This is beyond outrageous, but will our society as a whole do more than yawn?
There is clearly only one reason for this kind of blatant indoctrination: to warp the children's sense of normality, and what is right and wrong, while they are at their youngest and most impressionable.
In an age (not that long ago) with a functioning moral compass, this kind of behavior on the part of these "teachers" would have been seen as criminal abuse of a child.
For the sake of our children, we need to be busy taking back our society from those who would warp it and the children beyond recognition.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
First Graders on a Field Trip to See a Homosexual 'Wedding'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
The age you're talking about, the one with the "functioning moral compass," also made it acceptable to make black people sit at the back of the bus and say that women shouldn't amount to anything more than housewives. What a great time to be alive! (if you were a white man, of course)
That age also had it's moral failings by many. Though if it were not for those of that age who did have a moral compass, black people would still be at the back of the bus.
As bad as that was, at least even that age had the sense to realize that homosexual behavior is immoral, unnatural and unhealthy--and that marriage can obviously only be between a man and a woman. (Doesn't speak well of how stupid and/or morally bankrupt we've become, does it?)
But as those with a functioning moral compass had to correct the evils of previous times, so the good people of today will have to fight to correct the evil being perpetrated on marriage and family today.
As we won then, so we'll win again.
time's have changed, get used to it.
No, we won't get used to depravity, immorality, and things that are harmful to children and family--any more than people in ages past "got used to" slavery and mistreatment of black people.
We're going to fight for what is right, and you can get used to that.
Why didn't you mention that the children went on the trip WITH their parents' permission?
That means their parents are at least as morally reprehensible as the school officials.
But I'm pretty sure the parents didn't come up with the idea and demand the school take their children there. One should be able to expect that educational authorities would concentrate on academic pursuits, rather than exercises in social engineering.
Perhaps it's no wonder that America's academic performance is pathetic; we'd rather warp our children's moral and social understanding than ensure they master the educational basics.
No really, Bob, why DIDN'T you mention that the children had their parents' permission? With all the energy you spend pitting people against each other and trying to stereotype gays as evil, family-despising sex fiends, I can't believe you would accidentally overlook an important detail like that.
I didn't see where the point about parental permission was mentioned in the video report, anonymous. Permission is required for any activities that occur off school property, so I guess that can be assumed, but was this permission to visit city hall or to attend their teacher's wedding or specifically to attend a same-sex wedding and be filmed for a propaganda piece. It would be interesting to know what exactly parents were told about this "field trip."
Really, Anonymous 2:30, why do you spend so much energy trying to excuse and promote an immoral, unnatural and unhealthy lifestyle? And why do you condone the corruption of young children?
Why is that?
Apparently Mr. Ellis shot off his mouth without checking the facts. When told each student had parental permission he said he was sure the parents didn't come up with the idea. Ooops, the original news story mentioned specifically that the idea came from a parent, and in charter schools there is more parental control. So a parent did propose it and the other parents approved it.
Is it now indoctrination for parents to teach their values to their children? That is what happened here. And whether Mr. Ellis likes the values of these parents, or not, is not an issue. He has no right controlling the values other people teach their children.
I find it interesting that while conservatives talk about freedom and parental rights that they will let their rebid hatred of gay people cause them to throw out those other values.
Hate it or not it is the parent's right to teach their values to their children. Or do you want government to step in and strip parents of those rights? Or do you only want parents to have the right if they teach them values of which you approve.
Actually, LFB, no story I have read to date has said this, so if you are being truthful, then you've read a story that I haven't.
Accepting your statement as true, then this situation is even more pathetic than I realized--that a parent or parents would actually seek out the assistance of the education system in warping their child's perception of sexuality, marriage and family. But then, this is San Francisco, California we're talking about here--a modern-day city of Sodom--so I shouldn't be surprised by anything, I suppose.
In an age where society had a moral compass, such intentional damage to a child's moral and social development would have been considered abuse. Now, we have strayed so far from right and normality, for someone to speak against it is "hate."
Regardless of our warped sense of morality, it will never be "hate" to speak out against a sexual practice--and the acceptance of a practice--that is immoral, unnatural and unhealthy. To applaud or remain silent in the presence of such self-destructive behavior is itself a hateful act.
So, you post claims without checking the facts first. And why didn't the Yes on 8 people tell the public the truth -- that the parents made the choice? Because lies fit their campaign better than truth. And you don't care about the truth enough to find out what it is before posting your accusations.
You will find that the original press release from Yes on 8, which is where this false story came from, clearly mentioned that the San Francisco Chronicle was their source. The Chronicle article is on line. And it is easy to read -- no big words! And it is is clear that this a parental decision . The Yes on 8 campaign intentionally left out the truth -- they are lying for Jesus I guess.
You may think it pathetic that parents make choice you don't like but that is called freedom. But what I've notice from antigay conservatives is that they hate homosexuals more than they love freedom. Tolerance is not immoral. Immoral is when one violates the rights of others. And gay people, by being gay, aren't doing that.
Now your comments are starting to get down to the truth. This whole crusade has nothing to do about the schools -- that was just an excuse that was made up along the way. It has to do with your clear contempt for gays, who you think are unhealthy, unnatural, immoral, self-destructive, and I suspect,, some words you wouldn't print but you clearly believe.
If if it self-destructive it is the "self's" business not yours. Ditto for unhealthy and the rest of it unless it violates your rights and it doesn't. No one is forcing you to be gay. You rabid dislike for a group of people is not justification for using the law to make them second class citizens. But at least we got past the b.s. about how this about saving kiddies -- it's about hurting gays.
LFB, it's kinda hard to check the "facts" when those "facts" aren't available. As I said, I have not seen the claim that a parent instigated this exercise in moral subversion in any article I had read at the time of this post--and I'd read several.
I think your mock-moral indignation (excuse the pun) is a self-serving maneuver that you hope will allow you to feel morally superior...when even now your conscience is telling you that homosexual behavior is immoral, unnatural and unhealthy. But of course, if you admit it even to yourself, you might have no choice but to stop excusing it.
I'm afraid self-destructive behavior is my business. For one thing, homosexual activists demand an absence of hate and a show of compassion from everyone; it would be an act of hate to see someone about to fall or falling into a self-destructive behavior and say nothing to point them to the truth, and there would be no love or compassion in seeing someone hurt themselves.
It is also my business because when homosexual activists take their behavior out of the closet and attempt to gain the sanction of society for it, I'm a member of that society, and so are my children, and I WILL NOT stand idly by while people who are bent on their own self-destruction attempt to spread that destructive cancer further throughout the society of which I and my children are members. It has the effect of misleading people who may be confused about how sexuality should be expressed and cause them to also end up in a self-destructive lifestyle. Also a part of that agenda is forcing all forms of sexual perversion on employers to mandate that they hire people who overtly live lives of immorality, regardless of any religious or moral reservations that employer (which may include churches or ministries) may have. And the greatest threat of that agenda of assault on society is marriage itself, and allowing two people of the same sex--who obviously can never constitute a marriage--to counterfeit and call their relationship "marriage" undermines the genuine article.
Finally, as a follower of Christ, I have a duty to be the "salt" and "light" Jesus said his followers are to be; that involves providing an element which prevents decay (salt) and dispels the darkness to point the way to the truth (light). I also don't want the doom of someone's soul on my hands when I had within my means to warn them; God did say "When I say to the wicked, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand."
You should stop making war on marriage, family, and the vulnerable children caught in the path of your assault. If you want to destroy your own body and soul, you've obviously been warned here. But let your contempt and hate for morality and sexual normality to harm innocent children.
Bob:
You say its hard to check facts when they aren’t available. Rubbish. I read the Yes on 8 press release and noticed lots of things left out -- like the name of the school. I wrote them asking for it and they never replied. So I did a simple google search and had the answer in about 30 seconds. Two minutes later I read the original article from the San Francisco Chronicle. Just admit you didn’t try to verify the facts.
Your vampire theory of sexuality is wacko and unsubstantiated. And your hatred of gays is obvious and clear. No one wants your kind of compassion including you. If I argued that your hatred is so rotten and corrosive that we must stop it from spreading and that we must protect you from your self, you would despise me. If I then said we need legal restriction to prevent this cancer from spreading you would be shocked.
Freedom is the word and it is freedom that you hate because it allows people to make choices you don’t like. You are antifreedom to the core.
That kind of compassion is authoritarian and unAmerican. Now, I’m glad you admit that you are attempting to force your religious values on others. Good be honest. Don’t pretend this was about parental rights because it wasn’t. It was about two things. One that you don’t like gay people and two, that you feel you have an obligation to impose your religious views on people.
I love morality but it is not moral to run around interfering with other people -- its assault. You have no right to control other people’s families and the values they teach their children. You think you do. You claim it is morality to make everyone as Biblical as yourself. It is tyranny and tyranny is moral. Freedom is moral and freedom is what this country was founded on. If you don’t like American freedom why not go to Saudi Arabia or someother religious dictatorship?
War on marriage? Really? I like marriage. I think marriage is good and should be open to gay couples as well -- that's how good it is. I want people to marry and I think they should be committed to that marriage and preserve it. The only war on marriage is people trying to use the government to stop other people from marrying. That's you, not me.
There you go again, LFB, giving me a hard time when you don't know squat. I don't know what you checked and when you checked it, but the stories I read when it first came out did not contain this information.
Your conscience must really be bugging you, since you're so determined to try and attain what you consider to be a position of moral authority. You should listen to your conscience.
You have a lot of nerve calling normal sexuality a "vampire theory"--especially when homosexual behavior is only found in 2.9% of the population, and is obviously the abnormality.
I am not anti freedom; if want to destroy your own body and soul, have at it--you've been warned. But you have no right to entice and mislead others into destroying their bodies and souls. That is the assault, and you should be gravely ashamed of it. Your distorted definition of freedom is not valid; you advocate license, license to do and promote immorality and self-destruction.
America was founded on morality and self-restraint. The wise men who founded our nation understood that in order for freedom to remain, people must restrain themselves by religion and morality:
Without the restraints of religion and social worship, men become savages. – Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration
Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet. – Robert Winthrop, Speaker of the U.S. House
Let it never be forgotten that there can be no genuine freedom where there is no morality, and no sound morality where there is no religion…Hesitate not a moment to believe that the man who labors to destroy these two great pillars of human happiness…is neither a good patriot nor a good man. – Jeremiah Smith, Revolutionary soldier, judge, U.S. Congressman, Governor of New Hampshire
I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments. Therefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man toward God. – Gouverneur Morris, penman and signer of the Constitution
Religion and morality…are necessary to good government, good order and good laws, for “when the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice” – William Paterson, signer of the Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. – Benjamin Franklin
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. – John Adams
It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. Religion and virtue are the only foundations…of republicanism and of all free governments. – John Adams
Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society – George Washington
As I said, if you want to destroy your own body and soul, no one can stop you.
But when you insist on dragging the rest of American civilization down with you, the buck stops here. It is the duty of every American and every Christian to oppose your homosexual despotism and depravity--for the good of each individual American, and for the moral fiber of our society as a whole.
And if you don't like that, it is you who should go to some dark rat hole elsewhere in the world, because America was founded to be a virtuous nation, a "shining city on a hill" where people are free no only to live their lives as they see fit, but can be free of the oppression of depravity.
Finally, marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Your attempts and the attempts of other homosexual activists to counterfeit it constitute a war on marriage.
And good people will not allow it. We will defend it.
I admit that the story you first got didn’t contain the facts. My point is that you didn’t have enough interest in the facts to go looking for them. You just took the story at face value without any verification. If you care about truth you don’t wait for it to come to you -- you go looking. And you didn’t go looking.
If I listend to my conscience I would have been rude. So be glad I listen to my rational faculties and not my emotional repsonse. Morality requires freedom so I support freedom. You don’t.
I didn’t call “normal sexity a ‘vampire theory’”. Take a reading comprehension course. I was referring to your vampire theory of homosexuality with gays running about spreading disaster and all sorts of bad things. You paint gays as moral vampires and that is what I was referring to. I can’t imagine how you concluded I called “normal sexuality” a vampire theory.
I’m not destroying my body or mind. If others are, I can’t say. I’m not into the nanny state and don’t want government involved. But others have the right to try to “entice and mislead” me if they want and I have the right to say no. And yes, people have a right to promote immorality and others have the right to promote morality -- that’s freedom of speech. But I assume you aren’t keen on that freedom either.
The main founding fathers were not Christians but yes they did promote morality. They believe in “natural religion” which says there is a natural morality. I believe in moraltiy based on reality not on revelation sort of like Jefferson did. But morality is not the same thing as Christianity which has often been immoral (such as when it persecuted heretics, burned witches, supported segregation, etc.)
As for “good people” I suppose you think you are good. Anyone willing to use the force of law against peaceful individuals is not good in my books. There is no morality in using the state to impose your personal religious views on others.
My advice is simple. Next time go looking for facts before making false claims. If you wait for it you’ll wait a long time especially if you rely on the Yes on 8 people who have lied repeatedly.
And I never feel guilty standing up to big government advocates, marxists, nazis, socialists or theocrats. I believe in individual rights and since you don't then I oppose you. Really very simple. You are more like the Marxist than you can admit.
You are deluded beyond belief, LFB; I don't know why I waste my time on you.
You just can't let go of that "facts of the story" dodge, can you? Maybe that's about all you have to rescue you from your conscience. Listen to it; do the right thing and give up this advocacy of homosexuality and your hatred for the institution of family and sexual normality.
I assumed you were referring to normal sex as a "vampire theory" because I couldn't possibly imagine how you could confuse a mythical creature with the kind of very real physical and spiritual devastation homosexual behavior wreaks.
As I said, you are indeed deluded--perhaps beyond hope. I just cited the obviously Christian sentiments of several founding fathers, and yet you have the brazen audacity to make the preposterous claim that "the main founding fathers were not Christians." (And I only scratched the surface of the evidence of the Christianity of almost all of the founding fathers.) You've been listening to too many God-hating anti-American college professors or something. Even Benjamin Franklin--who was one of the least religious of the founders and likely wasn't a genuine Christian--nevertheless held a worldview that was mostly Christian; in fact, as a sad testimony to many Christians today, Franklin's worldview was probably more Christian than most Christians of the current age.
The only goodness I have is because of Jesus Christ; I was a drunken, foul-mouthed skirt-chaser until I gave Christ control of my life. But "good" isn't necessarily defined by the use of law.
The force of law is used against you ever day in countless ways. The force of law is imposed on you against your freedom to murder, steal, rape, run stop signs, speed, vandalize, use prostitutes, use heroine, and an almost countless list of other legal restraints.
What you mean is that you don't want the force of law interfering with your pet immorality. Let's be clear about that.
As I've said almost exhaustively now, if you want to destroy your own body and soul, you've been warned so go ahead at your own peril.
But you have no right to mislead others into your sin and depravity, and you have no right to assault the institution of family and the moral fiber of this nation.
You haven't the foggiest idea of what Marxism is about. But you will be opposed in your efforts to corrupt this country.
You don't have to like it, but you might as well resign yourself to it. We will defend marriage and the moral base of our civilization--they are both worth protecting.
Post a Comment