by Jack Lee
A Florida school teacher with a great track record for quality teaching, has been suspended for his private views on gay marriage, and his job is at risk pending the school boards investigation.
A 27 year old gay activist came across Gary Buell’s post on gay marriage on Facebook and made a complaint to the school board. Buell’s post was in opposition to gay marriage. Buell was immediately suspended without having any opportunity to respond to the complaint. The school board spokesman said they were concerned how Buell might treat a gay student in his classroom and wanted a thorough vetting of his past comments and postings before they would allow him to return to work.
Buell was suspended based on the following comments, “I’m watching the news, eating dinner when the story about New York okaying same-sex unions came on and I almost threw up,” he wrote. “And now they showed two guys kissing after their announcement. If they want to call it a union, go ahead. But don’t insult a man and woman’s marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool of whatever. God will not be mocked. When did this sin become acceptable?”
Three minutes later, Buell posted another comment: “By the way, if one doesn’t like the most recently posted opinion based on biblical principles and God’s laws, then go ahead and unfriend me. I’ll miss you like I miss my kidney stone from 1994. And I will never accept it because God will never accept it. Romans chapter one.”
Buell told the media he thinks the liberal school board is just out to get Christian teachers who hold Biblical views on such things as gay marriage. Buell said his posting was done on his own time, on his own home computer and it was none of the school boards business. It was his own free speech and religious right to hold this Christian view on gay marriage.
The liberal argument can be condensed down to this: Buell has a bigoted view on gay marriage and he should be fired. His thoughts in private influence everything he does in the classroom and we don’t want bigoted people teaching our children. It’s no different than if he had child porn at home – in this case it wasn’t child porn, it was bigotry. We have a duty to protect all our children, even gay children, and we don’t want a bigot causing harm to a gay student.
The counter comments are, it’s a Biblical opinion – not bigotry! We don’t persecute people for holding religious views that we don’t agree with. It was not interfering with his public paid teaching job, in fact he was considered to be an exemplary teacher. It’s not the school board’s job to determine what Bible passage is bigoted or not, this is a freedom of religion issue and its none of their business. Besides, freedom of religion this is a legitimate expression of a free speech right. He came under fire because of only one complaint from a gay activist. That complaint centered around an activity that was not associated in any way to his employment or the school’s function. The school board was completely out of line for taking immediate putative action against this man without even knowing if they had legal jurisdiction. They have infringed on his Constitutional rights and damaged his reputation, no matter what the eventual outcome may be.
What do you think?
Incredible! This teacher expressed his personal disagreement. He said nothing that would indicate he would not follow whatever rules his school has in place. If we keep going down this road there will be no end to dismissals by political/social agenda.
Jack expresses liberal argument: “His thoughts in private influence everything he does in the classroom and we don’t want bigoted people teaching our children. It’s no different than if he had child porn at home…”
The latest on the activist front…a pedophile organization has gained sympathy and support from (psychiatric) academics to change the definition of pedophilia in the medical field so that it is basically defined as just another “lifestyle choice”. They cite as precedence the changes that were made a few decades back regarding the definition for homosexual behavior.
Watch for “minor attracted persons” to begin pressing for “minor attracted marriage” in years to come.
In the mean time getting rid of Christian teachers, no matter how good they are at doing their jobs, will ensure that children will be properly indoctrinated when sympathetic teachers become their replacements.
If it were not for activism these personal topics, sexual orientation and religion, would not be discussed in public school…at all…and the business of teaching students reading, writing, english, science, math, government, and languages could take the stage once more.
I predict even more parents will soon be pulling their children out of public (indoctrination center) schools.
You can’t protect gay children because there is NO SUCH THING AS A GAY CHILD.
At first my instinct was to agree with you, Jack, that the teacher should not have been suspended. However, the more I read on the subject, the more I am not so sure.
According to the Orlando Sentinel:
“School districts across Florida have recently adopted policies on how teachers should use social media. In Orange County Schools, teachers are reminded their “private use of internet and social networking is not private” and employees should remain professional in using the communication at all times.
Lake drafted similar guidelines for teachers in January, and district officials will distribute them in the coming weeks.
“Social media is a minefield,” said Chris Patton, communications officer for Lake County schools, who helped develop the guidelines. “People think they’re free to say what they want to, but in some aspects it can come back to haunt you.”
The guidelines warn teachers if they “feel angry or passionate about a subject, it may not be the time to share your thoughts in a post” and to “delay posting until you are calm and clearheaded.””
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-08-17/features/os-teacher-gays-facebook-comments-20110817_1_gay-students-facebook-post-personal-facebook-page
This indicates that Buell was suspended not for simply “opposing gay marriage,” but for his use of inflammatory and disrespectful language. Imagine for a moment that you are a gay student in Buell’s class, and you read on Facebook that he finds the idea of you marrying or even kissing the person you love to be vomit-inducing. Imagine that he calls your lifestyle a “cesspool.” This goes beyond mere disagreement over policy and into a personal attack on gays as people. If I were gay, I wouldn’t feel very welcome in his classroom after such distasteful comments.
It seems that Buell has a great record as a teacher, and the school board should take that into account when making their decision. But his decision to post this was unwise and potentially hurtful to his students. The school has an obligation to it’s students to show that there are consequences to that kind of behavior.
I’m also curious, Jack, as to why you are identifying the person who made the complaint as a “gay activist.” All of the articles I’ve read about this subject identify Brett Winters as a former student of this school, where he was class president and prom king. I’ve seen no mention of his sexual orientation or any record of activism, other than here.
Tina: “Watch for “minor attracted persons” to begin pressing for “minor attracted marriage” in years to come.”
They can press all they want; it’s never going to happen. The moral and legal justification for outlawing pedophilia are very strong, whereas the attempted moral and legal justifications for outlawing gay marriage are pathetically weak. Legalizing gay marriage does not set any legal precedent for pedophiles to take advantage of. Opening up the marriage contract to minors is completely antithetical to liberal values. Marriage has evolved and gone through many changes throughout history; the innovation of gay marriage is a very minor change when compared to the replacement of polygamy with monogamy and the recognition of equal rights for wives.
“If it were not for activism these personal topics, sexual orientation and religion, would not be discussed in public school…at all…”
This is a very confusing statement, Tina. First you say “activism” as if it is inherently negative. Then you imply that religion should not be discussed in public school at all, which seems strange to me, given the importance of religion to American and world history. Also, this particular story isn’t even about religion or sexual orientation being discussed in public school, so I don’t get your point.
Nope, it is not about tolerance.
Nope, it is not about acceptance.
Nope, it is not about the redefinition of marriage.
What the left and homosexuals are about is zero tolerance for any heterodoxy to left wing and homosexual agendas.
Now they have it.
There is a government sponsored religion. Liberalism.
No wonder liberals have such a bizarre passion for Islam. They want the same thing: To dominate every aspect of society.
Call it professional courtesy.
Chris, I did not take a position, but I will now. As for your comment over the gay activist verbage, I’m afraid I am guilty of copying that term from a news story.
The person was referred to, as a gay activist…a gay activist would be, one who advocates for gay issues. Seems accurate to me. Not sure why you felt it was so important to argue this point?
Next, you said, ” …this indicates that Buell was suspended not for simply “opposing gay marriage,” but for his use of inflammatory and disrespectful language. Imagine for a moment that you are a gay student in Buell’s class, and you read on Facebook that he finds the idea of you marrying or even kissing the person you love to be vomit-inducing. Imagine that he calls your lifestyle a “cesspool.”
My response: Oh, so now the school board is the language police too? I see. Will they be chasing down kids off campus, after school, who are wearing a tee shirt saying something they find “inflamatory”?
Will they be going after teachers using cute phrases at political demonstrations like, Buck Fush or carrying all sorts of nasty protest signs?
Are they going to censure and fire such people? Nah! That will never happen, because its not an issue of any real concern.
If liberals use inflamatory or offensive language or degrade Christians, that’s perfectly okay and within their free speech rights. But they sure take exception to people on the other side using the same free speech! Even mild language becomes downright intolerable; its sooooo politically incorrect, its bigotry, they are outraged, and they are ready to purge the poor guy from their ranks.
Chris the side you have chosen to defend are nothing but a bunch hypocrites and fascists zealots. They are persecuting a good man over his religious beliefs and his 1st Amendment right that had nothing to do with his classroom performance. When its over the man will be vindicated and they will be found guilty of over reaching their authority. Maybe the ACLU will take the teachers case? lol
ninjaONE: “You can’t protect gay children because there is NO SUCH THING AS A GAY CHILD.”
Lol, what? This sounds like the same level of denial that allows Ahmedinejad to proclaim “There is no such thing as a gay Arab.” Just because you’ve never known a gay child doesn’t mean they don’t exist, ninjaONE.
Pie: “What the left and homosexuals are about is zero tolerance for any heterodoxy to left wing and homosexual agendas.”
What on earth is “heterodoxy?”
Jack: “Oh, so now the school board is the language police too? I see. Will they be chasing down kids off campus who wear a tee shirt saying something they don’t like and find “inflamatory”?”
No, because the school board cannot police the behavior of students when they are off campus. However, the school does have the right to enforce a certain code of conduct among it’s employees, and this has always been true.
“How about teachers using cute phrases in political demonstrations like, Buck Fush or carrying all sorts of nasty protest signs?”
I wouldn’t think that would be at all appropriate for a school teacher, but I don’t see how it shows disrespect for any particular group of students. Still, if a school board decides that this is against their code of conduct, I think they might have a case. It’s not like teachers have never been disciplined for offending conservatives!
“If liberals use the F bomb, or other offensive language or degrade conservatives or Christians, thats perfectly okay and within their free speech rights.”
Well, it’s within anyone’s free speech rights to use whatever language they choose. But as far as I know people can get fired from all sorts of jobs for things they say off the job. This is especially true for teachers, who are expected to shape young minds and set a good example. I don’t know of any examples of teachers degrading Christians in the same way Buell degraded gays, but I’m sure it’s happened; I’m also sure many have faced consequences for doing so. Degrading anyone for their religion should be considered a firing offense for teachers, whether it happens on the job or off.
“Chris the side you have choose to defend are a bunch hypocrites, they’re fascists zealots, persecuting a good man over his religious beliefs and his 1st Amendment right. Nice bunch to be supporting Chris.”
Jack, I’m not defending a “side,” I’m defending a principle. There are hypocrites on every side. I can name quite a few particularly nasty liars and charlatans who oppose same-sex marriage, but I don’t think you’d like me lumping you in with them, would you?
This guy is going to win big.
Chris: “They can press all they want; it’s never going to happen.”
That’s what I would have said about gay marriage 25 years ago…and a number of other “norms” that are present in our society today. You haven’t lived long enough to see major changes in society…or the way those changes can occur by slow creep.
“Legalizing gay marriage does not set any legal precedent for pedophiles to take advantage of.”
As I said they are already using the arguments to change medical definitions that were used by the gay community years ago as a first step toward normalizing gay behaviors. They will eventually use the changed definition in legal situations which will create the path to arguing for minor attraction marriage.
“Then you imply that religion should not be discussed in public school at all, which seems strange to me, given the importance of religion to American and world history.”
Religion was not discussed in school when I attended. References to the roll priests played in settling northern Mexico/Texas, certainly, but not religion. We were taught that the Pilgrims came to The New World to escape religious persecution. We were taught about their religious convictions but not the fundamentals about religion.
Kids today learn more about personal sexual preferences than they do about religion or God. Christianity is often placed in a negative light. it certainly is when a teacher is not allowed to wear a cross in class or a child allowed to read his Bible on a school bus. there is little tolerance for the Christian child in some schools.
“Also, this particular story isn’t even about religion or sexual orientation being discussed in public school, so I don’t get your point.”
When I was in school there were two catagories of people…adults and children. The adults were in charge and the kids were expected to behave and live by the golden rule. An infraction didn’t have a category…it was simply considered bad behavior. Also, I never knew what my teachers were doing on their own time…it was none of my business. That was another rule we all lived by.
If a kid goes on a teachers Facebook page he should realize that he is entering a space where personal ideas and views might be discussed. If he were being taught that people have different views he might not be that offended. As it is he’s being taught that his teachers views are not acceptable or that they are mean and hateful. Kids are being trained to have certain prejudices. That doesn’t work in a free society and it doesn’t create greater self respect or acceptance of differences.
I will say this. I don’t particularly like Facebook. I don’t particularly like Television that sensationalizes and exploits personal problems and differences either. I think we would all be better off generally if personal information remained private. If a person has issues and wishes to share them with close friends, family, doctor, etc. that makes sense. Otherwise it just isn’t anyone’s business.
Re Bloodlust Chris’ Question: What on earth is “heterodoxy?”
Huh? You don’t have access to a dictionary? You can’t figure out how to access an online one? You have some sort of allergy to Google or Wikipedia?
OK, Bloodlust, I’ll do this just once for you.
From the Simple English Wikipedia —
Heterodoxy is generally defined as “any opinions or doctrines at variance with an official or orthodox position”.
In other words, in the context of my post, heterodoxy is any opinions or doctrines at variance with Liberal Orthodoxy.
Speaking of heterodoxy, here is one of my favorite web sites, launched by one of my favorite people, David Horowitz, and an article of about one of my favorite, (but now defunct) magazines —
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?catid=152&type=issue
Re the amused Bloodlust Chris’ comment: “ninjaONE: “You can’t protect gay children because there is NO SUCH THING AS A GAY CHILD.”
Lol, what? This sounds like the same level of denial that allows Ahmedinejad to proclaim “There is no such thing as a gay Arab.” Just because you’ve never known a gay child doesn’t mean they don’t exist, ninjaONE.
There you have it folks, prepubescent children are, in fact, sexual beings. At least according to the laughing out loud expert on such matters. No wonder Chris has such an affinity for Islam. Muslims have a centuries long history of treating human children (as well as the young and the mature of other species) in the same manner, including the “Prophet”.
Child sexual abusers rejoice! The first excuse for the existence of the Man Boy Love Association has been made in Post Scripts. As we all know, those Gay children are just begging for it from MBLA members.
Liberal Orthodoxy. Tolerance, acceptance, then domination.
And teacher who maintains a “Facebook Page” on any subject has demonstrated him or herself unfit for their job.
Very funny Libs….but, c’mon this is serious. How would like to be suspended for something you wrote somewhere on your own time about a political subject? That would be pretty crummy wouldn’t it? You betcha.
I want to marry my Golden Retriever.
And soon you shall. Who are we to say that the union between man and dog should not be sanctified in a holy matrimony at your closest church. Personally I am drawing the line at Schitzus, okay, call me a bigot.
Hey, Nicky, my four-legged room mate, is a schitzu.
Tina: “That’s what I would have said about gay marriage 25 years ago…and a number of other “norms” that are present in our society today. You haven’t lived long enough to see major changes in society…or the way those changes can occur by slow creep.”
Tina, I understand that social changes often lead to others. That doesn’t mean that any and all slippery slope claims are logical. You have to show using reason that one change is likely to lead to another. The claim that making the marriage contract gender-blind (and it already mostly is, even in states that only marry opposite-sex couples) will somehow lead to the contract also becoming age-blind or number-blind simply doesn’t hold up.
I wonder sometimes if gay marriage opponents, for all their talk about why marriage matters, actually understand how marriage is practiced in this country. Marriage is a contract between two consenting, non-related adults. This contract makes each spouse into the closest family member of the other. The marriage contract gives them certain legal rights and responsibilities to each other that take precedence over any other family arrangement.
In order for a child to be able to consent to a marriage contract, and to enjoy all the rights and responsibilities that this entails, it’s not just marriage that would have to change. In order for Americans to accept this, the distinction between “child” and “adult” would have to become entirely collapsed in every single aspect of American life. (This would actually be a return to the “traditional values” of many different cultures throughout history; it would also be terrible.) Children would have to be considered LEGAL ADULTS in order to partake in legally recognized marriage. Do you honestly see this happening any time soon? People can’t even get the drinking age lowered to 18 here. Children are extraordinarily protected in America, largely due to child welfare laws passed by progressives. This very article shows how paramount the welfare of children is considered in our country. Maybe someday, in some apocalyptic, dystopian future, adult-child marriage could happen. Anything is possible. But our society would have to change in so many drastic ways in order for us to allow that, that laying the blame on gay marriage would be totally ridiculous.
Polygamy has a stronger chance of someday being normalized in our society, but it’s still unlikely. A polygamous marriage would, for all intents and purpose, be a very different institution than what marriage currently looks like in America. Gay marriage is exactly the same, legally speaking, as straight marriage. The marriage contract applies just as well to Rick and Tom as it does to Rick and Barb; not so much for Rick, Tom, and Barb to all be married to each other. They don’t “fit;” the benefits and responsibilities would be unclear, and the institution of marriage would have to be reshaped from the ground up. This is possible, but unlikely. Polygamists have been pushing for the government to recognize their unions since long before the term “gay” was ever used the way we use it today; if anything, they had more of a chance in the good old days than they do now, and they still couldn’t get it done.
“As I said they are already using the arguments to change medical definitions that were used by the gay community years ago as a first step toward normalizing gay behaviors.”
Well, they’re wrong. The same arguments don’t apply. Children cannot consent to sexual behavior.
Some pedophiles have attempted to use similar justifications that were used in Lawrence v. Texas. Does that mean that the courts were wrong to strike down the laws prohibiting homosexual acts? Of course not; even most conservatives who oppose gay marriage say that such laws were unjust and went far beyond the proper reach of government. Just because one group of sickos tries to use a court decision for their own ends, doesn’t mean that the initial decision was wrong. And it certainly doesn’t mean they will win.
“They will eventually use the changed definition in legal situations which will create the path to arguing for minor attraction marriage.”
And 99.9% of Americans will be utterly repulsed, and the difference between being attracted to someone of the same sex and being attracted to a minor will be clear to nearly everyone.
“Religion was not discussed in school when I attended. References to the roll priests played in settling northern Mexico/Texas, certainly, but not religion. We were taught that the Pilgrims came to The New World to escape religious persecution. We were taught about their religious convictions but not the fundamentals about religion.”
That’s still discussion of religion. I’m not clear on what you think is being discussed in the classroom that you are against.
“Kids today learn more about personal sexual preferences than they do about religion or God.”
What do you mean by this? Do you mean they are learning this in school? What are you basing this conclusion on?
“Christianity is often placed in a negative light. it certainly is when a teacher is not allowed to wear a cross in class or a child allowed to read his Bible on a school bus.”
Teachers should be allowed to wear crosses in class, and children should definitely be allowed to read their Bibles on school buses. I am not familiar with any school board which prohibits these practices; can you give me some citations, please?
“If a kid goes on a teachers Facebook page he should realize that he is entering a space where personal ideas and views might be discussed. If he were being taught that people have different views he might not be that offended.”
Buell’s remarks weren’t just a “different view;” he said that the image of two men kissing made him want to vomit, and that the gay lifestyle was a “cesspool.” Of course that would be offensive to a gay student.
“As it is he’s being taught that his teachers views are not acceptable or that they are mean and hateful.”
The way he expressed himself was mean and hateful.
“Kids are being trained to have certain prejudices.”
And what of the teacher’s prejudices, Tina? What of your own? Once again it seems you only use words like “prejudice,” “hate,” and “bigotry” when a conservative is being criticized.
Pie Guevara,
Nothing I’ve said comes remotely close to justifying relations between adults and children, and you have a lot of nerve trying to smear my character by suggesting I have. You are, once again, deliberately putting words in my mouth and accusing me of something vile with absolutely no evidence. It’s sad that you apparently feel like you have to do this in order to win an argument.
For the record, I don’t think the teacher should be fired for these comments.
Whether the teacher was suspended legally is for the courts to determine.
Those of who oppose the suspension, and claim to do so on free speech grounds (as opposed to agreement with the content of the teacher’s opinions), try the following thought experiment:
What if the teacher had posted that he saw where Dale Shafer and Molly Fry were sentenced to federal prison for providing medical cannabis to patients, then said that federal cruelty on this issue nearly made him vomit?
My guess: 99/100 of you would pass over the headline (Florida Teacher Suspended for Advocating Pot) without your constitutionalist hackles being raised.
Special pleading is, for many of us, our Turkish Delight.
The longer Obama is in office the more we learn what liberalism is truly about. That is going to be one very pricey education. A lot of us knew but clearly not enough, I just hope this education will stick.
Re: Nothing I’ve said comes remotely close to justifying relations between adults and children, and you have a lot of nerve blah, blah, blah.
Baloney. You did just that, precisely.
Sorry Chris, but for someone as verbose as you one might think that to you words actually mean something. At least your own. In that I was mistaken. Evidently you never really think about what you write, especially when you assume the condescending attitude you are so famous for.
OK, I’ll lead you through this since you seem to be completely oblivious as to what you are actually saying.
For you to assert that there are Gay (homosexual) children is to say that children are sexual beings that have (or can have) a sexual identity. To put it another way, there could be no homosexual children without first assuming that children are sexual beings capable of a sexual identity.
I happen to disagree with your assertion and the necessary presumption that accompanies it.
It is my considered opinion that children, and especially prepubescent children have gender, not sexual identification. Children may experiment with sexuality in various ways but to assert that they are sexual beings capable of sexual identities is way off base. It may be that you are confused and conflate play centered on and inspired by gender identification with sexuality and sexual awareness.
Your assertion that there are homosexual children and, by necessary extension, to assert children are sexual beings capable of sexual identity, plays into the hands of sexual predators. You, perhaps ignorantly, offer a pivotal and primary excuse for all forms of child sexual abuse.
There are those of us who cherish and respect the innocence of childhood. We don’t much care for intentional or unintentional, purposeful or confused liberal enablers of child sexual predation who assert that children are, or can be, sexual beings.
I suggest you rethink your position and apologize to ninjaONE for your thoughtless statement and amused sneer.
Re Matthew Meyer’s comments above:
Actually, I think a teacher should be suspended for advocating pot. Given the very serious problem of drug abuse that already exists in schools, the destructive behaviors and dismal scholastic performance that are closely associated with such abuse, and the position of most educators to advocate against drug and alcohol use and abuse by children and young adults, why would anyone, in their right mind, especially a teacher, advocate for the abuse of pot? Do you? Are you a teacher?
If a teacher were suspended for opposing federal marijuana laws to invitees and followers on a private (or even public) Facebook page, well, that might be a different story. But I doubt people who either favor the current federal laws or are at least not opposed to them, or are even against them (as some are who are part of or follow Post Scripts) would bother to mention it as a free speech issue. Why not just let the potheads make a stink?
You “thought experiment” is actually pretty thoughtless, which leads me to a final question: Are you stoned right now?
Chris: “You have to show using reason that one change is likely to lead to another. The claim that making the marriage contract gender-blind (and it already mostly is, even in states that only marry opposite-sex couples) will somehow lead to the contract also becoming age-blind or number-blind simply doesn’t hold up.”
OK.
“In order for a child to be able to consent to a marriage contract, and to enjoy all the rights and responsibilities that this entails, it’s not just marriage that would have to change. In order for Americans to accept this, the distinction between “child” and “adult” would have to become entirely collapsed in every single aspect of American life.”
Yes. That is what will be worked on…the age of consent will be lowered. We have already accepted many things that will justify changes. A lot of people already believe that young girls don’t need consent of parents to obtain an abortion…they’re old enough to make those decisions for themselves. Polanski didn’t rape that young girl…she was thirteen for heavens sake! Young girls at thirteen today are like girls of twenty used to be.
And it wouldn’t take “every single aspect”…all they need is a “consensus of opinion”. Look for the world of psychiatry to play a prominent role.
“Do you honestly see this happening any time soon?”
It depends on which side wins the argument. If traditional marriage is maintained, even if an alternative is designed for the gay community we have a shot at maintaining some semblance of decency and moral standard. If not…I think within 25 years it could happen.
“Children are extraordinarily protected in America, largely due to child welfare laws passed by progressives.”
Yes…the same people who are teaching young children that there are no wrong choices. That whatever they feel is right. The same progressives that think pornography in film, on television, in advertising, and let us not forget gay pride parades is wonderful!
I have sat in fast food joints next to high school girls wearing cheerleader outfits talk about their sex lives…they think they are old enough to make those decisions and they are tomorrows lawmakers. The slippery slope is possible because future generations are not being taught to think beyond the end of their own bodily sensations and sympathies.
“And 99.9% of Americans will be utterly repulsed…”
A large number of those will be dead or living with one foot in the grave in twenty five years… the next genrations haven’t been given the same values.
“…laying the blame on gay marriage would be totally ridiculous.”
It wasn’t my intention to “lay blame” on gay marriage. It was my intention to demonstrate the wisdom of maintaing the traditional definition and laws about marriage.
“Polygamy has a stronger chance of someday being normalized in our society, but it’s still unlikely.”
I agree it has a better chance but if they manage it then the chances for other “unions” would increase.
“Gay marriage is exactly the same, legally speaking, as straight marriage.”
No it isn’t. Many of the laws pertaining to marriage, and indeed the reasons for marriage, revolve around the children that result from the union of man to woman.
“not so much for Rick, Tom, and Barb to all be married to each other.”
Rick, Tom and Bob would be more like Tom and Bob than it would Tom and Jane. Only Tom and Jane can produce another human being with rights and inheritance claims.
“Well, they’re wrong. The same arguments don’t apply.”
It won’t matter, Chris. They can change the terms that define behaviors without consent of the people. Those terms will then be used in legal cases by “expert witnesses” specifically chosen for their “scientific” opinion. Those cases will later be cited as precedent setting. Extremist liberal progressive never give up.
“Does that mean that the courts were wrong to strike down the laws prohibiting homosexual acts? Of course not; even most conservatives who oppose gay marriage say that such laws were unjust and went far beyond the proper reach of government.”
Excellent! Herein lies the root of my point. I agree that that law needed to go. It was right in terms of individual adults making private decisions in the privacy of their homes (freedom). But that isn’t the end of the story. In terms of what defines our society the striking down of that law is yet another step on a ladder to normalizing all sexual behaviors…it’s your thing, do whatcha wanna do…for those who seek to destroy all laws, restrictions, and morals. That line has moved significantly in the last fifty years.
“I’m not clear on what you think is being discussed in the classroom that you are against.”
My point wasn’t that things are being discussed that I am against. My point is that the left would not sit still for religion (religious morality) to be taught in school but they are ok with sex being taught. Activism out of the school system would be preferable. I wrote:
Activism in the fifties and early sixties drove religion, and the attending morality, out of school. The excuse was we “didn’t want to offend anyone”. Activism since then has made certain that sex and acceptance of liberal sexual morality is being taught in school.
“Do you mean they are learning this in school? What are you basing this conclusion on?”
1. Kids in many schools learn how to apply a condom.
2. Kids in many schools are given birth control.
3. Kids in many schools are descriminated against for Christian beliefs and face consequences for “bullying” certain categories of kids. Used to be they were in trouble for bullying (the distinction teaches morality based not on decency but acceptance/normalization of the gay lifestyle)
4. Kids in many schools are not allowed to reference God or Jesus in valedictorian addresses…nor is religious music allowed for the orchestra.
“I am not familiar with any school board which prohibits these practices; can you give me some citations, please?”
http://www.adherents.com/misc/school_houston.html
http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/press_release.asp?article_id=639
“Of course that would be offensive to a gay student.”
What he said was colorful expression. None of us is exempt from being offended. None of us gets to control what others say that might offend us. These sttudents need to learn to shrug off things that others say that offend them. (I agree with Libby’s position…this was a moronic thing for the teacher to write of Facebook.)
“The way he expressed himself was mean and hateful.”
Oh please. things like this are said by comedians every night of the week about politicians, Christians…old white guys. Progressives think such things are particularly funny. Do you guys really believe in this sensistivity stance or not? If you do it should apply across the board rather than selectively.
“And what of the teacher’s prejudices, Tina?”
Like I said, he was a moron for posting this onm Facebook. But he was I suppose talking with like minded friends…speech on the internet should lead to personal cautions after a few more incidents like this…we can hope!
“What of your own? Once again it seems you only use words like “prejudice,” “hate,” and “bigotry” when a conservative is being criticized.”
Hold on a minute! You know what my position is. I think we’d all be better off if categories of people were tossed out the window and we were all just people again rather than hyphenated people. My position is and always has been that kids should be taught to respect each other as people…not according to category. Progressives do teach disdain for religion and religious views, tea partiers, conservatives. Conservatives used to shrug it off. Now we are fighting back. I don’t like it. I think our society has coarsened as a result.
This guy wouldn’t be on the radar at all except that he said this about the gay comunity. Had he said Tea Partiers made him vomit it would have made him a celebrity…you, Quentin, and Libby would be exchanging high fives.
“For the record, I don’t think the teacher should be fired for these comments.”
Nor do I…thank you, Chris.
Pie, thank you for explaining your conclusion further; I think I understand your position better now. You bring up some important points, such as the fact that sexual identity is very often not fixed until later in life. I personally don’t know whether people are born with a certain sexual orientation, or whether this is the result of environmental factors. I believe it can be a combination of both. However, it is also true that some children discover sexual feelings at earlier ages than others, and some of them will know very young which gender they are attracted to. I’m sure you’ve heard at least some people who identify as gay state that they’ve “always known” they were gay, or at least that they knew at a very young age. Valid arguments can be made–from both a conservative and a liberal standpoint–that it is neither appropriate nor accurate to pigeonhole children at such a young age into a certain sexual identity, even if they identify as such themselves. (Though I certainly don’t think proclaiming “There’s no such thing as a gay child” with no follow-up is one of those valid arguments.)
You implore me to consider that words have meaning, and this is a wise suggestion. But the assertion that children can be capable of possessing a sexual identity does NOT mean that adults have the right to sexual relations with children; the latter does not logically follow the former, because having sexual feelings and/or a sexual identity is not nearly enough to morally justify engaging in sexual activity. There is a rather large power dynamic between adults and children that makes consensual sex impossible. This is the primary reason sex between adults and children is neither morally nor legally permitted; whether or not children can possess a sexual identity is an interesting question, but it is not a relevant one when considering the morality of adult-child sex. Sexual identity =/= sexual maturity or readiness for sexual activity, and it is wrong to interpret that one necessarily leads to the other.
I understand your concern over child predators, but you have to understand that people like that will cling to ANY justification they think might help their cause, no matter how thin or illogical that justification is. That doesn’t mean they actually have a case. I don’t believe I provided an excuse for child predators; trust me, they’ve already thought up every excuse they possibly can, and their arguments have not managed to convince anyone.
While I appreciate your argument, Pie, I don’t agree that I implied what you claim I did, and I think I have done an adequate job of explaining why my statements do not logically lead to the conclusions you are drawing. I hope you will consider these points.
In my reading this evening I came across the following and it seemed appropriate to share it here. The paragraphs are excerpted randomly from the article. To read the full text follow the link provided:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/23/new-jersey-school-district-yanks-lesbian-sex-book-from-required-summer-reading/
The school board rightly said that kids are exposed to this type of thing on TV and in the streets so they didn’t think it would be a problem. That makes total sense…as educators, instead of being a sane and sagfe harbor in a world gone mad these educators thought it best to jump on the bandwagon.
Teachers today are being asked to teach and address topics that I believe are more appropriately addressed in the home according to personal family values. Teachers can’t possibly be all things to all students. I wonder whether the sentiment expressed by Mr. Buell was, in part, in response to the things he is asked to accept, condone, or teach as part of the modern school curriculum.
If students shouldn’t be exposed to religious music, even classical religious music, in school I see no reason they should be exposed to graphic sexual content as “required” class reading over the summer.
“Very funny Libs….but, c’mon this is serious.”
Yes it is. Facebook is shaping up to be the ruination of this country.
You know, Google News turns up nothing for “Gary Buell”. You making things up again?
Ain’t Gary an AFT member? Maybe a CTS member? Cause keeping teachers from being sacked for their political beliefs is entirely what teachers’ unions are supposed to be about.
Sorry Chris, but your assertion that children (in particular pre-pubescent children) are, or can be, sexual beings capable of a sexual identity is not only false but extremely dangerous. Sexual identity is part and parcel of sexual awareness and sexual being. I thought I had already made this quite clear. Well, I tried my best.
Moreover (and to repeat), sexual identity follows sexual awareness, not the other way around. Without sexual awareness (that is becoming and being a sexual being) how is it possible to have a sexual identity?
Think about it. Your attempt to disassociate the two is simply nonsense. I think you are quite confused, very, very confused. No one is trying to pigeon hole children in any sexual identity here, certainly not me. How the heck did you come up with that amazing non sequitur?
Yours is not a benign notion and is precisely the sort of perverse, ill-conceived non-logic that sexual predators use to justify their own behavior. You might want to study up a bit on people who sexually abuse children, and about how many were also the victims of child sexual abuse, before you make arguments that, in fact, encourage and enable such behavior.
Chris, you may pipe dream and dance around all you want with your apparent obsession with the dangerous and perverse notion of homosexual children (and, by extension, the equally dangerous and perverse notion of heterosexual children), but it is just that, a bizarre pipe dream dance. They are children, fer chrissakes, not subjects for your weird postulates on child sexuality you seem to find so interesting.
I don’t really understand your obsession and I don’t think I really want to, so I’ll just drop it.
Just a few last questions, I don’t care if you answer them. I probably won’t bother to read any answers anyway and they are sort of rhetorical.
Have you ever considered allowing children to just be children and not subject them to phantasmagoric psycho-babble sexuality postulates until AT LEAST their genitals fully form and mature, and their bodies are actually capable of real, physical, reproductive sexual activity?
What is your big damn rush?
Sex and sexuality doesn’t already come fast enough?
Is this some sort of “get them early” so you have them for life scheme?
Do you want to identify and sort out the potential homosexuals before their bodies are actually physically capable of sex or even know what sex is?
Exposing school children to literature that contains graphic sexual content as part of a required reading curricula is a measure of just how deeply we have fallen into the pit of depravity and perversion.
Or a measure of success.
It depends on your point of view.
(Like there isn’t plenty of great literature and art that isn’t sexually explicit and graphic. No wonder pop music has become little more than a slut factory and little girls are encouraged to play with Bratz dolls.)
Pie, if your last comment was a painting, it would be a masterpiece. No kiddin…very impressed.
The irony here is he actually could be defended by the ACLU…or one the many Teacher Union sources. Life is strange and the longer I live the stranger it gets.
Pie Guevara: “Without sexual awareness (that is becoming and being a sexual being) how is it possible to have a sexual identity?”
It depends on how you’re defining your terms, Pie, and I’m afraid this might end up being a debate over semantics. What do you mean by “sexual awareness” and “sexual being?” Do you mean people who have sexual feelings and are aware of them, or are you talking about a more refined sense of sexuality, so that one is ready for sex?
I’m talking more about the former. Many people report having sexual feelings at a very young age, and many others report having a good sense of their sexual orientation even before puberty. As I’ve made clear, that does NOT imply that children are ready to be sexually active, and it does NOT give adults the right to take sexual advantage of them!
I think I started considering myself “straight” when I was 13. That didn’t mean I was ready for actual sex.
I don’t think it’s fair to claim that my comments in any way enable child predators. Yes, some pedophiles may use the fact that children are capable of sexual attraction as an excuse for their behavior. That doesn’t mean it’s a GOOD excuse. Sexual feelings alone, even sexual orientation alone, is not enough to morally justify sexual activity.
“No one is trying to pigeon hole children in any sexual identity here, certainly not me. How the heck did you come up with that amazing non sequitur?”
It wasn’t a non sequitur, and I wasn’t saying you were trying to do this; I was trying to find common ground by acknowledging that most children may not have a fixed sexual identity until much later in life.
I also take umbrage to your characterization of my position as some kind of “obsession;” I didn’t bring this issue up, I was responding to you and ninjaONE.
“Do you want to identify and sort out the potential homosexuals before their bodies are actually physically capable of sex or even know what sex is?”
This question is ridiculous, as I have already stated that it is not wise to “identify” children as any certain sexual orientation. They should sort that out for themselves, and refrain from sexual activity until they reach adulthood.
Chris said: “I have already stated that it is not wise to “identify” children as any certain sexual orientation. They should sort that out for themselves, and refrain from sexual activity until they reach adulthood.”
Chris, Jack here and I agree with you on this point. I don’t think its the schools business to instruct children on issues like sex or religion, that’s up to their parents. Schools have a hard time just teaching the basics – I think we can get along just fine without the sexual orientation instruction.
Re:It depends on how you’re defining your terms, Pie …
It depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.
At 13 you might have not been “ready” for sex mentally or emotionally but my bet is that your body had changed, or had started changing, and you were actually physically capable of sexual reproduction or well on your way.
In short you had become or were fast becoming a sexual being capable of sexual identification with all the associated hormonal changes and upheavals, emotional factors, urges, excitements, attractions, and societal pressures of being a teenager and becoming a young adult.
This is a fairly simple concept. No leaps of faith or intense over-examination necessary. No hyper-anal-retentive definition of terms needed. The terms are, in fact, perfectly self explanatory. The “common ground” is right there, smack dab in front of your face.
Either you just refuse to use the brain God gave you, are simply being obstinate for the sake of being obstinate, just like to argue for the sake of arguing, or you have some sort of weird fetish about assigning or sorting children by sexual identification before they have even have begun to develop into beings capable of sexual reproduction and sexual identity. (In your case my bet is that all these options apply.)
At this point I believe my time might better be spent explaining algebraically balanced equations to a tuna or having a discussion of the basic principles of sub-atomic particle spin with a chimpanzee.
Needless to say I am not going to waste any more time with your latest blathering Chris. What you think is your waxing eloquent is just so much mental masturbation.
I also suspect that this is one of your tactics, bogging folks down with whom you are at political odds and wasting their time with rhetorical games, side issues, and your usual load of tedious nonsense.
I am quite familiar with your habits and, frankly, I am not impressed. They are paradigmatic of almost every liberal I have ever encountered. You perfectly fit the mold of the old adage, “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”
You still owe ninjaONE an apology. He is closer to the truth than you will ever be. You have done nothing to support your contention that his statement is risible or your own pipe dream contention that there are children who are gay! (No, I am NOT calling for documentation or citations, I know how you are about that.)
The bottom line is you haven’t even made a reasonable argument. The best you have offered up is to add this most recent stupid, completely unnecessary, and tedious diversion into semantics, definition of terms, and “finding common ground” nonsense to your original idiotic sneer that compared children to adults!
“Lol, what? This sounds like the same level of denial that allows Ahmedinejad to proclaim “There is no such thing as a gay Arab.” Just because you’ve never known a gay child doesn’t mean they don’t exist, ninjaONE.”
Find common ground with that?
You might as well have said, “Just because you have never seen a Chimera does not mean they do not exist.”
I can only imagine your excitement if a gay child or a Chimera is ever found! If a gay Chimera is ever discovered, you just might faint.
Th, th, th, that’s all folks!
Ooops, I forgot to address this wriggle —
… “Do you want to identify and sort out the potential homosexuals before their bodies are actually physically capable of sex or even know what sex is?”
This question is ridiculous, as I have already stated that it is not wise to “identify” children as any certain sexual orientation. They should sort that out for themselves, and refrain from sexual activity until they reach adulthood …
Oh, really? Hmmmm. It was just a question. Chris, you contradict yourself so often I just had to ask. I thought it was obvious but you missed the point, again.
Just how do you propose to go about finding and identifying that mythical gay child you propose to exist? By reading tea leaves? By inhaling the vapors of some Greek oracle?
The mere notion (and trivially false notion in my opinion for reasons already explained several times but to no avail) that there is a “gay” child means you would have to look for and identify one.
Of course to do such a study you would have to identify both homosexual and heterosexual children before the age of puberty. (A more comprehensive study might look for trans-gender, trans-sexual, bi-sexual, tri-sexual, and bestiality curious kids too. Why leave out any children whose sexual identity could make them members of these important groups?)
To carry any weight in the scientific community the study would have to be fairly large. A valid methodology would have to be developed and thousands of children would have to be observed, interviewed, examined and followed into adulthood.
But of course, Chris, you do not think that wise. Such a study might not find any correlation between childhood behavior and adult homosexuality (or any of the other diverse “sexualities” we find so prevalent these days).
I understand completely, Chris. You are far more at ease with your twisted little pipe dreams about a mythical childhood homosexual identification.
All in all, this episode has only been yet another exercise in dimwitted liberal hogwash. All because of Chris’ need to formulate yet another tedious, unjustified, and mindless sneer based on nothing and this time aimed at ninjaONE.
I am now regretting to have again been sucked up into yet more of Bloodlust’s vast reservoir of liberal flapdoodle.
The man is a master of humbuggery and twaddle.
Tina: “Yes. That is what will be worked on…the age of consent will be lowered.”
Like I said, people in this country can’t even get the drinking age lowered. I don’t see age of consent getting lower any time soon.
“We have already accepted many things that will justify changes. A lot of people already believe that young girls don’t need consent of parents to obtain an abortion…they’re old enough to make those decisions for themselves.”
That’s a method of protecting children. No teenage girl should be forced by her parents to carry a pregnancy to term. It’s not her parents that are faced with the prospect of nine-month pregnancy, it’s her. Parental notification is a more tricky issue and I’m not sure where I stand on that, but parental consent definitely should not be required. The same arguments don’t apply to legally condoning sex with minors; that wouldn’t protect them, it would set them up for exploitation and trauma.
“Polanski didn’t rape that young girl…she was thirteen for heavens sake!”
The Hollywood liberals who took on this position did so out of their fandom for one particular man…they would never apply the same standard of behavior to any other pedophile. Their position was disgusting, and plenty of progressives and feminists loudly condemned them for it. I hardly think this points toward a widespread toleration of adult-minor relations.
“Young girls at thirteen today are like girls of twenty used to be.”
If anything, it’s the opposite; a few centuries ago, girls of thirteen were considered marriageable in the Western world.
“Yes…the same people who are teaching young children that there are no wrong choices. That whatever they feel is right.”
This is a wild mischaracterization of what is actually being taught. No school in America teaches this philosophy.
“I have sat in fast food joints next to high school girls wearing cheerleader outfits talk about their sex lives…they think they are old enough to make those decisions and they are tomorrows lawmakers.”
And that’s sad, but it doesn’t mean that society approves of adult-minor sex.
“A large number of those will be dead or living with one foot in the grave in twenty five years… the next genrations haven’t been given the same values.”
I hardly think “pedophilia is bad” is a value that’s in danger of being lost.
“No it isn’t. Many of the laws pertaining to marriage, and indeed the reasons for marriage, revolve around the children that result from the union of man to woman.”
“Only Tom and Jane can produce another human being with rights and inheritance claims.”
The ability or inability to produce offspring is not relevant to marriage law. What if Tom and Jane can’t produce offspring? What if they don’t want to? What if they are too old when they get married? None of that would stop them from getting married.
And if Tom and Jane were to adopt, their child would have the exact same legal rights and inheritance claims as a biological child.
The same is true for Tom and Rick in Massachusetts. They can adopt, and in the eyes of the law their relationship to their child is exactly the same as the relationship between Tom and Jane and their adopted child, or Tom and Barb and their biological child.
Given this, what legal justification does the state have to discriminate against these similar family units?
“Excellent! Herein lies the root of my point. I agree that that law needed to go. It was right in terms of individual adults making private decisions in the privacy of their homes (freedom). But that isn’t the end of the story. In terms of what defines our society the striking down of that law is yet another step on a ladder to normalizing all sexual behaviors…”
There is no ladder to “normalizing all sexual behaviors.”
“it’s your thing, do whatcha wanna do…for those who seek to destroy all laws, restrictions, and morals.”
I also highly doubt that there is a meaningful movement of people dedicated to destroying all laws, restrictions, and morals.
“My point wasn’t that things are being discussed that I am against. My point is that the left would not sit still for religion (religious morality) to be taught in school but they are ok with sex being taught.”
It depends on your meaning. Religion and sex education should both be taught from a neutral standpoint. Teachers shouldn’t try to indoctrinate children into a sexual lifestyle any more than they should indoctrinate them into a religious lifestyle. I just don’t see evidence that this indoctrination is occurring. Conservatives claim that teaching about the existence of gay people throughout history amounts to this type of indoctrination, but that’s not true, any more than teaching about the existence of certain influential religious groups is indoctrination.
“Activism in the fifties and early sixties drove religion, and the attending morality, out of school. The excuse was we “didn’t want to offend anyone”. Activism since then has made certain that sex and acceptance of liberal sexual morality is being taught in school.”
I don’t agree. Abstinence-only education is still taught in many schools, and conservatives often accuse any program that isn’t abstinence-only of trying to spread “liberal sexual morality.” The truth is that in most schools across the country, religion and sex ed. are taught in pretty much the same way: objectively.
“1. Kids in many schools learn how to apply a condom.
2. Kids in many schools are given birth control.”
Tina, you initially stated that kids are learning more about “personal sexual preferences” than they are about religion or God. Neither of these examples have anything to do with “personal sexual preferences,” nor do they show that kids aren’t learning about religion.
I will have to respond more later.
Pie: “It depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.”
Pie, I think it’s clear that the terms “sexual identity,” “sexual awareness,” and “sexual being” are a little more ambiguous than the term “is,” right?
“At 13 you might have not been “ready” for sex mentally or emotionally but my bet is that your body had changed, or had started changing, and you were actually physically capable of sexual reproduction or well on your way.
In short you had become or were fast becoming a sexual being capable of sexual identification with all the associated hormonal changes and upheavals, emotional factors, urges, excitements, attractions, and societal pressures of being a teenager and becoming a young adult.”
Yes…but I would still consider 13 year-olds to be children.
“Either you just refuse to use the brain God gave you, are simply being obstinate for the sake of being obstinate, just like to argue for the sake of arguing, or you have some sort of weird fetish about assigning or sorting children by sexual identification before they have even have begun to develop into beings capable of sexual reproduction and sexual identity. (In your case my bet is that all these options apply.)”
You already know that last one is not true, because I have been very clear that I have no interest in “assigning” or “sorting” children into any sexual identification. I have said this repeatedly. Why do you insist on ignoring this?
“I also suspect that this is one of your tactics, bogging folks down with whom you are at political odds and wasting their time with rhetorical games, side issues, and your usual load of tedious nonsense.”
As opposed to the tactic of “bogging folks down” by ignoring their words, and attributing positions to them that they have made clear they do not hold? You’ve used that tactic on me since you first started posting on this site. I tried to play nice this time, but you seem to have a really ugly need to not only prove me wrong, but to make me into some kind of villain.
“You still owe ninjaONE an apology.”
I absolutely do not. If anything, you owe me an apology for constantly mischaracterizing my positions. Remember when you said I condoned the rioters in England, after I had already explicitly condemned them?
“He is closer to the truth than you will ever be. You have done nothing to support your contention that his statement is risible or your own pipe dream contention that there are children who are gay! (No, I am NOT calling for documentation or citations, I know how you are about that.)”
Pie, I have pointed out the fact that many adults say they knew they were gay when they were children. You may not believe these people, but you haven’t directly challenged their reports. Why not?
Pie, my suggestion that there are gay children is based only on the fact that many gay people say they have always been gay, and that they knew even when they were children. A study that asked children about their sexuality would of course be unethical.
That said, I admit that I went about my response to ninjaONE in the wrong way. Like I’ve said, I don’t know if sexual orientation is an inborn, inalterable trait, and I don’t want to make that argument. I should have said that while there may not be a category of “gay children,” there are children who are struggling with same-sex attraction and who think they might be gay; those are the children who would be offended and might feel unwelcome in Mr. Buell’s class. I apologize for choosing my arguments badly, and for derailing from the topic at hand.
Re Chris’: “Pie, I have pointed out the fact that many adults say they knew they were gay when they were children. You may not believe these people, but you haven’t directly challenged their reports. Why not?
More idiotic liberal twaddle from the master of liberal twaddle. It is completely unnecessary to “challenge” anecdotal evidence. (And especially when it comes from you, Chris).
There is no need.
I accept at face value and do not deny nor challenge for a nano-second that these people you ostensibly know about sincerely believe they think they knew they were gay when pre-pubescent children.
There is nothing to challenge.
If you are unsure of the meaning of the term “anecdotal evidence”, go look it up yourself and try to at least stop being such an indelible ignoramus.
OK, let me put it this way, just in case you are as ignorant and dim as I think you are and cannot figure it out for yourself (like anything could help you off your asshat this point) —
A person may believe they have seen and met a Chimera. That does not constitute proof that Chimeras exist. It is only evidence (and one of the weakest forms of evidence) that Chimera’s may exist.
I tire of holding your hand, Chris. Not only do you not even know what constitutes a valid proof, you don’t even bother to find out!
Evidently, for you, if a group of people say they were abducted by space aliens and anally probed, that would be proof that gay space aliens exist.
Anecdotal evidence may suggest that gay space alien Chimera’s exist, but is it likely they exist? Not any more likely than gay children exist, and on that subject I have already presented my reasoning multiple times. To have a sexual identity the obvious prerequisite (but not to certainly not to you, Chris) is to be sexual.
It is never going to sink in. You, sir, are a lost cause.
Chris, are you a professional jackass or what?
I give up.
Who knows what asinine flapdoodle you will come up with next. You must be a follower of George Noory’s Coast To Coast. If not, you would be in good company.
Chris I just spent over an hour responding to your last comment to me and the software dumped it…I don’t have the heart or the energy to try to reconstruct it so at least for now I’m going to leave it to you and Pie. Sorry.
Re Chris’: “there are children who are struggling with same-sex attraction and who think they might be gay; those are the children who would be offended and might feel unwelcome in Mr. Buell’s class”.
I disagree. Children do not struggle with that issue. They have no to negligible sexual attraction. Remember what “friends”, male or female, in grade school meant? No sexual attraction necessary. Friends are friends.
Do you think of everything in terms of sex?
On this we can agree, but nothing else. Some children well on their way to sexual maturity may well struggle with same-sex attraction. Those struggling with same-sex attraction might feel unwelcome in Buell’s class if they were aware of Buell’s rather colorful opinions concerning same sex “marriage”. (I share similar opinions but the thought of same-sex “marriage” has never induced nausea or anger. I suppose for that I am now to be branded a bigot. So it goes.)
Is this a reason for suspension? I think not. Buell could easily have been instructed to make sure he did not upset any students by presenting his vivid opinions in the classroom, where, in fact, they do not belong.
As far as I am concerned discussions on homosexuality or any other sort of sexual identification do not belong in the K-8 classroom. Only the biological basics, and only by parental option, should be discussed as far as I am concerned.
Sexuality of any form should, of course, be freely discussed in 9-12 in the health and biology classrooms as long as the students involved have parental approval.
Even political and historical sexuality has place in sociology or history classrooms, but not as it is currently presented in the form of indoctrination in a blitzkrieg of classrooms.
I recall just such discussions in high school. I had no problem with how it was presented then. Teachers took the neutral high road. The Berkeley activist lesbians took the low. A few mindless jocks from hotel testosterone even lower. It was sort of ugly, but no one could say that there was one form of indoctrination or another.
Things have changed since then. Educators no longer take a neutral high road.
Chris, you liberals have already won major battles in the sexuality indoctrination war. Anything goes now. Especially since the passage of Califonia’s special homosexual history law.
Are you not happy with that?
Re Chris’:
” Pie, my suggestion that there are gay children is based only on the fact that many gay people say they have always been gay, and that they knew even when they were children. A study that asked children about their sexuality would of course be unethical.
That said, I admit that I went about my response to ninjaONE in the wrong way … I apologize for choosing my arguments badly …”
Oh, so it is only a suggestion now. OK.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you keep repeating that a “study that asked children about their sexuality would of course be unethical” or similar. So what?
Personally I don’t think a properly conducted, valid, scientific study with a comprehensive methodology and large sample base would be unethical. It would simply be just huge waste of time and resources.
And yeah, I didn’t think you would be man enough to actually apologize to ninjaONE for formulating a baseless sneer ridiculing his statement while in the very same sneer executing an obvious, stupid, elementary fallacy of your own to make it.
You truly are a piece of work, Chris.
I should have just left it at this …
Chris, you might as well have said, “Just because you have never seen a Chimera does not mean they do not exist.”
… even though I doubt you would have got that either without further explanation.
I bet ninjaONE gets it. He didn’t make a single fallacious statement. He just made a reasonable and terse assertion sans qualification. I gathered his point instantly from the perfectly reasonable point of view that children (especially prepubescent children) are not sexual beings and therefore incapable of sexual identification.
I still doubt you understand this point, but I bet it was the one ninjaONE had in mind. All you did was to try and skirt the issue with your usual diversionary gobbledygook.
I think you finally did get the point that just to assert that there are homosexual children you play right into the hands of sexual predators.
Pie: “A person may believe they have seen and met a Chimera. That does not constitute proof that Chimeras exist. It is only evidence (and one of the weakest forms of evidence) that Chimera’s may exist.”
I wasn’t trying to prove anything, Pie; I was only saying that these reports shouldn’t be automatically dismissed. Obviously, there is more reason to believe a large number of people who say they have always known they were gay, than a few people who have claimed to meet a Chimera. But I’ve already stated that this is pretty much a moot point.
Whether or not sexual orientation is something children are capable of possessing, child predators still have no right to act on their disgusting urges.
“I have already presented my reasoning multiple times. To have a sexual identity the obvious prerequisite (but not to certainly not to you, Chris) is to be sexual.”
I still don’t know exactly what you mean by this, Pie. Do you mean sexually active? Sexually mature? Or do you mean capable of sexual feelings of attractions?
“On this we can agree, but nothing else. Some children well on their way to sexual maturity may well struggle with same-sex attraction. Those struggling with same-sex attraction might feel unwelcome in Buell’s class if they were aware of Buell’s rather colorful opinions concerning same sex “marriage”.”
These are the children I was talking about, Pie. Obviously, children who are too young to experience these struggles are not the ones I have been referring to. I thought that went without saying. But I’m glad to see we agree on something, for once.
“(I share similar opinions but the thought of same-sex “marriage” has never induced nausea or anger. I suppose for that I am now to be branded a bigot. So it goes.)”
Pie, I don’t think everyone who opposes same-sex marriage is a bigot. If the subject doesn’t induce nausea or anger for you, then there’s a good chance you are not.
“Is this a reason for suspension? I think not. Buell could easily have been instructed to make sure he did not upset any students by presenting his vivid opinions in the classroom, where, in fact, they do not belong.”
Valid points.
“I bet ninjaONE gets it. He didn’t make a single fallacious statement. He just made a reasonable and terse assertion sans qualification. I gathered his point instantly from the perfectly reasonable point of view that children (especially prepubescent children) are not sexual beings and therefore incapable of sexual identification.”
Like I said, I reacted badly to ninjaONE’s comments. In other discussions regarding same-sex marriage I have seen many commenters try and argue that no one is naturally homosexual, and that children who grow up to become gay are in some way indoctrinated or traumatized into this lifestyle. It’s a way to smear gay people and make them seem depraved. ninjaONE’s comments reminded me of this line of argumentation, but he doesn’t actually come out and say anything like this. ninjaOne, if you didn’t mean anything by this, then I apologize. But you seem to have bowed out of this debate after only one comment, so we may never know what your intentions were.
Chris, you ARE hopeless. You commit a grotesque fallacy when formulating a snotty remark and you come back and say you were not trying to prove anything?
Huh?
No need for me to read the rest of your post. That non-sequitur is enough. I have had my fill of your endless twaddle. No doubt you can go on like this forever.
To dismiss ninjaONE you made a condescending and idiotic sneer that because ninjaONE had never seen a gay child does not mean they do not exist — as if that were enough to say they do!
I give you an example why your statement is trivially false and you simply ignore it. You don’t get it and you never will. You won’t even acknowledge it.
Liberalism IS a mental disorder and you are its poster child.
Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. — Mark Twain
Good heavens.
Tina: “Chris I just spent over an hour responding to your last comment to me and the software dumped it…I don’t have the heart or the energy to try to reconstruct it so at least for now I’m going to leave it to you and Pie. Sorry.”
I understand, Tina, the same thing happened to me a while back on one of the articles. However, I do want to respond to the two instances of religious discrimination you brought up a while ago.
I initially asked if you knew of any school districts which prohibited practices such as reading the Bible during free time. What you gave me were instances of children having their first amendment rights infringed upon by teachers and other school employees who were actually violating district policy (not to mention federal law and constitutional rights) themselves.
For example, the article in the second link you posted states that:
“In keeping with school policy, students are allowed to read books or engage in interpersonal communications during non-instructional time at school, including lunch periods. Furthermore, published administrative procedure of the Prince Georges County Public Schools provides that [s]tudents may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray before tests to the same extent they may engage in comparable, non-disruptive activities.”
Later, the article also points out:
“In defending Ambers right to read a Bible during non-instructional time at school, Institute attorneys have pointed out that according to the U.S. Department of Educations 2003 guidelines under the No Child Left Behind Act, students have the right to read Bibles or other religious scriptures during lunch hour, recess or other non-instructional times.”
http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/press_release.asp?article_id=639
Both article you cited are quite old; the first is from 2000, the second from 2006. I don’t have time to do any follow-up research on either of these instances at the moment, but I suspect that in both cases, the court likely ruled in favor of the children’s right to read the Bible during free school time.
These instances definitely shouldn’t have happened, but they don’t represent some larger effort by the left to condemn Christianity or religion. The ACLU has even defended the rights of students to practice their freedom of religion during free time at school, and they’ve been successful at this.
Chris: “These instances definitely shouldn’t have happened, but they don’t represent some larger effort by the left to condemn Christianity or religion.”
And the reason is because we have been fighting back. At the time those things happened the left had been pushing the envelope and had been getting away with it. We finally had enough. if what you say is true, and I have no reason to doubt you, then our efforts have worked.
You just stumbled on why Rush Limbaugh is so loved. Before his radio program there was no way to get that kind of information…those cases weren’t reported by news outlets. There was no way to feel connected to others who agreed with our point of view. so when people called Rush to report such things lawyers would call to tell them what was Constitutional and how to proceed. it was not only educational but empowering. The rest is history.
“The ACLU has even defended the rights of students to practice their freedom of religion during free time at school, and they’ve been successful at this.”
I did read about this and I think it too was in response from pressure from religious groups and the right.
Chris I want to just acknowledge again my failure to get back to you. I have a problem that is requiring more of my attention, and will be for a little while, so I’m not as wordy for awhile that’s the reason. I hope to be back on my feet and running full speed before the election cycle gets going full steam.