Posted on 10/20/2005 9:48:30 AM PDT by Crackingham
Lexington, Mass. — David and Tonia Parker are asking their neighbors in this liberal town for one consideration: Tolerance. The Parkers believe homosexuality is immoral. So they were appalled when their son brought a picture book home from kindergarten that showed families with same-sex parents. To ensure his "spiritual safety," they demanded the right to pull him out of class whenever homosexuality was discussed. To deny them that right, they say, would be intolerant of their faith.
School administrators offer a different take on tolerance. They say it's their job to expose children to the world's diversity. Supt. Paul B. Ash refuses to whisk the Parkers' son away if a classmate with same-sex parents brings a family photo for show-and-tell, or a lesbian couple volunteers at the Halloween party.
Similar debates have roiled communities across the nation as conservative parents challenge classes, books and after-school activities that they say promote a one-sided view of homosexuality as normal. They have notched victories in several states. But the dispute here has gone further than most.
David Parker has been banned from school property. Ash has been flooded with hate mail from across the country. There have been protests and counter-protests; the local newspaper received so many letters, many condemning the Parkers as bigots that the editor stopped printing them. Ash talks of the school's obligation "to be more than tolerant" to children and parents of all backgrounds. Parker asks: Where's the tolerance for him?
"Real respect, real tolerance, is not pushing your beliefs on other people," Parker said. "What people do in their bedroom, that's their business. What they tell my children in school about these subjects — that's my business."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
His bald head must be good luck. I actually taught a polygamist's child once.
are you playing hookie
How is it someone else's business whether or not your children are exposed to perversion or not?
It's yours and mine too as it is a societal issue. Nonetheless, it is CHIEFLY the parent's business. I am thankful mine addressed it.
That is a physical impossibility.
Their child can meet a birthparent who has a live-in boyfriend or girlfriend of the same sex.
Can same sex couples both put their names on adoption forms?
are you playing hookie
I have a two day break. :) I don't play hooky as I hate getting ready for a substitute. I have missed an average of about 1 day a year.
"Can same sex couples both put their names on adoption forms?"
Yes, in some states.
Funny picture.
This is part of a larger effort on the part of the liberal elites to define deviancy down. I've noticed a lot of it lately in our newspaper here in Atlanta. An article on some innocuous subject--say, a neighborhood meeting--will highlight the comments of a same-sex couple, making sure to point out that they own or rent a home together. Even more commonly, the paper will use cohabiting heterosexuals in its stories about subjects that are otherwise unrelated to sexual behavior: "Sue Smith and her boyfriend Bill Jones have finally found the perfect blueprint for the new deck they are building on the home they have shared for the past three years." It occurs so often that it can only be intentional.
Here's some info on states which have allowed gay or lesbian partners to adopt children where both halves of the couple are legally parents. This is most common with lesbian couples where one partner has given birth to the child, and the other adopting as a second parent.
Balderdash. The public schools in America did quite well, until recently, by not promoting homosexuality as normal and, even, admirable. They had no trouble 'accomodating' to a don't ask don't tell approach to the subject until recently.
Now, the schools have decided to promote homosexuality as as a good thing and so they are. Promoting homosexuality is a deliberate choice the schools have made. It's not something forced upon them by reality or morality. It's a conscious, cultural choice they have made.
The question here is, was it a good choice and should parents have to just grin and bear it if they believe the schools have made a bad choice? You are in the parents should bend over and accept it crowd. I am not.
Interesting comment.
Balderdash.
That's a fun game.
Your entire argument is predicated upon a set of moral suppositions (and judgements) every one of which begins with: "Thou shall not..." Not only that, but implicit within your 'secular' argument is a supposition of moral superiority.
Quit using so many big words. Not all of us are so superior you know:).
Baloney. Just as in the WOT, surrender solves nothing.
This man needs encouragment to continue his fight. He is right. What he is doing is right. He should not be encouraged to quit.
I guess I better run to my doctor and get shots before I infect you with my hateful cooties, LOL.
My daughter was unfortunately introduced to homosexuality at the tender age of 5. My husband was driving with her to visit a friend in Queens. Two lesbians were making out on the streets. And not just making out, but doing everything you can and still keep your clothes on! To be honest, I think that was her first exposure to people "making out." Up until then she'd seen nothing but family kisses, friendly kisses, and brief Mommy & Daddy kisses.
We had wanted to broach this subject with her when she was a bit older, but there we were. He explained to her that there were people in the world who were confused. There were women who acted like men and men who acted like women. Perhaps a combination of chemicals and a bad life led to this confusion; we didn't really know. Not every creation is flawless, and we can learn from these flaws to strive for what is right.
After we started breeding rabbits, it was much easier to explain it. She'd learn that rabbits were rather frisky, and mating was not a perfect process. The urge was always there, but how to go about it properly was sometimes trial and error. She learned we couldn't put two males together becuase they would either try to kill each other or "mate" with each other. We could sometimes put females together, but only if they were young; the older they got, the more violent they got and would mimic male behaviors and try to "show each other who's boss."
She learned that in some cases, sexual behavior is an expression not of sexual need, but of confusion, anger and domuination. She realized that animals were not reasoning creatures, and that "trying to make babies" was not a rational process for them; it was an instinct.
Some people are much like animals, in that many cannot control urges or their urges have been warped by confusion. Same-sex behavior is not about sex per se; it's about domination and control. It is behavior acted out because the participants don't understand themselves and their situation. In humans, the process is a bit more complex, but she's a smart girl and can apply microcosm to the larger scheme of things.
I guess to some, I am rather hateful person, but I feel I'm being honest with my daughter.
"That is a physical impossibility."
Not for long, it seems. Research is ongoing on ways to fertilize a woman's egg with another woman's genetic material. Similar research is ongoing to create a "male egg," which would be fertilized with another male's sperm.
In the first case, one of the women would carry the baby. In the other, a surrogate would be required.
Please note that I am not in favor of such, but it does appear that things are about to change. Right now, they're working with mice, but....
More info at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1431489.stm
and
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2002_March_19/ai_83667580
in the WOT, surrender solves nothing.
I agree with that.
A rather unique comment and perspective.
Good luck and salute to the Parkers!
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.