Gay Fairy Tale Read to 1st Graders
Let me start this off by saying this: gays and lesbians should be afforded the same treatment and opportunities as everyone else. Their life choice is a personal one. If it makes them happy and doesn't hurt anyone, then by all means, gay away.
Personally, I find two dudes kissing and whatnot pretty gross and even unnatural (hey - only certain sea creatures can naturally further their species with the absence of a second gender). But generally, it doesn't really bug me. Happiness can be elusive and if someone can find it in another person, regardless of gender, it's not the community's or the government's or anyone's business to interfere. Who the heck are we to tell an individual how to live their life?
If we allow the government to mandate how people live their lives, where does that end? It is the same power that some governments use to dictate all its male citizens serve in the military or all its female citizens wear hijabs. Why give any man-made entity that power over our lives?
However, this bugs me: a teacher in Massachusetts read a story of two princes falling in love, marrying, and sealing the union with a kiss to a classroom of seven year olds without warning parents first.
When teachers take it upon themselves to act as surrogate parents by teaching children certain intricacies of life that are better left at home, those teachers cross a serious line. The minds and emotions of children are too fragile to introduce ideas when they're not ready. All children develop differently, and only a parent could know when their child can handle what. Some children may be ready for the birds and the bees at 7, others at 11, but ultimately the parent knows better (than any teacher, school, or government) when the time would be right.
But some would argue that this fairy tale has nothing to do with the birds and the bees, it is simply a story of love and being true to one's self.
Sex, as far as a child should be concerned, is an act that serves a purpose: procreation. Obviously, this is not possible with a homosexual relationship. Sex in such a union is solely for pleasure, and a curious child would surely demand an explanation, forcing the parents into a dialogue they may not have wanted to have at that time.
So if a community or government shouldn't dictate how people live their lives with regards to their life partners, then a community or government shouldn't dictate how people raise their children.
2 comments:
amen! to what u said..
personally i feel, homosexuality is an perverse act, just as some indulge in various other vices. but since, we live in a free society, we r also free to choose our vices, (until ofcourse it affects others).
but, 'teachin' something of such inherently complex nature to first graders reeks of ulterior motives.
This is my favorite part: "Sex, as far as a child should be concerned, is an act that serves a purpose: procreation. Obviously, this is not possible with a homosexual relationship."
Like I said in my email to you, I agree with everything you wrote except...
Well, nevermind, let me start with what I do agree with. In this country we highly value freedom. At some point freedom without boundaries gets out of control, but, we - hopefully - have the law to guard against that. I have the freedom to worship freely, to speak my mind, to think and pursue excellence and intellect. I hope to never take this lightly. By the same coin, I think anyone should be able to choose their life partner... but, the family is a social unit, however basic and set apart it may be.
This considered, I have my objection. You said, "If it makes them happy and doesn't hurt anyone, then by all means gay away." Though I do agree with that statement, I deny the possibility of the causal statement "If it... doesn't hurt anyone." Now who is getting hurt? Take a step back with me. The issue at hand is not, in my opinion, whether same-sex marriages can be upheld by the law, but rather, what is a marriage? Marriage is a God-granted covenant between one man and one woman, not a man and a man nor a man and two women. I do not stand for staining the covenant of marriage (in any way).
However, I am all a-go for civil unions. I am outraged at the amount of people who "justify" their "preference" by use of the Bible. Has anyone ever read Romans 1? It's one thing to sin, we all do. But excuse it? Permit it?! That's pathetic. Yeah, so it’s arguing over semantics. Using the Lord's name in vain is a semantic issue ;-). I think the two (civil unions and marriage between partners of the same sex... even sexual relations) are inherently wrong, but for the fallen nature of man, I'll grant the former.
Okay, so how does this hurt others if civil union is okay, but not marriage? And "gay away" doesn't necessarily adopt legal action. Back to what I was saying about society. We can't keep people from stealing, killing, continuing with their eating disorders, committing adultery, or engaging in illicit sex (and by that I mean illicit in light of what God says is right and wrong, not man-made laws), but we still can deter people from doing so. We have laws, i.e. legal enforcers, and social buffers, among other things. Just as an eating disorder does not affect one person only, neither does homosexual relations affect two people only. Natural order is done away with, society's definition of "marriage" is blurred, and the world is left to wonder what happened.
Research has shown that girls are getting their periods earlier and earlier and it is due to early exposure to sexual arousal. Sure, its partly genetic, but "the churning of milk produces butter, And pressing the nose brings forth blood". Where are they getting this stimulus from? Hmm... I wonder. Most girls can get pregnant at 12, some as early as 8! And 9 year olds have gotten pregnant, often by accident, not really knowing what they were doing, but just because it was never deemed as wrong.
We are trying to teach safe-sex or abstinence to those in Africa (though the AIDS virus is smaller than the pores of a good condom), but are those fueling the issue in Africa seeing the problem in their own country? The number of homeless and AIDS cases and teen pregnancies in our country is alarming.
We didn't ask for this. We didn't see it coming. We wanted to define happiness ourselves. Whatever feels good. Be a good neighbor. Be true to yourself.
Which brings my disagreement #2. "Happiness can be elusive and if someone can find it in another person, regardless of gender, it's not the community's or the government's or anyone's business to interfere." Maybe it's not. But fulfillment will only be found in God. People will always fail us. And God, in His love, has provided us with a fence in which to keep the bad guys out. I, for one, will stay on this side of the fence. I’m safe here, not to mention I have the best grass.
So the bottom line is: Who the heck are we to tell God, whether directly or indirectly, that we know how to live our lives better than the One who made it?
Post a Comment