My Questions About Prop 8 In California
60Yes, I am a Prop 8 Supporter, but I have some questions...
Being an avid supporter of Prop 8 in California who actually resides in California, I have often pondered about what the real issue or underlying agenda is for those who oppose Prop 8. The reason I have questions is because some of the “No on Prop 8” campaign positions do not seem to be congruent to me. The one in question for me now involves their position on same sex marriage and public education.
I WANT my child to learn about traditional marriage and families in their school curriculum!
As a supporter of traditional marriage, I absolutely insist that my children be exposed to this institution of marriage in the educational arena. I would fight to have traditional marriage and family values taught in school because I believe them to be correct. This is something that I am fighting for as I support Prop 8 which will restore traditional marriage to its rightful place, as the basis of the societal unit as well.
Yes on Prop 8
Debate Challenge Extended to Jack O'Connell
- Yes on Prop 8 Challenges Superintendent of Public Education to Live Debate
Yes on 8 campaign today challenged Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell and the No on 8 campaign to a live, televised debate this weekend so voters can learn the truth about the issue of gay marriage being taught in public schools.
If you support Prop 8 you must be intolerant and bigoted.
The people who oppose Prop 8 or “No on Prop 8 supporters” argue that same sex marriage is a right. It is something that each person is entitled to have as a “choice”. It is defining marriage as anyone who loves each other regardless of gender. They believe this is true and right and have spent millions of dollars as well to defend this position. They contend that it is bigoted and intolerant to believe otherwise.
Wouldn't it stand to reason that Prop 8 opponents would INSIST that children be taught about this issue in school?
The question I have is simply this, if same sex marriage supporters feel that same sex marriage is so right and good for society, then why would they not insist same sex marriage be taught in the schools along side of traditional marriage? Why are their campaign tactics defending the accusation of the Prop 8 supporters, “that same sex marriage will be taught in the schools along side traditional marriage”, as being false? They insist that these are lies and that Prop 8 will not affect any teaching in the schools at all.
No on Prop 8
Yes on 8 Says Debate Will Make It Clear
- Protect Marriage - Yes on 8 » News
“There is nothing shameful about telling the truth.This is the most critical issue of the campaign. Voters deserve an opportunity to hear for themselves what will happen.Given his strong statements, I’m sure O’Connell will have no problem accepting."
No on Prop 8 supporters are sending mixed messages.
Would it not stand to reason that if they support same sex marriage as I support traditional marriage they would be fighting to have it taught in schools, just like I am fighting for what I believe? Why do they deny that it will be taught in schools at all and insist that the school issue is just negative propaganda fed to the public by the supporters of Prop 8? To be congruent in their platform, their campaign should be pushing for it to be taught in schools, so that “bigotry and intolerance” will end.
This seems confusing to me.
Is this simply the next step to make same sex marriage more acceptable, first gain support on the issue, and once Prop 8 has not passed, concentrate on fighting for same sex marriage to be upheld and taught to our children in school?
Confusing Platform?
This in congruency has raised serious questions for me.
These questions have plagued me for sometime. Perhaps there are other people who have not considered these questions and would benefit from this line of reasoning.
Please study this important issue and be educated on it. Please vote responsibly.
In California this is a very hot topic, igniting heated controversy, causing people to make very inflammatory remarks towards others. This is not my intention by writing this HUB.
There are many who sit on the fence with their opinions on same sex marriage and traditional marriage. I urge those of you who are undecided to consider all the ramifications of this important issue and study all of the information for yourself. Make a responsible decision that you feel good about, not only for yourself but for those who will follow.
Some Important Issues to Think About
Proven Issues With Same Sex Marriage and Education in Massachusetts
- Protect Marriage - Yes on 8 » Home Page
Restoring Marriage and Protecting California Children. Prop 8 has everything to do with schools. - How same-sex "marriage" affects Massachusetts
Anyone who thinks that same-sex “marriage” is a benign eccentricity which won’t affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts. - iSupportMarriage.com | The YES on 8 Online Gateway
iSupportMarriage.com | The YES on 8 Online Gateway - Just another WordPress weblog
Really Interesting News
- Claims by No on Prop 8 Grow More Desperate as Polling Numbers Sink
"We invited the No on Prop 8 campaign to debate Proposition 8 this weekend in a live, televised format, but it declined our invitation. If the No campaign is so confident in its arguments, why refuse the debate?"
Vote Today, Yes on 8
ADDENDUM: Prop 8 and Public Education
Although there have been many great and interesting comments on this thread exploring other issues regarding same sex marriage, I am still baffled by the responses that those who would vote “No on Prop 8” have given, defending the stance that same sex marriage has “nothing to do with public education.”
First I must state, there are many who can see beyond the statements of Jack O’Connell and others who support his views, to the reality that same sex issues will be taught in the public schools. Whether they are dealt with in subjects such as Biology or Sex Education, (Which we are adamantly told, we as parents, have the right to “opt out” of. HELLO???? If you are giving us the answer we have the rights to “opt out” are you not in essence admitting it will be dealt with???), or are covered in more disguised issues such as Diversity, History, English, Writing, and simple Reading materials, it will be taught.
Quoting from the person Lisa Murphy with permission of Mike Spence in the comment thread below, “Look at last year's California Association of Teachers of English Conference. One workshop was entitled "Reading and Writing Beyond the Closet: LGBTQ Inclusion in the English Classroom". (For those new to the acronyms it is Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, Trans-gendered, and Questioning). The 2009 conference has a whole strand on the topic. Teen fiction, elementary school reading books, and history are all fair game.”
I am quite convinced that all teaching will be affected in some way or another by this landmark decision. Please do not try to imply otherwise.
Now for my initial question restated...
Is there any advocate who will be voting “No on 8” with the courage to REALLY stand behind your convictions and not only admit it will be taught, but INSIST it should be dealt with as a matter of principle to say the least? Is there not any who would be bold enough to FIGHT for education on this issue in the schools so that supposed intolerance and bigotry would end? If the matter of EQUALITY is so forefront in the minds of those who oppose Prop 8, wouldn’t you insist that this matter be discussed with future generations so that they may learn from this very issue?
Please stop trying to tell me it will not be taught, and have the courage to insist it must be taught. IMHO That is the only way your convictions will ever be truly credible.
If the truth in stating your convictions will not allow you to gain the voter support you desire, then is it really a win?
If people understand that it WILL be taught in the public school arena and STILL choose to vote for same sex marriage, then that is a real victory for the homosexual community. IMHO There is no victory in lies and deception.
Prop 8 and Public Education
Prop 8 and Public Education
- Court Rules Schools Can Teach Homosexuality Without Parents Consent or Choice to Opt Out
According to Judge Mark L Wolf, good citizens must accept homosexuality in the name of diversity. He continued, “Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation.”
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Good hub. I hope that gay marriage is not approved as it will be yet another thing that will curse our society. It's great to see people stand up for what is right. The fact that you would fight to protect your children hearing their rainbow cirriculum taught says a lot about you as a parent. I homeschool our son and I get trashed for it on hubpages. Which, to me, means I'm doing something right. Stay strong!
Your "questions" to the opponents of Propostion 8, definitely reveal some very legitimate concerns. I must agree with your reasoning, in regards to those who are adamantly defending same-sex marriage. Certainly, you would think --- that they would be also adamant about teaching "their" values and beliefs in our public schools?
Sooooo, why the denial? To me personally, like yourself - it appears as though they are only willing to promote one of their causes/demands at a time. Perhaps in this way, mainstream society will not really see where this agenda is truly heading?
I too, hope that O'Connell steps up and debates protectmarriage.com, in the live debate about this very topic - so that ALL Californians wil have the truth, before they head to the ballot box.
A YES Vote on proposition 8, will continue to ensure that traditional marriage and family values, are what is upheld and taught in our public schools.
tDMg
LdsNana-AskMormon
Some good and common questions. And thank you for the plea to keep this discussion open and adult; I think that emotions have been running high on both sides of the issue. Let me answer your questions for you:* School curriculum: Your children will not be exposed to anything you do not approve of. CA has a wonderful opt-out law that lets you remove your children from materials that you consider inappropriate.* Intolerant/ bigoted: I know these are harsh-sounding words, but technically, they are true. If you support different rights for different classes of people, then that is the very definition of bigoted. Furthermore, Prop 8 has NOTHING to do with schools and what is taught there. It's about creating equality. It has no effect on your family, church, or personal beliefs. Those are all safe and protected. Please see the response to the request for the debate, I think it addresses some of these issues in some pretty clear language: http://tinyurl.com/694p3eIf you have any more questions, please feel free to let me know. I hope you realize that Proposition 8 will have no effect on you, your family, your church, your children, or their schools. It will, however, destroy rights for thousands of couples across the state. A "No" vote is for equality, tolerance, and understanding. You may not agree with same-sex marriage, but I hope that we can agree that ALL men and women are created equal and should be given an equal chance for life, love, and the pursuit of happiness.Thank you.
Great and Very TELLING Question ! You would think that the No on 8 crowd Would want to answer it. The lack of answers from the (NO`S) shows there is more to this than they want people to see !
The claim that Prop 8 has nothing to do with education is untrue and Jack O'Connell knows it. Why would the CTA take a million dollars from it's members to defeat 8 if it has nothing to do with education?
Gays already enjoy domestic partnership rights which give them all the same rights as a married couple. The definition of the word "marriage" is at the heart of all sorts of family law cases as well as changes in education.
An excellent question to ponder! I know I will be voting to restore what California voters already approved and therefore voting YES on Prop 8 next week.
Hi Jeff,
I am glad that you found my questions valid. Concerning your answer about school curriculum, I believe that we have already seen the effects of same sex marriage being taught, as it is happening in Massachusetts.
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effect
My question is not whether it will be an issue for the schools in California, (It already is, CTA, PTA, etc.) for I KNOW it will be an issue with the schools, my question is why do the “NO on 8” supporter keep denying that it is not going to be an issue and instead push for the teaching of same sex marriage to rid our society of such “bigoted and intolerant” views? That would seem the logical stance for me.
I suppose that by your definition of “bigoted and intolerant” both the “NO on Prop 8” supporters as well as the “Yes on Prop 8” supporters would fit the bill. I am happy that we are both intolerant bigots! That makes it more acceptable to me to be labeled a bigot, because we have equality in that.
I believe that your statements that Prop 8 has “NOTHING to do with family and church and personal beliefs” is just a very bold statement of your opinion. There are no guarantees in place for me that this will be the case. For me it has EVERYTHING to do with my family, my church, and my personal beliefs, traditional marriage being one of them. Sorry, you cannot prove to me that it doesn’t.
IMHO “a NO vote would not only be a vote for equality, tolerance, and understanding” if it is YOUR belief and understanding. It shows absolutely no tolerance for my beliefs and understandings. It seems to me you are requesting tolerance to only be given to those on one side of the fence.
We do agree on one thing, that all men and women were created equal and they do have the same rights... and that right is to marry someone of the opposite gender. To choose not to marry someone of their opposite gender is their right as well. We are all equally not allowed the right to marry someone of the same gender. There is not any inequality of rights there. Although I am in support of traditional marriage, I am equally denied the right to marry some one of the same sex if I choose.
There certainly are a lot of questions to be answered here. It's good to see it being discussed at length. As a resident of CT, where gay marriage laws were recently changed without much noise, I think it is really important to excercise your rights to have your voices heard.
@whiteonwhite- This question regarding the issues with "No on 8" have bothered me for some time now. I have just now been able to pinpoint them to verbalize them.
@allshookup- Thanks for your support for me in voicing my view on Prop 8. Sometimes having a conservative view is not always the most popular position to have on any Internet site. We still must speak and be heard.
@LDS Nana- I am looking forward to the debate of Prop 8 issues with education with O'Connell as well. I certainly hope he steps up to the plate and takes the challenge.
@Clint- I am waiting for the answers to these questions as well from No on 8.
@Willis Whitlock- Your points are very valid. Prop 8 has everything to do with schools. I too believe that the lawsuits would make educational issues nearly impossible in California.
@Scott Chester- I will join with you next week on voting Yes on 8 as well. Thanks.
Amy,
I believe that you will be facing the same issues very soon in your home state. One of the dissenting judges in Conn. made a statement regarding traditional marriage that has become one of my favorites of all time. He said,
"The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry."
I simply love that explanation.
I read about debates just like this that took place a number of decades ago. But the issue back was should whites be able to marry blacks and look at all the awfulness that has resulted from the interracial marriages. The fabric of our society is nearly torn!
And I definitely understand the apprehensiveness at the possibility of gay marriage being taught in school. One can only imagine the horrors of what will happen if gay marriage is taught to our children. When we started teaching about racial diversity and tolerance it lead to people of color actually beleiving that they were equal and entitled to the same things as whites. How foolish! God-forbid that kids growing up should feel a sense of normalcy if they have homosexual tendencies. How could that possibly save them from the eternal damnation of hell that WITHOUT A DOUBT accompanies such an abonimable behavior.
All I can say is I'm extremely satisfied and pleased with the amount of support Prop 8 has been receiving. We have fallen far from the peak at which we were, and these misguided ideals of "tolernace and acceptance" have gone way to far. For god-sakes, I have a woman for a boss; someone missed the memo that it was Adam THEN Eve. It says a lot about the caliber, intelligence, and the great deal of integrity of our state's citizens to stop this equal marriage for all tomfoolery. I had to go through four wives to find my true love, and I would hate for the sanctitiy and eternal love of my marriage to be in jeopardy just because two guys decided to define the abomination they have as a lasting bond of "love"
I hope this site continues to educate people on the dangers of the gay agenda, and how every man, woman, and child in this great nation will suffer immensely just because a small segment of the population are trying to be equal.
Praise Jesus, and the Lord Almighty.
Great explanation of the situation. I, too, agree with you and am voting Yes on 8. I hope I don't miss the debate if there really will be one. I am a retired CA teacher and DID NOT contribute to the "No on 8" and am appaled that those in charge of CTA took this stand!!! They certainly didn't put it up for a vote by the MEMBERS of CTA.
Bocadike,
I am afraid there will be no debate. I have just heard that Jack O'Connell has declined the invitation of free air time to discuss the issues. This is not surprising to me however. I have heard of many teachers who have not shown support of No on 8 and were appalled by the stance of the CTA as well. Here is a link to a You Tube video in which a fellow California teacher expresses your same feelings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQs4-5crLKI
e,
I guess it is lucky for both of us that I too have seen "Saturday Night Live" and experienced their humorous satirical attempt at skirting the issues. Although you have sought to make my concerns appear puritanical and uneducated, you have not succeeded in making me engage, in order to skirt the issues at hand. I hope others will recognize your humorous satire and avoid engaging as well.
In your attempt to make the issues I have raised seem biased, prejudiced, and bigoted, I simply respond with a restatement of my concerns. IF the “No on 8” supporters feel that education will not be an issue, why is the answer given, by them, to simply “opt out” of anything being taught we, as parents, find offensive? I do not want to “opt out” of any intelligent form of education being offered my child. If Prop 8 is not passed and same sex marriage is allowed, why would there be a reason to ALLOW me to “opt out” of this instruction? Since you have raised the issue of race, do we have the ability to “opt out” of instruction regarding racial issues? Although, shame on me, I thoroughly find it offensive to compare the two issues as you have done.
Perhaps this video I found can address some of the concerns you have raised regarding other issues.
**My school district will teach gay marriage and Jack O'Connell knows it!* *by Mike SpenceIf Proposition 8 fails, my school district will teach gay marriage and Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell knows it!Of course, school board members like me, some teachers, and some parents will resist this type of instruction. But like the Borg in the Star Trek Series, the law, education code, judges and pro-gay marriage groups will eventually force their "tolerant" view of gay marriage on all children in public schools.This is how it will work in California public schools:Education Code section 51933 makes it clear that schools that teach "comprehensive sex education" have to teach,"respect for marriage and committed relationships". This is something no school district can get around.It is the choice of school districts whether or not they teach sex education. This is why the Anti- Proposition 8 campaign and Jack O'Connell say there is no requirement to teach about marriage. What Jack O'Connell knows but doesn't say is that 96% of school districts teach comprehensive sex education. Those numbers are from O'Connell's California Department of Education. 96% must teach respect for marriage.The only way out is to end sex education programs in all these school districts. That is something that just won't happen. Look at the outcry that takes place when boards try to emphasize more abstinence. The same groups against Proposition 8 strongly support sex education in our schools. As does O'Connell. They along with the education establishment that created sex education will fight anyone that tries to abolish it.As you can see, Jack O'Connell saying that Proposition 8 doesn't affect children in schools is like saying the Governor's proposed sales tax hike won't affect people, because there is no mandate that they buy products covered by the sales tax.But it isn't just sex education that's affected. Look at last year's California Association of Teachers of English Conference. One workshop was entitled "Reading and Writing Beyond the Closet: LGBTQ Inclusion in the English Classroom". (For those new to the acronyms it is Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, Trans-gendered, and Questioning). The 2009 conference has a whole strand on the topic.Teen fiction, elementary school reading books, and history are all fair game. Over ten years ago, the leaders of the West Covina teachers union sued me because I tried to stop a workshop for middle school teachers called "Out of The Closet, Into The Classroom".Passage of SB 777, which expanded discrimination law to include ANYTHING that might discriminate on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, or a classification in hate crime statutes, also impacts every aspect of educational activities.This was before the debate about Proposition 8.In their decision on the marriage case, the State Supreme Court found that by its very nature, limiting marriage to that between a man and a woman is discrimination based on sexual orientation.How is a teacher, parent, or school board member going to overcome the Supreme Court, State law, and the educational establishment?That brings us to opt-out provisions in California law. The very fact that Anti-Proposition 8 folks cite the opt-out provision should be a wake-up call that gay marriage will be taught and they know it. Otherwise, why bring up opt-out provisions?The opt-out provision is very narrow in California and is limited to "sexually explicit content" that describes the functions of reproductive organs. That's it. Some have pointed out that two children from the infamous first grade class field trip to a same-sex marriage didn't go. They didn't go because it was an off-campus trip and permission is needed to leave campus. Had the marriage been done on the school campus, parents would not need to be notified nor allowed to opt-out.You don't have to believe me. Believe the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR). NCLR has given $300,000 to the No on Prop 8 campaign and its Executive Director is on the No on 8 Steering Committee. Their legal analysis, LGBT Legal Issues for School Attorneys, says:"State law explicitly provides that 'instruction or materials that discuss gender, sexual orientation, or family life and do not discuss human reproductive organs and their functions' is not subject to the parental notice and opt-out laws. California Education Code §51932(b)." (Pg.31)There is no opt-out for gay marriage and the legal and educational establishment is dedicated to using existing law to force it on public schools.When you see the advertisements with Jack O'Connell saying that Proposition 8 is not going to lead to gay marriage being taught in schools, he is either a fool or trying to fool you and that is shameful
Lisa Murphy and Mike Spence,
Thank you for adding some insights into the issues surrounding same sex marriage and the California education code. It is interesting to see how the propaganda being spread avoids the issues all together.
Thank you for enlightening us on the conditions that are necessary for one to really "opt out" of instruction.
It looks to me that LGBT issues will certainly be taught in our schools as you have confirmed.
Kids are going to be exposed to all kinds of points of view in life, as we are a very diverse society. Even if we believe the school systems have some kind of credibilty with kids, it is our own position of parenting that is most important.
Instead of spending time worrying about what others are doing or not doing, spend that time with the kids you are worried about!
Playing with them, talking with them - even use this subject matter as an opportunity to tell them what you think and it will serve the relationship you have with them, for many, many, many years.
Sit them down and address it point blank - tell them heart to heart what your feelings are on ALL subject matters!
In most homes, the big subjects, such as sex, drugs and even MONEY are taboo subjects and the discussion of those subjects is oftentimes left up to others because they are uncomfortable subjects.
This is not a problem - but an opportunity!
That is where the gold is! Use this as an opening to mentor your children - personally - on the tougher subjects!
PS It is the insistence that we all agree on every subject matter that causes all wars. Let others believe what they wish - and just stay true to your own. There are no threats but those we give attention to.
Pat
Another great read!
Once again, all CA voters are challenged with another moral (disguised as political) debate.
I shudder to think where all the post-modern thinkers and doers really want to take this great nation.
Pray for wisdom! Pray for the Yes votes to prevail!
This is my personal opinion, I do not agree with same sex marriage, but it is not my business or place to vote on this. I have done a lot of thinking and research on the issue, and if same sex couples want a legal marriage I feel we should give it to them. Also, I do not think the majority of schools are going to start teaching all of a sudden that gay marriage and straight marriage are the same, although both groups of course should be given the same right. I used to be a teacher and there was very little instruction on any type of family set-up, unless you live in a district where they have a same sex or abstinence program.
We had to spend so much time on reading and writing and meeting the standards that we did not have time to spend on extras. In districts where they have sex education programs yes they will and should discuss this issue. If I had kids and did not want my kids in that class I would simply request to take them out. If I really felt the public school was not meeting my needs for teaching family and marriage, I would register my children to go to a private school that taught these concepts. In the area where I live there are two private schools where people send their children for such instruction, and this is a good alternative for those who feel the public schools are not meeting their needs. I would not worry needlessly before something happens, and even though I will not be voting in favor of prop eight, I think there is a possibility many Californians will be. I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens.
Blessings to both sides of this debate!!
I must admit I agree with Pat on this one!! I am a California native and very involved in the community and state in which I live!!
Our children are exposed to sooooo many negative things parents are unaware of!! Kids whisper to kids at recess!! They hide and share books and magazines!! They all have access to computers and television and video games!! And the library!! To try and curb information to our young ones is an impossible task!
Open communication, tolerance and independent thinking are a much better use of time for parents with their kids!! How and why parents think the way they do is a much better tool for raising kids than forbidding access to things that do not conform to the parent's way of thinking!
And, I don't know a single parent, who was dead set against same sex marriage all their lives, who didn't change their minds when their little one grew up into a gay adult!!
I would be much more worried about the rape and murder in the video game Grand Theft Auto than a loving couple who happen to be of the same sex!!
Blessings always, Earth Angel!!
@ Pat Graham, and Earth Angel,
I would agree wholeheartedly with you that the most important learning that can possibly take place is within the walls of your own home. Spending time with your children is a wonderful bit of counsel and I also agree that it is a priority for any responsible parent as well.
That being said, the issue I raised was not whether it was good or not for the schools to teach same sex marriage, it was why do the “NO on 8” supporters adamantly insist it will NOT be taught? I believe it has become apparent that this is not the case. To be informed on the issue itself truth must be addressed.
If you are fine with same sex marriage being taught to your children in school, then you most certainly would not oppose the legalization of same sex marriage. If you did not want your children to receive instruction on same sex marriage in the school then you must be aware that the consequence to follow by the legalization of same sex marriage is one you do not approve of.
My request is simply to state the issue truthfully. I believe that another poster has presented a very in depth discussion on the fact that it will be taught in our schools, even more than it already is. (See “Lisa Murphy and Mike Spence” comment above.)
Why argue it will not be taught? Why take a defensive stand in which you support same sex marriage, but do not want to have it be taught? It simply does not make any sense to me.
@ Sweetie Pie,
I am a tax paying citizen, I should have the right shouldn't I, to have an opinion on what my children are being taught in the schools I pay for? I do not believe that I should pay for public education and then pay for private education as well.
Rob,
Thanks for your words of encouragement. I can only hope that those who desire traditional marriage to remain between a man and a women, will make a united effort nation wide to pray for this cause. I am sure that the decision that is made in California will cause quite a stir throughout our nation, where ever you are.
In the famous words of Tiny Tim, "God Bless us everyone!"
Proposition 8 is not about how you feel about homosexuality or even how you feel about marriage. It's about whether you believe you have the right to legislate your belief system and prevent others from making choices based on their own. In other words, you are not opposed to living in a theocracy as long as the laws fit your religious belief system?
In some countries - such as Pakistan - it is illegal to carry bibles in public because the belief is that everyone is a Muslim and should live accordingly. Shouldn't we have the right to choose to be Muslim or Christian? I think we head down a slippery slope when the majority begins making decisions regarding civil rights that only affect a minority group.
What is taught in schools is a separate issue and the lies are being used as a distraction for writing discrimination into the constitution.
You can vote any way you wish and yes this is your right. I am just sharing with you why I am voting no on prop eight. I may not agree with same sex marriage, but they all people have civil rights. They are entitled to the same rights as everyone else. As a former teacher I was only trying to share that we never even really had time to discuss issues such as marriage in the classroom because we spent so the basics such as reading, writing, and math.
In school districts where they have sex education and abstinence education this may be an issue, but the schools where I grew up and where I taught this was a non-issue. I have lived in Southern California all my life and from what I remember as a student and later on as a teacher there was very little talk of any kind of family structure in the class room. Some of my teachers were involved in same sex relationships and did not even share their lifestyle with the class. All I am trying to convey is we have enough problems in the class room with literacy and math that I would not see large amounts of time being devoted to either traditional or same sex marriages. One of the reasons I do not want to be a teacher anymore was because it was very overhwhelming trying to keep up with all the English and history standards we had to cover in a year. The bottom line is there is not much about any family structure taught in the classroom, and when it is covered it is only covered in passing. Even if prop eight were voted in I cannot imagine discussing same sex marriage in the classroom would prompt tons of children to decide to be gay. There are studies that show people are born with their sexual orientation and pushing this material, or not pushing this material is not going to change who they are attracted to.
If one day I am a parent yes I would not mind paying extra money to send my children to a private school if it would better meet the needs of my child.
Jeff,
I will not allow this forum to be used as a platform for you to promote your personal agenda. The issue is not whether the schools will have to deal with the effects of the legitimacy of same sex marriage or not. It is already being done.
Please refer to the post above by Lisa Murphy, who by permission of Mike Spence of the Covina Valley School Board has posted his in depth experience with these very issues.
The link you provided from the letter sent to the “Yes on Prop 8” from the “No on Prop 8” headquarters addressing their request for a debate on this very issue with Jack O’Connell, IMO is an insult to the people of California.
Quoting from the letter itself,
“Thank you for your letter. It would be a disservice to the people of California to debate an issue that is completely unrelated to Proposition 8.”
Why not let the people of California decide that for themselves then.
For this reason I have chosen not to publish your most recent comment.
The fundamental difference in our society's beliefs boils down to something that can't be solved in forums such as this. It all comes down to believing: A) homosexuality is bad, or B) homosexuality is neither good nor bad, but just is a function of humanity. We can argue about schools all we want. We can pretend the argument is actually about marriage. Fine. But what it boils down to fundamentally is that people who don't believe homosexuals should be able to get married believe that homosexual relationships are inferior to heterosexual relationships. Period. "Everyone is equal, but some people are more equal than others."- George Orwell
The attempt to make this a rights issue for anti-gay marriage people is ridiculous. There is no inalienable right of maintaining a viewpoint that a segment of the population is inferior- whether it is religious beliefs or not. The point is, our country was founded on ideals that protected people from religious persecution. Our secular foundations were established for the protection of the people FROM religion as much as for the protection OF religion. But whatever a person's religious beliefs, our laws protect ALL people and all religions equally. My religion accepts homosexuals as equals. Just because there are more Christians in this country than non-Christians doesn't mean "majority rules." America doesn't work like that. That is why it is such a great country. Christians in India are being slaughtered. Christians in Ancient Rome were persecuted and killed. But the tenents of Christianity aren't "might makes right." If anything it's that everyone deserves to be treated equally.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - The Declaration of Independence
Please let gay couples pursue their happiness.
Thank you In the Doghouse. I know for a fact that I address the issue of marriage in the classroom. I am a high school Biology teacher and, as such, am REQUIRED to teach human sexuality (commonly referred to as sex ed). This does include discussion about reltions between married partners. So I am baffled that so many people think that taking away MY RIGHT to REFUSE to teach same-sex marriage is considered "equity." Why are my rights less important than anyone else's? I am sick of people using the "Marriage is not taught in the classroom" topic as a front for not doing their research. TALK to someone who actually teaches this course and you will see that marriage is definitely covered, just not in EVERY single class like the No on prop 8 people are trying to make it sound like we are stating. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me.
@NinjaVixen
You are confusing the message with the messenger -- just because in CA it has largely been religious people who have taken up the cause to protect traditional marriage, doesn't mean that it is an exclusively religious stance to take.
For example, In 2005, France set up a panal to research the possibilty of legalizing gay marriage in thier country-- this panal looked at all the countries that had implimented it thus far as part of this research and guess what secular, research oriented, liberty for all, peace loving France reccomended?
A. No Gay Marriage
Why? Because they wanted to foster a society in which children's best interests were paramount and that = fostering a society where children had both a mother and father as opposed to undermining that ideal with gay marriage.
Homosexuals are a vulnerable population but children are a more vulnerable population.
The research showing the many benefits to children of having both a mother and a father in a committed relationship have long been established
On the other hand, the research trying to support homosexual parenting as being equal to the aforementioned ideal is still in its infancy with considerable information lacking. For example, virtually void from this research are gay male couples raising children — they mostly focus soley on lesbians. Futhermore, there have been no longnitudinal studies on children of gay parents that follow them from childhood to adolescence into adulthood. Moreover, much of what we do have in this research merely compares lesbians (who concieved previously in a hetero relationship) with single hetero mothers. That’s flawed too because we should be comparing the alternative with the ideal not another known less than ideal alternative.
I’m not willing to experiment with children and niether was France. I hope people who see this as just religious people insisting on thier values will take a harder look.
Dog House my Home Girl,
A very good question that I was also thinking about a few days ago myself. Glad you're putting it into writting. Here's a link to an article that highlights how the same people fighting here in CA in the No on 8 campaign are also simultaneously fighting to have gay marriage taught in schools under "Diversity" as opposed to sex ed -- and guess what there's no opting out of diversty. Go Figure. Go vote Yes on 8...
NinjaVixen, thank you for your post. You are right, at the basis of this amendment is not schools or children, but civil liberties and equality. According to a study done by the Congressional Budget Office in 2004 there are 1,138 legal benefits to being married (everything from social security benefits to decreased income tax, to being able to order HBO when you're husband's name is on the cable bill). Spirituality aside, by denieing people a legal right to marriage Prop. 8 denies people 1,138 federal benefits on the basis of sexuality.
But more to the point of the question posed by this post...as a supporter of equal rights I think I disagree with you fundamentally about "beliefs" being taught in schools. First off, I've taught in both public and private schools and I really don't think this "they'll teach it to our children" argument is at all that valid. I've never "taught" marriage to my students and I agree with the other teacher who said that there doesn't seem to be room for it in the curriculum. But for the sake of argument lets say it was a possibility.
As a supporter of equal rights, I don't need specifics of same sex marriage taught to children because marriage is a private institution and an individual choice that is wrapped up in feelings, religion, and economics ...among other things. I don't need my detailed beliefs about marriage dictated to other people (children or otherwise) in a public setting. Because I realize how private adult relationships can be I would prefer that no one's "version" of marriage be forced upon anyone else's child. I no more want your kid to have to listen to the benefits of my version of marriage than I want mine to have to listen to yours. I think all children should be taught about the value of diversity, tolerance, and love but that can be(and is) done without talking about marriage. I'm not fighting to have marriage taught in schools because Prop. 8 isn't about educating children about private/family matters. It's about respecting everyone's equality and right to pursue happiness.
Thanks for another great post! I always enjoy your insight and clarity.
I too will take a stand and vote yes on Prop 8. The way I look at this is the opposing group is using this as a way to push their own belief system to all others who don't share the same belief system. As a tax payer, I don't want the school to be educating my child on marriage; I have a right to determine what I believe is appropriate moral teaching for my children. It is too bad that the public school system is slowly but surely pushing the liberal agenda to our children in one form or another. The gay community already has domestic partnership rights which gives them the same rights as married couples....the way I see this is an attack on the traditional moral values of a lot of people. Our parental rights are being slowly eroded by people with liberal agenda and the public school is unfortunately being used as a platform for this.
Amanda said "by denieing people a legal right to marriage Prop. 8 denies people 1,138 federal benefits on the basis of sexuality. "
This is utterly false. Prop 8 has nothing to do with federal benefits -- same sex marriages do not have federal benefits to this day in CA or anywhere -- even Massachusettes -- because of the Defense of Marriage Act signed into law years ago by President Clinton. A YES on Prop 8 doesn't change that ongoing reality -- it is siimply about preserving the word marriage. Nor does it change that over the last 10 years, CA legislators have passed 50 yes 5 -- 0 bills to insure same sex partners have the same legal rights as married couples.
From the LA Times:
“No matter what voters decide this November on same-sex marriage, the election will not change one fact: Over the last decade, California has become the nation's leader in providing legal protections to gays and lesbians.”
Great hub, interesting comments. I believe you already know that I think marriage should be a Church matter, not a State matter, but perhaps in this case it overflows the traditionally tight bounds that separate Church and State, because of the matters of rights, registration of marriages, and the all important cross-border complications. That is, if it's legal in one state, should it be recognized in antoher state?
Personally I believe the idea of Civil Union is called for here as far as the state is concerned, as long as it does not deny basic rights to any couple. I also can see, even if I do not think it will occur, the idea that adding to the definitions of what constitutes a legal marriage could also be argued to then include other unions currently banned. Multiple spouse, man and animal, etc.
From what I am reading, it seems to be about 50-50 right now. Has that changed at all?
Although the discussion has been interesting, I still have some questions? See ADDENDUM which I posted above in the content of the HUB.
I’ll try to address your questions directly, rather than spending too much time on broader ideology:
FIRST QUESTION :
The question I have is simply this, if same sex marriage supporters feel that same sex marriage is so right and good for society, then why would they not insist same sex marriage be taught in the schools along side of traditional marriage? [you followed this up with the following…] Would it not stand to reason that if they support same sex marriage as I support traditional marriage they would be fighting to have it taught in schools, just like I am fighting for what I believe? ANSWER:Because it is not the purpose of gays and lesbians to INSIST that anything is taught. They aren’t “insisting” on anything beyond having the right to marry the person of their choice. They aren’t insisting on anything whatever that affects you, your children or schools. If, subsequent to the allowing of these people to be married, someone decides to change curriculum in schools to include material that offends religious people, then those religious people should lobby for laws to be put on the books to remove discussions of marriage from schools and leave it to parents in the home. Frankly I rather like this idea myself as the whole marriage issue has gotten rather muddled up. Just teach where babies come from, the mechanics of it, and leave all the emotional stuff at home.
You mention how you would (and are) fighting to have same-sex marriage taught in schools. I assume you consider this to be “insisting” that this be taught. Another word, perhaps more accurate, would be “imposing” that it be taught. In a modern age (I use “modern” because don’t believe that just because something is done some way for a period of time it becomes “right” on the basis of previous practice – the same kind defense that was made for the continuation of slavery, colonization, domestic violence, torture, monarchy and any number of ideas that past their “prime” if you will)… in an age where what used to be “an overwhelming” majority now teeters on the brink of being only a statistical majority this kind of imposition becomes a tyranny of numbers, oppression by the statistical majority, which Madison covered in his debates with Hamilton long ago. With 9% of the population (roughly) being gay/lesbian or some variant of non-traditional, and vastly more related to or inclined to empathy with them, the IMPOSITION of a singular mindset only comes from what appears to be a particular group of religions and a handful of angry, bigots from the deep woods etc. who are opposed to gay marriage “just because it ain’t right.”
I believe this explains why the people voting against Prop 8 aren’t cringing and wringing their hands trying to figure out a way to force anything into the schools. They just want to be left alone to marry who they want. This right can be easily separated from what is taught in schools. If curriculum needs to be changed, change it. The two don’t have to connect, and even if some pushy activist tries to make it connect, parents are in charge of what is taught in schools. Have that argument separate… have it after we aren’t discriminating and dictating how other people live their private lives.
Shadesbreath,
Thank you for sticking to the issue that was originally raised.
Your statement, “Because it is not the purpose of gays and lesbians to INSIST that anything is taught. They aren’t “insisting” on anything beyond having the right to marry the person of their choice.” This would be wonderful if that is the case. IMHO I am not really inclined to believe that this is where their insistences will end.
“As elaborated in a guide produced by the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Transgender Law Center for public school attorneys, "parents are not entitled to prior notice and the opportunity to opt their children out" of diversity education programs which do not include sexually explicit content (i.e. discuss the human reproductive organs and their functions.)” I believe that there are already groups in place who insist on having several things taught in our public schools which would facilitate discussion of same sex relationships. The redefinition of marriage would only give them more power in their positions. This example only serves to convince me that Prop 8 will most definitely affect public education, in many ways.
http://www.the-tidings.com/2008/103108/propeight.h
You also stated, “Just teach where babies come from, the mechanics of it, and leave all the emotional stuff at home.” I could not agree with you more, however IMHO this is not reality. A dream quite possibly in the future, but for now, it simply does not seem to be possible to me, only an observation and opinion mind you. Sociology, or the science of society is woven throughout all facets of public education. The social structure of the family itself can be seen in all areas of instruction, from reading materials to science projects.
The reference you gave by listing “the continuation of slavery, colonization, domestic violence, torture, monarchy and any number of ideas that past their ‘prime’ if you will” used in combination with the issue of same sex marriage, simply proves to me that this is another angle, or open door, for the treatment of this issue to be addressed in the schools in the same manner. If the issue of same sex marriage for some falls into these same categories, then it will have more exposure in area of public education than we realize. When the view of traditional marriage is seen as "past its prime" to some, those who still cling to these values will experience much ridicule and derision, so where is the tolerance in this instance? I cannot believe that INSISTANCE will not be displayed from the homosexual community, to make sure this curriculum of tolerance and equality is taught. The statement that Prop 8 has nothing to do with public education that has been propagated by the “No on 8” headquarters is false in so many directions, that it is simply an insult to us all to be blinded in that way. Why not be up front now and address this issue?
I would assume by your comments however that you would be fine with the instruction of issues regarding same sex marriage in public education? If I am wrong please forgive my interpretation of your comments. Thank you for your honest opinions on this question.
Perhaps I was not clear in my explanation, so let me tidy it up. I did not mean to imply that I think male-femal marriage is past its prime. Clearly it is not, as the genetic predisposition for heterosexuality is still massively dominant. The "traditional marriage" term which is being used to describe male-female matrimony is not in jeopardy in my opinion, so if I made it seem that somehow I thought men and women were somehow not going to be biologically compelled towards one another as they have been for the last sixty-thousand years, then I did a poor job of constructing my sentences. That is, as they say, "My bad."
AND, I don't disagree that there is a possibility that activist gays and lesbians may for whatever reason decide that the existence of gay marriage as something in the reality of our world should be taught. Frankly, I don't see how this is relevant in school, particularly in schools where kids can't read or pass algebra classes. I would be right there with you arguing for a law that says take all this meaningless garbage out of schools. The truth is, as a Christian, you're lucky, there are lots and lots of Christian schools out there that you can send your kids too if you want them to only get certain information. For us secular types (much less us agnostic/pagan types) there is only public education. If they're only going to teach what the Christian religions want (and I will admit that they're actually starting to teach my daughter in her History class Muslim stuff), I'm screwed. There aren't any "secular" schools out there at all. My kids are gonna keep getting stuffed with all this religious viewpoint stuff and I get no say at all. So, I'm with you, I don't want that taught in schools, any of it.
Shadesbreath,
Your assessment of me is correct, and I thank you for labeling me a Christian, lol. There are many who would debate YOU on that issue, lol.
Kidding aside, I certainly would wish for more basics to be taught in public schools, just like you. Concentration on the three R’s has taken a back seat to many other frivolities in education, IMHO that should be addressed in other arenas. Again, IMHO many activists with their own agendas, in reality will INSIST on using the public school system to promote their cause. As I said before, if Prop 8 fails more fuel will simply be added to their fire.
It is too bad that I cannot “Opt Out” of the taxes I pay to support public education, if I choose not to use it, and choose to educate my child in the private sector, isn’t it. So to quote you as well, “I’m screwed.”
Thank you for engaging in civilized conversation with me on this issue. It is in a case like yours and mine that I feel we have every “right” to agree to disagree in some areas.
Gotta admit, there's an argument for charter schools in there somewhere lol. And yes, I appreciate this respectful forum. This is what communication is about and I believe reasonableness brings people together, even when they don't agree on everything. /cheers
Halloween Greetings All!!
The founding fathers of this country wrote our Constitution based on certain premises!! One of those premises was open and rigerous debate!! Without it, democracy cannot survive!!
So thank you to everyone who is participating here and respecting the views of others!!
Blessings always, Earth Angel!
I must add my two cents in here. While I have taught "sex ed" for a few years, it is amazing the questions and topics the students will come up with. I have been very diligent in letting them know that, if it is not part of the curriculum, they need to go home and ask their parents about it. But there have been instances where what the school district had me teach (or show a video about, to be more precise) was in direct opposition to my personal and religious beliefs. The thing about proposition 8 that drives me to vote yes is that, for some reason, the teachers are being left out of the equation. All the "No on prop 8" arguments seem (to me) to be based on "equity." Why am I left out of this definition of "equity" when I am pretty much given a curriculum to teach. If I refuse to follow the curriculum I can, potentially, lose my job over it. Again I ask, where is my "opt-out" form?
Different folks, different strokes, In The Doghouse. I want my child to learn to have an open mind. I want her to learn that there’s nothing wrong with marriage. If people love each other and they decide to marry, that’s ok. What if one of your children turns out to be homosexual?
Ananta65,
May I gather from your comment then that you are supportive of homosexual instruction in the public schools?
Perhaps since you are from the Netherlands, where same sex marriage is already legalized you have more experience with this than we in California do.
I believe from the research I have done that same sex marriage was legalized in 2000 there. This can be very beneficial in viewing long term research on the issue, not available in California because same sex marriage has only been acknowledged for a few short months here.
These links provide some really interesting statistics from Netherlands regarding same sex marriage and the family.
http://tinyurl.com/5hcpqc and http://tinyurl.com/3xpkzTo answer your personal question to me regarding my feelings toward my children, my response is, I would continue to love them in a way that only a “mother” could. I am sorry if that statement sounds bigoted and prejudicial against fathers, but I believe other mothers will know what I mean. Mothers and fathers are different folks, and therefore have different strokes.
I’m not supportive of homosexual instruction on schools, In The Doghouse. But then again, I also wouldn’t want schools to simply ignore the fact that homosexuality exists. I want schools to teach people and confront them with the knowledge and theories that currently exists. My child should know about the evolutionary theory as well as creationism. My child should also know that there are ‘regular’ relationships and homosexual relationships and should learn to condemn neither of the two.
You would continue to love them, yet at the same time you have taken a firm stand against them having an ‘official’ relationship. Being a father I don’t feel offended by your reply, rest assured :) Also, being a father, my daughter knows that I will love and respect her just as much, regardless of whether she brings home a guy or a girl, or even both. And I would like her to be as happy as she can be, either way. So I don’t deny her the right to a marriage. That is why I am pro same sex marriage.
Ananta65,
Thank you for clarifying your position on same sex marriage being taught in the public schools. Your open minded view of education is very commendable. In the United States that open minded view is not quite as tolerated I am afraid. There are very few who would support creationism as well as the evolutionary theory being taught side by side in the public schools. In fact that is another battle all together. lol
Yes, I will love my children eternally, no matter how they choose to live their lives. Yes, I have taken a firm stand against same sex marriage. I believe those two statements do not conflict.
I believe that this isn't a matter of equality because either way the prop goes, equality is not fully created. The issue is, “Yes supporters” are not homophobic or bigots, but simply trying to preserve something that means a great deal to them. “No supporters” are asking for tolerance and equal rights. One, those who desire same sex marriage refuse to give tolerance to those who don’t, and two, Prop 8 isn't giving them anymore rights, possibly more benefits through the state only but definitely not more rights. The only thing that gays have to benefit from this prop not passing is calling their same sex union marriage in an effort to try and legitimize their alternative relationship. They are trying to make people accept their relationship as a norm. I believe that most gays all deal with issues of acceptance from their loved ones and their closet peers. This is what they are fighting so hard for, isn't that so apparent? It has nothing to do with equal rights when you actually take the time and investigate the rights they have now, and realize they will gain ZERO rights from this prop failing. They already have all the rights they need to be created equal. Just because they cant call their alternate lifestyle and union marriage, makes it a rights issue? Marriage is a term given by the churches to describe a union between a man and a woman. That’s pretty cut and dry. Homosexuals aren't looking for equality in rights; they are looking for equality in terms (marriage) and trying to redefine marriage for everyone, to try to legitimize their union so that they will be "accepted" further by society. And really, why will they stop with marriage? What else will they fight for next to make their lifestyle more accepted? What ways will they seek to still gain acceptance? Will it be through “tolerance” teaching of same sex marriage in public schools? This battle won’t end with prop 8, it will be an effort by the homosexuals endlessly until we as a nation acknowledge their union the same way we view heterosexual marriage.And, again it comes back to tolerance........ Don't yes supporters deserve it as well?
For the life of me, I can't understand the (baseless) argument that "homosexual instruction" (I shudder to think what the Christians & Mormons take that to mean) will be forced on unsuspecting children.
First, as Shadesbreath said, all gay couples want is the ability to marry and lead their own lives. I fail to see how insidious this is. People choosing to be monogamous, mutually dependent, and forming the possible basis for a family unit.
Second, and this is very important, *being gay is not a choice*. You can talk about heterosexual marriage until you're blue in the face, and a gay child will stay gay. Likewise, you can talk about gay marriage until you're blue in the face, and a heterosexual child will stay the same. The only thing that would change is reducing their fear and hatred of people who are different from them. BUT I really don't care, and if bigots want to prevent their children from being taught about gays getting married, that should be their right.
I don't think family and cultural traditions need to be taught at all at school, especially since marriage equality opponents don't want anything beyond what they specifically believe to be taught in schools. Let families teach these traditions to their children, and, like Earth Angel said, the children will learn via the Internet, their friends, television, etc to fill in the gaps. As they (we!) always have.
Livelonger,
IMHO I do not believe the issue of same sex marriage in the public school is “baseless” as you infer. There is much credible evidence that points otherwise to me. If for no other reason, the involvement of public schools became an issue when the CTA and California Superintendant of Schools became involved.
I will not debate the “choice issue” there is really no credible evidence to be found supporting either side of this position. Besides, that is really not what the Hub is about at all.
I will simply address the fact that you believe anyone who supports traditional marriage and believes that same sex marriage should not be taught in the public schools should be labeled a “bigot” with the following link.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/comment
Again I will state, family and social traditions are mingled throughout all facets of public school curriculum and have been for many years, starting with the Dick and Jane books and evolving from there. Today we label it sociology. If you do not realize that it is part of education then you have chosen to see otherwise.
In conclusion, your post has led me to believe you are comfortable with public education addressing same sex marriage in the curriculum. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong with this interpretation.
Wow, so many lies on one page, I don't even know where to start.Marriage is not taught in schools in any way, shape or form, never has been (not in public schools anyway, I can't speak for private institutions).Marriage is a civil contract between 2 individuals, it should not be legislated by or be behold to, religious institutions. Marriage as a concept originated LONG before the concept of Christianity.Nobody is going to force churches to marry gay people if they don't want to. Once again, marriage is a civil contract, if the church doesn't want to do it, fine, that's what the JP is for.Abolishing gay marriage has nothing to do with 'protecting marriage'. I've been married 13 years, I don't need to be protected from gay men and women 'insulting' my marriage. What's insulting is the idea that somehow my wife and I need the 'blessing' of a religion. What's insulting is the quickie marriages by the likes of B. Spears, or the adulterers running for president like McCain.Protect my children? From what? From being decent human beings with compassion and a belief that every person should be equal under the eyes of the law? They don't need that kind of protection, not from you, not from from the state, and most certainly, not from religious institutions.
I could not agree more . I say remove all children from public school If they choose to teach about same sex marraige . Most teachers don,t even support Prop 8 ! And If Dianne Fienstien Is aggainst It ,that Is enough to make me support yes on Prop 8
Great hub! You bring up a lot of valid and interesting points. I find it interesting that all of the antagonistic comments you have received have yet to actually address your questions. It makes this subject all the more intriguing....
Livelonger said
"Second, and this is very important, *being gay is not a choice*. You can talk about heterosexual marriage until you're blue in the face, and a gay child will stay gay. Likewise, you can talk about gay marriage until you're blue in the face, and a heterosexual child will stay the same."
In a 1995 survey in the popular gay magazine "The Advocate," only 50% of lesbians thought they were born gay; the remainder thought that childhood experiences and/or choice accounted for their sexual orientation. Also, in a longnitudinal study spanning over the course of 2 yrs, 1/4 of Lesbian participants had sought out sexual contact with men.
In another study, 56% of all women participants reported having a same gender fantasy at one time or another.
In other words, particularly among woman there is research supporting a significant degree of plasticity in sexual orientation.
Furthermore from the new APA 2008 brochure on the topic:
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles…"
ITD: I've made it clear that I don't care at all whether marriage is "taught" in schools. I certainly don't remember being taught about marriage at all. And, like I said, you can teach until you're blue in the face, and that will not affect the outcome of a child's sexual orientation - that is inborn. (That is the reason Prop 8 folks are so against the "teaching" of gay marriage, right?) I'm smart enough to know that you can't protect kids from facts these days; unless you have them confined to your basement, they're going to be exposed to all sorts of realities you may or may not want them to be exposed to.
I take it, though, that you believe "Bobby has two mommies" shouldn't be exposed to children? Do you understand that such a "two mommy" arrangement exists, in the millions, even without legal same-sex marriage? If so, are you going to put your efforts towards banning same-sex parentage as well?
"Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain. And most fools do."
Thank you Shadesbreath for putting into words what was all jumbled in my head. I wish I could carry that kind of articulate verbage in my pocket.
After reading all the comments, it seems to me that the main issue being challenged in this hub is whether or not gay marriage is taught in schools. Can't you just fight to change the curriculum? Why take away the right for gays to marry? And if we MUST teach traditional marriage because you INSIST on it, shouldn't we also teach them that 50% percent of marriages end in divorce? Or just continue to set them up for failure?
You said, "I would fight to have traditional marriage and family values taught in school because I believe them to be correct." What about the homosexual person who "believes" their own values to be correct? And by that rationale, couldn't BOTH sets of values be taught? Simply teaching about gay marriage isn't going to turn a straight student gay or vice versa.
You keep alluding to the fact that allowing gay marriage will be this sort of gateway into other facets of our culture, and that the gay community will then INSIST on gay marriage being taught in schools. You have no way of knowing or proving what will become of this, and it seems to me you are projecting your own beliefs onto the gay community. You stated, from the start;
"I WANT my child to learn about traditional marriage and families in their school curriculum!As a supporter of traditional marriage, I absolutely insist that my children be exposed to this institution of marriage in the educational arena."
Suppose married gay couples were the majority in California, they could easily make the same argument. Just for the record, I'll be voting NO on prop 8, and I think if anything about marriage HAS to be taught in schools, then why not just teach kids, quite simply, "when PEOPLE love eachother, and want to dedicate their lives to one another, they get married." Nuff said, no mention of sexual orientation needed. I really don't understand why this is such a big deal.
So the bottom line, at least for me, is this; WHY, are you against gay marriage being taught in schools?
ParadigmShift,
You have stated my point exactly, why are those opposed to No on prop 8 denying that public schools will address the issues surrounding same sex marriage? Your comparison of my statement "I would fight to have traditional marriage and family values taught in school because I believe them to be correct." To your statement, “What about the homosexual person who "believes" their own values to be correct? And by that rationale, couldn't BOTH sets of values be taught?” is my question exactly. Again, my question is why do those who oppose Prop 8 deny that same sex instruction will happen instead of embrace their values and insist they be represented in public education as well?
To answer you question, I would be against “gay marriage” being taught in school because I believe marriage is defined as that of being between a man and a women.
To others who have commented as well,
IMHO I believe there are many people, in the name of “equality”, who would oppose Prop 8 until they had to state they would be comfortable with it being part of public school instruction. Why don’t we hear statements from those who oppose Prop 8 like, “I am fine with same sex marriage and I embrace the institution so much, I would want my children to learn about it in all facets of public education? Or, Same sex marriage should receive the same amount of public school instruction as that of traditional marriage because that would be teaching true values of tolerance? Or even, Same sex marriage must be taught to see how far we have come in the advancement of equality?
Instead we are fed with excuses that same sex marriage issues are not taught in the public school, and if they are the rights are given to “opt out” of that part of the instruction for those who support traditional values if they feel uncomfortable with it. These are both false statements.
If it was possible to “opt out” of instruction regarding same sex marriage, would those individuals who chose to “opt out” be branded BIGOTS and HATERS? It seems that those who oppose Prop 8 now are very comfortable labeling any who support traditional marriage with those labels already. Those who support traditional marriage have already experienced prejudice and intolerance and none have come to their defense. People are simply content to have those words thrown upon any that support traditional values.
How far are we as society willing to go in the name of equality? If I had two sons who loved each other and desired to marry should we deny them their rights as well? If every person is “equal under the eyes of the law” would that scenario be equally acceptable? Under the line of reasoning I have heard here from those who oppose Prop 8, that would be perfectly acceptable and within their rights. After all, marriage should be allowed to any two people who love each other, right? When will we draw the line, or will we ever?
Good for you, In The Doghouse (no sarcasm intended) *smile*I’d like schools (and society) to be open to both sides of the debate and respect both views.
Well, what's the alternative? Everyone is "not equal under the law?" If slippery slope arguments are going to prevail, then I can do likewise and say:
Well, if we're going to start letting Christianity decide who gets to be equal and who doesn't, if we et them decide that gays can't marry today, what's to stop them from saying we should burn gays at the stake next time? We at least have historical evidence to prove that this sort of thing happens all the time in the name of God. My argument at least has some massive grounding in the past. How many actual gay brothers or bestiality marriages really take place? Even if you can come up with examples, can you come up with the hundres of millions of examples of intolerant death meted out by champions of God that underly my slippery slope argument?
My point is not to bag on religion, but to point out that the argument you make is over-the-top and reactionary, intended to win your present argument by creating a scenario in the future that does not exist and that is, in short, fallacious.
Ananta65,
No sarcasm from me either...you seem to be much more tolerant in your country than we are here in the United States. You not only accept same sex values but encourage faith based values as well, equally. Commendable! Just out of curiosity, do your schools have a thread of instruction based on religious values?
“The Netherlands is a richly multicultural society with diverse political parties which places high importance on the values of tolerance and equal rights.
Although the Netherlands can look back on a long tradition of Christianity, the country is now known world-wide for its free opinions on euthanasia, prostitution and drugs. In larger cities, many churches have closed after many years of struggling with dwindling congregations.”
I believe that you are also in a bit of controversy at the moment where activist groups are now challenging registrars who, because of their beliefs would not perform same sex marriages, stating that they should not be allowed to perform marriages at all. This is something the “No on 8” supporters guarantee would never happen here. Perhaps we may be more tolerant in the United States after all... only the future will tell.
Shadesbreath,
I must agree that religious zealots were responsible for burning people at the stake, but historically the Romans who engaged in homosexual behavior as well, were among those participating in the burning of those who were religious. The antics you speak of, at the latest concluded about 200 years ago, but I guess there is a possibility they may return. Go figure, I guess this line of reasoning could be used both ways. History will give us any scenario we wish to find I am afraid.
Your statement, “My point is not to bag on religion, but to point out that the argument you make is over-the-top and reactionary, intended to win your present argument by creating a scenario in the future that does not exist and that is, in short, fallacious.” might have been used merely 15 years ago at the unthinkable suggestion of the legalization of same sex marriage. That is the problem with using the future as a point of arguement, it is virtually uncharted territory. Today we not only are being told we must accept this scenario because of tolerance, and embrace this institution of same sex marriage, that just 8 years ago overwhelmingly was voted down by the people of California, or remain the terrible “bigots” we are.
It doesn’t seem like a “fallacious” line of reasoning to me at all with the rapidity of our evolution of tolerance and our zealotry for equality. Especially when these issues most certainly will be addressed in our public school, in the name of history if for no other reason.
I’m not so sure that I’m illustrative for the Dutch people, In The Doghouse. We’ve got our share of zealots and intolerant people as well, I’m afraid.
It depends. Public schools basically teach the children about the major world religions. But we also have faith-based schools. I never attended them, not did my daughter, so I don’t know (although I have my ‘suspicions’) what’s being taught there.
The level of tolerance has decreased rapidly in the past years, I’m afraid. There’s a lot of debate and this leads to polarization. Personally I think we should work out a solution. If a registrar has a problem with performing same sex marriage because of his or her beliefs, we should respect that.
Good hub! I voted yes on Prop 8 already.
Get out and vote - and vote yes on Prop 8!
Addressing the “InBorn” / Born that Way Assertions
Livelonger wrote
“And, like I said, you can teach until you're blue in the face, and that will not affect the outcome of a child's sexual orientation - that is inborn. (That is the reason Prop 8 folks are so against the "teaching" of gay marriage, right?)”
“Friedman and Downey, the psychiatric researchers at Columbia University, offered a strongly worded conclusion opposing the essentialist argument: "At clinical conferences one often hears...that homosexual orientation is fixed and unmodifiable. Neither assertion is true...The assertion that homosexuality is genetic is so reductionistic that it must be dismissed out of hand as a general principle of psychology" (2002, p 39).
Yet the national organizations continue to offer the essentialist argument as a guide for law and public policy. No reputable scientist on either side of the political spectrum would disagree with the conclusion of Friedman and Downey.
Even the gay-activist researchers themselves whose studies have been used by the media to trumpet the message that homosexuality is biologically determined do not support the "born that way" myth.
Simon LeVay, the author of the hypothalamus study, noted, "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality was genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men were born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work" (Nimmons, 1994, p. 64).
LeVay, the gay activist researcher, made an interesting observation about the emphasis on the biology of homosexuality: He noted, "...people who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are also more likely to support gay rights" (1996, p. 282).”
Qoutes taken from A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., MBA, MPH in his artcle, Homosexuality: The Essentialist Argument Continues to Erode
Prop 8 is anti-gay and the assumption to know the minds of god and his associates. It is none of anyone's business who should or should not marry to be frank. Two people who love each other have just the same rights in the real universe as christians for example, despite their sadomasochistic religion and intrussion into the affairs of others. Some feel bestiality would be next. I suppose it is possible, it is the USA after all but I thought the land of the free was meant to tolerate all those who are different and not meant to oppress those who like things ouside the usual routine. America is turning into a facist state where only certain types are acceptable and that is a dangerous and worying situation. Hotler sent gays to the gas chambers. That might be next if we continue to discriminate. BTW... it is impossible to turn a heterosexual child into a gay one and visa versa.... Parents need not panic. LIVE AND LET LIVE. I'm off to marry an oak tree.... bye bye.... WEEEEEEEE
Pieter-Opie,
Good luck with your tree hugging experience!
We won =]
Thank heaven YES on 8 WON! A victory for all Americans.
The opponents motto being used on the ads above are:
"Keep Governement Out of All of our Lives".
How confusing and wierd is that!? What a lie they are promoting. These very people are feeding on the hope that Government will be involved in ALL of our lives, including Government redefining the sacred sacrament of marriage, and asking Governement to perform and support their "rights" to gay marriage. Unbelieveable. Thank heaven there were enough Californians and others who could see right through those smokescreens. And, guess what? No surpize that these anti-8 people ran right out the next day after Prop 8 victory to the Government...filing new LEGAL claims!
"Oh the tangled web is weaved when first they practice to deceive"
Marriage is of the Church! !!!GOD!!! DOES NOT believe in man and man or woman and woman. It is a sin! Who are we to argue with HIM!
Everyone is intitled to Free Will. Each person lives in their own sin. But, we are to LOVE EVERYONE back to health, just as JESUS DOES!!
I vote 'YES, on PROP 8'
I don't know where you went to school but I was never taught in school about any kind of marriage. My catholic backround taught me about marriage and that's why it shouldn't be an issue... it has nothing to do with schools. As Rose Gold said, "Marriage is of the Church," so keep it in the church and don't deny someone's marriage just cause your belief's are different than others. KKK members don't believe in inerracial marriage, should that be banned? If you feel they are sinners then let them sin but the truth is we don't really know what God really thinks about this issue unless you have personally talked to him, we only assume by our own interpretation of the bible. The point is, none of us have a right to judge anyone.
Another Interesting Viewpoint
- 8 Is Not Hate
From my perspective, it would be tragic for the gays and lesbians of California to believe that every house with a Yes on 8 sign in the yard is inhabited by someone who hates them.
Protect Marriage in the News
- Prop 8 Decision to Come Tuesday, May 26
The Supreme Court has issued a Notice of Forthcoming Filing, meaning we can expect the Court’s decision on Tuesday, May 26. - 6 months ago
- Statement on Proposition 8 Passing by Ron Prentice
We did it! - 12 months ago
- It’s Now or Never for Marriage
On this final day in the battle to restore traditional marriage, I cannot think of a more inspiring message than that issued early this morning by our Campaign Manager Frank Schubert. - 12 months ago
- Rescue Marriage - Yes on 8 Rally Draws 1000+ Supporters
At the recently held Rescue Marriage Rally, over 100 pastors and over 1,000 supporters gathered on the steps of the State Capitol to show their support for Yes on 8 and traditional marriage. - 13 months ago
- Yes on 8 Statewide Media Bus Tour Proves to be a Success
Yesterday wrapped up the very successful “Stand Up for Traditional Marriage” bus tour. - 13 months ago
- Day Four: Statewide Media Bus Tour
We’re still rollin… Lancaster Over 550 people showed up to participate in the Lancaster stop of our Prop 8 bus tour. - 13 months ago
- Day Three: Statewide Media Bus Tour
Another succesful tour day… Fresno The fifth stop took place at Cornerstone Church in Fresno where more than 200 people came to share their enthusiasm for passing Prop. - 13 months ago
- Day Two: Statewide Media Bus Tour
Day two of our Yes on 8 Media Bus Tour is complete, and much like Day 1, it was a huge success! - 13 months ago
whiteonwhite says:
13 months ago
I have to agree with you on this issue. Their is obviously some sort of doubt in that thinking? Why has this not been address before? Its an extremely valid point!
Great Hub as always!!! Keep up the good work!
YES ON PROP 8!!!!!