Kalley Yanta of the Minnesota Marriage Minute explains:
"Experience shows that whenever same-sex marriage becomes the law, children will be exposed to it at an early age -- as early as kindergarten. When same-sex marriage was imposed by the courts in Massachusetts, for example, second graders were taught in school that boys could marry other boys. Parents objected to this instruction but the schools and the court ruled they had no legal right to opt children out of this instruction."
25 Comments
The sad thing about this is that the kids who suffer from this the most are the kids who lack either a mother or father in their household. Kids with moms and dads at home will be taught not only by their parents' words but by living in a husband-wife-child environment that true marriage is superior to so-called same-sex "marriage;" that there really is no alternative.
The confused kids with no marriage foundation at home will be vulnerable to engaging in same-sex relationships and activities because they don't know any better about the shortcoming of such relationships and activities.
Great, screw up the kids who are already struggling in single-parent households by confusing them about sexuality and relationships. More head cases ending up on the government dole because of public schools' leftist teaching.
If these anti-equality folks at the egregiously misnamed Minnesota for Marriage are so worried about small children "exposed" to civil marriage equality, why is half the "crowd" at every protest of theirs I've seen?
JC -
The concern is not exposure in and of itself; the concern is forced exposure to same-sex relationships in a positive light and equal to opposite-sex relationships.
It's also about parents' rights to decide when and what their kids are exposed to, regardless of what the government thinks they should be exposed to.
@John - yes, continue the lie of all of this being about so-called "marriage equality".
My children have certainly been exposed to the perversion that is homosexual behavior, much earlier than I would have liked. Fortunately, I know that loss of innocence does not have to mean loss of virtue, if children are taught and modeled correct principles.
Oh no, gays can file joint tax returns, visit each other in the hospital, have survivor benefits, are legally obligated to support each other, able to adopt as a couple, draw social security as a married couple, get married to avoid deportation, get divorced, and are no longer affraid of being thrown in jail for their physical expression of intemacy.... The world must truly be coming to an end, because all of these things harm SOOO many people, right?
@over
In other words they aren't opposed to exposing children to the issue as they so disingenuously claim, but opposed to children not being indoctrinated with anti-gay bigotry.
@Tom,
It's not a lie, it's the truth. My side supports equal treatment under the law, your side is vehemently opposed.
@DoE,
Exactly what "homosexual behavior" were your children exposed to? Isn't demanding others define their terms and criteria how discussion works around here.
JC - No one's hiding the fact that they don't want their kids forced by the government to hear that same-sex relationships are the same as opposite-sex relationships. You're arguing semantics.
Oh no, you must not let your children know of the fact that gays exist ion a normal society, just don't let them watch TV, go to the market with you, go to public schools, play in the yeard, drive in the car with you on the freeway, use the library, get an ice cream cone at the shoppe, go to disney or any theme park, to any fast food resturant, go to get a haircut..should i go on? we are everywhere folks, you can gouge their eyes out and deafen them if you wish, but short of that...they will know of our normal existance on this planet...
Over
Not arguing semanics, just taking NOMies at their word. They don't say that they are opposed to their children being exposed to views other than their own, they say that they are opposed to children being exposed to it, full stop. That is an obvious falsehood as witnessed by the countless little children at their anti-gay rallies.
JC said: "...just taking NOMies at their word"
Yes, that's what semantics means.
Good stuff OvSSA.
John Colgan said:
"Isn't demanding others define their terms and criteria how discussion works around here."
Define your terms, John Colgan, and show that you are sincere in your demand of others here.
When last you were challenged to state your criteria on something, you explicitly and repeatedly refused. That puts our demand, here in this thread, in its proper light.
Drat. Typo correction:
That puts your demand, here in this thread, in its proper light.
I'll add that your comment here puts my request in that other thread into its proper light, also, because you now have acknowledged the validity of that request.
Same-sex sexual behavior, John Colgan, is topmost of your mind, apparently, but your mind has yet to figure out the criteria for assessing its morality one way or the other. Or even for assessing that this behavior is the moral equivalent of coital relations of husband and wife.
At issue here is not teaching but indoctrination by some who pretend that their pro-gay moralism of the SSM idea is superior to the moral content of the pro-marriage idea.
Minus sound argumentation, pro-gay moralism is an empty thing into which is poured the assertion of the supremacy of gay identity politics.
Minnesota for Marriage is an apt term for an organization and its supporters who seek to protect the marriage idea from the demand by some to replace it with the SSM idea.
The phrase, marriage equality, is misleading. Today, under the man-woman basis of marriage law, all marriages are equal.
What the phrase really means, and the SSM argumentation makes this very clear, is that the gay subset of nonmarriage is to be treated as superior to the rest of the types of relationships that populate the non-marriage category. Thus is refers to non-marriage and it invokes unequal treatment.
What's more, the phrase signifies, as per the usage of SSMers, that their demands is that tje marriage idea must be demoted from its preferential status to a barely tolerative status; and that the primacy of gay identity politics become entrenched not just in marriage law but through out the legal system so that government is set against the traditions and culture of civil society. That signifies unequal treatment based on identity politics -- nothing more and nothing less.
When SSMers attempt to define the phrase, marriage equality, they end-up revealing that these are the things they truly do mean to impose on society.
Hence the issue with public schools and with the direct implications of replacing the marriage idea with the SSM idea.
Today, under the man-woman basis of marriage law, people can promote the SSM idea on its merits and demerits and can do so in schools and other venues. But the reverse would be prohibited as per the argumentation and rhetoric of the SSM campaign and its leading voices in courts, in legislatures, in executive offices, and in other venues such as universities and the blogosphere.
SSMers insist that we take their message and their actions seriously, of course, and that is what Minnesota for Marriage has done in this video.
Why would SSMers object so much to that? Citizens of Minnesota might ask that of SSMers who appeal for their votes during the amendment campaign.
@over,
So you are saying that the word of NOMies is meaningless? If we can't take them at their word, why should they be trusted at all?
@Chairm
Define your criteria for "stating criteria"? Exactly what do you mean?
Define each and every word you use, and your reasons for using that definition or you are simply running away from your arugments.
JC -
I think you're being ridiculous now.
John, Chairm's arguments make perfect sense. Retreating from the argument by demanding a lesson in English is hardly impressive. Who's running away from the argument?
Sexualizing the innocents through early exposure to homosexuality is child abuse and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
"Define each and every word you use, and your reasons for using that definition..."
This would certainly set a new standard for comments on this blog.
Still playing the CHILD SAFETY card eh nom......best of luck with that when DOMA is dead and gone
John Colgan, define the term, marriage equality, as per your own usage.
You have already demonstrated in your own words that you mean what I have just described. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Meanwhile marriage equality already exists under the man-woman basis of marriage law. Marriage law is for marriage and not for non-marriage. And non-marriage includes a spectrum of two-sexed scenarios as well as one-sexed scenarios. Gayness is irrelevant to the marriage idea but is central to the SSM idea. Hence your gay emphasis and your persistent attack on the marriage idea. And so that is what the Minnesota for Marriage video got right. And you keep telling us that they got it right -- but then you stomp your foot and demand that right is wrong.
Oh well.
The woman deserves a medal
I can personally vouch for what she said because I am from MA, and all of this evil stuff is happening here.