koth wrote: » for someone that complains about people misinterepting your posts, you're no slouch yourself. I never pointed to Nero as a sign of being progressive, rather I was just pointing out that gay marriage existed long before the current debate on the topic began. Why shouldn't a teacher be open to legal questions if they refuse to cover gay marriage when it comes to discussing relationships in the classroom? Teachers are supposed to give information to the students so they can learn and create their own opinions on such topics. And it's my understanding that the CofE are potentially exposed to legal trouble because they're the state church. People are guaranteed the opportunity to marry in a CofE church irrespective of their religion. This is what has created the problem now that the UK are bringing forward the same-sex bill.
aloyisious wrote: » To philologos: can you lay out, in as short a space as possible, what legal requirements you feel the state should put into law to protect your religious beliefs in regard to marriage, should Gay Marriage be enacted into law here in this republic.
As this thread has become bedded down in a debate about a denial of rights to others in either camp, with regard to gay marriage, maybe it's about time that persons from other (non-christian) religions should get involved here and post on how they view the effect, in their opinion, gay marriage would have on their religions views and beliefs of marriage.
philologos wrote: » I don't live there, so I don't feel that I have a democratic say there anymore.
koth wrote: » Why shouldn't a teacher be open to legal questions if they refuse to cover gay marriage when it comes to discussing relationships in the classroom? Teachers are supposed to give information to the students so they can learn and create their own opinions on such topics.
JimiTime wrote: » Depends how its being covered. In the states, there are some schools, from kindergarten onwards, that have a pro LGBT curriculum. In other words, its aim is to promote and indoctrinate pupils with LGBT idea's. Books like John has two daddies, and reversing gender roles etc. This type of thing is not just saying, 'Two members of the same sex can now enter into a state marriage'.
I myself believe, that this topic both implicitly and explicitly will result in authentic Christianity being driven into the closet (Something welcomed by a lot/most of you I'm sure). It was a tactical masterstroke of the LGBT lobby, to equate LGBT with race. Once you have people foolishly equating sexual behaviour with skin colour, and vilify a Christian as akin to the KKK, then you just need to say things like, 'Well what about a teacher who refused to teach that black people and white people can marry' etc. In Obama's inaugaration, he put the Stonewall Riots in with the great racial rights events of MLK etc. So the gears are turning. Racism is a most disgusting thing, and all reasonable people want it consigned to history. So being equated with it, how else can it possibly go? I know if I thought something was equal to racism, I'd certainly want to see it eradicated. I'd be on the side of Dr Michael Brown (Author of A Queer Thing Happened To America) and the man speaking for authentic Christianity in the discussions here). "Reach out to our LGBT brothers and sisters with love and compassion, but resist the agenda with fervour."
JimiTime wrote: » Depends how its being covered. In the states, there are some schools, from kindergarten onwards, that have a pro LGBT curriculum. In other words, its aim is to promote and indoctrinate pupils with LGBT idea's. Books like John has two daddies, and reversing gender roles etc. This type of thing is not just saying, 'Two members of the same sex can now enter into a state marriage'. I myself believe, that this topic both implicitly and explicitly will result in authentic Christianity being driven into the closet (Something welcomed by a lot/most of you I'm sure). It was a tactical masterstroke of the LGBT lobby, to equate LGBT with race. Once you have people foolishly equating sexual behaviour with skin colour, and vilify a Christian as akin to the KKK, then you just need to say things like, 'Well what about a teacher who refused to teach that black people and white people can marry' etc. In Obama's inaugaration, he put the Stonewall Riots in with the great racial rights events of MLK etc. So the gears are turning. Racism is a most disgusting thing, and all reasonable people want it consigned to history. So being equated with it, how else can it possibly go? I know if I thought something was equal to racism, I'd certainly want to see it eradicated. I'd be on the side of Dr Michael Brown (Author of A Queer Thing Happened To America) and the man speaking for authentic Christianity in the discussions here). "Reach out to our LGBT brothers and sisters with love and compassion, but resist the agenda with fervour."
Southwest Christian School 8720 West Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ, 85037 United States Map and Directions Telephone Number: 602-877-2367 Additional Information: Classes for preschool 3 and 4 years, Kindergarten and first through eighth grades. The school shares the building and facilities of the Southwest Church of Christ. Facilities include an indoor gymnasium, cafeteria, chapel, and playgrounds located on 20 acres at the Western end of Phoenix. An academic curriculum is pursued in all classes with particular emphasis on early reading skills. Daily chapel and Bible classes emphasize Jesus Christ and the Word of God. The school has been continuously blessed by our God since it's beginning in 1983 with dedicated Chrisian teachers and staff.
koth wrote: » But that's just teaching kids about another type of family unit. Unless they're deliberately excluding any information about heterosexual families, I don't see what the problem is.
But there are parallels, in both instances people are being denied the opportunity to marry.
One group because of skin colour and the other because of their sexual preference. Many people would see both of those as not being reasonable justifications to bar those people from marrying.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Are there no schools that promote a Christian curriculum in the US? Ohh - here's one In fact here's a list - http://church-of-christ.org/schools/united_states/s_united_states.htm Do they indoctrinate?
JimiTime wrote: » I know people like yourself wont see a problem. You have already been convinced that it is entirely appropriate. In the context of conscientious objection though (which is what you were discussing was it not?), it is most certainly an issue when, as a teacher, you are told to teach pupils morally questionable things from Kindergarten up.
Its not a parallel at all. If thats a parallel, then not allowing a person marry a truck is a parallel. Not allowing a black person marry a white person is based on the racist premise that a black person is a lesser being. The reason why a same sex couple couldn't marry each other, is the same reason why a person can't marry a cat. I.E. Its an institution for a man and a woman to enter into it together.
Like I said, homosexuals were not singled out like black people were. A homosexual could have availed of marriage at any time, without discrimination. However, due to what marriage was, wouldn't (with exceptions of course).
JimiTime wrote: » They are Christian schools, where parents CHOOSE to send their children to. The schools I'm talking about are not 'Gay Schools' but State schools who have decided to adapt a pro LGBT curriculum, usually with the help of GLSEN.
philologos wrote: » I don't live there, so I don't feel that I have a democratic say there anymore. I've said numerous times in the current situation where I am that the State is free to legislate even if I disagree but I hope that they will protect the rights of those who disagree in law. This is on the Christianity forum. Therefore you'll get primarily Christian views on this.
28064212 wrote: » Out of curiosity, what if the teacher was a militant gay that thought heterosexual marriage was morally wrong? Are they allowed "conscientiously object"?
JimiTime wrote: » Not at all.
Bannasidhe wrote: » I consider teaching small children that LGBT people are an abomination to be morally questionable.
Nothing was stopping a black person marrying another black person either - what's your point?
And yes, a committed, monogamous, consensual relationship between 2 adults is exactly like bestiality.
'homosexuals were not singled out like black people were' -Singled out for what exactly?
JimiTime wrote: » You'll be pleased to know then, that a)Christianity don't teach such a thing and b) Schools don't neither.
I've already explained it. If you don't understand the difference as per my previous post, then I'm not the person to explain it to you. It may be down to my lack of articulation, or failure to explain the point, or it may be down to your lack of understanding. Either way, I can't really make it any clearer.
I've been down this road with you before, and I don't think you have any desire to be anything but disingenuous and misrepresentative to your gain in spite of the facts.
In terms of marriage, marriage was a specific thing. It was defined by the fact that it was an institution between a man and a woman. A black man, and white woman could not marry in certain places, because the black man was seen as a lesser being. He was denied the right to enter into an institution on the basis that HE was a lesser being by virtue of the colour of his skin. A homosexual was not singled out in any such manner. Marriage was by definition, something that a man and women did. A homosexual has always been allowed to avail of the institution (Like I said though, they wouldn't want to as they did not wish to enter into such an institution). The issue now, is that they want the institution in question to be redefined so that it can mean something different to what it has meant. No such redefining was required to let a black man marry a white woman as the origin of the forbiddance was in the fact that black people were considered lesser.
28064212 wrote: » Why?
JimiTime wrote: » Is this line of questioning assuming I am for conscientious objection clauses for all or something?
koth wrote: » Not allowing a gay couple to marry is viewing either the gay couple or their love as something lesser than a male+female couple.
Institutions change to reflect society. There were times when women weren't allowed to own/control their own property. Society decided that it was no longer tolerable for that situation to continue to exist. Society is now changing its view on gay marriage. Why shouldn't society be allowed to do so?
JimiTime wrote: » Or different. You've changed the direction of the conversation from the original conversation of equating black peoples rights, and gay rights. Just FYI.
To deal with the question above, I'm not saying society shouldn't be allowed to do so, but as a member of said society, I foresee issues with the change, and will voice them and fight them when necessary. I wont be burning embassies or raising up arms, I'll just be appealing for what I see is the best course of action and hoping there are enough others who share my opinion. Presently, I don't see us standing a hope in hell, but I live in hope:)
koth wrote: » well it seemed that our discussion had reached an impasse so I figure I might try a different angle.
Nothing wrong with that, it's how a modern society should work. But I can't agree that withholding relevant information in a classroom because of the personal beliefs of the teacher is a good idea. Nor with not allowing same sex couples to marry.
JimiTime wrote: » No worries. Information is not what I'd personally have an issue with. Just like an atheist doesn't mind kids being thought religion in a 'These are Muslims, this is what they believe' kind of way. Its indoctrinating curricula that I'd have issue with.
philologos wrote: » He also denied penal substitution a few years ago which also caused much controversy.
Peregrinus wrote: » Phil has already linked to a summary of a legal opinion by Aidan O’Neill QC obtained, I think, by the Coalition for Marriage, an “an umbrella group of individuals and organisations in the UK that support traditional marriage and oppose any plans to redefine it.” For ease of reference, here’s the link again: http://c4m.org.uk/downloads/legalopinionsummary.pdf
JimiTime wrote: » Also, in terms of the same sex marriage thing, I presently (can't stipulate that word enough) don't see the difference between civil union and civil marriage in isolation. My issue certainly has nothing to do with the words. What follows on from it though, is where my concerns are. Adoption would be one thing, as I've stipulated before, and also, will it rid the unique relationship of a man or a woman of its importance and place in society. Also, the slippery slope argument in relation to incest, polyamory etc is a very valid one IMO. I do think that there is a risk that changing its meaning, will render it meaningless on a societal level. There may also be things I'm blind to in foresight. One things for sure though, the WORD marriage is not what I'm concerned about. I often see the quip from pro same sex marriage folk, 'What will happen if same sex marriage is legalised? Gay couples will get married.' If that truly is all that happens, then it wouldn't be a big deal for me. Now maybe that quip is just a tactic of undermining objectors, but if its not, then I really don't think people have truly given the issue enough thought.
koth wrote: » I'd be with you in general with regards to having a problem with indoctrinating curricula being taught in a classroom. Where I'm confused (and maybe I missed the clarification from yourself) is how can discussing same-sex marriage/couples be considered indoctrination? It would be information regarding the reality of the world. It's up to the child (and their family) to make up their mind as to whether it's something they support.
