The MRA's Court: Should This Father Have Faced Arrest At All? (VIDEO)

[Captain Courageous]

Public school officials have a father arrested for questioning them about his 5 year old receiving homosexual material
You Tube

The Consequences of Homosexual Marriage

[The Biscuit Queen]

I don't think this is about protecting marriage, because marriage is far more threatened by divorce and the feminist ideology that women are superior rather than equal.

This, IMO, is a slippery slope issue protecting religious freedom. Sure, what they are asking for now is moderate: give gays the same rights as straights. Most people do not care what gays do in their home. Most people don't even care if gays can adopt, as there are plenty of bad straight homes as well. The problem lies when it stops becoming the dictionary definition of tolerance (live and let live) and becomes the liberal difinition of tolerance(forced acceptance and support).

If we look at sexual choice (and it is a choice) as the same as race, we will start to view any resistance to it as racist and inexcusable. A photographer who refuses to take pictures at a gay wedding is not standing her ground, she is a bigot who must be forced to overcome her predudice. A church which refuses to perform gay weddings will be forced to do so, just as churches were at one point sued and forced to marry biracial couples.

Note that other choices society makes, such as religious denomination, are not legally held to that standard. If you are a methodist, you will never be forced to perform communion, and if you are catholic, your church will never be forced to marry a jewish couple, if you are jewish you will not be forced to observe an Islamic holiday.

We do not, however, allow discrimination based on religious denomination. We do not refuse service for non-religious things such as breakfast, or banking or education. We already do not allow that against gays as well.

If we could guarantee this would be observed for the choice of homosexuality, then I think most conservatives would fine with gay marriage. Not all, but most. We all know, however, because they have already tipped their hand, that they will not stop there. It will not be over until gay pride is celebrated throughout the country in every walk of life. It is not about personal rights, it is about forced acceptance. THAT is the main issue.

[The Biscuit Queen]

I think he was arrested for protesting on public grounds without a permit. He refused to leave the school until his demands were met. I don't think that was discrimination against men.

It was telling, however, that it was the man who put his own safety and freedom on the line for his kids.

[The Gonzman]

That's why I didn't send my kids to government schools.

[BRIAN]

I depends on how he did the questioning. You can't go to a public meeting and show your ass and be disruptive and expect not to suffer consequences.

[The Biscuit Queen]

I would be pissed too.  Homosexuality is not something which should be discussed in kindergarten at a public school, and certainly not something to be discussed without permission of the patents.

If it happened to me I would have a long discussion about social engineering and state indoctrination with my child. The school would not be happy with the lessons with which my child walked away.

[zetamale]

honestly, i dont think the school was pushing it at an age limit (as long as it was nothing beyond , there are different families some have two dads, two moms etc maybe it was a year or two early but i still think it was in that acceptable age range)

i also dont think he should have been arrested, and that he has a point that parents should be informed

[The Biscuit Queen]

honestly, i dont think the school was pushing it at an age limit (as long as it was nothing beyond , there are different families some have two dads, two moms etc maybe it was a year or two early but i still think it was in that acceptable age range)

It is too early to be handing children material which requires critical thinking. That is WHY they hand it out that early. If they wait until kids can debate the material it is too late to indoctrinate them. When we wish to make social change, such as against DWI, or for seat belts, we start telling kids about it as soon as they can understand even part of it. Kids grow up accepting these things as facts. When I was a kid we drove to vacations 10 hours or more laying in the back of the station wagon on sleeping bags. Today we would never consider driving down to the convenience store without a seat belt, or age appropriate car or booster seat. Kids just put the seat belt on without thinking.

This program is indoctrination. There is no reason to have this sort of program unless your goal is to indoctrinate kids that gay marriage (and homosexuality)  is unquestionably acceptable.

[zetamale]

honestly, i dont think the school was pushing it at an age limit (as long as it was nothing beyond , there are different families some have two dads, two moms etc maybe it was a year or two early but i still think it was in that acceptable age range)

It is too early to be handing children material which requires critical thinking. That is WHY they hand it out that early. If they wait until kids can debate the material it is too late to indoctrinate them. When we wish to make social change, such as against DWI, or for seat belts, we start telling kids about it as soon as they can understand even part of it. Kids grow up accepting these things as facts. When I was a kid we drove to vacations 10 hours or more laying in the back of the station wagon on sleeping bags. Today we would never consider driving down to the convenience store without a seat belt, or age appropriate car or booster seat. Kids just put the seat belt on without thinking.

This program is indoctrination. There is no reason to have this sort of program unless your goal is to indoctrinate kids that gay marriage (and homosexuality)  is unquestionably acceptable.

well what about religion? would that be indoctrination? what teaching at a young age wouldnt be indoctrination by that definition?

[The Gonzman]

honestly, i dont think the school was pushing it at an age limit (as long as it was nothing beyond , there are different families some have two dads, two moms etc maybe it was a year or two early but i still think it was in that acceptable age range)

It is too early to be handing children material which requires critical thinking. That is WHY they hand it out that early. If they wait until kids can debate the material it is too late to indoctrinate them. When we wish to make social change, such as against DWI, or for seat belts, we start telling kids about it as soon as they can understand even part of it. Kids grow up accepting these things as facts. When I was a kid we drove to vacations 10 hours or more laying in the back of the station wagon on sleeping bags. Today we would never consider driving down to the convenience store without a seat belt, or age appropriate car or booster seat. Kids just put the seat belt on without thinking.

This program is indoctrination. There is no reason to have this sort of program unless your goal is to indoctrinate kids that gay marriage (and homosexuality)  is unquestionably acceptable.

well what about religion? would that be indoctrination? what teaching at a young age wouldnt be indoctrination by that definition?

That's why we don't have schools teach about religion, unless parent's choose to send them to religious schools - an they pay for it.

It's a parent's perogative to mold and shape their children.  Not the state's.

[Captain Courageous]

Would you agree that, if the protester was a woman, the arrest outcome would be different?

[zetamale]

honestly, i dont think the school was pushing it at an age limit (as long as it was nothing beyond , there are different families some have two dads, two moms etc maybe it was a year or two early but i still think it was in that acceptable age range)

It is too early to be handing children material which requires critical thinking. That is WHY they hand it out that early. If they wait until kids can debate the material it is too late to indoctrinate them. When we wish to make social change, such as against DWI, or for seat belts, we start telling kids about it as soon as they can understand even part of it. Kids grow up accepting these things as facts. When I was a kid we drove to vacations 10 hours or more laying in the back of the station wagon on sleeping bags. Today we would never consider driving down to the convenience store without a seat belt, or age appropriate car or booster seat. Kids just put the seat belt on without thinking.

This program is indoctrination. There is no reason to have this sort of program unless your goal is to indoctrinate kids that gay marriage (and homosexuality)  is unquestionably acceptable.

well what about religion? would that be indoctrination? what teaching at a young age wouldnt be indoctrination by that definition?

That's why we don't have schools teach about religion, unless parent's choose to send them to religious schools - an they pay for it.

It's a parent's perogative to mold and shape their children.  Not the state's.

but its still the indoctrination of children and id rather have children accept homosexuality than buy into the bible

also at what age should children learn the existence of homosexual couples (unless by chance a schoolmate is a child in one)?

[The Gonzman]

but its still the indoctrination of children and id rather have children accept homosexuality than buy into the bible

So, IOW, you'd push the power of the state to raise children, over the natural rights of parents to do so.

That's not a question,  It is what your position clearly is.

Ah, Doc.  Couldn't we get the old "ignore" option on here so I don't have to waste time reading fascist and statist nonsense?

[Captain Courageous]

but its still the indoctrination of children and id rather have children accept homosexuality than buy into the bible

... or the Koran, the Bhagavadgita, The Dhammapada, the Tao Teh Ching??

[The Gonzman]

but its still the indoctrination of children and id rather have children accept homosexuality than buy into the bible

... or the Koran, the Bhagavadgita, The Dhammapada, the Tao Teh Ching??

That I'd be curious to hear, to know if we have a general anti-religious bigot on our hands, or just an anti-Christian one.