[...] Judge Identifies Parents Who Oppose LGBT Education: Bigots … [...]

Some parents believe homosexuality is wrong. That is their belief and they have the right to raise their kids as they like. That doesn’t mean they believe that kids with gay parents or gay kids should be beaten up. It just means they don’t want other people teaching their kid about homosexuality.

YOUR intolerance is shown by your baseless accusation that they thinking bullying kids is ok.

YOUR intolerance is shown by your baseless accusation that the author thinks that they (parents) think bullying kids is ok.

Because that was a quote from a source, not the author. Also, she didn’t say that ‘the parents thought bullying is ok’ she was simply stating the fact that bullying does occur and needs to be addressed.

That’s what the tolerance courses are about. You can disapprove all you want, but you can’t bully someone.

Bullying does occur based on orientation, so what do you suggest we do about it?

“Some parents believe homosexuality is wrong. That is their belief and they have a right to raise their kids as they like.”

Seriously, would you feel comfortable if someone replaced the word “homosexuality” with “chinese ancestry” or “Christianity” or “miscegenation” in the above sentence? In your eyes, it is okay for parents to teach their children that the way someone else is born, something they have no control over, is wrong. While I agree that a comprehensive “bullying is wrong” program is necessary in schools, I suspect the reason school feel the need to single out homosexuality as something that should not be bullied is precisely because they need to combat the hate speak the kids are getting at home from their families.

One thing that is hilarious is that the bigots and hate-mongers realize that it is undesirable to be called on their BS and therefore try to elevate their behavior to religious persecution. “I want to teach my kids that this group of people are wrong/inferior, but don’t call me a bigot!!”

You can tolerate, or even embrace, someone as a person but disagree with their behavior. Many Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe that sex should be limited to within a marriage between a man and a woman. How doesn that make us “bigots”? I don’t hate gay people. I have friends who are gay. I also have friends who live with their boyfriend/girlfriend without being married. I don’t agree with their behavior, but I’m not going to stop being friends with them or treat them badly because if it. Ever heard of hate the sin, love the sinner? Believe or not, some religious people actually buy into that, Mistress_Scorpio.

Amanda, you didn’t answer my question, you just rushed in to call me intolerant. You believe it is okay for parents to teach children that some people are inferior to others based on something that is beyond their control, something they are born with, and, yes, that is hate speak. I think parents should teach their kids that everyone is equal, everyone is deserving of respect, everyone has their own journey in life and it is not right to judge another simply because they are different. If you believe that is intolerant, so be it. As for who is getting bullied and why, kids get bullied for all sorts of things and it is never acceptable. However, the thing about homosexuality is that, like religion, people can’t tell simply by looking at someone what is going on inside, so gay jokes, slurs, etc. may be delivered to kids with gay parents or who are gay themselves and the teller may never know the damage they are doing. The school’s job is to create a safe space for everyone, and that means teaching kids that bullying, in all its guises, is wrong.

Amanda – LOVE, and even more so ATTRACTION, is not behavior. So you aren’t against homosexuality, actually, because it’s not entirely defined by SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, but by feelings of love and attraction. It’s an easy slip to make, because the word itself does include the letters s-e-x-u-a-l, but so does heterosexual, so think of it like defining yourself wholly by the fact that you primarily have sex with males. I bet there’s a lot more to you than that.
You’re against extramarital sex (for ALL) and gay marriage, probably. What a load off, huh? Now you don’t have to worry about someone telling your children that their classmate’s different family makeup is acceptable. Unless they start teaching them about safe sex…

alison – I never said that gays, or anybody else for that matter, are inferior. You made that up. And your argument about semantics is pointless.
Mistress_Scorpio – I never made a claim as to what text “hate the sin, love the sinner” came from, but it is a concept embraced by many religious people. And if you want to check, there are many instances in the Bible that teach that sex outside the institution of marriage between a man and a woman is wrong. And comparing me to that idiot judge is ridiculous. Gay marriage and interracial marriage are not the same thing. Most Americans are with me on that one. Every where that gay marriage has been put to a vote by the people, even in very liberal states, it has failed.
Bec – Tolerating someone else’s lifestyle is not the same thing as saying it’s acceptable. I would never use a slur, say something hateful, or be violent towards someone just because they live differntly than me. But I don’t have to accept their morals, just like they don’t have to accept mine. And your argument regarding the semantics of the act of homosexual or heterosexual sex vs. homosexuality and heterosexuality is equally as poinless as alison’s to this argument.

A question for all of you – do you think it’s ok for people of faith to say that certain acts are immoral or not?

Amanda: If interracial marriage were put to a popular vote in the era when it was legalized by judicial ruling, you can bet it would have been denied. Minority rights are not meant to be subject to majority approval; throwing out things like “Every where that gay marriage has been put to a vote by the people, even in very liberal states, it has failed” just confirms exactly why.

Is it okay for people of faith to say that certain acts are immoral? If they’re wrong about whether it is moral or not, then it would be incorrect for them to act on that wrong belief. So while you’re free to say whatever you’d like, no matter how wrong, the rest of us are not obligated to pretend that it’s unquestionable.

“Claiming a perspective as religious should not protect it from criticism, ridicule, or even being countered in school.”

Who decides this?

“A question for all of you – do you think it’s ok for people of faith to say that certain acts are immoral or not?”

That isn’t really the issue. The issue is that the Christian definition of ‘immoral’ applies to a lot of things that aren’t immoral unless you are a Christian. So that’s fine, if you want to tell another Christian that homosexuality is immoral, you’re welcome to do so.

If I create my own imaginary friend that tells me bicycling is evil, and then go on the street and start harassing bicyclists, I’m completely in the wrong.

You have a definition of morality, and I have one that is entirely different. The main difference, is that in my morality, a private action which results in absolutely no inconvenience to any other person is without-a-doubt not immoral.

The fact is, your right to religion does not extend to allowing you to force it on people. Religion is intended to be a private thing, to help people of minimal coping skills so they can handle life. I don’t believe in god, and you have absolutely no right to force your beliefs on me.

Homophobia is a direct product of religion and intolerance, and the school is taking a stand and saying “your private religious teachings are starting to, you know, ruin everyone’s fun, so can it”. Christianity’s bigoted teachings are what are preventing society from advancing to a point where we actually respect each and every person as an equal. We’re not going to tolerate you or the feeling of importance you grant yourself by pretending there is an invisible sky father who makes you the final judge on what is right or wrong.

Christianity is contrary to human decency, and that is why it is being shut out of the education process.

Amanda–you are right, I was extrapolating from what you were saying about homosexuality being wrong to believing that homosexuals were inferior/sinful/less worthy of basic respect. I apologize for jumping to the conclusion that those were the same or that children would be unable to navigate this subtle distinction. I am not sure what pointless semantic argument you feel I was making, but I have a problem with the notion that people’s religious beliefs or their race is any more or any less sacrosanct than their sexual orientation. However, if one’s religious beliefs are that it is okay to discriminate against someone for any reason, why should one be protected from criticism? If one believes it is alright to judge others, by their own logic, others should be allowed to criticize them. If one teaches intolerance as a matter of faith, it is hypocritical to demand tolerance from others. Finally, religion has been used to justify anti-miscegenation laws, slavery, rape, and a number of other things we don’t can probably all agree are unacceptable and should not be tolerated, even though one’s objections to such teachings would have been called sinful and intolerant.

“However, I have seen very well-meaning people blur the line between tolerance and approval and start to demand that even when directly asked, Christian (or Muslim, or whatever) kids give a PC answer about homosexuality. That’s never okay.” I totally agree with this. There is a difference between not bullying, not calling names, not making fun of, etc. and being forced to agree with the majority opinion on a topic.

jenny: I’ll happily make your replacement. Let people criticize and ridicule and even bar “natural” explanations for the world in schools. It’s happened before. It’s called the history of public ed. But we’re on a march towards more a more tolerant and rational future, I think. I’m not afraid of having people criticize my preferred explanations. Bring it on. I think I have evidence and logic on my side, so I’m ready for the debate. As for what schools do, that’s a political decision, and the only way to win the political fight is to win those debates.

There is so much talk here about homosexuality and promoting it in school by having it singled out in this bullying curriculum. I’d like to ask all of you – have you even taken a look at it? I have. All of you who are objecting to homosexuality will find that this curriculum is far from teaching kids that being gay is ok. It’s teaching what many of you claim to believe – bullying is wrong.

Why isolate the gay issue? Because it’s gay bullying is epidemic. And it needs to be addressed specifically, just like race has been addressed specifically.

And like someone already said, you can talk about a homosexual without talking about the s-e-x-u-a-l. Take the time and read the curriculum. The school board isn’t stupid. They knew what they were doing.

a tolerant and rational future ought to be one where no one’s deeply held religious identity, racial identity, or gender identity is up for ridicule or criticism in the classroom.

Honestly, if you are talking about actual academic material, awesome, let the kids debate natural and supernatural explanations for the world. But, the view that homosexuality is immoral or sinful, or that eating shellfish is unclean, or that cutting a beard is immodest, are not academic material and are by the terms used (immoral, sinful, unclean, immodest, or even disgusting) subjective and personal. Those things don’t have natural and rational explanations and they aren’t academic material up for criticism.

Bottom line, teach all kids not to harrass anyone. The only way to avoid pushing or seeming to push a pro-gay agenda in this anti-bullying program is to include teaching tolerance of other races and religions.

Andrea: I’d give you an example from my own life, as this issue hits pretty close to home for me. My mother in law is gay. My wife and I believe that it is immoral. My mother in law knows this, and disagrees. There are things that my wife and I do that my mother in law finds immoral. We all still love each other, and would do anything for each other. I think we’re a family that can illustrate the love the sinner hate the sin mentality.
For those who are atheists: I have no problem with you being atheists. I acknowledge that Christianity (and other religions) has been used as an excuse to be extremely crappy to people throughout history. I would challenge you, though, that this past century has been illustrative of the fact that atheism can be just as brutal. The Soviets, Maoists, and the Khmer Rouge have clearly shown this. If you do not believe in God, you needn’t oppose other’s freedom to do so.

Andrea, Mistress_Scorpio, etc.- Thanks for being such strong allies. You give me such hope.

I’m with Andrea- I have many wonderful friends with whom I disagree on a variety of complicated issues. But you don’t get to be my friend then go to the voting booth and indicate that my family deserves less than yours. That my child shouldn’t have what yours has. That my love for my partner is less than your love for yours. A true friend would never do that.

Apparently, if you disagree with lifestyles that liberals have no problem with, you’re a bigot. I guess that what it comes down to with you guys. Disagreeing with liberal views must be the ultimate sin here.

I believe that sex should be saved for marriage between a man and a woman. If you think that automatically makes me, and every religious person who believes the way I do, a bigot, then so be it. I can’t control that. Many people on this message board, though, are probably a lot less tolerant of people like me than I am of people like them. I just disagree with you and want you to leave your version of sexual morality (or lack thereof) out of public schools. You think that anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot and that it’s ok to make fun of them and call them names. For all your talk, you ultra-liberals usually show yourselves to be the most intolerant of all in the end. Oh, and for the record Mistress_Scorpio, your snarky, rude little quips are never funny. They’re just immature.

Mistress_Scoprio – Just keep proving to the rest of us what a jerk you really are. It really shines through with each stupid comment you make. Grow up.

Oh Mandy, I’m just giving you the deference you are due.

Mistress_Scorpio, it’s apparent that you do not have the intellectual capacity to actually have a discussion about the issues. You always resort to name calling and mean comments. It’s pathetic. You seem to get off insulting people you don’t even know on message boards. Maybe you are the one in need of some kind of anti-bullying education.

: ) Mandy

Scorpio, heated debate is one thing, but come on…. now you’re looking mean and childish and dating yourself to boot.

That’s cool, neither was I. However, with the magic of Google, you can call up the lyrics of songs, even the ones that came out before you were born! It’s radical, I tell ya.
Furthermore, the time for heated/intellectual debate was over once the “I’m happy to withhold civil rights for some people, but I’m the victim” card was played. I can no longer take you seriously at that point, and if I didn’t laugh at it, it could become horrifyingly depressing. You think I’M being mean to YOU? While out the other side of your face you invalidate another couple’s love for each other as an abomination? Could care less about those folks, eh? I’d say you should be ashamed of yourself, except you’re so clearly proud of it… except for that bigot part. Can’t have that label, because it’s been drummed into you as a societal negative. If you’re going to be proud of your views and want to force them on others, then by golly, own the whole package.

Of course you’re not advocating fornication and adultery be illegal. Although it would be consistent, it’s way too popular a practice amongst the devout.

uh, who exactly advocated withholding civlil rights? Expanding the anti-bullying program to include teaching tolerance of different races and religions protects civil rights. Freedom to practice a religion and state an opinion is a specifically protected civil right. No one on this board wants to make homosexuality illegal, and Lawrence v. Texas would rightly stop any movement in that direction.

I don’t get it. Fundies love to ostentatiously homeschool their kids when they disagree with what’s being taught in public schools, but the minute someone actually suggests they do that, they get offended.