1) Is the issue of homosexualities normality or acceptance unviersally agree upon? NO. So the political debate continues on this topic. 2) Is the only way to prevent violance against homosexuals but making everyone accept them? NO. You can have a officer come to class rooms and tell people it is a crime to harm anyone not matter what race, sex, dress code, or lifestyle. This lays down the law. What is being done is a directed attempt to change the thoughts of children not to prevent violance but to make the accept homosexuality. This in the light of the current debate over the topic can ONLY be seen as a the state promoteing the political adgenda of one group.
3) Is it the state determining morals for our children? Yes just as require people to pray would be forcing morals or requireing people to study a religion would be.
The ONLY reason you are ok with this is because it is your side doing it. If it was the other side you would be yelling bloody murder and you know it. This kind of stuff does not and never should be in our school system. It no more belongs in the school system then school prayer does.
What would constitute "the other side" doing ... this?
If "the other side" means anti-gay bigots, then they really can't do "this" -- which is a program to promote tolerance and respect.
If you mean "heterosexuals", well by most definitions I am one.
If you mean "fundamentalists", fine, I can respect religous differences, and that's already included in this.
Or, since I myself am a Christian, would one example of "the other side" mean Satanists? 'Cause as much as I dislike that memeset, I grant them freedom to practice their religion and will accord them the civil respect that I give anybody else.
What's "the other side" of an effort to promote mutual respect? It has to be the anti-civility faction, n'est-ce pas? Which means, as I pointed out at the start of this comment, that they can't do this because this by its very nature is what they're against.
(no subject)
Ok the first question is...
1) Is the issue of homosexualities normality or acceptance unviersally agree upon? NO. So the political debate continues on this topic.
2) Is the only way to prevent violance against homosexuals but making everyone accept them? NO. You can have a officer come to class rooms and tell people it is a crime to harm anyone not matter what race, sex, dress code, or lifestyle. This lays down the law. What is being done is a directed attempt to change the thoughts of children not to prevent violance but to make the accept homosexuality. This in the light of the current debate over the topic can ONLY be seen as a the state promoteing the political adgenda of one group.
3) Is it the state determining morals for our children? Yes just as require people to pray would be forcing morals or requireing people to study a religion would be.
The ONLY reason you are ok with this is because it is your side doing it. If it was the other side you would be yelling bloody murder and you know it. This kind of stuff does not and never should be in our school system. It no more belongs in the school system then school prayer does.
Now a point by point rebutal.
(no subject)
If "the other side" means anti-gay bigots, then they really can't do "this" -- which is a program to promote tolerance and respect.
If you mean "heterosexuals", well by most definitions I am one.
If you mean "fundamentalists", fine, I can respect religous differences, and that's already included in this.
Or, since I myself am a Christian, would one example of "the other side" mean Satanists? 'Cause as much as I dislike that memeset, I grant them freedom to practice their religion and will accord them the civil respect that I give anybody else.
What's "the other side" of an effort to promote mutual respect? It has to be the anti-civility faction, n'est-ce pas? Which means, as I pointed out at the start of this comment, that they can't do this because this by its very nature is what they're against.