Same Sex Marriage Doesn't Lead To Live And Let Live

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1still_waters
  • Start date Start date
  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
jimmydiggs said:
Let me google that for you

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm_2012/SSM_Mass_2012.pdf <--- you probably will diss this one
Click to expand...

Seems the claim originated from NOM (National Organization of Marriage), which is an organization that exists to oppose same-sex marriage.

The claim was caused by students being read and being allowed to read a book about two kings who married each other (a children's book), and another book which showed different families and included one same sex couple.

I do not see how this is "teaching" anything about actual gay marriage. These are books, kids books.

If a parent doesn't want their child to be exposed to books such as these, I would suggest they go to their school and inform the teacher or principal that they want their child in another room or taken out of class for the day they are being read these books. And not allowing the librarian to issue the books to them.
 
Meerkat said:
Seems the claim originated from NOM (National Organization of Marriage), which is an organization that exists to oppose same-sex marriage.

The claim was caused by students being read and being allowed to read a book about two kings who married each other (a children's book), and another book which showed different families and included one same sex couple.

I do not see how this is "teaching" anything about actual gay marriage. These are books, kids books.

If a parent doesn't want their child to be exposed to books such as these, I would suggest they go to their school and inform the teacher or principal that they want their child in another room or taken out of class for the day they are being read these books. And not allowing the librarian to issue the books to them.
Click to expand...
There's a list of claims, not one single claim. Should be a PDF file. I think you might want to study how culture is indoctrinated.
 
jimmydiggs said:
There's a list of claims, not one single claim. Should be a PDF file. I think you might want to study how culture is indoctrinated.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I refuse to read anything directly from such organizations as NOM or MassResistance. I learned about the claim I mentioned from an impartial site investigating the claim that "Massachusetts schools are promoting same sex marriages".

If a site has a bone to pick with ANY issue, I do not trust it to report the facts on that issue. The fact that NOM and MassResistance are vehemently against gay marriage makes me distrust anything they have to say on the issue.
 
of
Meerkat said:
Sorry, but I refuse to read anything directly from such organizations as NOM or MassResistance. I learned about the claim I mentioned from an impartial site investigating the claim that "Massachusetts schools are promoting same sex marriages".

If a site has a bone to pick with ANY issue, I do not trust it to report the facts on that issue. The fact that NOM and MassResistance are vehemently against gay marriage makes me distrust anything they have to say on the issue.
Click to expand...
There are impartial investigative sites just as there are non-denom churches. It's all a delusional fantasy of objectiveness.

I shouldn't listen to LGBT activists and groups, if they say they're oppressed they probably aren't anyway... they would just want to make it up since that's their mantra. Ain't that how it works? Nope. Of course not. Que - Double standards, take 3.
 
Last edited:
[video=youtube;SZIwZ2cljq4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZIwZ2cljq4[/video]

totally photoshopped
 
jimmydiggs said:
ofThere are impartial investigative sites just as there are non-denom churches. It's all a delusional fantasy of objectiveness.

I shouldn't listen to LGBT activists and groups, if they say they're oppressed they probably aren't anyway... they would just want to make it up since that's their mantra. Ain't that how it works? Nope. Of course not. Que - Double standards, take 3.
Click to expand...

I take my news from sites that have more to do than "rally the troops" against gay marriage and gay acceptance.

I look upon sites that exist for one specific issue with a grain of salt, including pro-LGBT sites.

Question everything. Accept nothing at face value.
 
jimmydiggs said:
Ten points for griffyndor!
Click to expand...

Quoting yourself. You must feel so proud.

BTW I'm looking at the source information on that youtube video. Apparently posted by someone who believes there is a "Zionist attack" on western civilization or something of the sort.

I don't fall into the arms of conspiracy theorists, either.
 
TracerBullet said:
I know more than a few claims made in this link have been long proven to be false
Click to expand...
Pics%2BOr%2BIt%2BDidn%2527t%2BHappen.jpeg
 
Did Tracey(Billet for homosexuals) speak?
- Sometimes its so hard to hear her with all of the truth swirling around her presumptive wails of predudice.
 
Ritter said:
Then please share why/how.
Click to expand...

By thefollowing year it was in elementary school curricula – with hostility toward
parentswho disagreed. Kindergartnersin Lexington, Mass. were given copies of a
picturebook, Who’s in a Family?, telling them that same-sex couples are justanother
kind offamily, just like their own parents. When David Parker – parent of akindergartner
– calmlyrefused to leave a school meeting unless officials agreed to notify him when
discussinghomosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested
and jailedovernight.
Click to expand...

Just thefacts: David Parker was arrested for trespassing.
Parker and his wife requested that the school, in the future,ensure that teachers automatically remove their children from discussions ofsame-sex households, even if the issue rises spontaneously. It was explained toParker and his wife that the policy allowing students to opt out of discussionsof human sexuality was not relevant here and the Parkers’ request was “notpractical” because children could discuss “such matters among themselves atschool.”

When Parker and his wife were told that they could appeal the response to theCommissioner of Education, Parker did not want to. It was then that the twodecided not to leave the school. The Lexington Police were called. Parker’swife went to the couple’s car but he stayed. Two plain-clothed detectives cameat 5:20 p.m. and a police lieutenant came at 6 p.m. All asked Parker to leavebut he refused to leave unless he was arrested.



In 2007a federal judge ruled that because of “gay marriage” in Massachusetts,
parentshave no rights regarding the teaching of homosexual relationships in
schools.The previous year theParkers and Wirthlins had filed a federal civil rights
lawsuit toforce the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt out their elementary school
childrenwhen homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judge
dismissedthe case. The appeals judges later upheld the first judge’s ruling that because
same-sexmarriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to
normalizehomosexual relationships to children; and schools have no obligation tonotify
parents orlet them opt out their
Click to expand...

Here is whatthe federal court actually ruled.

Public schools are not obliged to shield individual studentsfrom ideas which potentially are religiously offensive, particularly when theschool imposes no requirement that the student agree with or affirm thoseideas, or even participate in discussions about them.
On the facts, there is no viable claim of"indoctrination" here. Without suggesting that such showings wouldsuffice to establish a claim of indoctrination, we note the plaintiffs'children were not forced to read the books on pain of suspension. Nor were theysubject to a constant stream of like materials. There is no allegation here ofa formalized curriculum requiring students to read many books affirming gaymarriage.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3852599956015630493&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr




I could go on but I have a life
 
So you are saying elementary school children would be naturally discussing sex then.
Just as the judges did.
Yea, real good.
Perfect.
You do good Tracey by abiding by the rules of the court.
Kindergartners would naturally be discussing sex.
Perverted minds think alike.
- That wouldn't happen anywhere near where I live. (We make a habit of not perverting our children.)
 
RickShafer said:
So you are saying elementary school children would be naturally discussing sex then.
Just as the judges did.
Yea, real good.
Perfect.
You do good Tracey by abiding by the rules of the court.
Kindergartners would naturally be discussing sex.
Perverted minds think alike.
- That wouldn't happen anywhere near where I live. (We make a habit of not perverting our children.)
Click to expand...

no one said anything of the sort.
 
My answers in Red:
TracerBullet said:
Just thefacts: David Parker was arrested for trespassing.
Parker and his wife requested that the school, in the future,ensure that teachers automatically remove their children from discussions ofsame-sex households, even if the issue rises spontaneously. It was explained toParker and his wife that the policy allowing students to opt out of discussionsof human sexuality was not relevant here and the Parkers’ request was “notpractical” because children(grade schoolers) could discuss “such matters among themselves atschool.” (I'd say that's 'of the sort')

When Parker and his wife were told that they could appeal the response to theCommissioner of Education, Parker did not want to. It was then that the twodecided not to leave the school. The Lexington Police were called. Parker’swife went to the couple’s car but he stayed. Two plain-clothed detectives cameat 5:20 p.m. and a police lieutenant came at 6 p.m. All asked Parker to leavebut he refused to leave unless he was arrested.



Here is whatthe federal court actually ruled.

Public schools are not obliged to shield individual studentsfrom ideas which potentially are religiously offensive, particularly when theschool imposes no requirement that the student agree with or affirm thoseideas, or even participate in discussions about them.(Yes, automatically grade schoolers will know!)
On the facts, there is no viable claim of"indoctrination" here.(Of course not! - A picture book with two of the same sex as parents to kindergartners! - How simplistic we are to think that might shade them!) Without suggesting that such showings wouldsuffice to establish a claim of indoctrination, we note the plaintiffs'children were not forced to read the books on pain of suspension. Nor were theysubject to a constant stream of like materials. There is no allegation here ofa formalized curriculum requiring students to read many books affirming gaymarriage. (Ha! - Said the old reprobate wolves to the young innocent sheep!!)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3852599956015630493&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr




I could go on but I have a life
Click to expand...

Honestly, you defend this curriculum to elementary age children as if you wrote it.
(Sleep well),

On with your life!!!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back