10 Responses to “Got milk?”

T J Richmond:
October 17th, 2009 11:01 pm

I think “planning lessons around homosexuality” is a bit of a stretch. Have you actually read the bill? And you act as though lesson plans concerning religion are forbidden. Teachers can make there students aware of religious issues, they just have to do it in a fair way (which, I have to admit, is quite difficult seeing as how our own views too often get in the way). In literature classes and history classes, the issue of religion comes up quite frequently, yet sexual preferences do not. Shouldn’t we teach our older students about the history of both hetero and homosexual relations? It seems to me that you’re being unfair, and that you’re treating the issue according to your own bias. We should strive for objectivity, as best we can, and leave our own views out of this, even if this is a blog. Try reading the bill and becoming a teacher before commenting on topics like this.

Chris:
October 18th, 2009 5:46 am

Agree with TJ. there is nothing wrong about teaching kids objectively about homosexuality or religion. By the way, everything on this planet is natural. there are over 500 mammalian species in which homosexuality has been documented. You may not like it, but it is totally natural, it is just not the norm. If it is possible to be born intersexual (physical) then by all obvious reasons it should be possible to be born gay or bi (mentally) as well. Tony, just admit that your views are fuelled by religion and not science. Its science that counts in the end.

Chuck Anziulewicz:
October 18th, 2009 7:42 am

DEAR TONY PETERSON:

If you believe that homosexuality is “unnatural and immoral,” and if you believe that unrepentant Gay people are abominations who are doomed to eternal torture and incineration in Hell, that is your right, and I would certainly encourage you to conduct your own personal life as your conscience dictates. But co-opting the law to promote your own prejudice and discomfort is the real abomination. And the fact remains that there is absolutely no Constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay individuals and couples the exact same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that Straight individuals and couples have always taken for granted.

Your biggest fear in this column seems to be that equal treatment for Gay and Straight people will somehow result in the “indoctrination” of poor little schoolchildren. Well like it or not, the Gay rights movement is a part of modern American history, and Harvey Milk was a pivotal figure in that movement. Acknowledging his importance is not “planning lessons around homosexuality,” any more than than mentioning that George Washington was married to a woman named Martha is promoting heterosexuality.

I find it gratifying that MOST people of your generation are far more accepting of their Gay friends, family members and co-workers than you apparently are. My suggestion would be for you to get to know some Gay individuals and couples, and ask them about their perspectives, rather than simply dismissing the notion that they are who they are. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I doubt you made any conscious decision to be (ostensibly) heterosexual.

Keith Stern:
October 18th, 2009 8:05 am

Tony, I would encourage you to be more careful with your fact-checking; after all you’re trying to use supposed facts to back up your opinions.
I agree children in school should be encouraged to read Poe, starting with a correct spelling of his name. Edgar Allan Poe.
I also agree children should be encouraged to read the Constitution, where there are specific prohibitions against mixing state and church. That explains why you shouldn’t open public school class with a prayer, there’s no double standard. The Constitution specifies equal rights for all, particularly in the 14th Amendment. When those rights are threatened, students should be taught about it, and gay civil rights are the prime example of our time.
Harvey Milk was not the first elected openly gay official in the US. Kathy Kozachenko was elected to the Ann Arbor, Michigan City Council in April 1974.
Harvey Milk is recognized as a symbolic leader of a civil rights movement that benefits all Americans by striving for the goal of equality. It is inappropriate to suggest that students should not be “discussing the impact Harvey Milk had,” just as it would be inappropriate to suggest they should not study the work of M.L. King or Frederick Douglass.

Coco Peru:
October 18th, 2009 10:04 am

I missed something, where in the bible does it say “Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin”? If your foundation is to believe “love the sinner, hate the sin” then your foundation is flawed.

Pray in school. One question . . . to whom to the students pray? The reason prayer is not allowed in school is because not everyone prays the same, the compromised it to have a moment of silence and the student chooses how they want to use that time.

To acknowledge diversity in the student body is not doing anything but a cultural or political study. This is not a sexual instruction. That is like saying teach government includes discussion of Senator Vitter’s diaper fetish. One has nothing to do with the other.

Religion is taught in school, but in historical context. How can you explain why in England wanted to come to the “The New Land”. To explain how government and religious doctrine mixed to produce discrimination and harm against citizens.

The Boston Tea Party was a revolt against government over stretching power as did the Stonewall riots. Which by the way, Stonewall riots impacted gay rights far more than H. Milk.

“Children in public schools should be learning how to properly structure a sentence, memorizing the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, reading Edgar Allen Poe, not discussing the impact Harvey Milk had on gay rights.”

Did you know that there are homoerotic encounters in the fictions of Edgar Allan Poe? So, good choice.

I personally think that you need to read the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence.

Recap You . . .
Don’t read the bible or at least can’t think for yourself. Because you just quoted what you have heard.

You do not read for yourself, including the bill you just complained about.

Are a hypocrite. You write anything negative about gays, especially not being born gay. I know you have struggled with the issue. It is easy to hide behind the keyboard and type this. You keep fooling yourself. I will out you to your parents.

Keith Stern:
October 18th, 2009 10:30 am

Love you Coco!

aWorldQuiteMad:
October 18th, 2009 3:15 pm

Have you ever stopped to think for a moment (I’m sure the answer to this is no, because you’ve never stopped to think about anything) why someone would *choose* to be gay? Do you honestly believe that crap? Because that’s what it is. A huge stinking pile of BS. No one chooses to be gay. And if you doubt this for a moment, I dare you to try it. Go ahead, choose to be gay for one day, and it should be no big deal because then you can choose to be straight again. At what point did you choose to be heterosexual? Notice, I’m assuming you are heterosexual, and aren’t some kind of closet case. And, if you didn’t *choose* to be heterosexual, then how can you hold others to a different standard than yourself? Or do you just like to embrace hypocrisy?

I know it pains you and the rest of the religious fundamentalists greatly that you might have to treat other human beings with respect and dignity when they’re not like you (and that’s the point of this bill, to educated children to treat their fellow human beings like human beings and not like chattel, but I digress). That’s the way it is when you live in a secular democracy. If you don’t like it, I suggest you move to a theocracy such as Iran or Saudi Arabia, where they still kill people for being gay. I bet you’d fit right in. Let me know how that works out for you.

Oh, and BTW, I’m straight, just in case you’re wondering. I have a lot of gay friends though, and I don’t like it when people treat my friends like they’re dirt not deserving of life. You can take your religious hypocrisy and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine. K, thx, and have a bleeding brilliant day.

cls:
October 18th, 2009 6:05 pm

Call you old-fashioned? No, just irrational. The use of the term “unnatural” indicates a lack of thinking. To say it is unnatural is to imply it does not exist in nature. So, unless you exclude humans from the natural world, then it is quite natural. There are things that are unnatural, that don’t exist in nature but have to be created. Creeds are unnatural. Bibles are unnatural. Even clothes are unnatural. They have to be created by man artificially.Gays just seem to be. And since homosexuality is documented in most animal species as well, the term “unnatural” doesn’t make any sense.

As for immoral? By what standard? Is there a rational standard or merely one that you hold by faith? In other words, an irrational, or non-rational standard. Immoral is easy to define. Anything that violates the life, liberty or property of another person is immoral. This doesn’t.

I suspect that since this piece lacks any rational explanation for the views of this child that the explanation is not rational, but irrational. And when there are irrational claims lurking about they are usually religiously motivated. Considering his lament about not being able to use government schools and funds to promote religion (i.e. prayer in state schools) then I suspect that is the case. In other words, the whole thing is that this boy wants his religious beliefs enshrined in law, which means enforced by law on others.

Penelope:
October 19th, 2009 9:18 pm

Tony, maybe next time you are considering topics for your articles you could consider the points of views of others before just making completely close-minded statements.

Or perhaps you could just re-read your article before submitting it and realize how truly flawed one-sided arguments are.

Esteban Cortez:
October 29th, 2009 (4 weeks ago) 10:59 am

I am not sure why, but I find it incredibly offensive when the writer says “I don’t care what you do in your spare time.”