That was the response given by the "No on Prop 8" side in their ads, trying to counter the "Yes on Prop 8" ads saying that same-sex "marriage" will be taught in public schools. (Proposition 8, of course, WAS passed and thus amended the California constitution.)
If you wanted a case study in bad argumentation, "schools aren’t required to teach about marriage" would be a good one.
I originally had considered this more in light of polls that predicted Prop 8 would be defeated, and wondering how we can hold the marriage neutering and homosexuality advocates to their word should Prop 8 fail. After all, they said over and over again that they won't interfere with churches and freedom of religion (but well after Prop 8 was voted up, they did attack churches, including the Crystal Cathedral) and that they won't push marriage neutering ideology in the schools.
Oops – no they didn’t. They’ve said "schools aren’t required to teach marriage". That’s a far different thing than "schools won’t be teaching same-sex marriage".
Now, none of their ads could be used in a court cases as binding promises, so they could misdirect, use weasel words, and lie up and down, because when it comes down to it, none of it would matter – in court – after the election, nor would it matter after SCOTUS rules. With Prop 8, the California Marriage Amendment in place, and other laws like it on other states, it will be easier for parents to shield their children from marriage neutering propaganda. Without it, it will be much more difficult, if not impossible. However – we can still socially shame the marriage neutering side by exposing them as liars, and that might help in some future battles. Although, they seem to have no shame.
The most honest response the "No" side (the marriage neutering side) could have given to the "Yes" side's playing of the "school" card is: "Of course same-sex marriage will be taught in schools – why shouldn’t it be? We think that is a good thing."
But the "No" side knew that too many voters would be persuaded to the "Yes" side if they made that admission. So they were misleading people, knowing that all they needed was the "No" vote (or an activist court) and they wouldn't have to bother with as many costly court fights, and wouldn't be held to their word in a legal sense. The fact that they are liars and deceivers will have no legal consequences for them.
Let's consider how ridiculous it is to say "Schools aren’t required to teach marriage."
Let’s assume that the statement is factually true to the letter of the law. There’s no requirement that I put gasoline or any fuel into my automobile. There is no requirement that I earn income. There is probably no requirement that our schools teach that George Washington was the first President under this Constitution. But if I want to drive my automobile anywhere, I need fuel. If I want to pay my bills, I need to earn income. If we're going to teach history, it would absurd not to teach about George Washington.
The sentence could also be considered incomplete. "Schools aren’t required to teach marriage…unless they teach sex education." Ninety-six percent of the schools in California did in 2008.
How could schools not teach marriage? Marriage is the basic building block of society. There are going to be mentions of marriage in civics, political science, history, economics, home economics, health, social studies, sociology, psychology, biology, literature, comparative religion, art – and who knows what else. Should the example of marriage not be used in any word problems in mathematics, in learning languages, in grammar instruction? Are the personal lives of teachers and school staff never going to be discussed – as in a teacher mentioning his wife?
Well, maybe the mention of marriage will be removed as much as possible. Notice that the "No" side didn’t use the words "gay" or "homosexual" or "same-sex" in their statement that "Schools aren’t required to teach marriage." So they weren’t saying that "Schools aren’t required to teach same-sex marriage." Because if marriage is discussed in a public (state) school, of course the marriage neutering activists are going to make sure that it is discussed according to official state policy – which, with the state marriage licensing neutered, is that there is no difference between natural marriage and neutered marriage.
The only way to get around that is to not discuss marriage at all. They could offer to do just that – essentially ban the word "marriage" from the classroom. For some of the Left, that might be exactly what they want anyway. After all, doesn’t promoting or esteeming marriage hurt the feelings of those who choose not to marry, or have been unable to find a willing spouse? And so, "Schools aren’t required to teach marriage" seems to me to possibly be a veiled offer to "compromise", like when someone is counterfeiting your branded merchandise and they offer to "compromise" with you.
We do want marriage taught in our schools – natural, historic, bride+groom marriage. Why? Because strong marriage correlates to a strong society. The more children raised within marriage, the better off society is.
Finally, I’ll focus on the word "required". Since when have the homosexuality advocates – or just about anyone on the Left - ever waited for permission, let alone a requirement? They go ahead and do everything they can to indoctrinate anyone else – including children – unless they are somehow barred from doing so. They think it is better to beg (often insincerely) forgiveness than ask permission. Actually, they think it is better to accuse you of being a bigot than beg forgiveness.
That is one reason why we argued in favor of Prop 8. It The California Marriage Amendment, like laws in other states, gives parents more of a possibility of barring the indoctrinators from lecturing their child, at least when it comes to marriage.
Since I first wrote these thoughts on the day that Proposition 8 was voted up and the California constitution amended, the Leftist California lawmakers adopted a requirement that school textbooks highlight the "contributions" of "LGBT" persons. Apparently, if someone invented something, it makes a difference whether he was attracted to women or men. I'm certain that one of those "contributions" will be the drive to neuter marriage. So, Judge Walker, who it appears to me and many others, acted unethically to attack the California constitution, would be featured positively for his work in neutering marriage. This legislation alone proves how dishonest the marriage neutering advocates were and still are.
If you wanted a case study in bad argumentation, "schools aren’t required to teach about marriage" would be a good one.
I originally had considered this more in light of polls that predicted Prop 8 would be defeated, and wondering how we can hold the marriage neutering and homosexuality advocates to their word should Prop 8 fail. After all, they said over and over again that they won't interfere with churches and freedom of religion (but well after Prop 8 was voted up, they did attack churches, including the Crystal Cathedral) and that they won't push marriage neutering ideology in the schools.
Oops – no they didn’t. They’ve said "schools aren’t required to teach marriage". That’s a far different thing than "schools won’t be teaching same-sex marriage".
Now, none of their ads could be used in a court cases as binding promises, so they could misdirect, use weasel words, and lie up and down, because when it comes down to it, none of it would matter – in court – after the election, nor would it matter after SCOTUS rules. With Prop 8, the California Marriage Amendment in place, and other laws like it on other states, it will be easier for parents to shield their children from marriage neutering propaganda. Without it, it will be much more difficult, if not impossible. However – we can still socially shame the marriage neutering side by exposing them as liars, and that might help in some future battles. Although, they seem to have no shame.
The most honest response the "No" side (the marriage neutering side) could have given to the "Yes" side's playing of the "school" card is: "Of course same-sex marriage will be taught in schools – why shouldn’t it be? We think that is a good thing."
But the "No" side knew that too many voters would be persuaded to the "Yes" side if they made that admission. So they were misleading people, knowing that all they needed was the "No" vote (or an activist court) and they wouldn't have to bother with as many costly court fights, and wouldn't be held to their word in a legal sense. The fact that they are liars and deceivers will have no legal consequences for them.
Let's consider how ridiculous it is to say "Schools aren’t required to teach marriage."
Let’s assume that the statement is factually true to the letter of the law. There’s no requirement that I put gasoline or any fuel into my automobile. There is no requirement that I earn income. There is probably no requirement that our schools teach that George Washington was the first President under this Constitution. But if I want to drive my automobile anywhere, I need fuel. If I want to pay my bills, I need to earn income. If we're going to teach history, it would absurd not to teach about George Washington.
The sentence could also be considered incomplete. "Schools aren’t required to teach marriage…unless they teach sex education." Ninety-six percent of the schools in California did in 2008.
How could schools not teach marriage? Marriage is the basic building block of society. There are going to be mentions of marriage in civics, political science, history, economics, home economics, health, social studies, sociology, psychology, biology, literature, comparative religion, art – and who knows what else. Should the example of marriage not be used in any word problems in mathematics, in learning languages, in grammar instruction? Are the personal lives of teachers and school staff never going to be discussed – as in a teacher mentioning his wife?
Well, maybe the mention of marriage will be removed as much as possible. Notice that the "No" side didn’t use the words "gay" or "homosexual" or "same-sex" in their statement that "Schools aren’t required to teach marriage." So they weren’t saying that "Schools aren’t required to teach same-sex marriage." Because if marriage is discussed in a public (state) school, of course the marriage neutering activists are going to make sure that it is discussed according to official state policy – which, with the state marriage licensing neutered, is that there is no difference between natural marriage and neutered marriage.
The only way to get around that is to not discuss marriage at all. They could offer to do just that – essentially ban the word "marriage" from the classroom. For some of the Left, that might be exactly what they want anyway. After all, doesn’t promoting or esteeming marriage hurt the feelings of those who choose not to marry, or have been unable to find a willing spouse? And so, "Schools aren’t required to teach marriage" seems to me to possibly be a veiled offer to "compromise", like when someone is counterfeiting your branded merchandise and they offer to "compromise" with you.
We do want marriage taught in our schools – natural, historic, bride+groom marriage. Why? Because strong marriage correlates to a strong society. The more children raised within marriage, the better off society is.
Finally, I’ll focus on the word "required". Since when have the homosexuality advocates – or just about anyone on the Left - ever waited for permission, let alone a requirement? They go ahead and do everything they can to indoctrinate anyone else – including children – unless they are somehow barred from doing so. They think it is better to beg (often insincerely) forgiveness than ask permission. Actually, they think it is better to accuse you of being a bigot than beg forgiveness.
That is one reason why we argued in favor of Prop 8. It The California Marriage Amendment, like laws in other states, gives parents more of a possibility of barring the indoctrinators from lecturing their child, at least when it comes to marriage.
Since I first wrote these thoughts on the day that Proposition 8 was voted up and the California constitution amended, the Leftist California lawmakers adopted a requirement that school textbooks highlight the "contributions" of "LGBT" persons. Apparently, if someone invented something, it makes a difference whether he was attracted to women or men. I'm certain that one of those "contributions" will be the drive to neuter marriage. So, Judge Walker, who it appears to me and many others, acted unethically to attack the California constitution, would be featured positively for his work in neutering marriage. This legislation alone proves how dishonest the marriage neutering advocates were and still are.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I always welcome comments. Be aware that anything you write may be thoroughly analyzed and used in subsequent blog entries.