Posted on 02/22/2004 4:50:09 PM PST by GrandMoM
What "Gay" Marriage Will Mean for our Children
By Linda P. Harvey
Column originally published on WorldNetDaily.com, July 19, 2003 © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
"Same sex marriage? It doesn't bother me!"
In many circles, this is the prevailing sentiment regarding the possible legalization of same-sex relationships as "marriages" in the U.S. If the Supreme Court in the state of Massachusetts rules in favor of the homosexual couples who have sued for marriage rights, then other states will most likely be forced to recognize these couplings as marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
There's just one problem with this angle: It doesn't take into account the impact on children. If same-sex relationships become the law of the land, then homosexual marriage will be presented to America's schoolchildren as the equivalent of heterosexual marriage.
Here's how and why it will happen. Right now, the vast majority of U.S. public school districts have put themselves in a very vulnerable position, one that conservatives have been warning about for years but few school boards listened. What they've done is add under their non-discrimination policies the category of "sexual orientation." It only remains for enough time to elapse - and for same-sex marriage to be legalized - for "gay" education activists to force schools to implement sweeping changes in curricular content.
Among those changes will be "diverse" textbooks that include same-sex couples as role models, even for little children. To refuse such content will be considered "discrimination," and the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal Defense Fund will take that district to court, as they have recently in order to force homosexual clubs onto schools. If not those two well-heeled groups, then the National Education Association will sue, as it has promised, on behalf of any teachers involved. Increasingly liberal courts, modeling themselves after the Supremes, are pretty likely to rule in favor of such plaintiffs.
That also goes for the "right" of teachers who are homosexual to wear wedding rings, talk about their homosexual spouses with students and introduce spouses at school functions. Your little Katie will learn in kindergarten that "Mrs." Jones is married to another "Mrs." Jones - and that she can grow up and choose to do the same if she wishes. It is, after all, her "right."
Grade-school and middle-school anti-bias units will now crank into high gear the focus on homosexuals and cross-dressers. Because marriage is now legalized, children will be persuaded in misleading material that anyone who objects to homosexual behavior is not simply biased, that person is breaking the law. The take-away for students from these shallow lessons will be that it is illegal to criticize homosexuality, and every person young or old should be protected from the mean conservatives. Standing up for equality in America will translate into the freedom to practice homosexuality for every student who "discovers" such inclinations.
Sex education will be required to take into account this new form of "family" and abstinence - until - marriage education will take a twisted new turn. Suddenly, it will be co-opted by Planned Parenthood and other liberal activists with their own unique spin. Every student will be taught that, of course, abstinence until heterosexual or homosexual marriage is fine if that's one's choice. But since pregnancy isn't a danger for homosexuals, sex can be a wonderful option for younger and younger people - as long as it's carried out "responsibly," of course - like brushing one's teeth. To not teach this would be, again "discrimination" based on sexual orientation. Condoms are always available for those who can't wait. Let's show you third-graders how this condom fits on this banana, just so you are prepared.
Expect a whole new crop of young adult novels featuring same-sex romance leading to marriage to appear instantly and be adopted just as magically by middle-school and high-school language departments throughout the U.S. Your 13-year-old Kyle will be required to read and give a book report on a novel where Bruce and Jason meet, date and get married. What won't be covered is how Bruce and Jason split up a year later after cheating on each other dozens of times.
And it gets better (or worse). This stop-gap standard will last for just a few years, until the inevitable next piece of the puzzle is in place. Hank and Jim will petition the courts to allow Mary, the biological mother of "their" adopted child, to become part of their marriage. After all, what business does the court have in their bedrooms, determining who they have a right to love? Along about this same time, Cindy and her partner, Luke (who is really Lucy, except that she dresses like a man) will demand that the law recognize Luke as a "husband" in spite of her biology. And so will emerge the accompanying new curricular materials reflecting the legalization of group marriage and transgender unions, making sure every U.S. school child knows that these are future options for him, her or them.
In such a legal and educational environment, what happens to religions that don't believe homosexuality is moral? Will those religions and their ancient teachings eventually come before some future Supreme Court and be told that they are guilty of discrimination? That their beliefs are no longer constitutional because of privacy rights?
If this sounds like lunacy, it's because it is. What we do in the bedroom has always been public, in the form of what we call a family. It becomes what we teach and pass on as wisdom to our children. And if we aren't sure what "wisdom" entails, by golly, the homosexual activists are here to tell us.
° San Francisco Becomes Outlaw Territory ° Homosexual Marriage Debate Moves Into the Schools ° The Latest on Same Sex Marriage in Massachusetts ° Is the Da Vinci Code Christian? ° Parents Against Bad Books in Schools – Get info on porn-laden school "literature" ° Hollywood's Distorted Picture of So-Called "Homophobes" ° Christian Witness to a Pagan Planet ° Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
> Order our video on the "gay" agenda in the schools! NO TOLERANCE FOR TRUTH: What Our Children Are Learning About Homosexuality
> PARENTS & STUDENTS! Take our survey - How is homosexuality presented in your school?
> Help stop PFLAG and GLSEN
> Students - See our web site at Choice4Truth
> Organize a Group to Fight the "Gay" Agenda in Your School
It's a question of degree. She may be pro-abortion, but she's hardly Kate Michelman.
I was pro-abortion myself until just a few years ago. This made me a conflicted person, though I did not realize it at the time. And it took a long time for me to come down off that fence, even after the reality of abortion began to outweigh the supposedly high-minded concept of "reproductive rights". I'm willing to cut her the same slack I gave myself on this matter. She is dead wrong on this, but so was I.
In the meantime, she has a high level of common sense and a way with words that makes me positively jealous. So I will continue to read her and approve of the areas in which she is absolutely spot-on correct.
Hoo boy. I guess you've never met TD before. :D
No for long, if she keeps this s#!t up. LOL
But I don't think she much cares, and I also admire her for that.
That's why it's so befuddling to me that so many here who generalize like that, can in fact see that that's not true, and embrace Tammy Bruce despite the fact that she's a pro-abortion lesbian.
It's like like people here are saying "We hate gays and abortion advocates... unless they say something we agree with. In that case, they're OK." Well, if you can see the humanity in Tammy Bruce and find common ground with her, why can't you (not you specifically, but people here in general) conceive that maybe your thinking about other gays and pro-abortion people may be a little too dogmatic, and incorrect?
Some people here are ridiculously reactionary against gays and abortion, but have no problem making an exception when it suits their purpose. I often face the accusation here of being pro-abortion and pro-gay. I am neither. I oppose abortion and homosexuality. But I am equally pro-reason and anti-reactionary.
Well, that's close but not the truth. You may have a bone to pick with those who like to generalize, but your sentence highlighted above seems you fall into that category occasionally yourself!
Yes (cough!), I believe I have been on the receiving end of that charge from you in the past.
I often face the accusation here of being pro-abortion and pro-gay. I am neither. I oppose abortion and homosexuality. But I am equally pro-reason and anti-reactionary.
Is it reasonable to expect every poster to qualify every statement on this subject with "yes, gays are human too, no, I don't mean *all* homosexuals do this, BUT"? That's going to make for some really tedious reading here over time.
And some don't believe it even when you do bother to qualify it, and I've come to the point where I no longer care.
I really do have gay friends, you know. Far fewer than I used to (some have died, and some I've had to cut loose along with EVERY SINGLE OTHER liberal acquaintance of mine, as I can no longer stomach their nonsense or even pretend to like anyone who holds those views), but I still have some. So your amazement that I can "see the humanity in Tammy Bruce" is, naturally, going to appear to me as a bit...reactionary...
Concerned Women for America - Radio: Sandy Rios and Tammy Bruce
She’s a former leader within the National Organization for Women. She’s a lesbian and she is pro-choice. But she also believes there is a right and wrong. Sounds intriguing? Tune in for our discussion with Tammy Bruce in this edition of Concerned Women Today...
It really would be tedious reading, yet some here will attempt to denigrate anything you say if you don't include a similar disclaimer with every post.
And some don't believe it even when you do bother to qualify it, and I've come to the point where I no longer care.
I don't care much myself and will continue to present the facts despite the misrepresentations from those whose only interest appears to be the denigration of the facts.
I recently picked up Preying in School by Mike Thompson and last year picked up After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990s by Kirk and Madsen. Both books are excellent in their factual presentations of the homosexual agenda.
And interesing little fact that the X (not the Y) chromosome contains 7 of the 10 instructions needed for a baby to become male in the womb.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.