MyDD :: Obama:no move to center?Remember the book "King and King"

Obama:no move to center?Remember the book "King and King"

by yellowdem1129, Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:36:51 AM EST

Yesterday Senator Obama:

rejected the "broader issue" that he's shifting to the center or flip-flopping. "The people who say this apparently haven't been listening to me,"

This may be true on Iraq where the difference may be in tone and setting.

It may also be true on Guns where Obama stated earlier that he believed in an individual right to a gun but that D.C.'s law was Consistent with that. The focus was on the latter in the Primaries. Now he ignores the second part of his earlier statements and focuses on the former.

This is Clintonian. It is really good!
----
There is another issue that has a little room to maneuver but not much.

Obama in a debate supported a school's decision to teach a gay love story to second graders called" "king and king"
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story .php?storyId=5366521

Over the past few weeks, Senator Obama has made an effort to appeal to middle America. I expect Senator Obama to have to move to the center on the issue of Gay Rights also. This will be necessary for a variety of reasons but especially because of a debate performance in 2007. There, Obama endorsed both explicity and implicity, Sen. Edwards' comments about it being proper for second graders to read/discuss a gay love story. In fact, Edwards went further and said he didn't feel it was his place to "impose" his views of right/wrong on his kids.

Newsflash to both Edwards/Obama: Parents are absolutely supposed to "impose" their views of right/wrong on kids. They are too young to know for themselves. They need protection. This is the bedrock of parent/children relationships. Also, we don't believe in letting schools decide moral issues, but rather parents deciding for their families. Interestingly if you read the entire transcript, Hillary Clinton was the closest of the 3 main contenders to realize how ridiculous they all sounded, though she too tried to pander to the left, albeit with a somewhat muted tone.
----

From September 26,2007 Democratic Candidates debate

Here's a question that was initially asked of John Edwards, and then forwarded to both Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama (the 3 leading candidates at the time):

KING: Thanks, Tim.The issues surrounding gay rights have been hotly debated here in New England. For example, last year some parents of second-graders in Lexington, Massachusetts, were outraged to learn their children's teacher had read a story about same-sex marriage, about a prince who marries another prince. Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts but most of you oppose it. Would you be comfortable having this story read to your children as part of their school curriculum?

John Edwards' answer is important because Obama references it, so here is Edwards
(my bold):

EDWARDS: Yes, absolutely. What I want is I want my children to understand everything about the difficulties that gay and lesbian couples are faced with everyday, the discrimination that they're faced with every single day of their lives.

EDWARDS: And I suspect my two younger children, Emma Claire,who's 9, and Jack, who's 7, will reach the same conclusion that mydaughter Cate, who's 25, has reached, which is she doesn't understand why her dad is not in favor of same-sex marriage. And she says her generation will be the generation that brings about the great change in America on that issue.So I don't want to make that decision on behalf of my children.I want my children to be able to make that decision on behalf ofthemselves, and I want them to be exposed to all the information, evenin -- did you say second grade? Second grade might be a little tough,but even in second grade to be exposed to all...

KING: Well, that's the point. It is second grade.

EDWARDS: ... those possibilities, because I don't want to impose my view. Nobody made me God. I don't get to decide on behalf of myfamily or my children, as my wife Elizabeth has spoken her own mind onthis issue. I don't get to impose on them what it is that I believe is right.

EDWARDS: But what I will do as president of the United States is I will lead an effort to make sure that the same benefits that areavailable to heterosexual couples -- 1,100 roughly benefits in thefederal government -- are available to same-sex couples; that we getrid of DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act; that we get rid of "don'task/don't tell," which is wrong today and was wrong when it wasenacted back in the 1990s.I will be the president that leads a serious effort to deal withthe discrimination that exists today.

KING: Thank you.Senator Obama, you have young children at home. How do you feel about this?

OBAMA: You know, I feel very similar to John. You know, the fact is my 9-year-old and my 6-year-old I think are already aware that there are same-sex couples. My wife and I have talked about it. One of the things I want to communicate to my children is not to be afraidof people who are different, because there have been times in ourhistory where I was considered different, or Bill Richardson wasconsidered different.

OBAMA: And one of the things I think the next president has todo is to stop fanning people's fears. If we spend all our time feeding the American people fear and conflict and division, then they become fearful and conflicted and divided. And if we feed them hope and we feed them reason and tolerance,then they will become tolerant and reasonable and hopeful. And that I think is one of the most important things that thenext president can do, is try to bring us together, and stop trying tofan the flames of division that have become so standard in ourpolitics in Washington. That's the kind of experience, by the way,that we need to put an end to.

KING: Quickly, have you sat down with your daughters to talkabout same-sex marriage?

OBAMA: My wife has.

KING: She has. OK.
--------

Notice how both Edwards and Obama tried to switch the topic to "discrimination" and "toleration" rather than what the question was about: "acceptance" as a normal way of life in the public school curriculum whether you as a parent agree/disagree. I will be shocked at the Republican ineptitude if they don't identify this and magnify it for what it is: an example of left-wing elitism trying to supplant the traditional moral values of middle America. In addition, the idea that parents shouldn't be the controlling force but rather school boards and others is utterly objectionable

Tags: criag farmer, newliberal, barrack obama (all tags)

Permalink :: 39 Comments :: Post a Comment

tolerance is a traditional moral value (2.00 / 1)

How is reading a story to second graders trying to "supplant the traditional moral values of middle America"?
Is reading a book about bears divorcing supplanting moral values as well?
Should we refuse to read books to children about stealing, poverty and racism?

"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC

by skohayes on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:37:03 AM EST

Re: tolerance is a traditional moral value (none / 0)

are you being serious?

They read a book about 2 men to 7 years olds? You barely can read a normal book about a man and a woman to 7 year olds.

by yellowdem1129 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:08:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: tolerance is a traditional moral value (2.00 / 2)

You haven't answered my question.
How is reading a book about 2 men to 7 yr olds supplanting traditional moral values?
Isn't tolerance of other's beliefs a traditional moral value the US?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC

by skohayes on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:47:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

acceptance not tolerance (none / 0)

tolerance is refraiming from abuse or negative conduct towards.

This book is about acceptance and normalcy.

That is a very big difference.

The analogies to other issues such as poverty, racism, etc. don't apply because they are realities that no reasonable person is against fighting.

Whereas a majority of Americans, most of them reasonable disagree with trying to make gay relationships normal.

by yellowdem1129 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:22:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: acceptance not tolerance (2.00 / 1)

Actually tolerance is defined as: "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own".

Racism used to be widely accepted in this country. The late, less than great Jesse Helms was openly racist and homophobic.
In 1948, about 90% of Americans opposed interracial marriage. It took until 1991 before those against interracial marriages became a minority.
So your claim that these are realities that no "reasonable" person would be against is proven untrue.
It will be the same with gay marriage. It may take awhile, but it will happen.

History has shown that once a discriminated-against group organizes and brings their demands for equal rights before the public, that equal rights are eventually granted. This has happened in the past with respect to slavery, racial segregation, women's suffrage, equal opportunities for women, and inter-racial marriage.

"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC

by skohayes on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:36:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

leaving personal viewpoints aside (none / 0)

you can't believe do you? That Obama can go to battleground states and defend an atack ad that says,

"Obama agreed in a debate just last year that schools can teach books about gay men to 2nd graders without parents consent"

Please tell me, you are in reality.

by yellowdem1129 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:38:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: leaving personal viewpoints aside (none / 0)

People that are afraid of gays and same sex marriage are unlikely to vote for Obama anyway.

I would be interested in seeing the Republican that has the balls to run an ad attacking Obama on his open attitude towards learning, considering the myriad sex scandals their own senators and congressmen have been caught in the last couple of years. Molesting pages, caught in a public bathroom soliciting sex from a stranger, etc.
That's what happens when you promote hatred and intolerance- you're hoisted by your own petard quite often.

"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC

by skohayes on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:37:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: leaving personal viewpoints aside (2.00 / 1)

Exactly. I would love to hear McCain try to rally people with the sanctity of marriage battle cry only to have Obama ask him "So wait, how many times have you been married?"

And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.

by thatpurplestuff on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:43:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: leaving personal viewpoints aside (2.00 / 1)

People that are afraid of gays and same sex marriage are unlikely to vote for Obama anyway.

As much as I'm on your side on this, I disagree to some extent. The black population is notoriously anti-gay (in general...obviously there are a load of exceptions to any generalization). And the blue collar population isn't necessarily "gay friendly" and those are votes we're gonna need.

I guess I'm saying that you can't write off all Americans who are either anti-gay or, at least, concerned about homosexuality...at least not if you want to win, which I certainly do.

I'm of the mindset that the more people are exposed to something different, the less afraid of it they become (again, in general). There are a lot of Americans who are uncomfortable with homosexuality because it's so foreign to their own lifestyles. But the more exposure they have to the millions of perfectly normal gay people they have, the more comfortable they'll become. Until then, though, we can't just write them off as bigots who vote Republican, because a lot of them aren't.

No way. No how. No McCain.

by freedom78 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:49:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: leaving personal viewpoints aside (none / 0)

You have a good point. Just as there are anti-abortion Democrats, there are probably quite a few anti-gay Democrats.
And your point about the more exposure (that isn't tinged with hate and fear like the republicans push) that people have to married gay people, the more they will realize that it's no more of a threat to "traditional" marriage than interracial marriage was, is also right on the money.

"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC

by skohayes on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:02:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Each generation holds it's prejudice close (2.00 / 1)

"Whereas a majority of Americans, most of them reasonable disagree with trying to make gay relationships normal."

Well, MAYBE if you load the survey to everyone over 40?

At any rate, that is a shrinking majority, thank goodness.

My parents, born in the depression era, couldn't walk by an inter-racial couple without feeling discomfort?

The Boomers, perhaps, can't wrap their heads around gay marriage?

My kid, and the Millenials in general, particularly generation Y, when asked about Gay Marriage are kind of like "Duh? What's the diff, dude?"

In 40 years, folks will stare at you curiously if you tell them people wanted to ammend the constitution to prohibit gay relationships?

It's kind of like wanting to put in an ammendment to prohibit blue eyes?

Trying to prohibit nature is kind of dumb.

Our long national nightmare is over...in 17 days!

by WashStateBlue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:51:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama:no move to center? (2.00 / 2)

OK first Edwards referencing only the same sex marriage issue in this discussion not all moral issues.

Second, I am guessing you are a worked up about this because you are uncomfortable with same sex marriage.

Third "Traditional Moral Values." YellowDem I understand you are probably the most conservative person on this site, but using Evangelical code phrases starts making you sound a little more Radical Right than a moderate Democrat.

Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.

by jsfox on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:05:14 AM EST

Re: Obama:no move to center? (2.00 / 2)

I'm confused, is it wrong to read them a book about any 2 sets of people then? Based on your tone, I take it this is a pretty racy book, was there hardcore making out or something? Or is your point that introducing kids to the fact that somewhere in this big wide world, instead of Adam and Eve, they may run into Adam and Steve is somehow immorral and too steamy?

by Dog Chains on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:21:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

don't give this election away (none / 0)

I still can't believe the media let Dems off the hook on this one. But you can't seriously think that in:

Colorado
Missouri
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Michigan
Florida

That they want to vote for a President who is comfortable with a school including a gay book in the curriculum in second grade.

A second issue is that it was done without parental permission.

To try to include this acceptance of gays with:

honesty
work hard
be nice to others

etc.

is offensive.

Obama will come to my position if challenged and say that he agreed with the anti-discrimination part of Edwards' statement but not the book in 2nd grade part.

he was inartful.

by yellowdem1129 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:27:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: don't give this election away (2.00 / 2)

Interesting choice of words, that acceptance stuff, they aren't like the tooth fairy or aliens from the planet zoobon, they do exist, you have no choice but to accept that fact. Sorry if some people are living in lalalalalala land

by Dog Chains on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:44:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

i can give 100's examples (none / 0)

of people who exist that we don't teach to 2nd graders.

For example:

people practicing pologamy
people practicing incest
people practicing beastality

people who are in abusive relationships

people who have pre-marital sex

people who are victims of crime
etc.

These are 2nd graders.

Hello?

by yellowdem1129 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:38:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i can give 100's examples (2.00 / 1)

The fact that you would compare those situations to people in loving and committed relationships (and yes, Sparky, even legal in some states now) makes you beyond help. no one brought their habits into it, it's a book about people, not one mention of anything involving their personal lives, and if it were mommy and daddy, you would have no problem, so that would make you a, let's say it together now, "homophobe".

by Dog Chains on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:00:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i can give 100's examples (2.00 / 1)

Santorum? Is that you?

Seriously, the fact that you even thought to compare homosexuality with abusive relationships, crime, bestiality, polygamy, and incest is very informative. It must be scary walking in your shoes, seeing as how 9 million people in America are boogymen and boogywomen to you.

And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.

by thatpurplestuff on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:18:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i can give 100's examples (none / 0)

Yeah, we should probably stop teaching all those old testament bible stories to them. I think except for the bestiality( and I'm not positive about that, frankly), you can find incest, polygamy, even fraticide and patricide in the bible.
No more bible camp for you, Yellow Dem!!

"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC

by skohayes on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:07:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: don't give this election away (2.00 / 2)

Let's try again.

To try to include acceptance of blacks with:

honesty
work yard
be nice to others

etc.

is offensive.

I mean, really. Most people think dark skin and kinky hair are just icky, right?

Besides, I'm guessing the book in question is not chock full of steamy sex. I really don't see what's wrong with something along the lines of "Joe and Jim live together next door to John and Jane."

I come here for the lulz.

by username on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:01:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

first of all (none / 0)

people with black skin don't get to choose to be "in the closet".

they don't decide if/when to act on their "sexuality" whether born/learned/ combo.

Next, in essense we are not talking about people but behavior/culture.

But the point here is more that obama will have to change whether people here like it or not.

You can keep trying to act as if your viewpoint is mainstream but it isn't.

I will stipulate though that if the media continues as it is, and Americans continue to cower, it very well might and probably will be mainstream in the future.
Unfortunately.

by yellowdem1129 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:41:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: don't give this election away (2.00 / 2)

"Obama will come to my position if challenged"

Yes, and that will be TWO strikes against him in my book. First the faith based pander and then, IF indeed he makes some overt statement about this as you suggest?

Doesn't mean I am not supporting him, just I am realistic that you can't always get wnat you want, but sometimes you get what you need (thanks Mick and Keith!)

Our long national nightmare is over...in 17 days!

by WashStateBlue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:56:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Seriously? (2.00 / 4)

"An example of left-wing elitism trying to supplant the traditional moral values of middle America."

God, you sound like James Dobson.

by Hatch on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:57:26 AM EST

Re: Seriously? (2.00 / 4)

Oh, come now. Everyone knows this country was founded on the self-evident truths of slavery, greed, and homophobia.

I come here for the lulz.

by username on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:03:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seriously? (none / 0)

there should be a $100,000 challenge on this site to discuss this issue without calling names or atacking people personally, but using facts/logics as you understand them.

The magic: homophobia .

The ever present analogy to slavery.

It is sad that otherwise smart people are invested in negativity rather than accepting the challenge to prove they are right.

by yellowdem1129 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:43:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seriously? (none / 0)

"Left-wing elitism trying to supplant the traditional moral values..."

Your post doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, only to be mocked.

I come here for the lulz.

by username on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:05:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you can't read the comments (none / 0)

on this thread and not understand that the term left-wing elitism trying to supplant traditional moral values is a descriptive and accurate assesment.

It's certainly not moderate or rightwing, It is certainly coming from a point of view that says "America" doesn't understand, "yet" or that "the people have to overcome their bias", or "in time, as the older people pass on".

This is elitism.

It is premised on the idea that those here know better for people's kids than their parents.

It also shows a lack of respect for other viewpoints that deserve better.

by yellowdem1129 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:15:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seriously? (2.00 / 1)

You just likened homosexuality to bestiality and crime upthread. In my eyes, that's a pretty clear sign of a homophobe. Don't get angry when people call a spade a spade.

And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.

by thatpurplestuff on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:23:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seriously? (2.00 / 1)

"self-evident truths of slavery, greed, and homophobia."

Wow, throw in Sexism and Zenophobia, you kind of have the Republic party platform right there!

Our long national nightmare is over...in 17 days!

by WashStateBlue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:49:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What moral value is served (none / 0)

by privileging opposite-sex marriage over same-sex marriage?

You are also completely incorrect to say that schools are not intended to teach moral values. Schools teach that segregation was bad, for example. That is a moral value.

by JJE on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:11:30 PM EST

Re: What moral value is served (none / 0)

by privileging opposite-sex marriage over same-sex marriage?

You are also completely incorrect to say that schools are not intended to teach moral values. Schools teach that segregation was bad, for example. That is a moral value.

1. we the people through our government have a right to define our culture as we wish it. Just as you and anyone else have a right to try to convince others they are wrong. But it is wrong for people to try to force others to accept a viewpoint that is/would be rejected in the light of day.
For ex: send home a permission slip, with the book and description and give people a chance to opt out of the lesson.

2. Society need rules. Some of them serve a utilitarian purpose. Others of them serve a more metaphysical function of binding people together under 1 set of rules. For example:

we eat cow meat, chicken meat, and pig meat in America.

we don't eat dog and cat meat.

Yet in parts of asia it is the reverse.

Both cultures have a right to define themselves. They get to define what is right/wrong; disgusting/acceptable.

We all make determinations, and some people/their behavior get labeled wrong.

To give you a simple example: I'm left handed, yet everything is generally based on right handed people.

I'm trying to show you that we need rules in society. You or I can try to change them, but ultimately we still need rules.

At some point you'd have to agree that's too far right:

pologamy
incest
sex with animals
grownmen marrying children

by yellowdem1129 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:23:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What moral value is served (none / 0)

"pologamy
incest
sex with animals
grownmen marrying children"

In each of those, you can argue there is a power imbalance, a victim as it were?

Where is the victim in two consenting adults in a committed relationship, whose genital pairing is offensive to a % of the population?

Oh, and, BTW, can you share ONE iota of emperical information that gay marriage has a deletirious effect on straight marriage?

Cause, none exists.

Our long national nightmare is over...in 17 days!

by WashStateBlue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:31:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rules are fine (none / 0)

arbitrary rules that discriminate for no rational reason or not. Laws should be justified by reasons, not simply the irrational prejudices (or "methaphysical function", if you prefer) of the majority.

by JJE on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:00:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How do I phrase this artfully...... (none / 0)

Sigh.

YwllowDem, I know this is going to sound like an attack, but do you know any gay couples?

Where I live, in Seattle, up on Capital Hill, my girlfriend and I being "breeders" are almost in the minority.

Perhaps, because of where you live, or your upbringing, you just have a pre-concieved notion that belongs to a previous time?

Again, my parents couldn't look at an inter-racial couple without some discomfort?

I think you are fighting yesterday's war, which, thank goodness, has already been lost (or will be, when we pass this mortal coil, and my kid and her peers are in charge.)

And, PLEASE, don't give me "black people don't choose their skin color."

I know a number of black gay folks, you want a burden to carry, you think they CHOOSE to be gay with the double whammy they have to put up with?

Go here, here's my perspective on this issue:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/8/16305 1/1856#commenttop

Our long national nightmare is over...in 17 days!

by WashStateBlue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:16:33 PM EST

God honest truth (none / 0)

I know plenty of gay couples/gay friendly people.

they choose not to talk to me about the issue because I am one of the few who will not use p.c. language and won't cower to negative labels.

One of my wife's good friends "came out" and is now living as a couple with "her partner".

She thought I wouldn't want her to watch our children anymore.

I didn't care, assuming she was like most other Americans and had common sense.

But the facts are, we are taking something deviant and forcing America to make it normal.

Why are gay people so special?
What about transgendered people? Are they normal?
What about people who eat dogs are they normal?
what about a mom who wants to marry her son?
What about a dad in love with his son?

What principle would say, no to them but yes to "regular gay people"?

Why do we have to respect some people's differences, but not religious beliefs?

Obama is going to have to choose between the netroots and winning.
'
I'm confident he will choose winning.
Even though I suspect his heart is with you guys.

by yellowdem1129 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:29:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Normal? That changes from generation on.... (none / 0)

"Why are gay people so special?"

They aren't, that is the point. They don't WANT to be special, they just want the same rights everyone else has.

"What about transgendered people? Are they normal?"

Yes. and who the hell decides what normal means ANYWAY?

The Bible?

"What about people who eat dogs are they normal?"

I happen to be a big dog person, so it is offensive to me. But, my daughter won't eat lamb, and I love it. I think that analogy is a little Zenophobic, so I will leave it at that.

"what about a mom who wants to marry her son?
What about a dad in love with his son?"

Again, I think you can argue that incest is determinental as a power relationship, in most incestious relationship, the adult is abusing the child to some extent or another.

Do you think gay sex is sexual abuse, if the two people involved are consenting?

Our long national nightmare is over...in 17 days!

by WashStateBlue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:42:46 PM EST

Acceptance is tolerance (none / 0)

If a lifestyle is not given legitimacy, there will be discrimination against those who practice it, that's a fact. I'm sorry, but if parents desire full control over their child's evolving world view, they should home school them. Allowing any other individual to take a hand in the rearing of your child means ceding part of that child's formation. It is the business of state education to create good citizens. Tolerance is a tenet of good citizenship in a country build as ours is. Positive exposure is necessary for tolerance. Therefore normal portrayal of homosexuals is well within the rights (and responsibilities) of the school board.

Definitions of morality can vary so widely that your position is simply untenable. What if one objects to the cursing in Huck Finn? What about the sex in Tess D'Ubervilles? How about the legitimizing of the supernatural in everything Poe's ever written? The Catholic slant of Inferno? The Protestant slant of A Tale of Two Cities? Maybe a parent has a problem with the flat portrayal of Simon Legree in Uncle Tom's Cabin. This is to say nothing of how we interpret historical events like the Revolution or Pearl Harbor, how we explore Greek and Roman religion and sexuality, how we teach science, and what we say in government class.

If you want to take out all things open to subjective interpretation which might affect a child's moral impetus in ways that run contrary to the parent, you are left with math, and even that only to basic calculus.

M. It's like W, but flipflopped.

by warmwaterpenguin on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:15:07 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.