I've come around to agree with the philosophy/belief that homosexuality is "what you are", not "what you do". It's kind of like heterosexuality in that regard--you can be celibate and still be homo/heterosexual. It's the people you're attracted to (you cannot consciously control that) that defines your sexuality here, not who you have sex with.
Now the right will counter with, "Pedophiles are attracted to children and that's wrong...." True. It's wrong because a child cannot consent, whether the pedophile is gay or straight. Get a new argument, right wing. A better one.
The left could actually claim the moral high ground in the homosexuality arena, but they don't. Instead, they try to stuff their self-righteous moralizing down everyone's throats--just like they accuse the Religious Right of doing in other topics.
Where this topic is concerned, is everyone an idiot but me? I'm beginning to think so.
A couple of nights ago, a local school district had a board meeting at which they were going to discuss a proposal to give official board approval to the Day of Silence (which I wrote about in this post last year--scroll about halfway through). Of course the gay-haters showed up, but that's par for the course. Unfortunately, though, because they rely on emotion instead of logic to make their point, they come across as fanatical idiots who do more to harm their cause than to help it. But I digress.
Let me be direct: the Day of Silence is a stupid idea. Unless I'm hitting on you, I don't want to know your sexual preferences. And I don't hit on my students. This silly activity is a "pay attention to me!" stunt that takes something personal and throws it in the face of everyone they come in contact with.
At issue was a national Day of Silence on April 26, which aims to call attention to the bullying and harassment that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students often face.
Lots of people face bullying and harassment. It's wrong no matter who the recipient is--even if the recipient is a devout Christian, or even a Republican! The problem here is that we're making an issue of only the homosexual students. This goes back to what I said in my fourth paragraph, above. The school board should not be in the habit of supporting events like this.
Reasonable studies put the homosexual population at anywhere from 1.5%-6% of the general population, far fewer than Kinsey's 10% but still not zero. Let's pick a midling value, say 4%. That would mean that one out of every 25 people is gay. That's a minority, folks. If gays want acceptance from the other 24 of 25, in-your-face cannot be the best way to achieve it.
And that brings us to the second article about gays in California educational news. It seems that openly-lesbian legislator (agenda! agenda!) Sheila Kuehl has written a law that would require that school textbooks tell about the contributions of gays in California's history.
History books record contributions by gays but their sexual orientation is often ignored, a situation gay activists say is inexcusable in California, home to a large gay population in San Francisco, a city that briefly made history in 2004 by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
As I quoted in my post last year on the stupid concept of Ethnomathematics:
Young people need to be shown that they need to accomplish something in their own lives and be proud of that, not to be proud by dubious association with a group hundreds of years and thousands of miles removed from them.
Or with a group with the same sexual orientation.
This is another case of what I said in my fourth paragraph--the left shoving its moralizing down everyone's throats, including the throats of schoolchildren.
I'm all about teaching tolerance--not because I think people should have to like anyone they don't want to, but because society requires that their actions not physically harm other people. That's what tolerance is, tolerating people you'd rather not be around. Tolerance is very different from acceptance, which is what the gay lobby is pushing on the 24 out of 25. Tolerance may eventually lead to acceptance, and that might be a good thing, but acceptance certainly is not something we should enforce on people--especially on those who have religious convictions about what you want them to accept.
And lefties, before you chime in on this, I'd like you to convince your Islamist brothers to accept homosexuality. If you'd try to convince them, or even if you'd denounce them as strongly as you denounce the devout Christians, you might have some credibility on this issue. But the Islamists will threaten to cut your heads off, so you cower and go after the less violent folk. You show no spine, you have no credibility.
Acceptance of homosexuality is an issue that needs to be dealt with in the family, not the school. Some consider it a moral issue, and the family is the appropriate place to deal with moral issues. Schools shouldn't be taking a stance on moral issues that are still controversial. The schools should enforce appropriate codes of conduct, not thought.
That's the difference between toleration and acceptance.
The so-called leaders of the homosexual agenda--HRC and their ilk--assume a kneejerk left-wind stance and are shocked--shocked!--when the right doesn't respond lovingly. That's another part of the problem: homosexuals are almost in lockstep with the Democrats and the far left. The Log Cabin Republicans have marginalized themselves within the Republican Party. Go to a gay bar or coffee house and spout conservative viewpoints and see how far you get. ATTENTION, PUSHERS OF THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA: as long as you make a left-wing political issue out of this, the right's going to push back! If these pushers were serious about gay acceptance as opposed to a gay and left-wing agenda, perhaps they'd consider the viewpoints of these non-leftie, non-right authors at the Independent Gay Forum, from which I've quoted before. I love it when people can think for themselves.