Pro-Gay in the name of tolerance

[fix]

Objectively true because it says so? We can’t know for sure what is and isn’t absolute Truth until we’re dead – and that’s if there is an afterlife.

If that is your understanding, then why should we abide by your assertions regarding this topic? If truth is relative, then you have no basis for me to see your point. My view would always be correct simply because I hold it.

You can criticize everything you want, whether justly or unjustly – but you don’t have to say everything you think, do you? Mere criticism I have not labeled ‘ranting’; in fact, my point all along has been ‘say it if you like, just don’t get on a soapbox about it’.

Soapbox? Again, you want to impose your view and your reason is that it is true simply because you hold it?

As to persecution complexes, the homosexuals have nothing on many Christians in that regard. Homosexuality does not require belief in a supremely evil being out to destroy you; nor does it apparently walk hand-in-hand with the belief that the fallen world itself is trying to make it impossible to be what one is.

Please see above.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Unfortunately it seems that my earlier point is being proven. People ‘will not hear’ but they are so confused (‘blinded by sin’ even if not themselves personally sinning) that they have ‘projected’ their own refusal to hear onto others.

It should be clear that I refer to those who, while claiming they advocate ‘tolerance’ , advocate instead a ‘laissez-faire’ attitude and an indifferentism and relativistic world view. Hopefully it will also be clear that this is not a ‘personal attack’ on an individual or individuals, but a statement of observation, based on the study of data and the inference drawn from that data. If it is ‘seen’ as an attack, as bigotry, as an attempt to ‘cram my view down others’ throats’, well, so be it. Thinking that something ‘is so’ does not make it so; something ‘is so’ no matter what perceptions, right or wrong, are held regarding it.

It seems to me that there are very confused ideas from some about what ‘love’ is, what ‘tolerance’ is, what ‘freedom of speech is’, etc. I believe that is due to relativism.

For those who see no absolute but only “what is true for you which may differ from what is true for me”, there is no such thing as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, and any and all behaviors, actions, thoughts etc. can be ‘accepted’. . except any behavior, action, or thought which is perceived of as ‘denying’ a person or group whatever they demand which is deemed, by ‘society’, to be a relative good.

Which is why we see the people who scream “tolerate me for my belief!” go into apoplectic fits in their denial of somebody who says–says, mind you, without any ‘coercion’ or physical action whatsoever–that while they ‘tolerate’ a belief, they don’t themselves accept the belief as ‘true’ or ‘good.’

Why is it so difficult for people to understand reciprocity?
If I listen to you say, “homosexuality hurts nobody”, I’ve heard your point of view. Why can’t you listen to me say, “I disagree” without calling me names, and dragging in red herrings by the bushel?

We are just “talking” here. Nobody is advocating mass imprisonment or physical punishment. Nobody is advocating any hateful thought or action to homosexuals. So why are some so defensive?

It isn’t ‘tolerance’ that is demanded, it is** acceptance. **

 

[Holly3278]

There is a book I like which convers the issue of tolerance called “Be Intolerant: Because Some Things Are Just Stupid” by Ryan Dobson. You can get it from Amazon.com by clicking the book below:

ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/1590521528.01.AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ.jpg

 

[Mirdath]

If that is your understanding, then why should we abide by your assertions regarding this topic? If truth is relative, then you have no basis for me to see your point. My view would always be correct simply because I hold it.

I’ve never asked you or anyone to hold my views. I’ve asked you to be polite. Is that so hard?

Soapbox? Again, you want to impose your view and your reason is that it is true simply because you hold it?

No, as far as I can tell that’s your reasoning – ‘the Church is right because the Church says so’.

Please see above.

Am I right or not? Every word you say is tinged with a sense that I’m trying to persecute you and render your opinion unheard. Utterly risible, but I can’t stop you.
Tantum ergo:

Unfortunately it seems that my earlier point is being proven. People ‘will not hear’ but they are so confused (‘blinded by sin’ even if not themselves personally sinning) that they have ‘projected’ their own refusal to hear onto others.

And to these people you’re blinded by faith and refuse to hear them out. Difference? Not much.

Which is why we see the people who scream “tolerate me for my belief!” go into apoplectic fits in their denial of somebody who says–says, mind you, without any ‘coercion’ or physical action whatsoever–that while they ‘tolerate’ a belief, they don’t themselves accept the belief as ‘true’ or ‘good.’

Why is it so difficult for people to understand reciprocity?
If I listen to you say, “homosexuality hurts nobody”, I’ve heard your point of view. Why can’t you listen to me say, “I disagree” without calling me names, and dragging in red herrings by the bushel?

Even I agree, the people who do that are hypocrites.

We are just “talking” here. Nobody is advocating mass imprisonment or physical punishment. Nobody is advocating any hateful thought or action to homosexuals. So why are some so defensive?

Because frankly, being told repeatedly that you’re a hellbound sinner gets really, really annoying.

 

[fix]

Unfortunately it seems that my earlier point is being proven. People ‘will not hear’ but they are so confused (‘blinded by sin’ even if not themselves personally sinning) that they have ‘projected’ their own refusal to hear onto others.

It should be clear that I refer to those who, while claiming they advocate ‘tolerance’ , advocate instead a ‘laissez-faire’ attitude and an indifferentism and relativistic world view. Hopefully it will also be clear that this is not a ‘personal attack’ on an individual or individuals, but a statement of observation, based on the study of data and the inference drawn from that data. If it is ‘seen’ as an attack, as bigotry, as an attempt to ‘cram my view down others’ throats’, well, so be it. Thinking that something ‘is so’ does not make it so; something ‘is so’ no matter what perceptions, right or wrong, are held regarding it.

It seems to me that there are very confused ideas from some about what ‘love’ is, what ‘tolerance’ is, what ‘freedom of speech is’, etc. I believe that is due to relativism.

For those who see no absolute but only “what is true for you which may differ from what is true for me”, there is no such thing as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, and any and all behaviors, actions, thoughts etc. can be ‘accepted’. . except any behavior, action, or thought which is perceived of as ‘denying’ a person or group whatever they demand which is deemed, by ‘society’, to be a relative good.

Which is why we see the people who scream “tolerate me for my belief!” go into apoplectic fits in their denial of somebody who says–says, mind you, without any ‘coercion’ or physical action whatsoever–that while they ‘tolerate’ a belief, they don’t themselves accept the belief as ‘true’ or ‘good.’

Why is it so difficult for people to understand reciprocity?
If I listen to you say, “homosexuality hurts nobody”, I’ve heard your point of view. Why can’t you listen to me say, “I disagree” without calling me names, and dragging in red herrings by the bushel?

We are just “talking” here. Nobody is advocating mass imprisonment or physical punishment. Nobody is advocating any hateful thought or action to homosexuals. So why are some so defensive?

It isn’t ‘tolerance’ that is demanded, it is** acceptance. **

Yes, well said. The discussion in the public arena is often halted by those who claim to favor tolerance when in fact they want total acceptance of actions that are absolutely and always wrong.

Please see this:

It is rare to find the complex psychological problems which are typical of the homosexually oriented personality distinguished from questions associated with the “gay” culture and the life-styles influenced by it; it is even harder to separate the just requirements of non-discrimination from demands for the full legalization of homosexual unions.

In this situation, the positive achievement of the due respect that should always be shown a person, who can never be identified merely by his sexual orientation or actions, and the discovery of the deep psychological and social influences inherent in homosexuality are confused with other cultural factors, giving rise to a growing uncertainty and virtual eclipse of the ability to determine the objective criteria for moral evaluation. The loss of the authentic normative value of human nature and the consequent subjectivization of the moral sense are associated with an erotization of the surrounding culture and an emphasis on the right to sexual pleasure, which after exalting personal freedom, paradoxically submits the individual to the determinism of his impulses by censuring any moral demand…

Moral criteria for evaluating homosexuality

http://www.ewtn.com/library/humanity/homo13.htm

 

[fix]

I’ve never asked you or anyone to hold my views. I’ve asked you to be polite. Is that so hard?

I am in favor of politeness. Unfortunately, in the current climate in that needs to be defined properly.

No, as far as I can tell that’s your reasoning – ‘the Church is right because the Church says so’.

No, the Church is right because She transmits the truth. Truth exists. How that is true is another thread.

Am I right or not? Every word you say is tinged with a sense that I’m trying to persecute you and render your opinion unheard. Utterly risible, but I can’t stop you.

No, I am referring to the sentiments in the OP link.

 

[sadie2723]

Straight sex certainly has the potential to cause physical damage (and disease) too. Just ask any woman who’s lost her virginity if there was blood – and that’s just the beginning of things that can go horribly, horribly wrong.

Yes but consider the statistics on AIDS for example. If you bother to take a look, you can quickly determine that the “lifestyle” is pretty dangerous. By far and a way, the majority of males living with AIDS are homosexual. That is just a statistical fact…bottom line.

So do what you see is right in your own life, but let others live how they choose – as long as they aren’t forcing you into immorality, what harm is it doing you?

It brings no harm to me in that case. Still, it is not cool to say that a sinful lifestyle is not sinful just because it does not effect me.

Many – like you? Nobody is making you have gay sex. Is it so unbearable to you that other people like to have sex differently that you must butt in on it? If you leave them alone, they won’t come after you – well, except the nuts, but we don’t want em either (and they’re on all sides of the issue anyway).

Hello!!! Nobody wants to hunt them down or anything here. All we are saying is that the Church should not turn a blind eye to sin by just accepting it.

 

[Mirdath]

No, the Church is right because She transmits the truth. Truth exists. How that is true is another thread.

That’s a rhetorical tautology and has no meaning whatsoever. What validates the Church that is not of the Church itself? Nothing. It’s ‘because I said so’ on a cosmic level. Believe in it all you like, but it is impossible to satisfactorily prove by pure reason the absolute validity of any teaching or doctrine to an outsider.

sadie2723:

Yes but consider the statistics on AIDS for example. If you bother to take a look, you can quickly determine that the “lifestyle” is pretty dangerous. By far and a way, the majority of males living with AIDS are homosexual. That is just a statistical fact…bottom line.

AIDS is picking up pretty well among straights, too – it’s just easier to transmit through the anus, as are a few other diseases listed earlier. The possibility of disease is a fact of life. Should I stop going out to eat because I’ve had food poisoning from restaurants? And what about the pizza guys? That’s an even more dangerous lifestyle than being gay or eating at restaurants!

It brings no harm to me in that case. Still, it is not cool to say that a sinful lifestyle is not sinful just because it does not effect me.

I’m not asking you to say it isn’t sinful – in fact, I’m questioning why you have to say anything about other people’s private lives!

 

[Karin]

, I’m questioning why you have to say anything about other people’s private lives!

Then I question why homosexuals feel they need to discuss and educate my kids abotu their lifestyles

 

[sadie2723]

AIDS is picking up pretty well among straights, too – it’s just easier to transmit through the anus, as are a few other diseases listed earlier. The possibility of disease is a fact of life. Should I stop going out to eat because I’ve had food poisoning from restaurants? And what about the pizza guys? That’s an even more dangerous lifestyle than being gay or eating at restaurants!

Indeed it is. However not to the extent that anyone predicted it would. In fact, if you view the report that I referenced, you would note that it seems to be somewhat localized in the homosexual community.

To the Pizza Guy…well, the lifestyle is dangerous there too and it is one that I would not personally choose. However, nobody ever said being a Pizza Guy was a sin.

I’m not asking you to say it isn’t sinful – in fact, I’m questioning why you have to say anything about other people’s private lives!

This is a good point, and I am glad you brought it up. Tell me, why is it that if you do not like what the church says about the private lives of homosexuals, that you care what the Church says at all? Stop going to church if you feel that way…nobody is holding a gun to your head and making you go.

The problem is, of course, that what people advocating a change in the stance of the Church really want is for the Church to say, “Oops…sorry. We were really wrong about that whole homosexual thing. Forget what the Bible says. Forget what the Church has maintained for 2000 years.”

People want to cast a vote and change the doctrine of the Church…good luck with that. If people want to do that kind of legislation of moral code…there is a place for you…it is called the protestant church…

 

[Mirdath]

Then I question why homosexuals feel they need to discuss and educate my kids abotu their lifestyles

Why do (some – don’t paint us all with that brush, thanks) straight people have to educate and enlighten everyone around them about the specifics of their sex lives? I don’t know, I don’t get it, and I’m perfectly fine not knowing certain private details about gays and straights alike

Indeed it is. However not to the extent that anyone predicted it would. In fact, if you view the report that I referenced, you would note that it seems to be somewhat localized in the homosexual community.

It was localized there. It isn’t anymore. Certain diseases hit certain groups of people – this is nothing new. Men don’t get ovarian cysts. AIDS isn’t nearly so selective.

To the Pizza Guy…well, the lifestyle is dangerous there too and it is one that I would not personally choose. However, nobody ever said being a Pizza Guy was a sin.

The points that were being made were not about sin at all, but about physical risk. Sin has nothing to do with this.

This is a good point, and I am glad you brought it up. Tell me, why is it that if you do not like what the church says about the private lives of homosexuals, that you care what the Church says at all? Stop going to church if you feel that way…nobody is holding a gun to your head and making you go.

I’m agnostic. I mostly hang out in the non-Catholic religions forum but I explore a little too. I enjoy good debates and they don’t always happen in that one board.

And I care what the Church and its members (mostly its members) have to say because it does affect me in a very real way. I don’t appreciate being told I’m going to hell – I’ve heard it before and it hasn’t done anything. It’s really more annoying than anything else.

The problem is, of course, that what people advocating a change in the stance of the Church really want is for the Church to say, “Oops…sorry. We were really wrong about that whole homosexual thing. Forget what the Bible says. Forget what the Church has maintained for 2000 years.”

I specifically said I wasn’t demanding the Church change anything. I disagree, but I respect your right not to hold my views. A return on that would be appreciated – that’s all I’ve been saying.

People want to cast a vote and change the doctrine of the Church…good luck with that. If people want to do that kind of legislation of moral code…there is a place for you…it is called the protestant church…

I can’t believe I’ve just been anti-proselytized!

 

[Karin]

Why do (some – don’t paint us all with that brush, thanks) straight people have to educate and enlighten everyone around them about the specifics of their sex lives? I don’t know, I don’t get it, and I’m perfectly fine not knowing certain private details about gays and straights alike

Well I would be very happy not knowing about any gay/homosexual acts (fisting, humping, anal etc.)…but for some reason they (not all but many-just look around you) feel the need to share that garbage with me and my kids…why?!?!
WHy am I and my kids being told to “tolerate” acts that I rank right up there with murder & incest?

 

[Mirdath]

Well I would be very happy not knowing about any gay/homosexual acts (fisting, humping, anal etc.)…but for some reason they (not all but many-just look around you) feel the need to share that garbage with me and my kids…why?!?!

None of those are solely homosexual acts by any stretch. I don’t condone inflicting descriptions of that sort of thing on anyone, just as I disapprove of graphic images of aborted fetuses being used to promote the ‘pro-life’ agenda, and as I have extreme distaste for hearing drunken straight fratboys regale others with tales of their conquests.

WHy am I and my kids being told to “tolerate” acts that I rank right up there with murder & incest?

Because ranking them with murder and incest is utterly ridiculous? Murder and incest are devastatingly harmful; homosexuality between consenting adults is not. There are degrees even of sin, you know. Homosexuality, if one believes it sinful, could reasonably be ranked at about the level of fornication (as the participants cannot be considered married in the Catholic sense) but not much lower.

 

[fix]

That’s a rhetorical tautology and has no meaning whatsoever. What validates the Church that is not of the Church itself?

No tautology. I said She transmits the truth and that truth exists. Why She is the authority I said is another thread.

Nothing. It’s ‘because I said so’ on a cosmic level. Believe in it all you like, but it is impossible to satisfactorily prove by pure reason the absolute validity of any teaching or doctrine to an outsider.

No, as I said that is another thread. If you want to discuss absolute truth we can, but that proof is vastly different than moral relativism which asserts truth is true simply because one claims it is so.

 

[buffalo]

What’s wrong with diversity?

Nothing, as long as this diversity is approved by God.

 

[JimO]

There are plenty of other normal genetic variations that haven’t been selected out, and plenty of variations that don’t generally discourage procreation that are fading. Blond hair, if I recall correctly, has about two hundred more years before it’s extinct except for very occasional cases.

I’m not a geneticist, but I do know that until this generation, homosexuals could not reproduce. If there is a “gay gene” or “gay genetic sequence”, then it must be a mutation, like hemophilia. The discovery of such genetic evidence is questionable, but it’s a double-edged sword. If homosexuality isn’t chosen, then bisexuality must be. The motivation of showing genetic evidence is to demonstrate that it is not a lifestyle choice, but programmed in the genes. However, this only matters if people think there is anything wrong with it in the first place. The way things are going, the genetic argument make become obsolete anyway.

If you want to learn more about the prevalence of bisexuality, read Alfred Kinsey (I just know I’m going to get flamed for that ). Most people aren’t in fact completely straight or completely gay; no matter how much they may protest, they might just be extremely surprised just whom they fall in love with one day.

No, I see enough sinful behavior every day. I don’t need to waste precious reading time researching it. And yes, people are tempted to sin regularly, particularly sexual sin. Many, if not most, people give into those sinful temptations. That doesn’t make it right or normal. People aren’t meant to lie, cheat, steal, or beat he *$#@ out of one another either, no matter how much we protest. But they might be extremely surprised who they lie to, cheat, steal from, or punch in the nose one day.

Nor is non-heterosexuality considered universally ‘cool’ – one only has to look at cases like that of Matthew Shepard or Brandon Teena to realize that. There’s still a huge stigma attached to it in many, many places.

To be fair, I didn’t say that. I related what my kids experience in their school system. But I am glad to hear that it isn’t universally considered cool. Mind you, I don’t condone treating anyone badly for any reason, but I don’t condone encouraging sin either.

Catholic definitions of right and wrong cover way too much ground for me to accept…

…but it doesn’t give you the right to rant and rave at people about how they’re sinning and bound for hell either. ‘Live and let live’ is a perfectly viable philosophy; you’re under no obligation to make everyone else think exactly the same way you do.

Right here: I’m Mirdath, I’m happily bi, and I’m just fine with you being Catholic. Take it away

I know, those darn convictions that limit one’s behavior and place boundaries on a person (for their own good) are really inconvenient. I hate it when I can’t do whatever I want whenever I want.

It’s great that you are personally tolerant and I’m glad to hear it. Maybe you could come support me at the next school board meeting…

The problem for me isn’t with what others do themselves. If you don’t want to hear my opinion, I’m not going to tell you what I think about your personal behavior. As you said, it’s none of my business. I’m fine with that. Neither do I judge myself as being any better than you or anyone else. The Catholic Church teaches that sex outside of marriage between one man and one woman is wrong - a sin. I agree. The Church also teaches that many other things are sins. I’ve done some of those things and am a sinner. The sins of others is no worse than mine and I am no better than anyone else.

The problem for me comes when we are debating what our children will be taught in a public setting. Children cannot be taught a particular religion in public school and that’s fine. I don’t object to that. But, you cannot give kids a comprehensive education and avoid moral issues. And the part of religion that a lot of people object to being taught in school is the moral part. Not the facts, like who Jesus, or Buddha, or Mohammed were, but what morality they taught. I’m not going to tell you how to live your life, and I know you wouldn’t want me telling your kids that they have to be a Christian if I was their teacher. Likewise, I don’t want a teacher telling my kids that it’s okay to be gay or bisexual. I don’t want them telling my kids that it’s okay to sleep around in heterosexual relationships either. The gay community wants to teach these things in the public schools but they do not want Catholic morality taught. It’s a double standard.

So, I maintain that tolerance should, but doesn’t, go both ways. It might on a personal level (like with yourself) where there is nothing at stake, but it doesn’t in the public arena where there is a lot at stake.

 

[Karin]

None of those are solely homosexual acts by any stretch. I don’t condone inflicting descriptions of that sort of thing on anyone, just as I disapprove of graphic images of aborted fetuses being used to promote the ‘pro-life’ agenda, and as I have extreme distaste for hearing drunken straight fratboys regale others with tales of their conquests.

true…but I hear those terms used most in homosexual relationships!

Because ranking them with murder and incest is utterly ridiculous? Murder and incest are devastatingly harmful; homosexuality between consenting adults is not. There are degrees even of sin, you know. Homosexuality, if one believes it sinful, could reasonably be ranked at about the level of fornication (as the participants cannot be considered married in the Catholic sense) but not much lower.

Homosexual acts (please note I do not mention the homosexual person just the acts) and to me they (acts) are as bad as murder and incest (sorry if you do not agree…this is only MHO)

 

[Mirdath]

I’m not a geneticist, but I do know that until this generation, homosexuals could not reproduce. If there is a “gay gene” or “gay genetic sequence”, then it must be a mutation, like hemophilia. The discovery of such genetic evidence is questionable, but it’s a double-edged sword. If homosexuality isn’t chosen, then bisexuality must be. The motivation of showing genetic evidence is to demonstrate that it is not a lifestyle choice, but programmed in the genes. However, this only matters if people think there is anything wrong with it in the first place. The way things are going, the genetic argument make become obsolete anyway.

Homosexuals could and did reproduce before this generation – they just didn’t much enjoy the experience of having heterosexual sex! There are many straight-acting homosexuals who are married to people of the opposite sex and have children because such things are ‘expected’ of them. By all accounts it’s an extremely unhappy way to live.

No, I see enough sinful behavior every day. I don’t need to waste precious reading time researching it. And yes, people are tempted to sin regularly, particularly sexual sin. Many, if not most, people give into those sinful temptations. That doesn’t make it right or normal. People aren’t meant to lie, cheat, steal, or beat he *$#@ out of one another either, no matter how much we protest. But they might be extremely surprised who they lie to, cheat, steal from, or punch in the nose one day.

They might also be extremely surprised who they give a ride to, buy a meal for, throw a rope to, or defend one day. Given that the Church teaches that we are by nature fallen, we’re just as ready to do those things as we are to sin.

To be fair, I didn’t say that. I related what my kids experience in their school system. But I am glad to hear that it isn’t universally considered cool. Mind you, I don’t condone treating anyone badly for any reason, but I don’t condone encouraging sin either.

It’s not just ‘not universally cool’. Teena was raped and murdered when he was discovered to be physically female. Shepard was beaten and tied to a fence and left to die. Real people are being murdered because some people disapprove so much of their ‘alternate lifestyle’.

Letting someone live his or her own life is neither encouraging nor discouraging sin; it’s a basic courtesy that should be extended to all.

It’s great that you are personally tolerant and I’m glad to hear it. Maybe you could come support me at the next school board meeting…

I’m hardly alone in that. Just because you usually only hear a very vocal minority doesn’t mean they’re the only members of the group

The problem for me comes when we are debating what our children will be taught in a public setting. Children cannot be taught a particular religion in public school and that’s fine. I don’t object to that. But, you cannot give kids a comprehensive education and avoid moral issues. And the part of religion that a lot of people object to being taught in school is the moral part. Not the facts, like who Jesus, or Buddha, or Mohammed were, but what morality they taught. I’m not going to tell you how to live your life, and I know you wouldn’t want me telling your kids that they have to be a Christian if I was their teacher. Likewise, I don’t want a teacher telling my kids that it’s okay to be gay or bisexual. I don’t want them telling my kids that it’s okay to sleep around in heterosexual relationships either. The gay community wants to teach these things in the public schools but they do not want Catholic morality taught. It’s a double standard.

The people in the gay community you notice may want those things taught – just like the Christians many other people hear loudest want Intelligent Design and their own moral precepts taught. Both groups have double standards, and I’ll be among the first to say that’s wrong and counterproductive.

Additionally, I don’t believe it’s the school’s responsibility to teach specific codes of ethics or morals in any way – that falls upon the parent. Religion isn’t one of the traditional ‘three Rs’, nor should it be, as you said.

So, I maintain that tolerance should, but doesn’t, go both ways. It might on a personal level (like with yourself) where there is nothing at stake, but it doesn’t in the public arena where there is a lot at stake.

Often enough, it does. Intolerance also goes both ways – vocal extremists on all sides can ruin it for us all.

 

[fix]

Often enough, it does. Intolerance also goes both ways – vocal extremists on all sides can ruin it for us all.

The probelm is being vocal is not necessarily extreme. The position’s one may hold could be extreme.

From the OP link:

The bill outlaws discrimination in the provision of services on the grounds of sexual orientation. It will, for example, stop a Christian bed-and-breakfast owner refusing a gay couple a double room because it goes against his or her religious beliefs.

Such laws, and their supporters, are extremists. They want to make inverted behavior a matter of “equality” and “rights”. The position is absurd.

Do you find my statements extreme?

 

[JimO]

I’m hardly alone in that. Just because you usually only hear a very vocal minority doesn’t mean they’re the only members of the group

The people in the gay community you notice may want those things taught – just like the Christians many other people hear loudest want Intelligent Design and their own moral precepts taught. Both groups have double standards, and I’ll be among the first to say that’s wrong and counterproductive.

Additionally, I don’t believe it’s the school’s responsibility to teach specific codes of ethics or morals in any way – that falls upon the parent. Religion isn’t one of the traditional ‘three Rs’, nor should it be, as you said.

Often enough, it does. Intolerance also goes both ways – vocal extremists on all sides can ruin it for us all.

I agree with this entirely. The activists on all sides dictate the public debate. They might be the extreme minority, but they form public policy that we all have to live with.

I would be fine if the public school system was morally neutral and I agree that the responsibility to teach morality is the parents’, but in practice it is impossible to have a morally neutral curriculum. Somebody’s morality is taught because there is no such thing as a moral vacuum. Sex education is part of every public school curriculum and mandated by law here in Florida. The content is way beyond factual. Most school systems have programs that not only discuss premarital sex, homosexual sex, the use of contraception, etc., the individual teachers encourage these things. You and I might agree that they shouldn’t, but they do. Furthermore, many school systems offer contraceptives to minors without the parents’ consent. When parents object, there is little tolerance.

Look, I’ve always been a “live and let live” person. I like people and I have gay friends. I don’t want to impose my beliefs on anyone, but if someone sees hope in my faith and asks, I’ll gladly share my experiences with them, but I generally avoid religious and moral discussons (except here on these fora where it’s expected, of course ). What changed my perspective somewhat was becoming a parent and seeing how many people out there have an intense interest in imprinting their views on my kids, that’s all. It’s made me much more vocal about my convictions for the sake of my kids, who mean more to me than life itself.

Peace.