Why California’s Proposition 8 Would Make Jesus Weep (2 Viewers)

[Gr00vus]

Here's an example of why Christian parents might be concerned about this issue.

Link

Condoned bigotry at its finest. THEY'LL TEACH TOLERANCE TO OUR CHILDREN IN SCHOOLS!!!

Interesting that you were able to comment on a six minute video a minute after I posted the link.

Were my statements inaccurate? I live in CA and have seen the ads the bigots supporters of the proposition air.

Watch the video and then tell me if you are comfortable with the idea of the school teaching issues of morality to children without notifying parents what they will be teaching and refusing to permit parents to opt out based on their own moral/religious beliefs.Maybe you are comfortable with that, but at least understand that some parents are not.

Marriage is not part of school curriculum in California.

well, there's that class that some kids take in high school where they carry an egg around and try not to kill it. does that count?

Depends - is the egg homosexual and attempting to have a same sex marriage?

 

[Disco Stu]

Well, there certainly are a lot of messicans in California named Jesus, but I doubt this will make many/any of them weep.

This terrible joke isn't getting enough attention.

I died a little on the inside.

 

[Ray Stevens]

If I spend 6 minutes watching it and it's a waste of my time, will you compensate me accordingly?

It's a video about this guy.

 

[the rover]

Here's an example of why Christian parents might be concerned about this issue.

Link

Condoned bigotry at its finest. THEY'LL TEACH TOLERANCE TO OUR CHILDREN IN SCHOOLS!!!

Interesting that you were able to comment on a six minute video a minute after I posted the link.

Were my statements inaccurate? I live in CA and have seen the ads the bigots supporters of the proposition air.

Watch the video and then tell me if you are comfortable with the idea of the school teaching issues of morality to children without notifying parents what they will be teaching and refusing to permit parents to opt out based on their own moral/religious beliefs.Maybe you are comfortable with that, but at least understand that some parents are not.

Marriage is not part of school curriculum in California.

well, there's that class that some kids take in high school where they carry an egg around and try not to kill it. does that count?

Depends - is the egg homosexual and attempting to have a same sex marriage?

what's funny is that even back in the 80's when I was in high school, there were always more guys that girls in that class since the alternative was a home economics class that more girls took--so there would always be a couple pairs of two "married" guys taking care of their "baby."

 

[quickhands]

Link

In the name of “traditional family values” and spearheaded by conservative Christian groups a measure has been put on the California ballot to, for the first time in California history, add discrimination to the state constitution. This measure has no other purpose than to limit the rights of human beings to legally acknowledge their love for one another and make a binding commitment to one another. They have euphemistically called this a “defense of marriage” and claimed that if not passed the schools of California will force a homosexual ideology on children in schools regardless of parental view. They also claim that religious institutions could be sued if they refuse to perform gay marriages. This is all based on their examination of laws in Massachusetts.

Reality is a far different thing than is being portrayed by the people trying to scare Californians into legislating their version of a family as the only acceptable family. Under California law any parent can opt out of any portion of the school’s curriculum for their children that they deem to be in conflict with their personal beliefs such as sex education and social issues. The inclusion of homosexuals in the pool of legal marriage applicants will have no impact on that law. Under California law the freedom of religion is well established and much like the federal constitution there are provisions in the California constitution that prohibit any law from abridging the free exercise of religion or to promote one religious belief over another. In other words no judge can make you perform ceremonies in your church that violate the tenets of your religion and no law can be passed that makes religious dogma into law.

In the Bible Jesus teaches us to love our enemies and embrace those whom others would cast out. Jesus led by example when he embraced the lepers and brought the pariahs of his time to sit at his side. He embraced those who others disparaged and ridiculed. He never said that homosexuals were evil. In point of fact he never spoke on the subject anywhere in the Bible. He taught love and acceptance of all even those whom have wronged you. He forgave those who crucified him as he died on the cross. He never said he hated anyone. Truth be told you have to go to the Old Testament to find anything about homosexuality and even then you have to look pretty hard, unless of course you are one of those for whom that passage of the Bible is more important than the actual teachings of Christ in which case you can find the dog-eared page most quickly more than likely.

If you accept that the New Testament is the chronicle of the teachings of Christ then as a follower of Christ you should be opposed to any law that would subjugate a segment of the population for who they happen to love. One of the few times Christ was ever cited as showing real anger was when he went into the Temple and saw people perverting the church for their own gain. Now the so-called followers of Jesus are using religion as a club to scare people into making laws that cause God’s children to be excluded and feel emotional pain unnecessarily. “Judge not lest ye be judged.” “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” That is what Jesus taught. Hate and exclusion is the realm of darkness. Do you think telling people their love is illegitimate is what Jesus would do?

Well then since he didn't address it, It probably meant he agreed with it.

Silence does not equal acceptance.

In this case it does.

No, it doesn't.

please explain

Silence doesn't tell us anything one way or the other of whether Jesus accepted it or not. Jesus kept silent about a lot of horrible things. Did he endorse those, too?

please give an example of an Old Testament teaching that you consider horrible.

 

[Gr00vus]

Link

In the name of “traditional family values” and spearheaded by conservative Christian groups a measure has been put on the California ballot to, for the first time in California history, add discrimination to the state constitution. This measure has no other purpose than to limit the rights of human beings to legally acknowledge their love for one another and make a binding commitment to one another. They have euphemistically called this a “defense of marriage” and claimed that if not passed the schools of California will force a homosexual ideology on children in schools regardless of parental view. They also claim that religious institutions could be sued if they refuse to perform gay marriages. This is all based on their examination of laws in Massachusetts.

Reality is a far different thing than is being portrayed by the people trying to scare Californians into legislating their version of a family as the only acceptable family. Under California law any parent can opt out of any portion of the school’s curriculum for their children that they deem to be in conflict with their personal beliefs such as sex education and social issues. The inclusion of homosexuals in the pool of legal marriage applicants will have no impact on that law. Under California law the freedom of religion is well established and much like the federal constitution there are provisions in the California constitution that prohibit any law from abridging the free exercise of religion or to promote one religious belief over another. In other words no judge can make you perform ceremonies in your church that violate the tenets of your religion and no law can be passed that makes religious dogma into law.

In the Bible Jesus teaches us to love our enemies and embrace those whom others would cast out. Jesus led by example when he embraced the lepers and brought the pariahs of his time to sit at his side. He embraced those who others disparaged and ridiculed. He never said that homosexuals were evil. In point of fact he never spoke on the subject anywhere in the Bible. He taught love and acceptance of all even those whom have wronged you. He forgave those who crucified him as he died on the cross. He never said he hated anyone. Truth be told you have to go to the Old Testament to find anything about homosexuality and even then you have to look pretty hard, unless of course you are one of those for whom that passage of the Bible is more important than the actual teachings of Christ in which case you can find the dog-eared page most quickly more than likely.

If you accept that the New Testament is the chronicle of the teachings of Christ then as a follower of Christ you should be opposed to any law that would subjugate a segment of the population for who they happen to love. One of the few times Christ was ever cited as showing real anger was when he went into the Temple and saw people perverting the church for their own gain. Now the so-called followers of Jesus are using religion as a club to scare people into making laws that cause God’s children to be excluded and feel emotional pain unnecessarily. “Judge not lest ye be judged.” “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” That is what Jesus taught. Hate and exclusion is the realm of darkness. Do you think telling people their love is illegitimate is what Jesus would do?

Well then since he didn't address it, It probably meant he agreed with it.

Silence does not equal acceptance.

In this case it does.

No, it doesn't.

please explain

Silence doesn't tell us anything one way or the other of whether Jesus accepted it or not. Jesus kept silent about a lot of horrible things. Did he endorse those, too?

please give an example of an Old Testament teaching that you consider horrible.

not eating pork

 

[Disco Stu]

Here's an example of why Christian parents might be concerned about this issue.

Link

Condoned bigotry at its finest. THEY'LL TEACH TOLERANCE TO OUR CHILDREN IN SCHOOLS!!!

Interesting that you were able to comment on a six minute video a minute after I posted the link.

Were my statements inaccurate? I live in CA and have seen the ads the bigots supporters of the proposition air.

Watch the video and then tell me if you are comfortable with the idea of the school teaching issues of morality to children without notifying parents what they will be teaching and refusing to permit parents to opt out based on their own moral/religious beliefs.Maybe you are comfortable with that, but at least understand that some parents are not.

It seems that their argument is that if something is legal, than it is also by definition "moral". That's a bit of a reach IMO.

 

[quickhands]

Link

In the name of “traditional family values” and spearheaded by conservative Christian groups a measure has been put on the California ballot to, for the first time in California history, add discrimination to the state constitution. This measure has no other purpose than to limit the rights of human beings to legally acknowledge their love for one another and make a binding commitment to one another. They have euphemistically called this a “defense of marriage” and claimed that if not passed the schools of California will force a homosexual ideology on children in schools regardless of parental view. They also claim that religious institutions could be sued if they refuse to perform gay marriages. This is all based on their examination of laws in Massachusetts.

Reality is a far different thing than is being portrayed by the people trying to scare Californians into legislating their version of a family as the only acceptable family. Under California law any parent can opt out of any portion of the school’s curriculum for their children that they deem to be in conflict with their personal beliefs such as sex education and social issues. The inclusion of homosexuals in the pool of legal marriage applicants will have no impact on that law. Under California law the freedom of religion is well established and much like the federal constitution there are provisions in the California constitution that prohibit any law from abridging the free exercise of religion or to promote one religious belief over another. In other words no judge can make you perform ceremonies in your church that violate the tenets of your religion and no law can be passed that makes religious dogma into law.

In the Bible Jesus teaches us to love our enemies and embrace those whom others would cast out. Jesus led by example when he embraced the lepers and brought the pariahs of his time to sit at his side. He embraced those who others disparaged and ridiculed. He never said that homosexuals were evil. In point of fact he never spoke on the subject anywhere in the Bible. He taught love and acceptance of all even those whom have wronged you. He forgave those who crucified him as he died on the cross. He never said he hated anyone. Truth be told you have to go to the Old Testament to find anything about homosexuality and even then you have to look pretty hard, unless of course you are one of those for whom that passage of the Bible is more important than the actual teachings of Christ in which case you can find the dog-eared page most quickly more than likely.

If you accept that the New Testament is the chronicle of the teachings of Christ then as a follower of Christ you should be opposed to any law that would subjugate a segment of the population for who they happen to love. One of the few times Christ was ever cited as showing real anger was when he went into the Temple and saw people perverting the church for their own gain. Now the so-called followers of Jesus are using religion as a club to scare people into making laws that cause God’s children to be excluded and feel emotional pain unnecessarily. “Judge not lest ye be judged.” “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” That is what Jesus taught. Hate and exclusion is the realm of darkness. Do you think telling people their love is illegitimate is what Jesus would do?

Well then since he didn't address it, It probably meant he agreed with it.

Silence does not equal acceptance.

In this case it does.

No, it doesn't.

please explain

Silence doesn't tell us anything one way or the other of whether Jesus accepted it or not. Jesus kept silent about a lot of horrible things. Did he endorse those, too?

please give an example of an Old Testament teaching that you consider horrible.

not eating pork

jesus changed that one...eat up. he also accepted non circumcised men into his flock.

 

[Gr00vus]

Link

In the name of “traditional family values” and spearheaded by conservative Christian groups a measure has been put on the California ballot to, for the first time in California history, add discrimination to the state constitution. This measure has no other purpose than to limit the rights of human beings to legally acknowledge their love for one another and make a binding commitment to one another. They have euphemistically called this a “defense of marriage” and claimed that if not passed the schools of California will force a homosexual ideology on children in schools regardless of parental view. They also claim that religious institutions could be sued if they refuse to perform gay marriages. This is all based on their examination of laws in Massachusetts.

Reality is a far different thing than is being portrayed by the people trying to scare Californians into legislating their version of a family as the only acceptable family. Under California law any parent can opt out of any portion of the school’s curriculum for their children that they deem to be in conflict with their personal beliefs such as sex education and social issues. The inclusion of homosexuals in the pool of legal marriage applicants will have no impact on that law. Under California law the freedom of religion is well established and much like the federal constitution there are provisions in the California constitution that prohibit any law from abridging the free exercise of religion or to promote one religious belief over another. In other words no judge can make you perform ceremonies in your church that violate the tenets of your religion and no law can be passed that makes religious dogma into law.

In the Bible Jesus teaches us to love our enemies and embrace those whom others would cast out. Jesus led by example when he embraced the lepers and brought the pariahs of his time to sit at his side. He embraced those who others disparaged and ridiculed. He never said that homosexuals were evil. In point of fact he never spoke on the subject anywhere in the Bible. He taught love and acceptance of all even those whom have wronged you. He forgave those who crucified him as he died on the cross. He never said he hated anyone. Truth be told you have to go to the Old Testament to find anything about homosexuality and even then you have to look pretty hard, unless of course you are one of those for whom that passage of the Bible is more important than the actual teachings of Christ in which case you can find the dog-eared page most quickly more than likely.

If you accept that the New Testament is the chronicle of the teachings of Christ then as a follower of Christ you should be opposed to any law that would subjugate a segment of the population for who they happen to love. One of the few times Christ was ever cited as showing real anger was when he went into the Temple and saw people perverting the church for their own gain. Now the so-called followers of Jesus are using religion as a club to scare people into making laws that cause God’s children to be excluded and feel emotional pain unnecessarily. “Judge not lest ye be judged.” “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” That is what Jesus taught. Hate and exclusion is the realm of darkness. Do you think telling people their love is illegitimate is what Jesus would do?

Well then since he didn't address it, It probably meant he agreed with it.

Silence does not equal acceptance.

In this case it does.

No, it doesn't.

please explain

Silence doesn't tell us anything one way or the other of whether Jesus accepted it or not. Jesus kept silent about a lot of horrible things. Did he endorse those, too?

please give an example of an Old Testament teaching that you consider horrible.

not eating pork

jesus changed that one...eat up. he also accepted non circumcised men into his flock.

gross

 

[beavers]

Here's an example of why Christian parents might be concerned about this issue.

Link

Condoned bigotry at its finest. THEY'LL TEACH TOLERANCE TO OUR CHILDREN IN SCHOOLS!!!

Interesting that you were able to comment on a six minute video a minute after I posted the link.

Were my statements inaccurate? I live in CA and have seen the ads the bigots supporters of the proposition air.

Watch the video and then tell me if you are comfortable with the idea of the school teaching issues of morality to children without notifying parents what they will be teaching and refusing to permit parents to opt out based on their own moral/religious beliefs.Maybe you are comfortable with that, but at least understand that some parents are not.

CE, this is typical hateful and fear mongering topics spewed from "Christians." This is a sneaky and dirty game that the conservatives are playing here. Teaching tolerance in schools already passed.California Bill S.B. 777 passed in 2007: Link

California S.B. 777

Summary: This bill would prohibit instruction or activity or the use of any instructional materials in public schools (or in some cases private schools receiving state financial assistance) that reflects adversely upon any persons because of their sexual orientation or actual or perceived gender. The bill also prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or actual or perceived gender in any program or activity conducted by a school that receives state financial assistance.

 

[CrossEyed]

It seems that their argument is that if something is legal, than it is also by definition "moral". That's a bit of a reach IMO.

I think their argument is that if it is taught as normal and acceptable behavior in school it sends a confusing message to kids whose parents are trying to teach them a biblical world view. Why do they have to teach 5 year-olds about any kind of marriage in a public school?

 

[beavers]

It seems that their argument is that if something is legal, than it is also by definition "moral". That's a bit of a reach IMO.

I think their argument is that if it is taught as normal and acceptable behavior in school it sends a confusing message to kids whose parents are trying to teach them a biblical world view. Why do they have to teach 5 year-olds about any kind of marriage in a public school?

Banning gay marriage in California would not change the curriculum for 5 yr olds. See CA Bill S.B. 777California Bill S.B. 777 passed in 2007: LinkQUOTECalifornia S.B. 777Summary: This bill would prohibit instruction or activity or the use of any instructional materials in public schools (or in some cases private schools receiving state financial assistance) that reflects adversely upon any persons because of their sexual orientation or actual or perceived gender. The bill also prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or actual or perceived gender in any program or activity conducted by a school that receives state financial assistance.

 

[Gr00vus]

It seems that their argument is that if something is legal, than it is also by definition "moral". That's a bit of a reach IMO.

I think their argument is that if it is taught as normal and acceptable behavior in school it sends a confusing message to kids whose parents are trying to teach them a biblical world view. Why do they have to teach 5 year-olds about any kind of marriage in a public school?

There's no marriage curriculum in California public schools.

 

[CrossEyed]

Here's an example of why Christian parents might be concerned about this issue.

Link

Condoned bigotry at its finest. THEY'LL TEACH TOLERANCE TO OUR CHILDREN IN SCHOOLS!!!

Interesting that you were able to comment on a six minute video a minute after I posted the link.

Were my statements inaccurate? I live in CA and have seen the ads the bigots supporters of the proposition air.

Watch the video and then tell me if you are comfortable with the idea of the school teaching issues of morality to children without notifying parents what they will be teaching and refusing to permit parents to opt out based on their own moral/religious beliefs.Maybe you are comfortable with that, but at least understand that some parents are not.

CE, this is typical hateful and fear mongering topics spewed from "Christians." This is a sneaky and dirty game that the conservatives are playing here. Teaching tolerance in schools already passed.California Bill S.B. 777 passed in 2007: Link

California S.B. 777

Summary: This bill would prohibit instruction or activity or the use of any instructional materials in public schools (or in some cases private schools receiving state financial assistance) that reflects adversely upon any persons because of their sexual orientation or actual or perceived gender. The bill also prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or actual or perceived gender in any program or activity conducted by a school that receives state financial assistance.

How is requesting to be notified and having the ability to opt their child out discrimination?

 

[quickhands]

It seems that their argument is that if something is legal, than it is also by definition "moral". That's a bit of a reach IMO.

I think their argument is that if it is taught as normal and acceptable behavior in school it sends a confusing message to kids whose parents are trying to teach them a biblical world view. Why do they have to teach 5 year-olds about any kind of marriage in a public school?

because they got to get them early....before the biblical world view takes hold.

 

[the rover]

It seems that their argument is that if something is legal, than it is also by definition "moral". That's a bit of a reach IMO.

I think their argument is that if it is taught as normal and acceptable behavior in school it sends a confusing message to kids whose parents are trying to teach them a biblical world view. Why do they have to teach 5 year-olds about any kind of marriage in a public school?

they don't. it's a scare tactic.

 

[Ray Stevens]

It seems that their argument is that if something is legal, than it is also by definition "moral". That's a bit of a reach IMO.

I think their argument is that if it is taught as normal and acceptable behavior in school it sends a confusing message to kids whose parents are trying to teach them a biblical world view. Why do they have to teach 5 year-olds about any kind of marriage in a public school?

The book was about different types of families. That seems like pretty standard kindergarten stuff.

 

[beavers]

It seems that their argument is that if something is legal, than it is also by definition "moral". That's a bit of a reach IMO.

I think their argument is that if it is taught as normal and acceptable behavior in school it sends a confusing message to kids whose parents are trying to teach them a biblical world view. Why do they have to teach 5 year-olds about any kind of marriage in a public school?

they don't. it's a scare tactic.

BINGO!

 

[The Man from Laramie]

It seems that their argument is that if something is legal, than it is also by definition "moral". That's a bit of a reach IMO.

I think their argument is that if it is taught as normal and acceptable behavior in school it sends a confusing message to kids whose parents are trying to teach them a biblical world view. Why do they have to teach 5 year-olds about any kind of marriage in a public school?

I wouldn't call it "teaching them" to have examples in storybooks where a child might have two fathers. That's positive teaching, not normative. There are children with two fathers.The public school system should not worry about what religious views it might offend, it should reflect reality as best it can. So long as it doesn't endorse any religion, which is not happening here, it is acting as it should.

 

[scoobygang]

It seems that their argument is that if something is legal, than it is also by definition "moral". That's a bit of a reach IMO.

I think their argument is that if it is taught as normal and acceptable behavior in school it sends a confusing message to kids whose parents are trying to teach them a biblical world view. Why do they have to teach 5 year-olds about any kind of marriage in a public school?

The book was about different types of families. That seems like pretty standard kindergarten stuff.

This actually horrifies me. Do they have scary religious families? And alcoholic families? Families with suffocating mothers? Scooby's curriculum. Families: They'll #### You Up Somehow.

 

[The Man from Laramie]

It seems that their argument is that if something is legal, than it is also by definition "moral". That's a bit of a reach IMO.

I think their argument is that if it is taught as normal and acceptable behavior in school it sends a confusing message to kids whose parents are trying to teach them a biblical world view. Why do they have to teach 5 year-olds about any kind of marriage in a public school?

because they got to get them early....before the biblical world view takes hold.

LOL.Religion is something children are indoctrinated into at a VERY young age. We're all asked to take sides essentially before we even understand that other sides exist.

 

[Disco Stu]

It seems that their argument is that if something is legal, than it is also by definition "moral". That's a bit of a reach IMO.

I think their argument is that if it is taught as normal and acceptable behavior in school it sends a confusing message to kids whose parents are trying to teach them a biblical world view. Why do they have to teach 5 year-olds about any kind of marriage in a public school?

The book was about different types of families. That seems like pretty standard kindergarten stuff.

Exactly. I doubt the word "marriage" was ever used.Little kids are confused about a lot of stuff. This one is only a big deal if you make it one by oh I don't know... GETTING ARRESTED AT YOUR KIDS' SCHOOL!!1!

 

[CrossEyed]

It seems that their argument is that if something is legal, than it is also by definition "moral". That's a bit of a reach IMO.

I think their argument is that if it is taught as normal and acceptable behavior in school it sends a confusing message to kids whose parents are trying to teach them a biblical world view. Why do they have to teach 5 year-olds about any kind of marriage in a public school?

I wouldn't call it "teaching them" to have examples in storybooks where a child might have two fathers. That's positive teaching, not normative. There are children with two fathers.The public school system should not worry about what religious views it might offend, it should reflect reality as best it can. So long as it doesn't endorse any religion, which is not happening here, it is acting as it should.

So is it teaching them or not?

 

[Ray Stevens]

It seems that their argument is that if something is legal, than it is also by definition "moral". That's a bit of a reach IMO.

I think their argument is that if it is taught as normal and acceptable behavior in school it sends a confusing message to kids whose parents are trying to teach them a biblical world view. Why do they have to teach 5 year-olds about any kind of marriage in a public school?

The book was about different types of families. That seems like pretty standard kindergarten stuff.

Exactly. I doubt the word "marriage" was ever used.Little kids are confused about a lot of stuff. This one is only a big deal if you make it one by oh I don't know... GETTING ARRESTED AT YOUR KIDS' SCHOOL!!1!

Gotta think at least one of those two kids ends up gay. I'm guessing the one that dribbled the basketball with two hands.

 

[CrossEyed]

It seems that their argument is that if something is legal, than it is also by definition "moral". That's a bit of a reach IMO.

I think their argument is that if it is taught as normal and acceptable behavior in school it sends a confusing message to kids whose parents are trying to teach them a biblical world view. Why do they have to teach 5 year-olds about any kind of marriage in a public school?

they don't. it's a scare tactic.

But they were in MA. What assurances would a parent in CA have that the same thing wouldn't happen?

 

[Gr00vus]

It seems that their argument is that if something is legal, than it is also by definition "moral". That's a bit of a reach IMO.

I think their argument is that if it is taught as normal and acceptable behavior in school it sends a confusing message to kids whose parents are trying to teach them a biblical world view. Why do they have to teach 5 year-olds about any kind of marriage in a public school?

they don't. it's a scare tactic.

But they were in MA. What assurances would a parent in CA have that the same thing wouldn't happen?

There's no marriage curriculum in California public schools.

 

[beavers]

Here's an example of why Christian parents might be concerned about this issue.

Link

Condoned bigotry at its finest. THEY'LL TEACH TOLERANCE TO OUR CHILDREN IN SCHOOLS!!!

Interesting that you were able to comment on a six minute video a minute after I posted the link.

Were my statements inaccurate? I live in CA and have seen the ads the bigots supporters of the proposition air.

Watch the video and then tell me if you are comfortable with the idea of the school teaching issues of morality to children without notifying parents what they will be teaching and refusing to permit parents to opt out based on their own moral/religious beliefs.Maybe you are comfortable with that, but at least understand that some parents are not.

CE, this is typical hateful and fear mongering topics spewed from "Christians." This is a sneaky and dirty game that the conservatives are playing here. Teaching tolerance in schools already passed.California Bill S.B. 777 passed in 2007: Link

California S.B. 777

Summary: This bill would prohibit instruction or activity or the use of any instructional materials in public schools (or in some cases private schools receiving state financial assistance) that reflects adversely upon any persons because of their sexual orientation or actual or perceived gender. The bill also prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or actual or perceived gender in any program or activity conducted by a school that receives state financial assistance.

How is requesting to be notified and having the ability to opt their child out discrimination?

Please show me where it states that parents cannot opt out their children??Wait... Before you waste time searching, I did it for you.

CrossEyed IS WRONG ON THE FACTS.

Link

A lesson about Prop. 8

Despite what proponents say, its defeat would not change what California's schools teach.

October 21, 2008

Californians tend to be an open-minded crowd that wouldn't take kindly to a campaign attacking homosexuality or attempting to strip away people's rights. So the well-financed and savvy backers of Proposition 8 have produced waves of advertising aimed instead at making voters believe that supporters of same-sex marriage are intent on stripping away everyone else's rights, and that this ballot measure is the only way for traditionally religious people to retain them.

With the defeat of this proposed ban on gay marriage, they say, schools would begin indoctrinating children as young as kindergartners to be wholehearted supporters of such marriages. The ads point to the case of a Massachusetts teacher reading the picture book "King and King," about a gay royal wedding.

This is emotional stuff for many parents. But the dry reality of California education law tells a different story. Under SB 71, which passed in 2003, the Legislature set out the framework for comprehensive sex education, which includes the brief reference to marriage from which these dire Proposition 8 warnings are drawn: "Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships." Schools aren't required to teach comprehensive sex education, but if they do, this is one of many rules they must follow. The law also gives schools the option of discussing gender, sexual orientation and family life, though that's not required as part of the more comprehensive program.



Most important, the law contains paragraph after paragraph guaranteeing parents the right to review the material being taught and to have their children excused from all or any part of it.

It would be naive to say that no California teacher will ever mention homosexuality, or that SB 71 prevents all teachers, elementary or otherwise, from reading "King and King" or similar books to their students, or telling them about the history -- and existence -- of gay marriage. Schools across the nation have done such things for years, with or without legal recognition of gay marriage.

Proposition 8 would change none of that. The measure would do one thing: use the state Constitution as the device to take away an existing, fundamental right from a particular group of people, so that a loving adult in that group could not marry the person of his or her choice. Teachers will choose books to read and will impart information about the world to their students. That's true now; it was true before the California Supreme Court ruling in May that recognized the right to same-sex marriage; and it will be true whether Proposition 8 passes or, as it deserves to do, fail

 

[CrossEyed]

CrossEyed IS WRONG ON THE FACTS.

Exaggerate much? I never stated any facts, I asked questions and stated why I felt some parents might be concerned.Regarding California's laws that allow parents to opt out, does MA have similar laws in place? And are they enforced or ignored?

 

[the rover]

It seems that their argument is that if something is legal, than it is also by definition "moral". That's a bit of a reach IMO.

I think their argument is that if it is taught as normal and acceptable behavior in school it sends a confusing message to kids whose parents are trying to teach them a biblical world view. Why do they have to teach 5 year-olds about any kind of marriage in a public school?

they don't. it's a scare tactic.

But they were in MA. What assurances would a parent in CA have that the same thing wouldn't happen?

California laws.

 

[Ray Stevens]

Regarding California's laws that allow parents to opt out, does MA have similar laws in place? And are they enforced or ignored?

I believe MA has opt-out notification for sex ed. But they don't consider the "families" book to be sex ed.

 

[Disco Stu]

I never stated any facts

This pretty well sums up the conservative Christian argument here.

 

[beavers]

CrossEyed IS WRONG ON THE FACTS.

Exaggerate much? I never stated any facts, I asked questions and stated why I felt some parents might be concerned.Regarding California's laws that allow parents to opt out, does MA have similar laws in place? And are they enforced or ignored?

Watch the video and then tell me if you are comfortable with the idea of the school teaching issues of morality to children without notifying parents what they will be teaching and refusing to permit parents to opt out based on their own moral/religious beliefs.

Maybe you are comfortable with that, but at least understand that some parents are not.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=9428323CrossEyed IS WRONG ON THE FACTS.

 

[The Man from Laramie]

It seems that their argument is that if something is legal, than it is also by definition "moral". That's a bit of a reach IMO.

I think their argument is that if it is taught as normal and acceptable behavior in school it sends a confusing message to kids whose parents are trying to teach them a biblical world view. Why do they have to teach 5 year-olds about any kind of marriage in a public school?

I wouldn't call it "teaching them" to have examples in storybooks where a child might have two fathers. That's positive teaching, not normative. There are children with two fathers.The public school system should not worry about what religious views it might offend, it should reflect reality as best it can. So long as it doesn't endorse any religion, which is not happening here, it is acting as it should.

So is it teaching them or not?

Bad choice of words on my part. It's a positive depiction of reality. Is it teaching a child that Germans are good people by having them read a story about a nice German family? I would argue no more so than saying a school is teaching acceptance of homosexuality by pointing out that there are homosexuals. Nonetheless, I don't think preaching tolerance is a bad thing. Exactly the opposite, and I don't want this to be as much of an attack as it will come out as, but you're hiding behind your religion to justify bigotry. You simply do not feel homosexuals should have the same rights that heterosexuals should have. I am tolerant of religion to some extent, but abhor religious intolerance, which is essentially what this boils down to.

I'm sure you would agree that certain Muslim views of women are bigoted, and my point is that the nature of this argument is no different other than there are more women than homosexuals, and homophobia is more tolerated in our society in part because Christianity and other homophobic religions are more pervasive than Islam (which is in itself homophobic, but that's a different point).

 

[beavers]

I never stated any facts

This pretty well sums up the conservative Christian argument here.

 

[CrossEyed]

CrossEyed IS WRONG ON THE FACTS.

Exaggerate much? I never stated any facts, I asked questions and stated why I felt some parents might be concerned.Regarding California's laws that allow parents to opt out, does MA have similar laws in place? And are they enforced or ignored?

Watch the video and then tell me if you are comfortable with the idea of the school teaching issues of morality to children without notifying parents what they will be teaching and refusing to permit parents to opt out based on their own moral/religious beliefs.

Maybe you are comfortable with that, but at least understand that some parents are not.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=9428323CrossEyed IS WRONG ON THE FACTS.

This was a fact in MA, and that's what I was referring to.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Here's an example of why Christian parents might be concerned about this issue.

Link

why do they feel they need to lie from the outset? he claims if you don't vote for the proposition, same-sex marriage will become legal. you'd think if it was valid, you wouldn't have to misrepresent what people are voting on.

How is that a lie? If the proposition doesn't pass, same-sex marriage will remain legal.

 

[Disco Stu]

Here's an example of why Christian parents might be concerned about this issue.

Link

why do they feel they need to lie from the outset? he claims if you don't vote for the proposition, same-sex marriage will become legal. you'd think if it was valid, you wouldn't have to misrepresent what people are voting on.

How is that a lie? If the proposition doesn't pass, same-sex marriage will remain legal.

I'm assuming it's due to "become" not being a synonym for "remain".

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

"Activist judges" and "legislating from the bench" are exactly like cries against "special interests."Essentially the terms are defined, respectively, as "Judges whose actions run contrary to what you would like" and "those interests whose goals you don't support."

I disagree here. "Special interest" actually means something. It has to do with rational ignorance, the problem of dispersed versus concentrated interests, and public choice theory.

 

[the rover]

Here's an example of why Christian parents might be concerned about this issue.

Link

why do they feel they need to lie from the outset? he claims if you don't vote for the proposition, same-sex marriage will become legal. you'd think if it was valid, you wouldn't have to misrepresent what people are voting on.

How is that a lie? If the proposition doesn't pass, same-sex marriage will remain legal.

I'm assuming it's due to "become" not being a synonym for "remain".

exactly. they're spinning it like someone is trying to make it legal, and that voting for this will prevent it from happening.

 

[GDogg]

Here's an example of why Christian parents might be concerned about this issue.

Link

Here's an example of why people mock those like the guy in the video and those that oppose this for the reason in your video.California Teachers Association on Prop 8. It would violate California law to teach about same-sex or any other type of marriage against the parents' will.

 

[GDogg]

Link

In the name of “traditional family values” and spearheaded by conservative Christian groups a measure has been put on the California ballot to, for the first time in California history, add discrimination to the state constitution. This measure has no other purpose than to limit the rights of human beings to legally acknowledge their love for one another and make a binding commitment to one another. They have euphemistically called this a “defense of marriage” and claimed that if not passed the schools of California will force a homosexual ideology on children in schools regardless of parental view. They also claim that religious institutions could be sued if they refuse to perform gay marriages. This is all based on their examination of laws in Massachusetts.

Reality is a far different thing than is being portrayed by the people trying to scare Californians into legislating their version of a family as the only acceptable family. Under California law any parent can opt out of any portion of the school’s curriculum for their children that they deem to be in conflict with their personal beliefs such as sex education and social issues. The inclusion of homosexuals in the pool of legal marriage applicants will have no impact on that law. Under California law the freedom of religion is well established and much like the federal constitution there are provisions in the California constitution that prohibit any law from abridging the free exercise of religion or to promote one religious belief over another. In other words no judge can make you perform ceremonies in your church that violate the tenets of your religion and no law can be passed that makes religious dogma into law.

In the Bible Jesus teaches us to love our enemies and embrace those whom others would cast out. Jesus led by example when he embraced the lepers and brought the pariahs of his time to sit at his side. He embraced those who others disparaged and ridiculed. He never said that homosexuals were evil. In point of fact he never spoke on the subject anywhere in the Bible. He taught love and acceptance of all even those whom have wronged you. He forgave those who crucified him as he died on the cross. He never said he hated anyone. Truth be told you have to go to the Old Testament to find anything about homosexuality and even then you have to look pretty hard, unless of course you are one of those for whom that passage of the Bible is more important than the actual teachings of Christ in which case you can find the dog-eared page most quickly more than likely.

If you accept that the New Testament is the chronicle of the teachings of Christ then as a follower of Christ you should be opposed to any law that would subjugate a segment of the population for who they happen to love. One of the few times Christ was ever cited as showing real anger was when he went into the Temple and saw people perverting the church for their own gain. Now the so-called followers of Jesus are using religion as a club to scare people into making laws that cause God’s children to be excluded and feel emotional pain unnecessarily. “Judge not lest ye be judged.” “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” That is what Jesus taught. Hate and exclusion is the realm of darkness. Do you think telling people their love is illegitimate is what Jesus would do?

Well then since he didn't address it, It probably meant he agreed with it.

Silence does not equal acceptance.

In this case it does.

No, it doesn't.

please explain

Silence doesn't tell us anything one way or the other of whether Jesus accepted it or not. Jesus kept silent about a lot of horrible things. Did he endorse those, too?

please give an example of an Old Testament teaching that you consider horrible.

It's ok to stone people for sinning.

 

[Gr00vus]

Here's an example of why Christian parents might be concerned about this issue.

Link

Here's an example of why people mock those like the guy in the video and those that oppose this for the reason in your video.California Teachers Association on Prop 8. It would violate California law to teach about same-sex or any other type of marriage against the parents' will.

I hope he understands it now, I've only said this about 8000 times in this thread already.

 

[the rover]

Link

In the name of “traditional family values” and spearheaded by conservative Christian groups a measure has been put on the California ballot to, for the first time in California history, add discrimination to the state constitution. This measure has no other purpose than to limit the rights of human beings to legally acknowledge their love for one another and make a binding commitment to one another. They have euphemistically called this a “defense of marriage” and claimed that if not passed the schools of California will force a homosexual ideology on children in schools regardless of parental view. They also claim that religious institutions could be sued if they refuse to perform gay marriages. This is all based on their examination of laws in Massachusetts.

Reality is a far different thing than is being portrayed by the people trying to scare Californians into legislating their version of a family as the only acceptable family. Under California law any parent can opt out of any portion of the school’s curriculum for their children that they deem to be in conflict with their personal beliefs such as sex education and social issues. The inclusion of homosexuals in the pool of legal marriage applicants will have no impact on that law. Under California law the freedom of religion is well established and much like the federal constitution there are provisions in the California constitution that prohibit any law from abridging the free exercise of religion or to promote one religious belief over another. In other words no judge can make you perform ceremonies in your church that violate the tenets of your religion and no law can be passed that makes religious dogma into law.

In the Bible Jesus teaches us to love our enemies and embrace those whom others would cast out. Jesus led by example when he embraced the lepers and brought the pariahs of his time to sit at his side. He embraced those who others disparaged and ridiculed. He never said that homosexuals were evil. In point of fact he never spoke on the subject anywhere in the Bible. He taught love and acceptance of all even those whom have wronged you. He forgave those who crucified him as he died on the cross. He never said he hated anyone. Truth be told you have to go to the Old Testament to find anything about homosexuality and even then you have to look pretty hard, unless of course you are one of those for whom that passage of the Bible is more important than the actual teachings of Christ in which case you can find the dog-eared page most quickly more than likely.

If you accept that the New Testament is the chronicle of the teachings of Christ then as a follower of Christ you should be opposed to any law that would subjugate a segment of the population for who they happen to love. One of the few times Christ was ever cited as showing real anger was when he went into the Temple and saw people perverting the church for their own gain. Now the so-called followers of Jesus are using religion as a club to scare people into making laws that cause God’s children to be excluded and feel emotional pain unnecessarily. “Judge not lest ye be judged.” “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” That is what Jesus taught. Hate and exclusion is the realm of darkness. Do you think telling people their love is illegitimate is what Jesus would do?

Well then since he didn't address it, It probably meant he agreed with it.

Silence does not equal acceptance.

In this case it does.

No, it doesn't.

please explain

Silence doesn't tell us anything one way or the other of whether Jesus accepted it or not. Jesus kept silent about a lot of horrible things. Did he endorse those, too?

please give an example of an Old Testament teaching that you consider horrible.

It's ok to stone people for sinning.

Leviticus is fertile ground for the anti-infallibility argument.By the way, I would have gone with not eating shellfish. Lobster is delicious.

 

[GDogg]

Here's an example of why Christian parents might be concerned about this issue.

Link

Here's an example of why people mock those like the guy in the video and those that oppose this for the reason in your video.California Teachers Association on Prop 8. It would violate California law to teach about same-sex or any other type of marriage against the parents' will.

I hope he understands it now, I've only said this about 8000 times in this thread already.

Yeah, as you can see, I was way behind you. I was cracking up when I saw your exact same response over and over to his inquiry.

 

[GDogg]

Link

In the name of “traditional family values” and spearheaded by conservative Christian groups a measure has been put on the California ballot to, for the first time in California history, add discrimination to the state constitution. This measure has no other purpose than to limit the rights of human beings to legally acknowledge their love for one another and make a binding commitment to one another. They have euphemistically called this a “defense of marriage” and claimed that if not passed the schools of California will force a homosexual ideology on children in schools regardless of parental view. They also claim that religious institutions could be sued if they refuse to perform gay marriages. This is all based on their examination of laws in Massachusetts.

Reality is a far different thing than is being portrayed by the people trying to scare Californians into legislating their version of a family as the only acceptable family. Under California law any parent can opt out of any portion of the school’s curriculum for their children that they deem to be in conflict with their personal beliefs such as sex education and social issues. The inclusion of homosexuals in the pool of legal marriage applicants will have no impact on that law. Under California law the freedom of religion is well established and much like the federal constitution there are provisions in the California constitution that prohibit any law from abridging the free exercise of religion or to promote one religious belief over another. In other words no judge can make you perform ceremonies in your church that violate the tenets of your religion and no law can be passed that makes religious dogma into law.

In the Bible Jesus teaches us to love our enemies and embrace those whom others would cast out. Jesus led by example when he embraced the lepers and brought the pariahs of his time to sit at his side. He embraced those who others disparaged and ridiculed. He never said that homosexuals were evil. In point of fact he never spoke on the subject anywhere in the Bible. He taught love and acceptance of all even those whom have wronged you. He forgave those who crucified him as he died on the cross. He never said he hated anyone. Truth be told you have to go to the Old Testament to find anything about homosexuality and even then you have to look pretty hard, unless of course you are one of those for whom that passage of the Bible is more important than the actual teachings of Christ in which case you can find the dog-eared page most quickly more than likely.

If you accept that the New Testament is the chronicle of the teachings of Christ then as a follower of Christ you should be opposed to any law that would subjugate a segment of the population for who they happen to love. One of the few times Christ was ever cited as showing real anger was when he went into the Temple and saw people perverting the church for their own gain. Now the so-called followers of Jesus are using religion as a club to scare people into making laws that cause God’s children to be excluded and feel emotional pain unnecessarily. “Judge not lest ye be judged.” “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” That is what Jesus taught. Hate and exclusion is the realm of darkness. Do you think telling people their love is illegitimate is what Jesus would do?

Well then since he didn't address it, It probably meant he agreed with it.

Silence does not equal acceptance.

In this case it does.

No, it doesn't.

please explain

Silence doesn't tell us anything one way or the other of whether Jesus accepted it or not. Jesus kept silent about a lot of horrible things. Did he endorse those, too?

please give an example of an Old Testament teaching that you consider horrible.

It's ok to stone people for sinning.

Leviticus is fertile ground for the anti-infallibility argument.By the way, I would have gone with not eating shellfish. Lobster is delicious.

It sure is. Do you enjoy it with a butter reduction, other dipping sauce, or just straight lobster?

 

[the rover]

Leviticus is fertile ground for the anti-infallibility argument.By the way, I would have gone with not eating shellfish. Lobster is delicious.

It sure is. Do you enjoy it with a butter reduction, other dipping sauce, or just straight lobster?

Puerto Nuevo style. Split, pan fried in lard and served with warm tortillas, rice and beans.

 

[GDogg]

Leviticus is fertile ground for the anti-infallibility argument.By the way, I would have gone with not eating shellfish. Lobster is delicious.

It sure is. Do you enjoy it with a butter reduction, other dipping sauce, or just straight lobster?

Puerto Nuevo style. Split, pan fried in lard and served with warm tortillas, rice and beans.

Yo tambien. I'm going there next month. I'm just praying I don't get shot or kidnapped on the way.

 

[McJose]

Here's an example of why Christian parents might be concerned about this issue.

Link

Here's an example of why people mock those like the guy in the video and those that oppose this for the reason in your video.California Teachers Association on Prop 8. It would violate California law to teach about same-sex or any other type of marriage against the parents' will.

Yeah but can you really trust the CTA? It's full of teachers.

 

[the rover]

Leviticus is fertile ground for the anti-infallibility argument.By the way, I would have gone with not eating shellfish. Lobster is delicious.

It sure is. Do you enjoy it with a butter reduction, other dipping sauce, or just straight lobster?

Puerto Nuevo style. Split, pan fried in lard and served with warm tortillas, rice and beans.

Yo tambien. I'm going there next month. I'm just praying I don't get shot or kidnapped on the way.

I'd totally risk getting shot or kidnapped for a round of golf at BajaMar followed by lobster at Ortega's.

 

[GDogg]

Here's an example of why Christian parents might be concerned about this issue.

Link

Here's an example of why people mock those like the guy in the video and those that oppose this for the reason in your video.California Teachers Association on Prop 8. It would violate California law to teach about same-sex or any other type of marriage against the parents' will.

Yeah but can you really trust the CTA? It's full of teachers.

I did not know that. Well, then I have no idea what to make of this proposition if the teachers, of all people, are out in front on this. Lying sack of leeches, all of them.