NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/12785

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-01 | 5.6 KB

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12785 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11204 alt.politics.clinton:19452 alt.politics.bush:15351 alt.politics.homosexuality:8792
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!zeus.tamu.edu!rlc1028
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: 1 Jan 1993 16:59 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Lines: 103
Distribution: usa
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (25336-buoni) writes...

|Who cares about whether or not the individuals in question are persecuted
|unfairly?  The original post dealt with the children NOT the individuals!
|Afterall, it is not the children who commited the offense.

    Oh, it matters quite a bit.  The children are only being taught
to be tolerant of Homosexual families because the parents face
discrimination which includes violence among other things, and in the hopes
that in the future, children of such families will not be teased because
of their parents.

    Whatever teasing the children might face is considered worth the
long-run goal.  We could choose to protect the children of drug addicts in
such a way, but if people think that drug addiction or beastiality are
not worth protecting from discrimination, then we could find other ways
to help the kids of such parents.


|
|>    If the world could depend on you to teach your children to follow
|>your example of tolerance, there would be no need for teaching it in
|>school.
|
|Shouldn't this read "if the world could depend on you to teach your children
|to follow MY example of tolerance ...".

    It could.  But I think I might be satisfied with your idea of
tolerance as long as it's something like "live and let live".  If we could
get people to do this, other measures would probably not be seen as
necessary.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Besides, my understanding is that
|what is being taught is acceptance NOT tolerance.  If tolerence was the
|main objective then we need not mention homosexuality at all; just teach the
|kids that all people deserve respect regardless of their differences!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Yes, this might work, though in the past, when such a general
approach has been tried, Homosexual people have tended to get overlooked.

    Tolerance IS acceptance of a kind.  what you are talking about is
an accpetance of a moral position that says "Homosexuality is good, and we
recomment you practise it."  But the accpetance I would be satisfied with
is "Homosexual relationships form one of any kinds of family units; and
such people are not to me scorned or mistreated because of this, ragardless
of whether you think Homosexuality is wrong or right according to your
religion".




|Better yet, why not school choice?  If I am paying for my children's
|education, which I am, why should'nt I be given the choice of which school
|I would like to send them to?  Isn't the purpose of the government to serve
|the people?  In a "free" society one would think so!

    And further, if you are paying to send your child to the school of
your choice, why should you pay to send someone else's kid to school too?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|My guess is that what is being sought is acceptance, not tolerance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Your guess?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|problem is that living a gay lifestyle is not OK (my values).  That is not
|to say that homosexuals are inherently evil, but that God did not intend us
|to function this way.  Nor did he intend for us to be sexually active
|outside of marriage, indulge in "immoral" behavior, ....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When you say the phrase "Gay lifestyle is/isn't OK", what does that
mean?  Apart from G-d and all that, what do you mean by it in a social and
political context.  Because you think it's not "ok", what then do you think
society should do about homosexual citizens?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|These are my beliefs.  I don't expect you to adopt them, nor do I expect you to
|accept them.  All I ask in return is that you give me the same respect in
|return.  In my view, teaching my children views which are in direct conflict
|with our (my wife and I) values is a violation of this respect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What would you have us do if your religion taught that it was wrong
to integrate the races?  Yes, I know it doesn't.  But I want to know what
you'd have the schools do if teaching racial equality conflicted with your
religion.

    You see, I want to know because the more fundamental issue here
is what to do when social agenda in school conflicts with parents' reli-
gious values.  In the case of racial integration, would majority rule
simply override your religious rights?  Or, do your religious rights
really exist in the case of your children's school curricula?

Gadson