^this is what i had said:


comparing being female to being gay is NOT rational.
comparing being black to being gay is ridiculous.

gay people sleep with the same sex. big whoop.
what happens when a bunch of people decide "well i love THREE people. so i want to marry them all. the government takes way my rights if i cant marry all three of my lovers!"

I used them as a example, being gay is as NATURAL as being a women, man, hispanic, african american, asian and so on. If rights were taken away because of who they are people would fight for it.

The first part doesn't make sense. And why in the hell would anyone go on a field trip to a gay marriage? Why would any wedding be a field trip? Talk about pulling things out of your ass. That is not exactly what the bible says, because you couldn't even be bothered to quote the bible. But I challenge you to do so.

Bible =/= nature. Not even a little.



Most studies disagree with you.


Ummm I typed responses to more posts, but I lost them...and this is all I was willing to redo.

I will say, though, that the reason "liberals" take issue with people who base their opinions off a literal interpretation of the bible is that a lot of us have no reason to care what it says. The law does not either, given the separation of church and state. I actually think that marriage as a religious ceremony needs to be completely separated from its legal ramifications. Every couple that wishes to be united should get a civil union, and then those who are religious can get an actual marriage if they so choose. But to prevent devoted partners from getting visitation rights at the hospital (or anything along those lines) because they are not legally related is wrong. Social conservatism may stall progress, but it will ultimately lose. Abstract morals change over time, so it's utterly ridiculous to say that something is wrong now because people thought it was any amount of years ago.
Polygamy actually used to be common place. But also it used to be acceptable to stone women to death for getting married out of wedlock. Profanity may be a lot more prevalent on tv now, but oral sex between two consenting adults used to be banned by sodomy laws. So I guess you can attempt to make the argument that compromising out morality is destroying society, but personally I'd prefer to take that risk and have as much freedom as possible.

^ nicely put. Religion shouldn't even be taught in public schools. So a field trip to any marriage ceremony wouldn't even be a thought.

i also agree that Joss-eh-lime is quick to say its against the bible yet fails to quote any of it.




^ amazing. Exactly what i was thinking. Makes complete sense.

prob because quoting from the old testament will screw you over really quick when you realize that you don't abide by any of the laws that surround that gay line

She was making reference to this.

I think that's the only part of that article that actually matters.

Not really, because the original premise was Joss-eh-lime conjuring it up out of nowhere. It's a given that any field trip will give parents leeway to opt their child out, so it's not as if either you or Blaqheartedstar had to wait for a link to make that a point; rather, you derided the chances of it happening in the first place.



Even if you want to believe that sexuality isn't genetically encapsulated, few would argue that your biological inclinations are a conscious choice anymore than gender or race.

Because by not providing a link, or ever directly referencing it, we had no reason to think it was an issue. But of course, it's not an issue because her little brother or any other child would not have to go to anything the parents disagree with. Also, she made it sound like they'd be taken for educational purposes, which that didn't really sound like it was. However, if those children learned that all people are entitled to a happy marriage, then I wouldn't consider that problematic either.

It doesnt matter if a parent can "opt out" of having their child attending a field trip, I dont want my child even having the opportunity to go. A field trip to a wedding, let alone a gay wedding, is ridiculous.
Not to mention, some parents arent even notified accurately.

Having the audacity to even suggest a wedding as a field trip takes a lot of balls.. just like having the audacity to ask a group of children to sing a song dedicated to a presidential candidate.





There is no way you can prove that being gay is natural.. there are as many holes in the "gay gene" theory as there is in the evolution theory.



Its called google.

Google a seemingly baseless offhand comment? Yeah...so if I say I don't want my sisters to be eaten by dinosaurs on a field trip, are you going to google it to see whether that's ever happened before?

I don't think marriages are an appropriate field trip either. At all. But it's stupid to say you don't want an option to be available when you can say no to it. Schools are legally obligated to notify parents about field trips, so if they don't bother to thoroughly read the permission slips, that's no one's problem but their own. It's utterly hypocritical how people whine about children being "brainwashed" in public schools when the same people would happily put their children in private ones where they can be fed Christian ideology without the government oversight.

Yes, yes I would.

No, I was joking about the whole google thing

Ya, except that private schools are expensive and you know that. Some parents who would love to take their child out of the slowly deteriorating public school system just cant afford it. Thats not even a logical argument.

off topic but check this out
http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/pdf_docs/gaymarriage.pdf
12 reasons why gay marriage would ruin society
^ a joke, but makes total sense.
also brings up the argument many try to pull off that children need a mother and a father, and same sex marriages can't provide that.
They can't use that as a excuse when the divorce rate is climbing higher and higher each year.

We don't learn about marriage in public schools and we wouldn't learn about gay marriage either. Massachusetts is different than California. Our state constitutions are different. Look up the constitution yourself.



i like that people make it seem like they're trying to protect their future generations from "gay marriage" as if it's some sort of disease. look, it's not a choice, they're born gay & whether you like it or not, it's a reality. we don't live in a friggin utopia, wake up. there's a genocide going in darfur, the holocaust happened, there are homeless people, oh & MY GOD there are people who are gay. your kids & your little brother are going to learn about it EVENTUALLY.

Gays marrying each other cannot be compared to incest or 3 people marrying each other.

exactly. People are all like i don't want my child to learn about it. If you prohibit your child from watching tv. They learn about it at school, from their friends, the internet. its everywhere.

That is why the family as a whole is extremely important. I dont care whether a child is raised by a man and a woman or a man and a man. (I would prefer the first.). But, take away the family and problems occur.

Children need to be raised by a loving, discipling family. Not 16-year-olds fresh out of high school. The parents need to moniter what the child sees and communicate with their child.

Proverbs 22:6
"Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it."

Yeah, but that wasn't really the point. I meant that regardless children are going to run the risk of being exposed to different ideas. And I fail to see how it's worse to suggest that they be shown that there are opposing viewpoints than to be told that there is only one thing they are allowed to believe, as with many people's interpretations of Christianity.


But you seem to be suggesting that only "liberal" brainwashing is wrong, while it's perfectly fine to push Christian ideology.

its cute how you think the field trip thing was made up.

the article

gay marriage has already infiltrated schools, and its popularity will grow, no matter what happens with this particular vote. however, i would like to try and attempt to stop its growth therefore i am supporting Prop 8

Private schools are expensive, but they also offer scholarships. And if that isn't an option there is a such thing as homeschooling. Though, I don't agree with homeschooling if it's simply to guard the child from the real world. When they grow up, or realize you've been lying to them their entire lives, they're likely to resent you for it. I do agree that children need to be raised in a healthy environment, but I don't think that it has to be a heterosexual couple.

Polygamy cannot be compared to homosexuality at all. It is a completely different subject, with it's own issues. That is a ridiculous comparison.

No, because school is not the place to be teaching these children "opposing viewpoints." Yes, the children may learn about them through other students. But the public school's only job is to supply education to these students. Thats why I think creationism, along with evolution should be taught. Or take that aspect out of science being taught at school away completely.

But, if parents belive that "there is only one thing" that their children are allowed to believe, and they have the money(.... or a scholarship i guess), then feel free to send your child to a Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Scientology, or Wiccan school. Its how you wish to raise your child. Whatev.

But as for public school, it is just education. No swaying.




Ya, your right. It just kind of unnerves me when these people have these children singing a song to a man that is in favor of leaving babies on tables to die just in order to keep abortion laws from becoming under attack.

it was already brought up. HERE

Also do you honestly believe that prop 8 would already stop gay marriages from entering schools if it already has? what are they going to do punish the children who bring it up?

Been there, covered that. Try reading posts?

Infiltrated schools? Popularity will grow? It's not a f**king disease or a trend, loon.


By suggesting that they teach both evolution and creationism (which there is no scientific basis for), you're supporting the teaching of opposing viewpoints.

By not banning gay marriage, education is not swayed.

As for whatever you're referring to with kids singing for Obama, the issue not that they're singing for a candidate with particular views, it's that they're singing for a candidate at all.

blackheartedstar; i said stops its growth. not erase it completely. and like i said i know that prop 8 won't stop anyone from talking about gay marriage, but i still dont support it!

Ya, and you are so sure that evolution is so much more stable? There are so many freakin holes in it. Just cause you are against Christianity and the theory of Creationism, you dont have to cling on to evolution like its pure fact. Its not.

Well, as for me supporting that opposing viewpoints (creationism vs. evolution) in school, I would much rather have that than only teaching one theory. Or, like I said, take that aspect out of school completely.

Not at all, and this is why I avoid debates about evolution/creationism/whatever, because it all sounds like shit to me. But I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to teach something in science class that has no scientific basis.

I don't think it's an aspect you can take out of school, though. Kids are going to wonder how we came to be, and there needs to be at least a tentative answer. If you want creationism included in that answer, send your kids to Sunday school.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It'd be one thing to say, "I've never even heard of this", but actually making an argument based off of the premise that no such instance exists is a presumptive fallacy.

"And why in the hell would anyone go on a field trip to a gay marriage? Why would any wedding be a field trip?" declines to object in its complicity. You're accepting her premise of it somehow being a corruptible moment, but that it would never happen to begin with. Only after an example was shown did you say, "Actually, what's wrong with that in the first place?"

Also, it was described as "a teachable moment." The parameters that it was permitted under were to "teach respect for marriage and committed relationships."



Except that's what she said: they would do that, in order to illustrate how it doesn't make sense to chalk up secular issues like this as "brainwashing" when young children are systematically indoctrinated to believe in something they don't even understand under religious exaction. "Would" is conditional.



Yes. Yes, it is.

Well, I just disagree with the fact that there is, in fact, two sides to the argument. Creationism and Evolution. Sure, there is no "scientific basis" for creationism because it is not a scientific theory. Evolution is, therefore it is going to have plenty of "scientific basis." But it also has many, many holes in it and connections that cant seem to be made.
There are archeological findings that prove that the Bible is accurate on more than one account. And since the Bible is the basis of the Creationism theory, I think that is considered to be evidence enough.

But, I dont like how only evolution is taught when there is clearly an alternative... Its biased. Its not giving the children in the schools a chance to make a decision for themselves. Just imagine if only creationism was taught... how unfair would that be?



Enlighten me, please.



We're over the brainwashing thing. I said I was wrong. *sniff*

do something: your final point about creationism is what i had said earlier.
i agree with you

Thank you.

This is a given in any scientific subject. The role of science is to patch these holes as more information comes to fruition through research and evidence-based piecing.



We not only have systematic alterations through consecutively-occurring instances of time in the fossil record, but we have physically observed evolution on the microbial level, such as the development of antibiotic resistances in bacteria.



I actually agree with you on the point of those kids singing praise to Barack Obama. That's why I liken teaching religion to young children who don't understand what it is that they're believing to indoctrinating them under a certain political belief.

its BLAQ
anyway how can it stop its growth? you honestly believe that children are going to come home and be like
"hey mom i learned that i can marry a boy/girl"

just because that class surprised their teacher at her wedding its not like the school has planned the trip as part of their curriculum. No school will.

But, we havent reached that level yet, have we? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.



You dont have to try to impress me with your big words. I barely understood anything you just said.

So, its a complex theory.. still has holes and cant be connected at certain places.



A rational person, thank you.

Would it not have to be described as a "teachable moment" to qualify for a field trip at all?

You're reading too much into this. I thought her mentioning that when I didn't know better was absurd because I did not think any wedding would be an acceptable field trip.

But, if weddings somehow do qualify for field trips, then I don't really see the issue regarding that one, because of course the parents did not have to let their children go.

lmfao, you didn't get that?
anyway theres holes in pretty much everything. Can't be too sure on much anymore.
science and religion. some of their theories have physical evidence while others don't.

They dont.



I mostly just skipped over it.

Maybe it just seems like all theories have holes in them, but does everyone really research enough into each one of them to see if there really are holes... or if they just refuse to believe in them for some reason?

true, which the point i'm trying to point to Joss-eh-lime. who thinks that somehow her brother is going to go to one. Its not going to happen . It was a surprise trip that had nothing to do with the school.

Prove it's accurate on what sort of account? Historical things?

There is not clearly an alternative. The alternative you speak of is based entirely off of a religious text, which means that it has no place in public schools. And why were you arguing with me on the need to let kids make decisions for themselves when apparently you agree?


I agreed with you on that one too...

Ya.... but it might happen again. People are bold. You think something like this will only happen once? Maybe not the exact thing, but people are still going to try to push their lifestyle on others. On children.

Humor me. Give evidence for your claims. You keep saying there are holes in the evolutionary theory, but you haven't given any of them. You haven't given any facts to support anything you've said. This is supposed to be a debate, not a place for you to get on your soapbox and spout your beliefs with nothing backing them.


But it's OK for you to push your lifestyle on everyone else including children?

sure its likely to happen again, but a parent has a say in it. If they feel they don't want their child to attend then they don't have to sign and let their kid miss the day. Its as simple as that.



amen to that

So what if it is a historical/religious text. Just because it is not a scientific theory doesnt throw it out the window. Its a theory, none the less.

And, you said that if I wanted my children to learn about creationism, I should send them to Sunday School... Thats why Im disagreeing with you.


Oh, sorry. Wonderful.

Okay....hold on.



Im not pushing my beliefs on anyone. This is a debate forum, jackass.

And if they are my children, I can teach them what I believe in and what I think would be best for them to believe in. You, as well with your children.


^ditto.





Oh, no I double posted. Woops.

We're on a far, far lower level without the evidence and information that we do have once you turn to creationist explanations.



In other words, we have cases of very slight changes in fossils that incrementally occur as time passes on. For example, there are instances of fish that are identical to their predecessors except for having morphed primitive forelimb arrangements more similar to amphibian patterns.



I'd go so far as to say that I can address any hole you perceive evolution to possess.



It would. That's why it doesn't make sense for you to have thought that it didn't.



This wasn't it. You didn't merely say, "That would never happen." If you had, there would be no inconsistency. You actually asked why anyone would even do that all. Both are a declination to objection, and are different from later saying, "So what if that even happens, when it would be educational?"

I was simply making a point. You think it's so horrible for society to teach about other ways of life, including what you consider to be "wrong" yet at the same time, want evolution to be taught along side creationism. That is pushing your lifestyle on other people. If we were to treat all theories equally we should teach every culture's theory on where human life came from. Regardless of if there is any factual basis.

No, my question about whether the archaeological findings were historical was serious. I'm not sure what findings you were referring to, but if all they did was confirm that events things recorded in the bible aligned with history, it's irrelevant to whether creationism is true. (It's getting late, so I apologize if my rhetoric is confusing.)

And so what if it's a religious text? That would (generally) disqualify it to be taught in public schools.


That's not really inconsistency. I asked why anyone would do it at all in a rhetorical sense because i didn't, and still don't, think that a wedding is a legitimate field trip. But in the event that it did/could happen, of course there would need to be a case for it to be educational. The hypothetical basis was not in question.

I agree. Teach every theory or none at all. I dont think that is pushing my views.. I think that is equal.
I take it you believe in evolution(correct me if im wrong), so if only creationism was taught in public schools, would you be "pushing your views" on others by insisting that Evolution be taught alongside it?


Well, I found an interesting web page that documents some archeological findings that prove the Bible is historically accurate: Sodom and Gomorrah, Jericho..

http://www.defendingyourfaith.org/Archaeology.htm

This is an interview with a creationist archeologist which I found interesting:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v...chaeologist.asp




Ya, it is getting late..
The findings prove that the Bible is true. If the Bible is true, then creationism must be true cause it comes straight from the Bible.



You seem very intelligent. But, Im wondering... have you studied the creationism theory as thoroughly as the evolution theory?

Whoa whoa whoa, no findings have found that "the Bible is true."

I need to sleep, so I'll leave it there, but there is absolutely no way that statement is true.

*sigh* ... on more than one account.

Actually I'm more fond of the Intelligent Design theory. I think the evolutionary theory should be taught in schools simply because it does have scientific evidence backing it. If the parents of the children wish to teach them differently that is completely up to them. But to be completely honest, no Biology class is going to teach a non scientific theory. Creationism is not a scientific theory, it's from the Bible. Not a text book.

Not that it matters, but I'm sure it's going to come up, I am a Christian. I just hate when people shove Christianity down other people's throats, and hate it even more when they do it without even providing any scriptural evidence.

Let me know at any point if Im shoving it down people's throats. I dont think I am.. just because I have a differing opinion doesnt mean Im forcing it on anyone.

It irritates me when people do that too.