Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, September 04, 2006
Jennifer Roback Morse :: Townhall.com Columnist
Not a Live and Let Live Movement Any More
by Jennifer Roback Morse
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will Congress pass Obamacare by the end of the year?

Many people of libertarian inclinations, of whom I am one, have sympathy for a particular style of gay rights movement. Let and let live, we always say. If it isn’t hurting any one else, it is no business of the government’s.

Those days are over. The gay caucus of the California State Assembly is not interested in live and let live. This is an aggressive, intrusive movement that brooks no disagreement. Consider the following recent developments.

The CA State Assembly passed legislation banning discrimination in state operated or funded programs on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. The bill, SB 1441, makes no provision for religious exceptions. Religious universities and schools will be required to take no notice of same sex conduct, or risk losing any student financial assistance from the state. This legislation was sponsored by Democratic state senator, Sheila Kuehl.

This bill curtails the ability of Christian schools to maintain their religious identity. Even now, a California Lutheran high school is being sued because it suspended two female students who were having a sexual relationship, in violation of the school’s code of conduct. There is no place for religious disapproval of same sex sexual conduct in the topsy-turvy ideological universe of the LBGT caucus. Evidently, we have to tolerate “gender non-conformity,” but we don’t have to tolerate diversity of religious standards of sexual behavior.

If the state of California were a “night watchman state,” that simply enforced contracts and provided police protection, the claim that the state shouldn’t discriminate based on sexual orientation might make sense. But no one believes for a moment that gay people can’t get their contracts enforced in California. The state continues to expand its already extensive redistribution of income and regulation of life far beyond any libertarian, mind-your-own-business philosophy.

The State Assembly recently approved a bill (SB 840) granting universal health insurance, and designating the state as the single-payer for health care. If the governor signs this bill into law, the state will have increased leverage for regulating doctors and hospitals. Every religious hospital and clinic will be receiving, not just part of their income, but all their income, from the state.

Even now, a lesbian is suing a Southern California doctor because the doctor refused perform an artificial insemination on unmarried women, citing religious objections to inseminating a woman whose child would have no father. Artificial insemination is an elective procedure if ever there was one. The woman found another doctor. As a matter of fact, the very doctor she is suing made the referral.

There is evidently no room for Christian doctors in the “live and let live” utopia contemplated by the LBGT caucus. The pressures on the health care industry to conform to the LBGT standards of non-discrimination can only increase if the State of California becomes the only payer for health care.

Guess who proposed the universal health care bill? The very same Sheila Kuehl who sponsored the recently passed anti-discrimination bill.

This same Sheila Kuehl also wants the state to micro-manage the content of school textbooks so that gender non-conforming children don’t feel bad. (SB 1437) The terms “husband” and “wife,” “mother” and “father” could well be among the forbidden language that adversely affects homosexual self-esteem.

The LBGT caucus evidently believes that gay people need more than for everybody to mind their own business. Prohibiting discrimination means forbidding people to take any notice of sexual orientation. Sheila Kuehl and her allies are not going to be satisfied until they wipe out every religious group that teaches that being straight is preferable to being gay. Or until they shove religion safely into the closet.

The combination of anti-discrimination laws covering sexual orientation and expansive provision of state services adds up to increasing state-imposed ideological conformity. The LBGT caucus wants all gay people to be treated a certain way, by everyone, all the time. And they won’t quit until they have used all the state power at their disposal to force people to conform. And they are expanding the set of state power tools.

Whatever the gay rights movement might once have been, whatever it might be in other places, the LBGT caucus of the California State Assembly in not a “live and let live” movement. This is an aggressive, intolerant bunch of bullies. No libertarian, no one who values freedom, can align themselves with such people.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., is the author of Smart Sex: Finding Life-long Love In A Hook-up World. She blogs at jennifer-roback-morse.blogspot.com

Be the first to read Jennifer Morse's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Tolerance or Approval?
The libertarian view, live and let live, is pretty much the basic tenent of tolerance. This creation of mandated special attention to a specific group smacks of Orwellian tyranny.

(When you get here ScooterNY, I'm still waiting for my apology.)

Sheila Kuehl
Absolutely peaked as Zelda on Dobie Gillis.

It's all been downhill from there.

See? THIS is what makes me intolerant
The fact that THEY (whoever and wherever) can't let me live my life the way I want to live it when I'm not hurting anybody else, at all.

If I don't hate someone for not being heterosexual, why do they hate me for not being homosexual?

If I only say or hear any unkind things of the other in a certain place or two, is that wrong?

Must every word, action and thought be regulated?

If I don't try to make them ACCEPT my lifestyle, why should they try to make me ACCEPT theirs?

There have ALWAYS been children who (for whatever reason) didn't have a mom or dad. Is that any reason to deprive these children of the respectful acts of mothers and fathers days, because some don't have one, or have two?

And if people want privacy in their bedrooms, let them have PRIVACY. I DON'T WANT TO KNOW WHAT ANYONE IS DOING THERE! And they SHOULD NOT TELL ME! IT'S NONE OF MY BUSINESS!


I agree
It's none of my business. I had a gay friend in high school, circa 1960, he was one of the girls. He was not harassed by anyone that I know of. He made no apologies. We didn't find it a big deal, he just was. Gay and lesbians today don't want tolerance, that's not enough. They want approval, and maybe even admiration.

nanarae
Did you get my comment, Do The Math, I posted a couple of weeks ago? Lost track of the thread and never got back to it.

Justaguy
I can't believe you, just a guy. I do not tolerate theological discussions. The founding fathers prohibited state relgions, you bigot. What do you want, a theocracy? I find your views on government truly frightening.

(/end sarcasm)

As long as they don't . .
force me to move back to that state, I guess I can "tolerate" their idiocy for a while! Give it two years being upheld by the 9th Circus, then the SCOTUS will toss this garbage where it belongs!

I sure feel sorry for the schools, hospitals, students, and patients of the Golden State! I'm sure this will affect other industries as well. All I can say is, give us a few months to elect Ken Blackwell and get our taxes back in order, and I assure you, Ohio will be a great place to re-locate your businesses! Come enjoy life in the Heart of it All! ( I bet you could even make movies here! Tee Hee! ).


Jerubaal
Huh?

Did I miss a post or something?

In Cali
At least the weathers nice, huh?

How do they get elected?

A gender neutral society
I don't know if this thought will be of any use, but here's a way of understanding what some of the LGBT people want. I'll start with a concept that should find acceptance among libertarians (if not among traditional conservatives).

Here goes: Government should not define and enforce some particular life style as the official life style for society. Government should not promote some specific vision of the best way of life. Academic political philosophers often call this the idea of the "neutral state."

Now imagine expanding this neutrality to society as a whole. In other words, a society would not define and enforce (i.e., through social pressure and other means) a specific vision of how people should live. The jargon LGBT theorists use here includes the concept of "heteronormativity." In plain English, this means the presumption that heterosexuality should be the standard for human sexuality. Note that this has nothing to do with numbers. The word "normativity" here (from "norm") refers to value, not the bell curve.

What would a "neutral society" be like? We would all find nothing wrong with gays, lesbians, etc. There would be no social disapproval, and there would be only positive images associated with LGBT people. In other words, no one would be judged by his/her sexual orientation.

I think most of this is impossible, so please don't start slinging mud at me about this. I do think it's important--whatever your political views--to understand what this position is really about. My own opinion is that "tolerance" is much more realistic for liberals and libertarians to promote than the vision of the "neutral society."

Conservatives reading this post will have worked themselves into a hissy fit long before this sentence.

Gestell,
" The word "normativity" here (from "norm") refers to value, not the bell curve."

It would have to; otherwise, they would have no argument. But, really, I'm not sure how you separate value from bell curve, to use your terms.

Gestell. Well said
Frankly, I think sexual orientation is an issue for the bedroom, not the classroom or the legislature.

justaguy
I had you confused for someone else. Justathought, I think.

libertarians are wrong
"The gay caucus of the California State Assembly is not interested in live and let live". Now you get it!

If gays just wanted to live their own lives and not bother anyone, we could just live and let live. They don't, they want to inflict their way of life on every aspect of our lives, starting with our children.

Sometimes you have to fight for what is right.

Paula Jo
There's merit in what you say, but as I've said in the past, don't judge average people by activist groups, and certainly not by the Lefitfornia legislature!

I think most gays do simply want to live their lives unbothered by others. Some of my clients in the LA design community are gay, and they seem like just average everyday folks to me.

I don't think any group can be judged as a whole by their activist fringe elements. We have them on the Right, too.

Of course, out here in Leftifornia, I'll admit that we take the definition of "fringe" to a whole new level!

Leftornia
It does look to me like the textbook language went overboard, and it unnecessarily antagonizes millions of Californians who otherwise wouldn't care one way or the other. Completely silly and offensive to try to regulate words like "mommy" and "daddy" out of texts. No, I wouldn't support this either. If the author of this nonsense thinks it is helping us, then they need to be told it isn't...and to stop it immediately. It does look intolerant and bullying.

Historical Hogwash
Anti-Muhammed wrote:
“Acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle is a direct precursor to the disintigration of a society. People can get upset and spew hate my direction, I'll just drink it with bile sandwich. Greek and Roman culture started to celebrate homosexuality after the high points of their culture. . .”

Simply historical hogwash. The Greek and Roman states celebrated sexuality, including accepting and practacing and even celebrating homosexuality LONG BEFORE the “high points of their culture[s]”. Eros – both the Greek God of Erotic Love and the Greek Word for the same – was essentially gender-bling.

The fall of the Roman Empire, in particular, can be directly attributed to (A) being spread too far and too thin to manage, (B) a spate of tyrannical rulers, and (C) the advent of Christianity.

Government Control
SB840, granting universal health care and the state as the single payer, is where the law of the unintended consequence will rear its ugly head. Public funding of health, education, etc, gives power to those who think they know better than us. That marks the death of Live and Let Live.

Question?
Considering that SB 1441 mandates that religious schools act in ways contrary to the tenets of their own religious beliefs in this context (however right or wrong those beliefs may be, a subject I prefer not to address here), doesn't this violate the principle of separation of church and state as defined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

Vote with your feet
The way to deal with this is to vote with your feet; get yourself to a place where you can live your life the way you decide to live it.

California has been the You're Not The Boss Of Me State ever since I can remember. You knew that when you moved in. Now if you don't like it, move out.

jerubaal - Don't think it was me!
I do not tolerate theological discussions.

As I really don't make any of those.

You must have your 'justa's mixed completely.

Gestell: you wrote:
What would a "neutral society" be like? We would all find nothing wrong with gays, lesbians, etc. There would be no social disapproval, and there would be only positive images associated with LGBT people. In other words, no one would be judged by his/her sexual orientation.

Except for some "fringe elements" I don't think that as a group, Americans sling mud at LGBT people. But saying there would ONLY BE POSITIVE IMAGES associated with them has me at a loss. WHAT do you mean by that? That NOTHING BAD COULD EVER BE SAID ABOUT THEM? That they somehow have immunity to anything they say or do simply BECAUSE they are LGBT?

Sorry, no free passes for any group. If they say or do something stupid, mean or illegal - they should be called to task just like everyone else. THAT is equality.

The Ultimate Deception
The Homosexual Agenda Crew, knows all to well, if they can't convince children of their right to normalicy than all is lost. If they can't convice children whom have no idea what is being forced on them, they cannot then possibly survive. What better way to life than children, afterall if you lived a life that clearly causes soical, mental and phsical problems one would need children to hide behind, to give their life purpose,creedance and support. When are people going to wake up and admit these people want our childern, they obvisiouly don't give a dang about themselves as humans or us- the lifegiving souls. Just like the Devil himself, hell use the innocent.

There once was a Time, when boys were
There once was a time when boys were boys
There once was a time when girls were girls
But the New rule is coming fast
Soon it will be too intrusive to ask
Are you a boy or a girl
For the new rule you see is quite clear
We cannot offend anyone you see
For the new rule:
You can be anybody, anything or no-one at all!!!

The "tolerance" of the left
When out of power liberals demand tolerance and diversity, when in power the crush any opposition. Ask Trotsky what he thought of Lenin.


Re: Gestell, Gender neutral society
I understand your post about what the LGBT people say they want, or at least what you say they want. I am not posting this to sling mud, but I have a few problems with your post. Firstly, you wrote that “What would a "neutral society" be like? We would all find nothing wrong with gays, lesbians, etc. There would be no social disapproval, and there would be only positive images associated with LGBT people. In other words, no one would be judged by his/her sexual orientation”. The idea that people would find nothing wrong with LGBT people in a neutral society is fine, but then to say that there would only be positive images associated with such people undermines your whole idea of neutrality: a de facto positive image is not a neutral thing. Additionally, the idea that no one would be judged by his sexuality would also not be true, since having positive or negative feelings about LGBT people as a group and/or transferring those feelings to an individual (as I interpret your post to mean) is the essence of identity politics, which requires that we judge people based on sex/race/sexual orientation/whatever.

Secondly, and to me more important than nitpicking over neutral/positive preconceptions, is your idea of “Now imagine expanding this neutrality to society as a whole. In other words, a society would not define and enforce (i.e., through social pressure and other means) a specific vision of how people should live.”. The idea that the government should not ENFORCE a specific vision of the best way to live seems almost self-evident to me. Say that the government should not even promote a specific vision and I’ll agree with you in nearly all cases. But to say that society at large (as separate from “the government”) should not promote a specific way to live through social pressure, etc,--I can’t agree. A bit of social pressure is often a very healthy and desirable thing. The lamentation of “what will the neighbors think?” which I so often mocked in my (not soooo far removed) teenage years has some redeeming value, I’ve discovered. Not getting pregnant at 16, getting a decent job so as not to be on welfare, seeing education as a way to move up the social/economic ladder, not engaging in minor or even major crime because of the social stigma attached to it: there are many things which a completely neutral society will not address which can be detrimental to it if practiced on a large scale. Are there drawbacks to social pressures to live a certain way? Are humans and therefore societies imperfect? Of course. Maybe that’s why we often celebrate individuals who brave social pressure, swim against the currents of their age, and accomplish something unique or outstanding. But that doesn’t mean we should throw out the whole mechanism for socializing people, flawed though it might be. For every one truly strong and insightful person who goes against society and maybe ends up changing things for the better, there are many, many more who crash and burn. More thoughts on this, but this post has run too long already.

Tolerance and Intolerance
Remember to contend with ideas, not hate. While it is easy to see that the demand by these groups is for much more than tolerance, it doesn't remove our obligtion to remain tolerant. I think we can have a civil discussion without the name calling and invective that most of these threads tend to degenerate into.

Celt's right, these initiatives serve to divide us and are not directly helpful. However, often these outrageous demands are simply the first step in a two steps forward, one step back strategy. That what is proposed will be so onerous as to be rejected, followed by a smaller concession to reach a compromise.

We see this with civil unions vs. marriage. The goal never really was marriage, but only the means to make civil unions more palatable. I make no endorsement of either side of the debate, but the strategy is readily apparent and oft repeated.

I am Woman
Where do these gay's and trans get off thinking they can denie my God given right as a woman,wife mother and grandmother. It's typical of deviants to tell people what life is all about and how it should be lived. I am PROUD to say I am woman, wife, mother and grandmother. I have given natural birth to two wonderful daugthers, breast-fed, both of them and raised them up to be repectful and decent people. I have two wonderful grandchildren a boy and a girl. My oldest daughter just came home from Iraq. I have built my life with my God and his living word. If these deviants want a life, let them build it on their own foundation. Don't force our children to accept them as normal. It's just no so.....

Multiculturalism IS Social Neutrality
As I read No Clever Name's post, I see no objective difference between multiculturalism and the Social Neutrality theory presented. I think they are one in the same as defined here.

Kathy
Kathy wrote:
"The Homosexual Agenda Crew, knows all to well, if they can't convince children of their right to normalicy than all is lost. If they can't convice children whom have no idea what is being forced on them. . ."

Oh, kinda like the institutional indoctrination that occurs in every children's Sunday School class, where children have beliefs forced upon the without any idea of what is being forced upon them?

Jerubaal
I was a part of the discussion on McCullough's piece, where BrianR said that. I wonder if that is where you are getting that from.

I do indeed take part in theological discussions. In fact, I think politics and theology are mixed. To argue without "religion" is to argue humanism, which is considered a religion.

waging fanatical campaigns
It would be helpful to recall the words of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch over 100 years ago in anticipation of the rise of secularism:

"It is now no longer enough for the apostate to be able to live undisturbed according to his convictions, as he calls them; to him there is no well-being and no peace as long as HIS convictions have not become the ONLY ones recognized as right and valid.

"He sees in faith an intellectual slavery from which it is the godly task of a second Moses to redeem his unfortunate brothers. In loyalty to faith he sees superstition, backwardness, and at the same time a calamity which is to blame for all the miseries of the past.

"He sees in 'liberation' from the yoke of faith a goal so high and so humanitarian that every means which seems capable of bringing about progress toward this great goal must be employed.

"He has reached the stage of waging fanatical campaigns of persecution against those loyal to their faith."

CMoore,
"Oh, kinda like the institutional indoctrination that occurs in every children's Sunday School class, where children have beliefs forced upon the without any idea of what is being forced upon them?"

1. You could say that of any schooling. In a sense, the sense of numbers is forced upon kids before they have any idea of what is being forced upon them.

2. Parents put their children in these Sunday School classes for the express purpose of learning about their religion, just as they put them in elementary school for the express purpose of learning about numbers, etc.

3. The difference between Sunday School and "The Homosexual Agenda Crew" indoctrination, of course, is parental permission.

Also, CMoore,
do you ever actually take a stance on any issues brought up by the columns? It seems that all of the posts I've read of yours respond to other posters with whom you disagree, and you do it in such a way that it never gives away your position on any given issue. This way, you never have to go on the defense; you're always on offense, which is pretty brilliant I must say. So here's your chance: What do you actually think about Mrs. Morse's column?

jerubaal, justaguy
Well, I don't know if it's me you're referring to -- I've lost track of the thread.

I didn't say I don't tolerate theological discussions, but that I don't participate in them.

The bacteris of stupidty
cynewulf- You must beleive in or have the exact of opposite of reality, beleif sytem. The reason why parents have children, is to nuture them, lead them into a healthy and sane way of living. That is why soiety is in real danger today, too many parents adopt this attuide that we have to accept everything and anybody, this is downright dangerous for our youth's. Children need a moral and value based human way to live. I value myself as a woman, wife, mother and grandmother. That is perfectly normal and natural. When I was a child, I did'nt concern myself with sexual issues, I enjoyed my childhood learning about life and my parents protected all of my 10 brothers and 3 sisters, and gave us morals and family vaules to grow and live with. That is what families are for, not schools and if a parent chooses to school their children I suggest they know what is being taught, as this is a parental responsiblity. Children learn their values and morals from their parents and their moral based beliefs from their families, I pray, because that is what a family is...

Tolerance
Both sides I think would be more tolerant if the other was not vocally condemning the other.

Do we expect both sides to shut up? Nope.

Christians ultimately think homosexuality is wrong. Homosexual's think Christians are preaching.

Is this a chicken/egg scenario? I don't know.

I am a Christian. I think homosexual behavior is wrong. I view the debate that gays are pushing the envelope ever further.

Are my thoughts so blurred by the Christianity, or do I have the ability to view things accurately?

I think I can view them accurately. I do think my bias plays a role, but then, so does everyone's, whether, gay, not religious, religious, whatever. All of us have our bias. However, despite the bias, I think it is fair to assume we can ascertain what has happened.

The gays used to be content with being left alone. Something has happened along the way that has "inspired" them to make more noise. The Christian perspective has remained the same.

Why?

reply to baseballdr
First, it's great to hear from you. Very few of the people I used to argue with on TH seems to have survived the site's major regime change from a place where people exchange ideas to a distribution venue for the columnists, bloggers, etc. Now my reply.

The "gender-neutral" society would be quite unlike what actually exists, no doubt about it. The LGBT folks think we should all be working to bring that society into existence, while conservatives, of course, are opposed to it.

I think it is extremely unlikely, even impossible, for most or all of the members of a society to cease to think in terms of specific genders. What this would mean, if it could be accomplished, is that you would not make ANY assumptions about the gender of, for instance, the new person in your office. Male? Female? Transgendered? Bisexual? None of those identities would be taken for granted in our dealings with each other. This is considered the ideal situation.

I think tolerance is much more feasible than this vision.

Now, as for dictionaries, most people think that dictionaries contain facts of the sort established by science; they do not. They report how people understand words--usage, in other words. That's it.

"homobungholiophobia" is great! Of course, this phobia depends on the theory that gays are indiscriminately lustful and attracted to the phobic individual in the first place...


Gestell
The idea of a gender neutral society I think sound like a great idea.

It does, truly: why should we make any opinions of anyone based on what they look like? Of course, this extends far beyond gender. This is what we SHOULD strive for.

However, where conservatives differ on this is that we believe a) it is impossible to achieve outside of individual effort and b) there, however fortunate or unfortunate, are indeed differences that cannot be erased between male and female.


Constitution
eon writes: Considering that SB 1441 mandates that religious schools act in ways contrary to the tenets of their own religious beliefs in this context, doesn't this violate the principle of separation of church and state as defined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?


Apparently you were not aware that the constitution is only enforced when you are have approval by state officials. Try acting on your rights as specified in the Second Amendment in California and see how far you get.

Lydia
How wonderful!

"the recognition and free expression of traditional American Judeo-Christian values"

So...does everyone else's values get banned under your new regime?

BTW, I replied to your comments at Doug Giles' thread.

Hockey Goon: the First Amendment...
... absolutely does not mandate a "separation of church and state". That's a very bad myth, promoted by rabid secularists.

The phrase "separation... state" originated in a lettetr Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that there would be no banning of their congregation, nor establishment of an official state religion, which is what the "religion" clause in the First amendment is really all about.

BTW, Hockey Goon
You're absolutely right about the Second amendment. Try getting a CCW out here in Leftifornia.

Be Gay friendly, Pilgrim, or else...
Does this mean Governor Terminator can't use the term "girlie-man" anymore?

Thank God
Thank God. It's about time that people realized this was never about what happens behind closed doors, in one's home, or about "tolerance" in general. It was always the goal to shove the homosexual agenda down everyone's throats, religious or not religious, and to brand anyone who disagreed a 'bigot' or 'hateful' if they didn't applaud this perversion. Finally, the light is beginning to emerge over the mountains. Even though I hate what this Sheila Kuehl did, perhaps it will have the opposite effect she wants, in that it will open the eyes of everyone to what the homosexual agenda truly stands for. Open your eyes, people, if you don't want us to become the Gay States of America.

The Gay States of America?????
Huh? I thought I had heard about every angle of apocalyptic Christian paranoia (and I was raised on it!), but that statement just won the laughing out loud award for sheer hyperbolic silliness!

I agree with ya Smarty!
These are people who are so emotionally crippled that the most important thing about themselves they can find is their sexuality.
They can find no better defining trait in themselves.
That's very sad.But to try to force the rest of mankind down to that level is despicable.

Here are the gay politicos new 'rights':
1. The right to step between you and your children and decide what morals you can teach them.

2. The right to redefine religious terms which have legal connotations like 'marriage'. Far beyond simple legal equality, they demand the term apply to them too.

3. They now have the right to declare anyone a homophobe who calls homosexual behavior deviant. (in CA now legal action against them can be taken)

4. They want new 'protected equal' status when crimes against them occur(vis a vis hate crimes). You see assault on a gay person is completely different than assault on a heterosexual.

I think we can see which side is using the police power of the state to accomplish its goals.

Gay Terror
Jennifer:

A Gay Gene has never been found.

That means we are legislating BEHAVIOR.

BEHAVIOR that is pouring out more resistant strains of HIV. HIV a pandemic(8000 die per day) and covered by the media to the extent that it plays a distant second fiddle to the Avian flu in coverage, that has not taken as much as one life in America.

The Gay promiscuous sex Cult movement must be destroyed or they will destroy our freedoms that even the terrorists have not fully accomplished---yet.

Remember the Gays took over the American Psychiatric Association and declared themselves Normative. They now control the ACLU and our School Boards.


A word of caution
To all religious conservatives:

I think we will all agree homosexuality is wrong. However, I call on a sense of restraint when posting and arguing the topic.

We believe the practice is wrong, but do we really think we will get folks to change their behavior by reading hateful and demeaning remarks?

Not likely. We accuse those on the left of using rhetoric that is exactly what many are spitting out here. What then, differentiates us?

Many of us are Christians, remember, then, that Christians are held to a higher standard and are called to love your neighbor, even the Samaritan on the side of the road (got that backwards, but the point is made).

It easy to get bent out of shape on this. I know and have done so...

sexuality
Why do we need to be defined solely by our sexual preference? Why should that even enter in to politics?

It chaps my hide that I am told to accept diversity (anyone notice that diversity doesn't include heteros?) when diversity isn't the objective but forced acceptance.

To be told to be tolerant of other sexual preferences when my hetero preference is being ridiculed?

How about Hetero Pride Day? How about leaving sexual preference OUT OF SCHOOLS. Safe sex, ok. But preference??? NO way.


Agreed
BrianR writes: ......assuring them that there would be no banning of their congregation, nor establishment of an official state religion, which is what the "religion" clause in the First amendment is really all about.



I agree, but the rule of the land (thanks to the "supreme Court) is a clear separation of church and state. In this case the state is violating this ruling but legislating what a church may teach.

CMoore forgot a few things
You forgot to mention the laws that locked sons into the trades of their fathers (foreshadowing serfdom), the influx of the "barbarians", and the falling birth rate.

A short story
My ex had a gay friend who photographed our wedding. Nice guy.

She tells me someone once asked him, "Mark, are you going to the gay pride parade?"

He said, "No, why should I go look at a bunch of faggots?"

He was quiet and unassuming in his sexuality. He couldn't stand the "look at me!" crowd.

Once again, don't cram it down my throat. I'll accept your right to be gay, but don't ask me to approve it, appreciate it, or applaud it. Why should I? It's "your" private matter, not mine.

Hypothetical situation
"To be told to be tolerant of other sexual preferences when my hetero preference is being ridiculed?"

There once was a homosexual civilization, but it died out for failure to breed.

Humor, people!

Hockey Goon: Oh, yeah!
Well, you're certainly right about that!

I thought you were talking about the Constitution as it was written and meant to be interpreted, not the weird abortion handed down by SCOTUS.

In that case, I couldn't agree more.

justaguy: right on!
Good post. Great observation.

Cynewulf
Cynewulf wrote:
”3. The difference between Sunday School and ‘The Homosexual Agenda Crew’ indoctrination, of course, is parental permission.”

Wrong. There is no such difference there. Parent put their kids in Sunday School and parents surrender their kids to Government Schools. Both are acts of choice. LEAVING a child in a Government School that teaches something parents disagree with is TACIT permission.

I withdrew MY permission by withdrawing my children from the system.


Cynewulf also wrote:
“Also, CMoore, do you ever actually take a stance on any issues brought up by the columns? It seems that all of the posts I've read of yours respond to other posters with whom you disagree, and you do it in such a way that it never gives away your position on any given issue. . .”

My position is usually irrelevant, and rather fringe extreme Right. And I quite enjoy taking the devil’s advocacy approach, frequently castigating arguments and logic on BOTH sides of a discussion. But, yes, when I feel strongly enough about an article, I will respond to the article itself.


“. . . What do you actually think about Mrs. Morse's column?. . .”

I think Mrs. Morse is slightly off base to suggest that “Live and Let Live” attitude of of “Libertarians”(please note the quotes and the capital el) towards homosexuals is in jeapordy. She makes the mistake of lumping the radical fringe faggots with the peaceable, wanna be treated equally and left alone homosexuals.

That is like judging ALL vegetarians by PETA. Going that route, I’d be rather unfond of both my Grandmother and my brother.

Don’t misunderstand me. I think what the gay lobby has done on the left coast is an obnoxious and attrocious violation of the authority of those PRIVATE schools to set the standards THEY deem. To judge the ENTIRE homosexual community by the antics of a very vocal but very fringe minority is simply wrong.

Or are all blacks as obnoxious as Al Sharpton? And all Southerners as racist as Robert Byrd?

Cmoore
A quick observation in your last post to Cynewolf. Church's are private organizations. Public schools, well, are not. That makes a huge difference.

Live and let live
The real issue is our own Governments, State and Federal using Gay Rights, etc as a wedge to create a problem then solve it by taking away individual rights and freedome. What more can a government ask for if it becomes law to teach homosexuality as a Constitutional RIGHT. Above all else without firing a shot the Fed has produced a Revolution. Now the Bible will be a book of HATE, destroying the Churches influence from the pulpit. Christians will be gagged and bound and their kids TAUGHT the new morality.
Christians can bet the bank by sitting home and not being involved in politics will come back to bite them real soon.

CMoore,
thanks for your response.

"Wrong. There is no such difference there. Parent put their kids in Sunday School and parents surrender their kids to Government Schools. Both are acts of choice. LEAVING a child in a Government School that teaches something parents disagree with is TACIT permission."

I agree with you that if a parent leaves their child in a govt. school while disagreeing with what is taught, there is tacit permission. I would argue that many parents do not know what is taught, however. Of course, many parents don't have the ability to withdraw them from the govt. school, but that's another issue. I guess my point was that when parents drop their kids off at sunday school, they expect that their children will be taught about their faith. When they drop them off at school, they expect that their children will learn how to read, write, and compute, not to be indocrinated by radical homosexual organizations (or by radical Christian groups for that matter).

As for your position, why do you think that it's usually irrelevant? I think your position on this issue to be quite relevant. I find myself with agreeing with most, if not all of your points. I'm not sure the radical fringe homosexual groups are as small as you think; either way, their voice is certainly disproportionate to their size. Here's the interesting thing. Many on the right say that moderate Muslims should stand up to their radical fringe. Certainly we shouldn't judge a group by its radical fringe, but should we expect them to be vocal in their oppostion to that fringe? Are they by their silence granting tacit permission? What do you think?

justaguy
justaguy wrote:
"A quick observation in your last post to Cynewolf. Church's are private organizations. Public schools, well, are not. That makes a huge difference."

You are correct. That is a very important distinction. However, it changes nothing about Cynewulf's observation of parental permission nor my rejoinder.

Whether government schools are private or public does not change the fact that by SURRENDERING their children to those institutions and LEAVING them there, parents give TACIT permission to the indoctrination(s) received at those schools.

Cmoore, Yes, but
Important to note in that discussion is that not all parents have the option to do something different with their children.

Choice, maybe, but not always.

justaguy
justaguy wrote:
"Important to note in that discussion is that not all parents have the option to do something different with their children. . ."

False. Homeschooling is always an option. (At least I don't THINK any Counties or States have outlawed homeschooling yet...)

With enough determination it can be accomplished. The number of families -- including single-parent, two-working parents, and low and middle income families -- have done and are doing it.

I refuse to give parents a free pass to cop-out like that.

Situation
Both parents work to sustain house. Cannot afford to send to private school.

What's the option?

Also, let me step back a minute, I agree that it is absolutely not desirable to be in a situation where both parents "have" to work. And usually, both work because of desire, not necessity. I would only say, though, that it would be naive to think there are not any who are indeed in that exact place.

Cmoore
I just noticed you addressed my point in my last paragraph.

Most of the time, that can be done. I tend to agree.

Sorry for the rehash...

Why Johnny can't read. . . . . .
Whatever happened to teaching my kids reading, writing and arithmatic? Throw in some World and American History and maybe some home economics and you have all the ingredients to a successful beginning. . . .Not anymore, now Johnny has to be "socially engineered" into a completely amoral, boring, colorless, politically-correct zombie.

Since when does 3% of a population dictate what my kids learn in school about morality? Why is the school teaching moral do's and don'ts anyway? (all rhetorical). . . .

I'm dad and my wife is mom and WE determine the time and place to introduce morality issues with our children. To the State of California, I say--get out of my home and leave the morality lessons to me and my wife.

cmoore, justaguy, celt
Schools:


Vouchers, vouchers, vouchers.

Also:

Vouchers.

I find nothing in the Constitution (a limitation on federal power) prohibiting lower levels of government from setting up publicly funded school systems. Actually, theoretically society benefits from a somewhat well-educated citizenry.

HOWEVER, those systems shouldn't comprise a monopoly on the benefit. Everyone is taxed to support them, including people who home school or even don't have any kids at all.

Therefore, parents should be afforded the opportunity of being able to make a selection based on their own criteria, from a list of schools that meet certain educational standards, so they can selct those that may more conform to their own philosophy.

Further, the system itself will benefit from the competition, as that makes for better "product" offerings.

justaguy
justaguy wrote:
"Both parents work to sustain house. Cannot afford to send to private school."

You DID read my post, right? I said nothing... not one word... about private school. I repeat, homeschooling is always an option.

I know of too many two-working parent households in a variety of income situations that are successfully homeschooling (including my own) for your two-working parent situation to be a valid argument as to why HOMESCHOOLING is not an option. When parents are concerned and dedicated enough, they manage to find ways to make it work.

BrianR -- RE: Vouchers
I agree wholeheartedly!

Another point of contention; why in the heck should I and childless couples, empty nesters, etcetera, have to support a government program that we do not (or no longer) use? That's akin to Reader's Digest charging me for a subscription that I never receive so that someone else CAN.

Cmoore re:vouchers
"Another point of contention; why in the heck should I and childless couples, empty nesters, etcetera, have to support a government program that we do not (or no longer) use? That's akin to Reader's Digest charging me for a subscription that I never receive so that someone else CAN."

I believe the phrase is: from each according to his wallet, to each according to his status.

Socialism.

Cmoore
I offered private school as an alternative to public schools. No need to get pushy.

I agree that typically when there is a will, there is a way to ensure kids are taught correctly.

I think it is in rare situations that they (parents) cannot do so. When you look at the cost of day care or private schools, the benefit gained from working two jobs is almost nil.

Personally, I think parents should choose to have at least one at home, even if they are not home schooling. The statistics on this topic are overwhelming...

Lydia
Whatever the reasons for their attacks and why they believe what they do, we must, I think, refrain from responding in kind.

If you'd like, check my blog where I address this.

Check it out. Tell me what you think.

Vouchers Indeed
Unfortunately, not likely to happen anytime soon, I fear. The education folks just want to throw more money at the system.

But the best alternative to what we have.

Brian,
I'm with you on the vouchers.

Why do we have school boards?
I THOUGHT it was to recommend curriculum.

Okay, the feds have a lock on SOME things - but have they broadened out to EVERYTHING?

Idaho SOB
N_Idaho_SOB wrote
“You seem to be forgetting the point that in order to home school parents must have the intelligence to do so. . .”

No, not forgotten. It is simply not pertinent to whether or not homeschooling is an option. Even for those “not intelligent enough to do so” it is still an option. No one says they’re necessarily going to be effective

But, that’s another cop-out.

“. . . I know a great many people who would like nothing better. However they do not trust nor do they have the intellectual background in order to pull it off without the fear of getting wrong. . .”

Then they’re not looking in the right places. Nothing says that parents are required to be the SOLE source of instruction for homeschooling. There are tremendous amounts of resources available for homeschool families, including homeschooling groups where OTHER parents “tutor” or instruct in topics that they are familiar with or educated in.

Additionally, there are a number of homeschool curriculums designed by professional educators that parents can use where the topics are presented in a manner that the parents are not required to be knowledgeable or educated in the material for the children to learn it effectively. (And, the cool part of these, at the same time, parents get additional education as well by going through the materials with their children. It may not count towards a degree, but it is still “continuing education”…)


“. . . I think many parents, who either only have a high school diploma with maybe a ‘c’ average or were dropouts but highly successful in their blue collar careers, would never assume to be qualified to teach their children in such a high tech society as we have become. . .”

Most of the homeschool families that I am familiar with in our area are, just that, “undereducated”, blue-collar workers/families. Yet, they do an admirable job teaching their children the basics of reading, writing, mathematics, and even technology, history, and science, amongst other things.


“. . . Have you forgotten that there is still a great number of families out there without computers, let alone internet access? . . .”

Have you forgotten that most public libraries offer free (albeit, limited) internet access?


“. . . You take way to much for granted when it comes to a families ability to home school.”

No, sir/ma’am (as the case may be -- though “SOB” suggests “sir”), I take very little for granted. Rather, I speak from personal experience, interaction, and observation. I personally know and interact with homeschooling parents that meet a number of these “situations” – single parents, two working parents, lower income families, blue collar, “under educated”, “less intelligent”, etcetera – that do tremendous jobs educating, OR PROVIDING FOR, their children’s education at home.

What I have seen and experienced is the power of parents’ determination and inginuity to overcome these obstacles. It is certainly NOT easy, nor is it convenient. It requires tremendous dedication, sacrifice, and tough choices and setting priorities.

I recommend that you Google “homeschooling” and “homeschool” and see what kinds of resources and references you can find. It’s amazing the number of parents that have NO college education whatsoever AND are financially strapped that are successfully educating their children.

justaguy
justaguy wrote:
“I offered private school as an alternative to public schools. No need to get pushy. . .”

I apologize if I came across pushy or abrupt.

Your post was presented, or at least came across as, a rebuttal to my own alternative to public schools and stating that there is ALWAYS an option (re: homeschooling). As such, it SEEMED much like a poor dodge of the topic by changing what I wrote (homeschooling) to something else (private school) in order to refute my statement. Such is a typical tactic of the intellectually lazy and dishonest and, as such, vexes me to no end. I tend to respond accordingly.

Please accept my apologies for the misunderstanding.

Cmoore
No worries...

I agree that homeschooling is a fantastic option, one perhaps many people do not realize is there.


Justaguy
Great comment earlier, and one we can all pay better attention to. Thanks.

Homeschooling as an option
justaguy wrote "I agree that homeschooling is a fantastic option, one perhaps many people do not realize is there."

It depends on the state and the parents. Some states are very liberal in who can homeschool. Wisconsin, for instance, only requires filing a form with the Dept. of Public Instruction by Oct. 15. Illinois, IIRC, requires the parent doing the teaching to have a Bachelor degree and some credits toward a teaching certification. Virginia also I think was rather stringent. This is from a book that is at least 5 years old, so things may have changed.

Check your state laws. They vary wildly from state to state.

First off, Quit Calling Them "GAY"
My 1957 Webster has several definitions for 'gay', none of which refers to homosexuality. Because these homosexuals are so ashamed of what they are, they have perverted a perfectly innocent little word so they won't have to call themselves lesbian or homosexual. The ultimate objective from the day they started using 'gay' was to seek approval from the 'straight' community.
Every demonstration, every legal assault on our courts, our system and our senses is to elicit public approval of a deviate way of life. They, like all subversives, feel if they cannot get the mainstream to see things their way by convincing argument, they will use legislation.
Journalism has played right into their hands by picking up and using 'gay' instead of homosexual. You have to admit, 'gay' sounds a lot less like perversion than 'homosexual'.

Jay
Perhaps.

I am not familiar with the laws, but I'm willing to bet more people are able than they realize.

I do think it is a great option, though, admittedly likely not for all, for a variety of reasons good or bad.

Buck
I'm not ashamed of being who I am, which is a trans-gendered woman. Your comment is off-base and ill-informed.

religious based home schooling
greatly reduces the college prospects, and the career prospects for some children. You need to closely examine the curriculem before buying into it.

Celtic Dragon
My comment is neither off base nor ill informed. I call a spade a spade.

No wonder U.S.kids are considered stupid
They can talk to you all day about tolerance, yet they can barely spell, read, do math, balance a checkbook, rent an apartment, etc. Can we please get back to educating our kids so they can actually make it in the real world? They need skills and smarts, not social engineering. Thanks to our wonderful liberal politicians insistent on pushing their agenda in schools, the education system is going to you-know-where in a handbasket. I pray the Baptists go through with their threat to pull their kids out of the public schools en masse and start homeschooling. Go for it.

Howdy
The whole reason that homosexual/transgender and Moslem folks are bad mouthing home schooling is that they can't foist their lifestyle on children if they have no access to them. They want to make sure they are able to gain access to young people to increase their ranks for they can't naturally have children on their own. Sodomists and lesbians gotta get new meat somewhere.
I believe that it would have bettered this nation if 20 years ago, all parents that do not condone this behavior could have homeschooled their children. The ranks of the abominated would be much less at this time if that had happened.
BUCK:: I agree totally, call a spade a spade! Gay meant that a person was happy when I was in grade school. Que*r and F*g was the terms used to describe sodomites and lesbians in those days.
:::I have never understood why a person would choose to change their sex by surgery::Obviously, these people need some serious counseling and psychiatric help..Just because you alter the physical makeup by surgery does not alter the fact that the chromosomes still designate their sex..XX-Gals..XY-Guys..I think it should be required by law that the chromosomes designate the sex on any paperwork or identification. God don't make mistakes, we do.
I am not sure about now, but several years ago Italy and Brazil were the tranny capitols of the world and their AIDS/HIV rates were also the highest on the planet. AIDS/HIV would not be such a big problem today if it weren't for the lack of responsibility by the homosexual/transgender groups spreading the disease as fast as they can,for many of them spread it on purpose, trying to carry as many people to the sick bed as they can.
That is irresponsible and adds to the reason most people won't condone same sex marriage.
If these people do not care about their 'mates' and friends any more than that, why should others think they will care about the children they care for.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.