Same-sex marriage and children Prop8

[Zaac]

Let's have a serious discussion about this, OK?

Here's what I want to hear from the parents objecting to their kids being taught how other kids in their society live: What do you think the school should do when a kid comes to school who has 2 moms & other kids start treating them badly?

Defer to their parents to discipline them and teach them that we treat people the way that we want to be treated regardless of their situation. We don't have to use the school to do what the parents are to do.

What should the parents say to their kids when they come home & say "Sally has 2 dads," or "Timmy lives in 2 houses," or "Julie's mom is getting married," or "I don't like Terry because he's black," or "Jenny eats raw fish for lunch. She's icky?"

THEY should say what THEY feel to be appropriate instead of the school deciding to make that decision for what their kids are gonna be taught.

Schools are supposed to be teaching academics, not lifestyles.

I really want to know how you think parents and schools should deal with kids being mean to each other because of their parents' prejudices.

You're kidding, right? Like it's that difficult for a teacher to get across that we don't mistreat each other in this classroom. How would their parents prejudices even enter the picture if ACADEMICS are being taught?

Schools have just taken it upon themselves, because parents have let them, to be the moral influence in the lives of kids. That is STILL the parent's responsibility.

If I saw the "Yes on 8" crowd actually talking about how to talk to your kids about being nice to Johnny even though Johnny's parents are bad, I might listen. Instead I hear them saying they want to hide their heads in the sand and not have their kids exposed to the fact that other kids in the school might have different kinds of families than they have.

That's the way you want to handle it. Others want to wait and introduce the subject to their kids intheir own way.

If you want to pay the money to send your kids to a Christian school where all the families are vetted to make sure nobody's kids will be exposed to differences in the wider society, you can maybe see that their heads stay in the sand a few years longer. You can also see that they are not exposed to the way poor kids live, or all kinds of other things. But I don't want my tax dollars spent to support segregated schools.

My tax dollars are being wasted sending them to public schools where they are indoctrinated with filth and immorality. So why shouldn't I be able to use the same tax dollars to send them to a private Christian school and teach them God's way?

You don't want yours spent to support segregated schools and I don't want mine spent exposing my kids to filth and immorality. Does your right outweigh my right?

When a new girl moved into the district in my daughter's 7th grade class & came to our house for dinner, I was moved by hearing her story of how nice it was to have a friend's family accept her into their home, and how mean the kids & their parents had been to her at her old school because she had 2 moms. Teaching respect for people different from you is part of good citizenship, which has been part of school curriculums forever.

What does teaching people mutual respect for each other have to do with teaching kids to be accepting of that which is sin?

I can teach a kid to love a liar and still recognize his lies as wrong.

 

[Zaac]

empty

 

[Crazy Liz]

Defer to their parents to discipline them and teach them that we treat people the way that we want to be treated regardless of their situation. We don't have to use the school to do what the parents are to do.

And if what their parents teach them is prejudice and hate? If the parents teach them not to play with Johnny or Suzy, what then?

THEY should say what THEY feel to be appropriate instead of the school deciding to make that decision for what their kids are gonna be taught.

Schools are supposed to be teaching academics, not lifestyles.

Schools teach basic citizenship, also. Always have.

You're kidding, right? Like it's that difficult for a teacher to get across that we don't mistreat each other in this classroom. How would their parents prejudices even enter the picture if ACADEMICS are being taught?

You're kidding, right? I asked for a serious discussion.

What happens at recess is just as much part of school as what happens in the classroom, isn't it? How did the parents' prejudices ever enter the picture of what my daughter's friend experienced from the time she entered school?

Schools have just taken it upon themselves, because parents have let them, to be the moral influence in the lives of kids. That is STILL the parent's responsibility.

No argument that that's the parents' responsibility. But it's a reality that schools have some responsibility, too.

That's the way you want to handle it. Others want to wait and introduce the subject to their kids intheir own way.

Just like others want to wait and introduce racism to their kids in their own way?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyZ5Zwb7RR0

My tax dollars are being wasted sending them to public schools where they are indoctrinated with filth and immorality. So why shouldn't I be able to use the same tax dollars to send them to a private Christian school and teach them God's way?

You don't want yours spent to support segregated schools and I don't want mine spent exposing my kids to filth and immorality. Does your right outweigh my right?

What does teaching people mutual respect for each other have to do with teaching kids to be accepting of that which is sin?

I can teach a kid to love a liar and still recognize his lies as wrong.

Kids aren't being taught in kindergarten what homosexuals do in the bedroom. They are just being taught that kids who have 2 moms or 2 dads should be accepted just like kids who have a mom and a dad. Your arguments are no better than those on the signs carried by the parents who stood outside the schools protesting exposing their children to black students as classmates.

 

[Zaac]

And if what their parents teach them is prejudice and hate? If the parents teach them not to play with Johnny or Suzy, what then?

It's their kids. They can teach them whatever they want. That doesn't give government license to start teaching what they FEEL is right.

School is for academics. Let the parents teach them everything else. When in class, they will treat others the way they want to be treated. And that has got nothing to do with what is going on at their homes.

Schools teach basic citizenship, also. Always have.

That they have to be accepting of someone else's choices as right has nothing to do with citizenship.

You're kidding, right? I asked for a serious discussion.

What happens at recess is just as much part of school as what happens in the classroom, isn't it? How did the parents' prejudices ever enter the picture of what my daughter's friend experienced from the time she entered school?

If the teachers are overseeing recess just like they are class when an issue arises, thenits a nonissue. But they should not have license to teach acceptance of that which is wrong as right just because they and their employers feel that everybody has to be accepting of everybody else's choices.

If you've got a teacher who can't get across to students that we don't mistreat people because of what their parents do, then that teacher doesn't need to be in the classroom.

Basic citizenship revolves around teaching people how to be good citizens. It does not revolve around teaching folks that they have to be accepting of every choice that every other person makes.

No argument that that's the parents' responsibility. But it's a reality that schools have some responsibility, too.

No they don't and they shouldn't. There are school rules that a school should maintain in order to maintain a learning environment. But morals are the responsibility of the parents. And if someone is overstepping that bounds, they have a right to say no you don't.

Just like others want to wait and introduce racism to their kids in their own way?

If someone wants to raise THEIR kids as racists, how is that any different than another parent choosing to raise their kid with beliefs that what God says is wrong is suddenly right?

Kids aren't being taught in kindergarten what homosexuals do in the bedroom.

Maybe in San Francisco. But here in Georgia, if a parent does not want their child exposed to that mess in school, they have the option to not involve them in any such teaching.

They are just being taught that kids who have 2 moms or 2 dads should be accepted just like kids who have a mom and a dad.

Why are schools talking about kids with two mommies or 2 dads? If you're teaching students to treat everyone the way that they want to be treated, why is who their parents are even entering the conversation?

Your arguments are no better than those on the signs carried by the parents who stood outside the schools protesting exposing their children to black students as classmates.

And yours aren't any better than the folks parading in front of abortion clinics talking about folks have to accept their right to kill babies.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Balderdash. You, a human, seem to feel confidently enough that no human is capable of knowing such a thing with any confidence.

Apples and oranges.

So what makes you so confident about your surmise?

Logic and Love.

I, another human, can know such a thing with ABSOLUTE confidence because God's Word says so.

Na klar; your view of what "God's Word says so" is merely your opinion and interpretation and not authoritative in any way whatsoever at all.

Texas Lynn, if you don't believe that God's Word as given in His Holy Bible is His Word, then don't look for me or anyone else to convince ya. That's the work of the Holy Spirit.

The "Holy Spirit" is not involved whatsoever in your baseless assertions.

Until a person believes that lil diddy about God's Word, ain't no reason to go back and forth about right and wrong.

Of course not. It is obvious you are wrong, that was a given.

Hey yall the ones who have become your own gods and attempted to create these "new marriages." And you're right. Yall's concept of god IS useless.

No God which does as you suggest is worthy of worship. Of course such a god does not exist except in the imaginations of hatemongers.

Yeah, you go right ahead and keep putting that stumbling block in front of folks as they non-fearingly split hell wide open.

There is no sin whatsoever in being LGBT and being in loving physical relationships as such. The "stumbling block" as you quaintly mix metaphors is the institution of prejudice based on nothing more than a poor interpretation of an obscure and inapplicable passage of ancient priestly writing toward which the culture it represented says nothing whatsoever about LGBTs of today at all.

Were it true "hell" was the destination of all LGBTs then all people of character and decency would willingly and without regret pledge to go there.

And you can save this foolishness about hatred. Folks are just telling yall what God says because they love you . But some love their sin more than they love God and don't listen.

Look in the mirror. The "sin" is apparent in the self-righteousness and hubris of the antigay position.

But a Holy God will not be in the presence of that which is against Him.

That explains why the antigay position continues to lose. There is no God or righteousness in it at all.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Let's have a serious discussion about this, OK?

Here's what I want to hear from the parents objecting to their kids being taught how other kids in their society live: What do you think the school should do when a kid comes to school who has 2 moms & other kids start treating them badly?

What should the parents say to their kids when they come home & say "Sally has 2 dads," or "Timmy lives in 2 houses," or "Julie's mom is getting married," or "I don't like Terry because he's black," or "Jenny eats raw fish for lunch. She's icky?"

I really want to know how you think parents and schools should deal with kids being mean to each other because of their parents' prejudices.

If I saw the "Yes on 8" crowd actually talking about how to talk to your kids about being nice to Johnny even though Johnny's parents are bad, I might listen. Instead I hear them saying they want to hide their heads in the sand and not have their kids exposed to the fact that other kids in the school might have different kinds of families than they have.

If you want to pay the money to send your kids to a Christian school where all the families are vetted to make sure nobody's kids will be exposed to differences in the wider society, you can maybe see that their heads stay in the sand a few years longer. You can also see that they are not exposed to the way poor kids live, or all kinds of other things. But I don't want my tax dollars spent to support segregated schools.

When a new girl moved into the district in my daughter's 7th grade class & came to our house for dinner, I was moved by hearing her story of how nice it was to have a friend's family accept her into their home, and how mean the kids & their parents had been to her at her old school because she had 2 moms. Teaching respect for people different from you is part of good citizenship, which has been part of school curriculums forever.

Crazy Liz, you miss the whole point. The reason people oppose treating LGBT folks as persons of dignity and worth, and oppose programs in schools encouraging kids to do the same, is because they do not want to do this to people they think they are so much better than. The want the right to be able and encouraged to spew antigay epithets at their pleasure. They WANT LGBT kids to be the victims of bullying because they see that as the logical and justifiable end result of LGBTs being the lowlifes they claim they are. They are perplexed that others do not see things their way and take umbrage at the suggestion their cruel expressions do not meet universal approval. The world is getting better and they cannot stand it.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Why are schools talking about kids with two mommies or 2 dads? If you're teaching students to treat everyone the way that they want to be treated, why is who their parents are even entering the conversation?

Because those parents are attending the PTA meetings, volunteering in schools, baking cookies, serving as chaperones on field trips, coaching, and so forth and they deserve to be treated with the exact same standards by which heterosexual parents are, that's why.

And yours aren't any better than the folks parading in front of abortion clinics talking about folks have to accept their right to kill babies.

Who are these people? They are protecting the clinics from terrorists. They are heroes who have saved women's lives. They only "parade" (actually for the most part they are immobile to protect the brave doctors and nurses who put their lives on the line to protect women from the terrorists who attack clinics. FYI, a fetus and a "baby" are different things.

 

[Zaac]

Apples and oranges.

Only when it meets your needs.

Logic and Love.

According to you. Funny that yours is logic and love and anybody else's is bad parenting.

Na klar; your view of what "God's Word says so" is merely your opinion and interpretation and not authoritative in any way whatsoever at

all.

Like I said before, God's Word is His Word whether or not YOU accept it as authoritative. So in that regard, ain't nothing left to say on God's Word.

The "Holy Spirit" is not involved whatsoever in your baseless assertions.

More of that blah blah balh.

Of course not. It is obvious you are wrong, that was a given.

Yes. You're right. Were gonna cede parental rights to instill morality in their kids to folks who think like you.

No God which does as you suggest is worthy of worship. Of course such a god does not exist except in the imaginations of hatemongers.

Then you go right ahead and worship the god of your own creation. A lot of folks who think like you do. You still gonna be judged by God's law.

There is no sin whatsoever in being LGBT and being in loving physical relationships as such. The "stumbling block" as you quaintly mix metaphors is the institution of prejudice based on nothing more than a poor interpretation of an obscure and inapplicable passage of ancient priestly writing toward which the culture it represented says nothing whatsoever about LGBTs of today at all.

None of your liberal rhetoric changes God's law.

Were it true "hell" was the destination of all LGBTs then all people of character and decency would willingly and without regret pledge to go there.

God will get out of your way and let you go to hell if that's what you choose to do.

Look in the mirror. The "sin" is apparent in the self-righteousness and hubris of the antigay position.

The sin is apparent in the fornicative acts yall think you're gonna normalize and get Christians to accept. Not gonna happen.

That explains why the antigay position continues to lose. There is no God or righteousness in it at all.

Can't lose that which is no contest.

 

[Zaac]

Because those parents are attending the PTA meetings, volunteering in schools, baking cookies, serving as chaperones on field trips, coaching, and so forth and they deserve to be treated with the exact same standards by which heterosexual parents are, that's why.

The parents aren't in the class so there ain't no need to be talking about their fornicative relationships. You can teach students just fine to treat others how they would like to be treated without taking a stance of what God says is fornication.

Schools need to stick with academics and let the parents do the parenting.

Who are these people? They are protecting the clinics from terrorists. They are heroes who have saved women's lives. They only "parade" (actually for the most part they are immobile to protect the brave doctors and nurses who put their lives on the line to protect women from the terrorists who attack clinics. FYI, a fetus and a "baby" are different things.

Wow. That's irony. Their concerned about the women's lives but not the babies lives that they are snuffing out.

FYI, if it is growing and alive, it's still murder.

 

[Jase]

Zaac, I don't think you understand the fact that the U.S. is a secular nation. There is separation from church and state. Public schools are governmental instutitions, and are therefore separate from religious institutions. You say teachers should stick to academics and not spread filth and immorality. Psychology, sociology, government, etc. are all academics and all deal with the issues you hate. Just because your particular interpretation of the Bible's view on sexual orientation happens to consider it filthy and immoral, does not give you the right to say the government has to agree with your interpretation and stop talking about that which you don't like to your kids. This isn't a theocracy. Public schools don't give a darn about you being a bigot and not wanting your kids exposed to other kids who are different then them. Either deal with it, or send your kids to private school where they can be brainwashed into prejudicial bigots all they want.

 

[Zaac]

Zaac, I don't think you understand the fact that the U.S. is a secular nation.

What's that got to do with a secular world teaching kids that sin is right. I pay taxes in this secular country too. And if folks are gonna attempt to teach kids trash with my per student tax dollars, I want my perstudent tax dollars to go elsewhere.

There is separation from church and state.

Show it to me in the Constitution.

Public schools are governmental instutitions, and are therefore separate from religious institutions.

Funny how that only holds true when liberals want to teach THEIR brand of morality.

You say teachers should stick to academics and not spread filth and immorality. Psychology, sociology, government, etc. are all academics and all deal with the issues you hate.

You haven't seen me say I hate an issue.

Just because your particular interpretation of the Bible's view on sexual orientation happens to consider it filthy and immoral, does not give you the right to say the government has to agree with your interpretation and stop talking about that which you don't like to your kids.

It doesn't give them the right to use my per student tax dollars to indoctrinate my kids with their brand of morality either.

Somewhere along the way, some of yall liberals must have fallen and bumped your heads if you think government has a right to teach my kids anything that I don't want them to. This is a Federal Republic, not a Communist Regime. The government doesn't get to teach my kids anything without my consent.

This isn't a theocracy.

It's not a dictatorship either. You need to read that Constitution again. Government exists for the people, not the people for the government.

Public schools don't give a darn about you being a bigot and not wanting your kids exposed to other kids who are different then them.

That's YOUR bigotry talking cause I haven't said anything about my kids being exposed to other KIDS. KIDS being the operative word. They are in class with KIDS, not the KIDS parents and thus there is no need for the class to be talking about why Timmy has two mommies.

Either deal with it, or send your kids to private school where they can be brainwashed into prejudicial bigots all they want.

I and the folks who feel that way will. But you can definitely expect a class action lawsuit to get our per student tax dollars to go with us.

 

[Jase]

What's that got to do with a secular world teaching kids that sin is right. I pay taxes in this secular country too. And if folks are gonna attempt to teach kids trash with my per student tax dollars, I want my perstudent tax dollars to go elsewhere.

Um, sin is a religious concept. A secular society has no concept called "sin" that it must respect. And you don't have a choice of where your tax dollars go. If you have a problem with it, move to a theocratic country. I'm sure you'll be much happier (except you'll have no rights whatsoever, and will have no say in anything, but have fun....)

Show it to me in the Constitution.

The words "separation of church and state" is based on a letter by Thomas Jefferson referencing the 1st Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

In addition, Supreme Court rulings set legal precendent based on the concept of church and state. That's why it's unconstitutional to have school sponsored prayer.

Funny how that only holds true when liberals want to teach THEIR brand of morality.

Liberals and moderates don't preach in schools. They actually understand the idea that it is wrong to force one's interpretation of the Bible (or any other religion) on to other people. Maybe if conservatives weren't so sheltered and brainwashed, they would understand this concept.

You haven't seen me say I hate an issue.

By the notion of them being "filthy and immoral" you hate them.

It doesn't give them the right to use my per student tax dollars to indoctrinate my kids with their brand of morality either.

Actually it does, and it works both ways. Everson v. Board of Education. The SCOTUS declared it constitutional for taxpayer money to be used to fund transportation to religious schools. The non-religious have their tax money going to religious purposes, so why shouldn't your tax money be used for secular purposes?

Somewhere along the way, some of yall liberals must have fallen and bumped your heads if you think government has a right to teach my kids anything that I don't want them to. This is a Federal Republic, not a Communist Regime. The government doesn't get to teach my kids anything without my consent.

If you choose to place your kids in public school, you are giving your consent for them to be taught the school's curriculum. If you disagree with what they are being taught, don't send them there. And you say we bumped our heads? Fundies are the ones who have lost touch with reality.

It's not a dictatorship either. You need to read that Constitution again. Government exists for the people, not the people for the government.

I don't recall any dictator forcing you to send your kids to public school. And you all are the ones who voted the dumby Bush into office. Talk about pushing one's personal views on others.

As for the Constitution, I'm not really a slouch, as I was a Cum Laude graduate, at an honors university in Political Science and Law. I studied plenty of 1st Amendment and Constitutional Law.

I and the folks who feel that way will. But you can definitely expect a class action lawsuit to get our per student tax dollars to go with us.

Have fun, the Supreme Court has already said you will lose.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

FYI, if it is growing and alive, it's still murder.

FYI...cancer is "growing and alive." What's more, it's human tissue.

I'm not saying that a fetus is equivalent to cancer, Zaac. I'm only saying that your argument is faulty.

 

[Zaac]

FYI...cancer is "growing and alive." What's more, it's human tissue.

I'm not saying that a fetus is equivalent to cancer, Zaac. I'm only saying that your argument is faulty.

Not really seeing what you're referring to as faulty. Malignant cancer cells grow and thus are alive. If it's growing and aging, it's alive.

 

[Zaac]

Um, sin is a religious concept. A secular society has no concept called "sin" that it must respect.

Oh that's right. Yall don't respect anything but money. And that's why we're gonna take ours and leave yall to pay for the immoral indoctrination of your kids with your own tax dollars.

And you don't have a choice of where your tax dollars go. If you have a problem with it, move to a theocratic country. I'm sure you'll be much happier (except you'll have no rights whatsoever, and will have no say in anything, but have fun....)

Now I know you have bumped your head. You may not get a say so where YOUR tax dollars go, but I certainly get a say so where mine go. You obviously think this is a dictatorship and government can take tax dollars and do whatever they want with no oversight.

The words "separation of church and state" is based on a letter by Thomas Jefferson referencing the 1st Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

In addition, Supreme Court rulings set legal precendent based on the concept of church and state. That's why it's unconstitutional to have school sponsored prayer.

Oh just give us time to get some conservative judges on that court. We'll do away with this legislating from the judicial branch. It ain't in the Constitution and I'm still waiting for you to show me where the Constitution inthe First Amendment says anything about a Separation of Church and State.

Liberals and moderates don't preach in schools. They actually understand the idea that it is wrong to force one's interpretation of the Bible (or any other religion) on to other people. Maybe if conservatives weren't so sheltered and brainwashed, they would understand this concept.

Please. Yall just try to pass it off as compassion and making up for the short comings of parents who don't share your liberal ideologies.

If it's wrong to force Biblical truth, it should be just as wrong to force yall's immorality.

By the notion of them being "filthy and immoral" you hate them.

That's your word twisting. I said spreading filth and immorality. Apparently YOU think they are filthy and immoral.

And you're the quintessential liberal. Somebody says something you don't like and you immediately equate that to hate. Liberals are funny.

Actually it does, and it works both ways. Everson v. Board of Education. The SCOTUS declared it constitutional for taxpayer money to be used to fund transportation to religious schools.

Actually it doesn't and that's a lot of other parents are about to get that per student tax expenditure to send their kids to whatever school they want instead of these immorality indoctrinating public schools. It's a state issue. Public schools are funded by state tax dollars, not federal.

The non-religious have their tax money going to religious purposes, so why shouldn't your tax money be used for secular purposes?

You're incredibly confused. Either there is separation of church and state as you say or there isn't. Which one is it today?

If you choose to place your kids in public school, you are giving your consent for them to be taught the school's curriculum.

That's right the school's curriculum. And last time I checked, explaining why there are two mommies in somebody's house ain't part of any approved curriculum without the parents consent.

If you disagree with what they are being taught, don't send them there. And you say we bumped our heads? Fundies are the ones who have lost touch with reality.

That's right. But I'm taking those tax dollars with me. You might think we can't. But you've been wrong about so much else in this discussion.

I don't recall any dictator forcing you to send your kids to public school. And you all are the ones who voted the dumby Bush into office. Talk about pushing one's personal views on others.

Naah your dictators are just think that they can teach someone else's kids that immorality is right without their consent, and that they can use our tax dollars to do so without our saying anything. You and your liberal friends are in for a rude awakening as more and more way-of-Christ loving parents are gonna start homeschooling or private schooling their kids and taking their per student tax dollars to do so.

As for the Constitution, I'm not really a slouch, as I was a Cum Laude graduate, at an honors university in Political Science and Law. I studied plenty of 1st Amendment and Constitutional Law.

You obviously didn't learn anything.

Have fun, the Supreme Court has already said you will lose.

We only need one conservative to replace one of them retiring liberal judges and that will change.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Former President Jimmy Carter, America's first evangelical Christian president, still teaches Sunday school at his Baptist church in Plains, Georgia. He said in an interview with The American Prospect, April 5, 2004:

When I was younger, almost all Baptists were strongly committed on a theological basis to the separation of church and state. It was only 25 years ago when there began to be a melding of the Republican Party with fundamentalist Christianity, particularly with the Southern Baptist Convention. This is a fairly new development, and I think it was brought about by the abandonment of some of the basic principles of Christianity.​

 

[brightmorningstar]

Liberals and moderates don't preach in schools. They actually understand the idea that it is wrong to force one's interpretation of the Bible (or any other religion) on to other people. Maybe if conservatives weren't so sheltered and brainwashed, they would understand this concept.

Ah but liberals therefore want to force the interpretation of secular ideas on kids rather that the Bible. Christians believe Jesus is the truth the way and the life and that His teaching is spirit and life so Christians naturally would want the truth taught. The secular is therefore saying the truth isn’t the truth but secular values are. Ok lets have the debate. Anyway why are you sticking up for the secualr point of view?

 

[Crazy Liz]

Ah but liberals therefore want to force the interpretation of secular ideas on kids rather that the Bible. Christians believe Jesus is the truth the way and the life and that His teaching is spirit and life so Christians naturally would want the truth taught. The secular is therefore saying the truth isn’t the truth but secular values are. Ok lets have the debate. Anyway why are you sticking up for the secualr point of view?

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I'm sticking up for the secular point of view because I believe in separation of church and state on theological grounds, like all Baptists and Anabaptists did until 25-30 years ago.

I think parents not wanting their children's schools to teach them to be nice to other kids who have different kinds of families are morally lazy. They want to keep their heads in the sand and not have to deal with how to live with people outside their own communities. If they want to isolate themselves like that, they can. There are Hutterite communities in the Dakotas. Follow their model & build separate communities where your children aren't exposed to people who are different.

But don't make people who are different hide so you can have the convenience of not having to talk with your children about treating people nice even though you disapprove of some of the things they (or their parents) do.

Christian parents in pluralistic societies all over the world have dealt with teaching their kids how to be salt and light in the world. Parents who want to impose their religious values on the larger society by force give up the attractive power of being salt and light - the power of the gospel itself.

Former President Jimmy Carter, America's first evangelical Christian president, still teaches Sunday school at his Baptist church in Plains, Georgia. He said in an interview with The American Prospect, April 5, 2004:

When I was younger, almost all Baptists were strongly committed on a theological basis to the separation of church and state. It was only 25 years ago when there began to be a melding of the Republican Party with fundamentalist Christianity, particularly with the Southern Baptist Convention. This is a fairly new development, and I think it was brought about by the abandonment of some of the basic principles of Christianity.​

 

[Texas Lynn]

Like I said before, God's Word is His Word whether or not YOU accept it as authoritative. So in that regard, ain't nothing left to say on God's Word.

Sounds good. All you have offered regarding it is your own uninformed interpretation.

Yes. You're right. Were gonna cede parental rights to instill morality in their kids to folks who think like you.

If you think there will be an uprising of parents who want to teach their kids to hate, go for it.

That would be a tempest in a teapot right there.

Then you go right ahead and worship the god of your own creation.

A God which does not advocate hatred is worthy of worship. Call it what you will.

You still gonna be judged by God's law.

I'm prepared now for that and always will be. If advocating human rights results in being sentenced to "hell' that's certainly preferable than going to heaven presided over by an evil god.

None of your liberal rhetoric changes God's law.

No, the liberal rhetoric of Jesus Christ did that.

God will get out of your way and let you go to hell if that's what you choose to do.

Under the system you propose all the people of character and decency would be so destined.

The sin is apparent in the fornicative acts yall think you're gonna normalize and get Christians to accept. Not gonna happen.

Already has. What's this obsession with "fornication" anyhow?

 

[Texas Lynn]

The parents aren't in the class so there ain't no need to be talking about their fornicative relationships.

Again with the fornication. You appear to be uninformed of what parent volunteers do. They are indeed "in the classroom".

You can teach students just fine to treat others how they would like to be treated without taking a stance of what God says is fornication.

No one does. It is only the right wing with the obsession over what people do in bed.

Wow. That's irony. Their concerned about the women's lives but not the babies lives that they are snuffing out.

A fetus is not a "baby".

FYI, if it is growing and alive, it's still murder.

The slogan "abortion is murder" is merely hyperbole unrelated to jurisprudence. Even when abortion has been prohibited by law it has never ben considered murder.