one example of many......

taught to Christian children
Rules kids need teachings to be

'engaged and productive citizens'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 24, 2007
1:00 am Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WND

A federal judge in Massachusetts has ordered the "gay" agenda taught to Christians who attend a public school in Massachusetts, finding that they need the teachings to be "engaged and productive citizens."

U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf yesterday dismissed a civil rights lawsuit brought by David Parker, ordering that it is reasonable, indeed there is an obligation, for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality. Wolf essentially adopted the reasoning in a brief submitted by a number of homosexual-advocacy groups, who said "the rights of religious freedom and parental control over the upbringing of children … would undermine teaching and learning…"

David and Tonia Parker and Joseph and Robin Wirthlin, who have children of school age in Lexington, Mass., brought the lawsuit. They alleged district officials and staff at Estabrook Elementary School violated state law and civil rights by indoctrinating their children about a lifestyle they, as Christians, teach is immoral.

"Wolf's ruling is every parent's nightmare. It goes to extraordinary lengths to legitimize and reinforce the 'right' (and even the duty) of schools to normalize homosexual behavior to even the youngest of children," said a statement from the pro-family group Mass Resistance.

It also is making available background information about the lengthy dispute.


David Parker in handcuffs

"In the ruling, Wolf makes the absurd claim that normalizing homosexuality to young children is 'reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy.' According to Wolf, this means teaching 'diversity' which includes 'differences in sexual orientation.'

"In addition, Wolf makes the odious statement that the Parkers' only options are (1) send their kids to a private school, (2) home-school their kids, or (3) elect a majority of people to the School Committee who agree with them. Can you



Read more: Judge orders 'gay' agenda<br> taught to Christian children http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=40339#ixzz1QJfnPzEJ

It does not follow. I've argued that the distinctiveness of marriage rests upon fact that sexual activity is ordered towards reproduction, not upon the successful achievement of that result.

Your counter-example--the case of the student who is unable to learn--actually serves to assist my point. You would still say that the teacher-student relationship exists in such a case, and it's only the attempt to educate that will reveal definitively that the student can't learn.

One problem in these suggestions about fertility tests is that fertility tests are not entirely accurate; nor are their results always permanent. My father (after his marriage to my mother) was diagnosed as infertile years before I came along. My wife and I were never tested for infertility (there being relatively little that Catholics can do about infertility medically anyway), but it took us almost four years to have our son.

Some "constructs" are founded on nature. All I'm arguing for is the distinctive character of the relationship that builds up around reproduction, so that applying the historical name of that relationship to a relationship between people who can't reproduce with each other is equivocation.

Youd home school in this case, but other than that your happy for your kids to be sent to schools that indoctrinate, crush any spark of individuality, teach them their place, and how to keep in that place, teach them a whole load of stuff they have no interest in and will never need, subject them to schoolyard society and all the f**ked up stuff that goes on there( although I guess that is a good preparation for later life) , schools that produce good little consumers and robots for the next generation of people to exploit?

Imagine if in schools they sat around talking about feelings, and how to deal with them, and that everyone is different and theres nothing wrong with that, and that its good to respect people, even if you dont agree with them. Imagine if children were given honest, clean answers to questions, answers based on truth and reason, not coloured by religion or personal opinion, and that they could ask any question without fear of being ridiculed or bullied.
Oh the horror.

This debate is so clearly to the side of allowing gays to marry that it frightens me that anyone with any intelligence can debate against it.

It's really sad.

When I type this is to google, all I get is this website and another one which copied the article verbatim. Further all the links in the story lead you to more work published by that site.... Do you have a source that's, ya know, credible?

I'm assuming "thinking for yourself" is condemned in there somewhere too.

Part of the problem with these sorts of arguments is they assume a unitary "marriage is about one thing".

Marriage is about lots of things, and it has been about many things at many times, and different things in different societies.

For instance, many traditional marriages were about maintaining patriarchal control over women, or ensuring property remains in certain families, or ensuring peaceful relations between prominent families. None of these things had anything to do with procreation, except incidentally. Nowadays, love and romance, things that were less important in the past, have become more important. They are also not about procreation.

At any given time, procreation has been one reason, but not the only reason, for marriage. The only time it seems to become the "only" reason is when we are talking about gays (and even then, gays can procreate and raise children in their marriages anyway).

Why not? My wife and I are both atheists and at no point ever wanted to have children. I utterly fail to see why you would be opposed to us getting married because of that. While reading this thread I thought a lot of the problem was because it used the word marriage (and religious connotations) and that if the term Civil Union replaced it (but still carried all the legal observations and rights to go with it) that you'd be ok with that.

I really don't understand this mindset. Please elaborate, and I have yet to see someone address why someone shouldn't get married simply because they can't or choose not to reproduce with each other (gay couple, voluntarily sterilization, horrific accident, etc.)

The primary purpose of marriage is to bear and raise children, not romance or fulfillment or having a life partner.

You're getting the relationship perfectly backwards. If marriage was only "incidentally" about procreation and children, then why didn't powerful families marry off their sons to the sons of other powerful families? If you say "because there wouldn't be progeny," then you're conceding the point that marriage is about bearing and raising children.

I have never said that marriage couldn't be pursued for reasons beyond bearing and raising children. I've only said that it is its primary and central purpose.

EDIT: In other words, the only reason marriage could be used to support the various purposes you've named is because it's primarily about bearing and raising children.

You must mean something other than "reproduce with each other" by 'procreate.'

You can make statements like "The primary purpose of marriage is to bear and raise children" or "Some "constructs" are founded on nature" all you like, doesnt make them right though. How can you say what someone elses primary purpose of getting married is, it might be in order to gain citizenship of the USA.
If all you are worried about is the "sanctity" of the word, then i would have no problem with calling it "legal partnership" or whatever, if it gave exactly the same status and benefits as marriage. If it looks like marriage, smells like marriage, does the same things as marriage, its probably marriage, even if its not called that.

1OO% bigotry

"The only thing gayer than two gay guys getting married, is a person who has a problem with them getting married."

Btirish - are your posts so far ITT aimed solely at getting people to call gay unions something other than marriage? You seem to have said that, but I'm not sure.

Pretty much. To be willing to admit a distinction between a lifelong male-female relationship in which reproduction is the natural (but not always achieved) result and any relationship between two people that isn't founded upon reproduction and bearing the children of their union.

I would argue for other claims, but if people aren't even willing to admit this distinction, then the rest of the discussion could go nowhere.

As I've said, by "purpose" I don't mean "subjective intention," but the goal or end towards which something is aimed; in this case, just as a matter of biology, the reproductive organs are ordered towards reproduction, in the same sense that teeth are ordered towards chewing and the heart is ordered towards pumping blood.

i dont get you, if someone is getting married in order to get a green card, that is the goal or end towards which it is aimed?

You keep talking about marriage as if it is some separate living entity, with an inherent purpose. All it is is a human construct, thats all

No but it's God's construct, ya see?

My 55 year old aunt is getting married for the first time next year. I'll be sure to let her know that she shouldn't refer to her relationship with her husband as a "marriage" due to the fact that she has reached menopause.

I was already supposed to be in NYC this weekend for Best in the World 2011 but I'm sure I would have flown out here anyways had the PPV not been this weekend. This is the biggest news I've experienced in my 25 year life. Anyone not happy for the gay community is a stubborn ****ing loser. This is excellence, and it's well deserved.

No , because she is "still performing an act that is naturally ordered towards having children", so shes fine

...hmmmmm although I agree with your description of today's schools to some extent..... I don't think the feelings thing is great preparation for becoming a scientist or an engineer. That's the responsibility of parents and family.
Unfortunately, the basis for our moral code is a book that is not allowed in schools anymore. A book that teaches good conduct, work ethic, moral behavior, kindness, forgiveness... it also teaches that homosexuality is a sin.

I don't necesarily want a stranger teaching my child religious beliefs or to hate people who are different, believe differently or who choose not to believe but the Bible was the basis for teaching in schools for the first hundred years and we as a nation grew (fairly) well.
That said, I would not be opposed to gay unions, adults should be allowed to sin and deal with their sin as they wish. I do. You do and so should they. I just don't want it taught in the schools as if it were just another way to express feelings.
The school curriculum in NJ went as far as asking 5th graders if they'd ever had feelings for the same sex and encouraged them to explore their feelings. Sorry but we still don't know for sure what causes sexual deviations (not just homosexuality) I'd prefer not to have strangers encouraging kids to explore their sexuality - hetero or otherwise. Since sex education has been expanded in schools, the rates of STDs, pregnancy, sexual activity has expanded also. It is now common for 13 year olds to be sexually active, that was not so 30 years ago. In trying to help a few sexually active kids the schools have exposed all the kids to far more sexually explicit materials then they ever needed. Now they want to help a few homosexual kids ....

......again, supply the families with the educational materials - at home and let the families deal with their children. They can offer edu. materials about homosexuality to the families and ask that they decide age appropriateness....

Interesting topic, I don't think that someone who is against gay-marriage necessarily has to be a bigot. The most common use of the word "bigot" has a hostile denotation to it, regarding sexual orientation, race, or beliefs. I am against gay-marriage not because of a hatred to homosexuals but because of the religious beliefs I hold. I don't have anything against them personally but their lifestyle is condemed by the beliefs I hold dear. I pity them if anything, which is a total contrast to the hatred that most "bigots" share.

Do you think that your beliefs should be legislated though?

Aren't my beliefs already legislated? By that I mean, at first gay-marriage was illegal right?, but now that is changing. Isn't it the homosexuals who want their beliefs and ideals legislated?