Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperflyTNT
Freedom is NOT the opposite of restriction, it is the abscence of restriction.
Freedom in the US has restrictions while remaining freedoms - ie. you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, but you still have 1st amendment rights.
Gulp, you talk about freedoms, but what about the freedoms of the people who would be forced to accept public schools teaching children that homosexuality is OK and a 'valid lifestyle choice" when they vehemently disagree and see it as disgusting, immoral, or are otherwise opposed to it? Are their rights, and the rights of their children less valuable than the rights of the homosexual folks who wish to be granted these special rights?
It's a really tough pickle, methinks. The problem with the whole thing is that this reaches into people's HOMES. There are very few things people will get as riled up about as interference in the moral teachings of parents to children. On one side you have the want of gays to marry, but on the other you have people who don't want to deal with:
A. Teachers undermining home morals
B. Parents undermining school discipline while disagreeing with teachers
C. Teachers undermining parents by treating them as closed-minded.
It seems to me that the current climate will not allow for homosexuals to marry.
I would also note some good news for the pro-SSM side: This morning I actually read the text of the CA constitution and it states that, "Only a marriage between a man and a woman will be recognized in California", and thus it does indeed disallow the RECOGNITION of the marriages in CA, but not the marriage itself. A small victory for the same-sex side, I think!
|
It's obvious that some, probably most, gay people are just gay. These people should not be forced to live according to someone else's version of life. They didn't choose it. The
concept that someone else even have an actionable opinion in how these people are living their lives--as long as they're not hurting someone else--is absurd. If that person wants to tell his children that those people are bad because the Bible (religion) tells him so, then, while I find it morally reprehensible, that is between him and his family. If he takes the next step and says that teachers are supposed to tell children in schools that all people are straight, then once again, wow.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding our starting point. I am assuming that when we talk about gays, we are referring to people who are just attracted to the opposite sex naturally, whether by nurture or nature. Not some random guy that gets meth'd up and decides to hump Ronnie. These are
normal people that just prefer their own sex. The only things suggesting that these people are living wrong or abnormally is a collection of ancient religious texts, not science or psychology. If you believe in those texts, you can act upon it and do nice things for homeless people. You can worship how you want UP TO THE POINT where you try to make nonbelievers people behave a certain way.
The teachers should teach the evidence. The evidence is clear that these people are
at worst just mentally not "normal". (Not something I believe, obviously). We let people who are not normal live how they want as long as they aren't hurting others. And no one here has presented any evidence that anyone is being harmed here. We don't let teachers tell kids that the Home Economics teacher is a weirdo because it's not fair to the kids' learning and it's not fair to the 'weirdo'.
If someone has a problem, they can home school their kid or just do it the old fashioned way and undermine their kid's future by saying, 'You can't trust teachers!'
