Sure it does - Exposing children to homosexuality - or sexuality in general can include reading books even to the extreme like Gender Queer
I can understand an aversion to gender queer. I can't stand an aversion to masterpieces of art. I can't stand aversion to a Disney movie for having a gay character that did what EXACTLY, that was felt to be so aggregious an act on some poor mother's sense of decency?
My faith and I are inseparable - I never said we cannot talk about homosexuals. I said children should not be exposed to Homosexuality or even sexuality - that is not the schools job.
Here's the problem, you are incorrect. Schools JOB is to teach students all manner of factual, proven, reliable information. Including that gay people talk. Gay children and youth say "I like you" to other children.
Ultimately though (my bold) I think I am curious how you would draw this distinction. What would that look like in the classroom?
These are things that occur in the world. This DOES NOT MEAN a child will become gay when they read a gay book?
Please. Oh PLEASE tell me you know that a child reading a gay book won't turn them gay. I BEG of your to give me that much......
My preferences and my spiritual beliefs are 100% the same. They are inseparable. My faith forms my beliefs and actions.
Nah. You have preferences for things like carnival rides, haunted houses, or best pasta. When you refuse to allow any MENTION of homosexuality around a child, well there's no spiritual belief that forbids that. Like, BEYOND none. I have certainly never read a verse.
All that is besides the point that nobody is asking you to become gay...they just want to be gay and treated as someone who is worthy of a conversation.
As I cannot fathom the incapacity of a parent that could not and would not protect their child's modesty and sexual well being - A person who does not protect their child is an earmark broken parent.
Well, I'm not sure who this would be addressing if I'm being honest.
Who - where? Over dramatization of an issue does not make good debate.
Ignorance doesn't either.
Then there is no real reason to debate. If one side is completely closed, it is a futile discussio
I'm not the one closing anything. AntiLGBTQ, or certainly your side of the political spectrum, is 100% against any mention of homosexuality in the classroom. Not all of you, I assume. But dang, the rest of you get really, REALLY quiet when these victorian Handmaids start hounding teachers and principals. So long as you are willing to say you are not up for any shift in that position, then I'd be inclined to agree.
The reader will note that I began this discussion stating your had the right to say what you believe. I'm trying to silence no one.
That may depend, I think, on how you answer my response to the bolded part. I will certainly withdraw that complaint and apologize if it appears that way.
It really is no different with parents who do not want the Gospel preached to their children. Neither side wants the other to have undue influence over their children.
If you don't understand homosexuality at ALL, sure, I'd agree that is a totally fair comparison.
Who is saying push someone to the side? I am saying live side by side, not jamming ones beliefs down the throats of a person who doesn't believe the same as you. It's called being tolerant.
I'm wondering if you stepped outside of your boundaries for a sec and looked from where I'm standing.
You are refusing to allow homosexuality to be discussed in schools. And THIS is "called being tolerant".
Can you see how that, at least on the surface, sounds kind of silly?
Because I do not believe the same as you, does not mean I am trying to silence you.
Perhaps I need to understand your point better then.
m.washingtontimes.com
