speculate with some fair accuracy about the consequences of granting the homosexual community their every wish, under the total lie of bigotry, as if they are on par with racial discrimination. Add to that all the lies that support their arguments from the very conception of their agenda and one needn't begin to get nuanced to understand there's no good reason to redefine marriage in any context. Looming the largest, yet never discussed is the pathetic notion that we should ever base legislation on how 2% of the population chooses to get their sexual jollies. It takes nuanced thinking to come up with the crap that says the issue is more nuanced than that.

Les said...

At the risk of sounding condescending, after reading your last comment, Art, I'm starting to wonder if you know what the word "nuance" actually means. Do you?

Marshall Art said...

Yes. It's a slight change or difference. Subtlety. As if a distinction between two opinions might not be clear to one side.

The insult or condescension in using the word, by most libs that is, is the implication that the opponent hasn't fully understood the details or isn't capable of doing so. Generally, it is a distraction from the fact that the speaker hasn't won over, or is incapable of winning over his opponent to his own incorrect or untenable position.

My over the top use of the word in my last comment was to throw it back in the face of that attitude (not that your giving me that attitude personally---but I'd like to think that after all these years that at least you and I can get down without either side taking great offense at every little thing---am I wrong here?). People like myself aren't missing anything in this debate. We can see clearly what's going on, perhaps even better than folks like yourself who, personally, I think are well meaning but woefully wrong.

The homosex activist isn't happy with what has been achieved thus far. In most states, they can find someone who will perform some ceremony affirming their fantasy and even find that they can match much of the "rights and privileges" as married people in terms of benefits. Not good enough. They insist that without the state sanctioning and licensing normally allowed for heteros under the term "marriage" that they are then considered second class by the state. (I submit they're likely considered worse by most of the state for their whining alone)

Well that's too bad. That fact is simply that they don't match the criteria for marriage. It's just as bad as women who insisted on getting some jobs normally reserved for men and the criteria had to be changed in order for the women to qualify, or dropping entrance requirements at universities so that those with lower grades can get in. Yet maintaining the criteria was never disrimination to begin with, but was said to be once these "unqualified" people were denied.

No one has a "right" to love anyone they want, in the sense that it is some kind of legally protected situation. It falls under the pursuit of happiness, in which the pursuit is the protected right, but not happiness itself. And certainly no one has the right to insist that rules, criteria and definitions change to accomodate their whims. I do not deny their right to pursue those changes, but the state, or the rest of the population, is in no way oblidged to provide for that accomodation. And going through the courts, hoping that a sympathetic justice creates a right out of thin air, claiming a constitution allows something the words were never meant to imply, is like a child going to his mother to force his big brother to play with him. In other words, totally childish and immature.

That, my friend, is what you and other homosex supporters are supporting.

Les said...

"It's just as bad as women who insisted on getting some jobs normally reserved for men and the criteria had to be changed in order for the women to qualify..."

Ignoring the fact that you seem to be ok with making an analogy between women's and gays' causes when it suits YOUR purposes, you've once again missed my point entirely. As I've been trying to explain, my statement about having nuanced positions simply means I don't show blanket support for any particular cause. If I'm ok with certain issues or components of any particular cause, I'll support them individually. If not, I'll oppose them. That's it. I'm not asking you to rehash your anti-homo talking points each time you respond. Seriously - how many times are you going to remind us that happiness is not the same thing as its pursuit? Dude - I agree with you on that point, as has been established many times over. I get it - Marshall Art does not support gay marriage in any way, shape, or form.

"...dropping entrance requirements at universities so that those with lower grades can get in. Yet maintaining the criteria was never disrimination to begin with..."

I agree 100%. But in my opinion, one of the key differences in this example and that of gay marriage is timing. While altering academic criteria affects EXISTING codified requirements, Federal Marriage Amendment legislation looks to ADD the traditionally accepted definition of marriage into the Constitution as the official LEGAL definition of marriage, thus codifying the term "marriage". I don't support such a move, because I don't view gay marriage as either a threat against or undermining the validity of straight marriage.

Marshall Art said...

I don't make analogies to suit my purposes. I make them to suit the purposes of the society/culture I inhabit. Thus, it suits you, too, whether you can see it or not.

"As I've been trying to explain, my statement about having nuanced positions simply means I don't show blanket support for any particular cause."

Then I don't think "nuance" was the right word to use and the keystrokes surrounding the issue were wasted.

What do you mean "timing"? There is no timing that will ever be "right" for state sanctioned homosexual unions.

"...I don't view gay marriage as either a threat against or undermining the validity of straight marriage."

And I get that about you. But it's not a threat against "straight marriage", it's a threat to our culture. It's merely a redefining and diluting of the term "marriage" to allow for arrangements other than the traditional. (It's in that manner that the analogy of changing entrance requirements fits here.)

Marriage is special. The traditional arrangement serves society. It doesn't matter that some people fuck it up, or enter into it for the wrong reasons, or treat it like it's no big deal. (That surely won't change because we redefine it for the benefit of even more mentally and emotionally challenged people.) It's the ideal that the state supports and all the good it does for the culture. That ideal and the good it does cannot be duplicated in other arrangements. Even in hetero unions of unmarried couples it falls short if only in subtle degrees.

But for the sake of their so-called love for each other, what difference does it make that the world won't recognize their union as equal to that of a man and woman legally married? My fidelity to my wife is not dependent upon the state. It is dependent upon my vow that I would remain my wife's faithful husband, loving no other for as long as I live. If from this point the state voided our license, took away any bennies, made us file separately every April, I'd still be married to my wife.

Everyone seems to agree that marriage is in trouble these days. Redefining it will not improve the situation, but will further erode it. I get that you don't buy into this thought. I'm saying that you choose to ignore it and I can't understand why a smart guy like you would. It's so obvious.