Ad: Same sex marriage will take my freedom away

[EasyRider 3]

Slavery? not only are your comments way far removed from anything relevant, but (as usual) Historically inaccurate.

It was the religious leaders, whose voices condemning Slavery had the greatest impact.

How are they not relevant? You were talking about the role of government, from what I understand. Please explain.

Also, it depends on what period we're talking about. Have you heard of Bartolome de las Casas? His accounts against the the genocide of Natives by the Spanish conquistadores, amongst other things, was what convinced the crown to find an alternative man power supply. De las Casas even went as far as promoting the importation of African Slaves, which the Spanish imported by the thousands into South American (mostly Brazil), Central America and the Caribbean.

There accounts in American history as well, early on especially.

tolerance???

Half of you dont tolerate conservative peoples beliefs without insulting or criticizing... why would you expect a conservative to tolerate something they themselves dont believe in?

As asinine and ridiculous as I think Danno's opinions are on this particular matter, I would vehemently defend his right to express his opinions. And as much as I may disagree with the lifestyle somebody may have chosen, I would similarly defend his/her right to choose a life they wish to lead.

[Tahoma 2,298]

But the "teaching" in not so much about 'how to be gay' but rather "indoctrinating" (and I don't think that word is inaccurate) children to reject long standing.... social, religious and traditional values that should be protected even if they were not in the mainstream.

Clearly this is not the role of Government.

There are a lot of "long standing...social, religious and traditional values" that should be rejected and eradicated from the face of the Earth. And sometimes we need the government to do that. Slavery, for example, was long standing, socially acceptable if not promoted, justified and or promoted by religious leaders. Should there still be slavery?

Sorry for the extra post. Ran out of time.

Slavery? not only are your comments way far removed from anything relevant, but (as usual) Historically inaccurate.

It was the religious leaders, whose voices condemning Slavery had the greatest impact.

Slavery is an excellent example of a traditional value which once was woven into the social fabric of our country. So were "Jim Crow" and "separate but equal." Using your own reasoning, all three of these American institutions should have been allowed to continue since we should not be teaching or "indoctrinating children to reject long standing....... social, religious and traditional values that should be protected...."

Our history is littered with the remains of many more "traditional values" which are just as relevant to this discussion as slavery is relevant to it.

Also, in the interest of historical accuracy, perhaps you would care to elaborate about the many White preachers who had the greatest impact in condemning slavery...in, say, Alabama, or Georgia, or Mississippi.

It has been only 36 years since the American Psychiatric Association retracted their stance (and teaching) that homosexuality is a mental illness. Do you believe that homosexuals are mentally ill?

[Tahoma 2,298]

tolerance???

Half of you dont tolerate conservative peoples beliefs without insulting or criticizing... why would you expect a conservative to tolerate something they themselves dont believe in?

A better question is: why don't some conservatives believe in equal rights?

[fozzie 41]

Danno,

As you ignored this previously I am reposting my question to you.

Religion is taught in public schools too. Do you think that teaching children about different religions is a bad idea? Or would you prefer your government to just teach christianity so that your children do not get confused?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Another gay marriage thread. Same tired, hackneyed arguments.

[Peikko 1,575]

In which part of the curriculum does teaching about 'gayness' figure Danno? I am quite curious as to where this would be slotted in. Allowing a library to stock 'non conventional lifestyle' literature (single parents figure also in these) does not constitute teaching, let alone indoctrination.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In my high school we weren't taught about religion - if we didn't select the Religious Education GCSE class.

We certainly weren't given an in-depth instruction on human sexuality.

[SpiritAlight 1]

Transcript:

“There’s a storm gathering. The clouds are dark and the winds are strong and I am afraid. Some who advocate for same sex marriage have taken the issue far beyond same sex couples. They want to bring the issue into my life. My freedom will be taken away. I’m a California doctor who must choose between my faith and my job. I’m part of a New Jersey church group because we can’t support same sex marriage. I’m a Massachusetts parent helpless watching public schools teach my son that gay marriage is okay. Some who advocate same sex marriage have not been content with same sex couples living as they wish. Those advocates want to change the way I live. I will have no choice. The storm is coming. But we have hope, a rainbow coalition of people of every creed and color are coming together in love to protect marriage. Paid for by National Organization for Marriage which is responsible for the content of this ad.”

Video:

Oh for F's sake!!!

Sweet lord give me patience with this kind of drivel.

Arrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!

So much unwarranted fear.

For nothing.

What is wrong with an open society?

Why do some people believe they know what's best for the everyone?

Why why why.....I have a zillion questions.

Please....no need to answer.

Edited April 13, 2009 by SpiritAlight

[fozzie 41]

In my high school we weren't taught about religion - if we didn't select the Religious Education GCSE class.

We certainly weren't given an in-depth instruction on human sexuality.

I was. RE was mandatory for 1 year and optional for the 2 GCSE years. It is an important part of scoiety and should not be swept under the rug.

[almaty 19]

sister spirit is spot one

[SpiritAlight 1]

sister spirit is spot one

TY

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In my high school we weren't taught about religion - if we didn't select the Religious Education GCSE class.

We certainly weren't given an in-depth instruction on human sexuality.

I was. RE was mandatory for 1 year and optional for the 2 GCSE years. It is an important part of scoiety and should not be swept under the rug.

RE was mandatory in the second year, I think - though I can honestly say that the lessons were of dubious value at best.

One year of perfunctory teaching about religion does not give a person what they need to have a sense of spirituality.

[fozzie 41]

In my high school we weren't taught about religion - if we didn't select the Religious Education GCSE class.

We certainly weren't given an in-depth instruction on human sexuality.

I was. RE was mandatory for 1 year and optional for the 2 GCSE years. It is an important part of scoiety and should not be swept under the rug.

RE was mandatory in the second year, I think - though I can honestly say that the lessons were of dubious value at best.

One year of perfunctory teaching about religion does not give a person what they need to have a sense of spirituality.

Well its not meant to give you a sense of spirutuality. They are not trying to convert you to another way of life but trying to teach you about other beleif systems and "educate' people to be aware and tolerant.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In my high school we weren't taught about religion - if we didn't select the Religious Education GCSE class.

We certainly weren't given an in-depth instruction on human sexuality.

I was. RE was mandatory for 1 year and optional for the 2 GCSE years. It is an important part of scoiety and should not be swept under the rug.

RE was mandatory in the second year, I think - though I can honestly say that the lessons were of dubious value at best.

One year of perfunctory teaching about religion does not give a person what they need to have a sense of spirituality.

Well its not meant to give you a sense of spirutuality. They are not trying to convert you to another way of life but trying to teach you about other beleif systems and "educate' people to be aware and tolerant.

Perhaps it did that for you - but I think you can be aware and tolerant, and it has nothing to do with a shitty one year course at age 12-13.

[fozzie 41]

Perhaps it did that for you - but I think you can be aware and tolerant, and it has nothing to do with a shitty one year course at age 12-13.

Yes you can be aware and tolerant without it but if your parents do not promote tolerance of other faiths, religions and lifestyles then it is more likely that you will be indoctined into their way of thinking. School is there to educate. Why do we teach history if my parents could teach me their version of history. I would grow up not understanding the past of my country and those around me. Schools are there to teach.

The more information we have the better decsions we can make.