www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Democratic Candidates OK With Gay Stories For 2nd Graders

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298307,00.html

Senator Hillary Clinton's response was not one of an unqualified, "yes, let's get those books in public schools."

Excerpts from the article:

Clinton said she believes it�s up to parents to decide how to handle such topics, but added that it�s important to teach kids about the �many differences that are in the world.�

Clinton said she respects the viewpoints of Obama and Edwards, but she sidestepped the question of whether she�d be comfortable having a storybook like �King & King� read to her own child at that age.

�With respect to your individual children, that is such a matter of parental discretion,� Clinton said. �Obviously, it is better to try to � help your children understand the many differences that are in the world. � And that goes far beyond sexual orientation. So I think that this issue of gays and lesbians and their rights will remain an important one in our country.�


I think her opinion is entirely in-tune with mine.

Joe

And that is why I am SOOOO glad you are not running for President.

When Clinton becomes president, I'm going to LOVE to see if all those jerks who have ever crowed to me about how they'll "move to Canada" actually do it.

To quote the late, great Lewis Grizzard, "Delta's ready when you are!"

Alexis

Though I wish that some of her positions would be different, I must confess that I don't think that she would be a bad president. She would be a competent administrator and would do more to address some important domestic problems. I would much rather have Ms. Clinton as president than Mayor Giuliani.

And I see nothing wrong with education children (when they are ready) about homosexuality and other cultural and moral differences that exist in society. I do want my children to go into the world with eyes wide open and to be able to think critically about these difficult issues and situations.

Joe

I am sorry guys, but as a mother who has been very open with her offspring--(*when age appropriate*),about the real world and all the moral, ethical and social issues and situations in it -- I am completely adamant that talking about, teaching, or discussing homosexuality or ANY sexuality, in school, or in a Christian, or any other semblance of a normal and sane home, to innocent second graders, is simply NOT okay.

At what further age does our increasingly mad and sadly confused society now wish to strip their innocence down to ?!?!?

Alice

Is the purpose of reading to children to teach them new words and build in them an interest of stories, or is it to shape young minds to be receptive to morally relative social doctrine?

My main critique would center around a parent's right to spiritually instruct their children; that homosexuality as taught in this fashion can thwart a parent's instruction that "homosexuality is a sin". If parents want to teach their children that homosexuality is okay, that is their business. When school teachers want to thwart parenting as it deals with morality, they are stepping out of their role as teachers.

Can you imagine the outcry if a public school teacher started teaching children that same-sex relations are abnormal and perverse?

Terry

She has a long road to travel. Even if victory is likely at this moment, her defeat is not impossible. It remains to be seen how much momentum Obama has behind him. The political picture will be more clear after super Tuesday.

Terry

When I was in the 2nd grade, which was 40 years ago, reading stories to children about how it's really ok if you're homosexual, would have led to parents tearing the school down with there bare hands. Like the frog in the pot of hot water though, this society will self destruct providing it's not done too quickly.

I'm sure at some point in this country people would have said the world is ending and society is disintegrating if we read stories to children with interracial couples in them.

That is a false analogy.

My only comment is, if Hilary does get elected, pray that you don't get sick, and if you do, you better have a nurse or doctor in the family!

Alexandr

Folks, did not Hillary say that it is something that should be decided by the parents? Being a politician, she was certainly looking for the most tactful answer possible, but I believe her that she thinks that it is best for parents to decide this. I seriously doubt that Ms. Clinton, if she becomes president, is going to be mandating sex classes for kindergarteners.

Now, the fact that Obama and Edwards didn't qualify their answers at all or address them in terms of policy bugs me. But Edwards isn't going to be president and it remains to be seen if Obama will get the nomination. I think in all likelihood it will be Clinton vs. Giuliani.

And while the schools should not be teaching sexuality and sexual morality to children, it is a fact that our children will be going to school with other children who are parented by gay couples and others and they do need to know about it. Also, they do need to know that they need to treat everyone with compassion and respect and that the schoolyard is not the place to preach. Nor is school a place to judge, to poke fun of, and ostracize. And if the public schools do not take a strong stand against this it will happen because children are natural bullies. Remember, homosexuals are people too and they do have real feelings. Whether or not a person agrees with homosexuality as a lifestyle or practice, we owe homosexual persons respect, the same way we owe anyone respect. Personally, I think it was an unfair question for the debate anyway. The president has no business thinking about these kinds of issues. The president has to deal with real econcomic and foreign policy issues. These kinds of things are handled at the local level. Anyway, I would prefer a president who tolerates homosexuals and does not get us into unjust, stupid wars than a president who is "righteous" (and knows it) and makes foolish decisions domestically and in terms of foreign policy. So there!

Joe

It would not have been a false analogy to those folks in the southern United States in the 1950s. There were many baptist churches in those days that taught that black folk were of the seed of Noah's son (Ham?). The one who was cursed by Noah and that is why God turned their skin black. And interracial couples were disowned by their families and lynched. And their children were ostracized.

Granted, homosexuality is a behavior. But, scientific evidence is showing that it is largely rooted in biology and the people who experience these desires do not simply "choose" them. Also, aside from the fact that a homosexual person has different sexual tastes than I do, I find that nearly all homosexuals I know are good, law abiding, virtuous (as virtuous as you and I) people. I'm sure that many homosexual couples make better parents than a lot of heterosexual couples.

We need to accept the fact that:

1) we live in a post-christian secular society (and there are benefits and disadvantages of this)

2) it is going to stay that way

3) homosexuality is much more complicated than what they thought in biblical days, just as mental illness is much more complicated. In St. Paul's day, they thought that mentally ill folk (or any folk with a disease that manifested in unusual behavior) were either demon possessed or were demons themselves, witches and sorcerers. They were ostracized and sometimes, especially by ecclestiacal officials, handed over to be put to death by cruel means (such as burning at the stake).

I am not saying that the Church should bless homosexual marriages, nor am I saying that freely acting on homosexual impulses is not sinful. It is for the authoritative tradition fo the Church to decide that, not me. But, I do think that we need to stop thinking of homosexuality as if it is the unpardonable sin and we need to stop ostracizing people. We need to be honest about the fact that there is still much that we don't know and teaching kids that homosexuals do exist and that even if we disagree with their lifestyle, that they are people with rights and dignity and we should respect them, is not a bad thing.

Joe

"It would not have been a false analogy to those folks in the southern United States in the 1950s."

That is precisely my claim, and I am quite familiar with the bigotry and abuses in the south.


"Granted, homosexuality is a behavior. But, scientific evidence is showing that it is largely rooted in biology and the people who experience these desires do not simply 'choose' them."

Will and propensity are two separate things, when we allow the propensity to sin to carry the weight of an inviolable right, such as equal treatment under law for the color of our skin, then we go too far. Many people often have propensities they keep in check by their will, it is not a necessity that they steal, murder, or violate other commandments. And if they do, it is not their right to be accepted as normal.

Your first point is accurate. Your second may remain true. The third claim, however, hinges on a confidence in modern anthropocentric thought which seems missing from scripture and tradition. I also cannot agree with the a priori assumptions you make about biblical days.

Terry