“I’m saying this now, and I’ve been saying it, and I don’t care who likes it: Those issues have no place in a school,” Robinson said at Asbury Baptist Church in Seagrove, N.C. “There’s no reason anybody anywhere in America should be telling any child about transgenderism, homosexuality — any of that filth.”
This is much harsher than my own opinion about homosexuality at least, but it is the traditional understanding— indeed it would have been an unexceptional thing for a man to say, even a politician, when I was young. Critics say that it now represents an unacceptable proof of discrimination, even hate speech.
He’s an elected official, so you could say that the voters will decide what is acceptable. One might say instead that political officers ought not to hate or discriminate; but I notice that standard is never applied to those who hate conservatives.
I suppose I care a lot more about his robust defense of gun rights than his opinion of sexual minorities. I can see how a gay man might be alarmed, though.
7 comments:
He's absolutely right. None of those subjects have any place in K-8 education, at least. Some argument could possibly be made for a cursory examination of those subjects in a high school social health class setting...maybe.
To the progressive left, these subjects are akin to their religion. Or at least they defend their acceptance of these alternative lifestyles with a religious fervor. Bible teachings and prayer have been banned in public schools since the mid 60's. But I remember as a kid, saying a daily prayer in public school until then. But I'm pretty old, too.
Personally, I don't care what they and their partner(s) do in the privacy of their own homes. I just don't want to see or hear about it in the public sphere. I often long for the days when those degeneracies were kept in the closet.
Disclaimer...I have a gay child and love them more than anything. That being said, I don't have to agree with their lifestyle.
These could be related issues.
Those who worry about AIDS, STDs, pregnancy, etc might opt in for a sex class, right? Opt in only. Not imposed as a requirement for graduation.
Schools could teach "safe shooting" or "gun awareness" classes in much the same way they teach "safe sex". Opt in only. Not imposed as a requirement for graduation.
Those -- gay, fat, religious minorities, whoever -- who feel potentially threatened might want to be sure they have the mechanical power to fight back when immediately and physically threatened. So might be inclined to opt in for a firearms class. The biggest problem might be if the optional sex class is scheduled the same time as the optional gun class.
There is a Texas schools law / rule more frequently violated than respected that requires a local school to offer a class in anyk subject that at least 25 households request. So if you have a bunch of Iraqi refugees that want instruction in Farsi Poetry, the school is supposed to teach it. It would be very interesting to organize a drive to request such a special community curriculum for the classical values.
Second Mike G's comment.
BTW, the point of 'teaching sex' in school is to de-sensitize the kids to sexual activity; in the case of homosexual practices, to encourage it by non-committal instruction. In the case of hetero-activity, use of condoms, 'the pill', etc.....
Commonality? Sterile sex. Children to be minimized as part of marital life, and obviously as part of homosexual life.
I wouldn't describe homosexuality as filth, myself, but pedophilia is a different matter, and I think it's likely that's what he's reacting to: the recent efforts to get small children to write down their heterosexual or homosexual fantasies for the teacher's perusal, which I frankly call grooming. To phrase it as he did, however, invites the interpretation that all homosexual literature is filth, instead of the interpretation that sexually explicit material aimed at children is filth, or even that all sexually explicit material is filth, which may be barely tolerable when consumed only by adults, but not otherwise.
And of course he may believe homosexuality is filth. Does that mean he is guilty of hate? Is it like Hutus broadcasting on radio that Tutsi are cockroaches (and therefore should be killed)? (Or maybe I have Hutu and Tutsi reversed, whatever.) Is it like saying Jews are filth, now that we know where that led?
For that matter, is saying "behavior X is filth" or "literature glorifying behavior X is filth" the same as saying "anyone who enjoys behavior X is human filth"? It's a risky way to express oneself, anyway. Of course these days even saying "I am morally opposed to behavior X without in any way considering myself authorized to despise or mistreat those who approve of behavior X" will simply be described as literal violence. That's where the corruption of language has left us.
Naturally "toxic masculinity is filth" is totally OK, shut up.
(Or maybe I have Hutu and Tutsi reversed, whatever.)
They have each played both parts over the years.
Naturally "toxic masculinity is filth" is totally OK, shut up.
Yes, obviously; and let's not even get started on 'whiteness.'
Well, given that every human being is made in the image and likeness of God, hating homosexuals (or anyone else) is likely a sin in itself. On the other hand, hating the behavior might be reasonable.
It seems to be equivocating to claim that detesting homosexual behavior is hating homosexuals. It is also demeaning to homosexuals because it reduces them (human beings with many dimensions) to the level of sex acts.
As to filth, anal sex is not only filthy (in a literal sense, because of fecal matter), but it tends to cause micro-tears in the rectal tissue, making the receiver more vulnerable to STD transmission. Whether homosexual acts are morally or spiritually filthy I guess depends on one's morality and spirituality.
Milo kind of let out a big secret. He was molested and groomed by some vatican fake priest.
This is not about homosexuality in schools. This is about creating more milos.
Post a Comment