Ad: Same sex marriage will take my freedom away

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

I didn't take history either - but I have read a lot of books about it.

Religious education (at least in my school) was a crappy subject that wasted everyone's time and needed to be cut.

[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.

I didn't take history either - but I have read a lot of books about it.

Religious education (at least in my school) was a crappy subject that wasted everyone's time and needed to be cut.

Will never happen.

In what year did you study RE? I took it around 1994 and I would like to think that they have come a long way since then. I did not like the class but that does not mean that I do not see its value in the education system. As for not taking history, you mean not at all? Everyone takes some history surely!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

I didn't take history either - but I have read a lot of books about it.

Religious education (at least in my school) was a crappy subject that wasted everyone's time and needed to be cut.

Will never happen.

In what year did you study RE? I took it around 1994 and I would like to think that they have come a long way since then. I did not like the class but that does not mean that I do not see its value in the education system. As for not taking history, you mean not at all? Everyone takes some history surely!

I took RE in 92. It was the biggest waste of time ever.

I took 1 year of history in the second year - we did a bit about WW1. That was it.

[jundp 191]

Alternative (**) marriage opens the door to many changes in our society which impact basic freedoms we have grown accustomed too.

One of the most intimate is the right to a public education.

Schools will be taxed with the job of training youngsters (I like that word) .... to embrace life styles which are contrary to many people of faith.

The only option will be private or home school.

Businesses which are run by people with traditional values will be forced by legal action to accept people whose very behavior or lifestyle they object too.

Such as if someone owns a bed-and-breakfast business or offers marriage services such as photography or limo.

If the homos legally hounded the BoyScouts, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, I doubt they will show mercy to anyone else who has a similar opinion on their lifestyle.

The cost of Gay-marriage both direct and indirect could be sizable.

1. Referring to gays as "homos" is offensive. As offensive as your little darlings being taught tolerance is to you. If you must, refer to them as "homosexuals" and not "homos." It's the same as not calling a person a "tard."

2. Schools are already taxed with the job of training youngsters to embrace life styles which are contrary to many people of faith. Public schools. Because religion has no place in public schools. Public schools teach evolution, Danno, a concept contrary to that which many people of faith subscribe to. Now, consider this: I teach in a Catholic school. It's no secret the Catholic Church does not agree with homosexuality. However you know what we do teach? We teach tolerance. You know why? Because our faith, like most faiths, is based on themes of Social Teaching and Social Justice. Guess what is part of Social Justice? Tolerance. And don't even think about starting in with "well, OMG, if the Gays are allowed to marry, then I bet people will want to marry their dogs too!" Because we all know that's the stupidest comeback ever...dogs don't have the ability for rational thought, nor can they sign legal paperwork.

3. I'm going to do some word substitution for you in your last statement. It's a word sub that would have been very realistic 30 years ago but which today we see as laughable. Let's see how this plays out, shall we?

Businesses which are run by people with traditional values will be forced by legal action to accept [inter-racial couples] whose very behavior or lifestyle they object too.

Such as if someone owns a bed-and-breakfast business or offers marriage services such as photography or limo.

If the [blacks] legally hounded the BoyScouts, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, I doubt they will show mercy to anyone else who has a similar opinion on their lifestyle.

The cost of [inter-racial]-marriage both direct and indirect could be sizable.

I'd also like to point out that the Boy Scouts were targeted because they proclaim to be "open to all boys" but then refused to allow boy who were gay. Now, I actually think the Boy Scouts are a great group and I certainly think they have the right, as a private organization, to allow or disallow entry to anyone. However, if they are going to proclaim something, they should uphold it.

People with 'traditional values' who run businesses do have the right to refuse service if they so choose. Furthermore, most people (gay men and women included) who prefer NOT to waste their money patronizing businesses run by people who are disdainful of their lifestyle.

You also seem to think that a person can have traditional values but also be UNABLE to accept those who are different. Not all Christians are intolerant and cruel to those with a different lifestyle. I oppose abortion but I wouldn't refuse to do business with or associate with someone who'd had an abortion.

Maybe I just don't understand your limited view of the world.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

sister jundp... one of the Catholics I absolutely respect -- as a woman of her faith and as an educator... (even if she owes me a coffee since 2007)

[Peikko 1,575]

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.

I didn't take history either - but I have read a lot of books about it.

Religious education (at least in my school) was a crappy subject that wasted everyone's time and needed to be cut.

Will never happen.

In what year did you study RE? I took it around 1994 and I would like to think that they have come a long way since then. I did not like the class but that does not mean that I do not see its value in the education system. As for not taking history, you mean not at all? Everyone takes some history surely!

I took RE in 92. It was the biggest waste of time ever.

I took 1 year of history in the second year - we did a bit about WW1. That was it.

Could you take an O level (GCSE, whatever) in RE? I can't remember now.

I also gave up both History and Geography after 2nd Year. I wanted to take 3 sciences and 2 languages and these clashed with the History/Geography timetable. I don't remember anything about RE classes, not one darn thing

[Danno 1,228]

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?

What is their opinion of trans-gendered people?

[Chica Yeyé 41]

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?

What is their opinion of trans-gendered people?

Answering a question with another question.... that says A LOT.

[Danno 1,228]

Danno - if you had a grade school child and his friend's parents were a gay couple, would you forbid your child to play with his friend? What about your child's friends whose parents are divorced? Living with someone (straight)?

Although my answer to these type of questions are subject to change upon further consideration,.... I would allow them to play with the child living with gays but certainly not at their home.

As for the Shack-up couple, it's hard to say what parameters I might set but I should also note, I don't let my kid play at anyones house that I don't know the family at a reasonable level.

[Danno 1,228]

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?

Actually, the only ones I "ignore" are the ones I view as silly logic.... I don't have endless time to waste on those.

Religion has sadly been ignored for too long in our School systems, one can not properly "educate" without teaching about religion.

I am not aware of any teaching of "Christianity only" in school, in fact when I was in school, 90% of references to Christianity were Negative (post grade school).

Not sure where you ever got the idea I suggested the State should be in the evangelism business for Christianity or any other faith.

[Danno 1,228]

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?

What is their opinion of trans-gendered people?

Answering a question with another question.... that says A LOT.

And what does your failure to answer my honest question say?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

I didn't take history either - but I have read a lot of books about it.

Religious education (at least in my school) was a crappy subject that wasted everyone's time and needed to be cut.

Will never happen.

In what year did you study RE? I took it around 1994 and I would like to think that they have come a long way since then. I did not like the class but that does not mean that I do not see its value in the education system. As for not taking history, you mean not at all? Everyone takes some history surely!

I took RE in 92. It was the biggest waste of time ever.

I took 1 year of history in the second year - we did a bit about WW1. That was it.

Could you take an O level (GCSE, whatever) in RE? I can't remember now.

I also gave up both History and Geography after 2nd Year. I wanted to take 3 sciences and 2 languages and these clashed with the History/Geography timetable. I don't remember anything about RE classes, not one darn thing

Yes they did offer it - it wasn't a widely accepted option. The RE unit took place at the same time as History and Geography.

Edited April 13, 2009 by Private Pike

[Chica Yeyé 41]

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?

What is their opinion of trans-gendered people?

Answering a question with another question.... that says A LOT.

And what does your failure to answer my honest question say?

Cool, I'll play. The APA recognizes Gender Identity Disorder -- yet there is much argument within the psychiatric community AND the GLBTQ community about it. From the APA's website:

Transgender people experience the same kinds of mental health problems that nontransgender people do. However, the stigma, discrimination, and internal conflict that many transgender people experience may place them at increased risk for certain mental health problems. Discrimination, lack of social support, and inadequate access to care can exacerbate mental health problems in transgender people, while support from peers, family, and helping professionals may act as protective factors.

Huh... how about that???? Seems that intolerant people contribute enormously... who would have thought.

There, now how about you answer the original question?

[Peikko 1,575]

I probably didn't pursue it after 2nd grade then, but I do remember something about the History and Geography classes even though I didn't go beyond 2nd grade with those either. I was just thinking that perhaps the reason why RE was so useless in school (A subject that should after all be entirely fascinating) was because it was not an exam subject. However, that is not the excuse after all

[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?

Actually, the only ones I "ignore" are the ones I view as silly logic.... I don't have endless time to waste on those.

Religion has sadly been ignored for too long in our School systems, one can not properly "educate" without teaching about religion.

I am not aware of any teaching of "Christianity only" in school, in fact when I was in school, 90% of references to Christianity were Negative (post grade school).

Not sure where you ever got the idea I suggested the State should be in the evangelism business for Christianity or any other faith.

I can find at least 3 posts in this thread alone where you are saying that the state has no business teaching this or teaching that. Teaching tolerance of religion does not make them evangelicals and teaching tolerance of homosexuality does not make them, well...homosexuals. You were raised to be christian, despite many negative teachings (So you say) in school about your religion. Yet you still seem to think that teaching tolerance of gays is going to churn out more gay people. In reality it will allow those that are gay to come out with less prejudice against them.