RECENT  POSTS:  » Scott Lively equates accurately noting his public record with inciting murder » Audio: Mark Regnerus doesn't think marriage equality has 'a lot of gas left' » Friday: NOM president shares the bill with 'ex-gay' activists » Today in 'um, yeah, obviously': Stunt marriages not confined to opposite-sex partnerships » Video: Brian Brown's fellow panelist gives insight into Moscow panel's extreme views on homosexuality, marriage » Video: TN man condemns gays with Leviticus billboards; oddly allows local Red Lobsters to remain open » Video: 'Ex-gay' speaker at upcoming ERLC summit equates talking to gay people with talking to cancer patients » GLAAD: Mainstream media is catching on to NOM's broader agenda » FRC's Values Voter Summit puts anti-gay bakers on a marriage panel; so we won, basically » GOP front group NOM raising money for a GOP US Senate  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

02/21/2008

No homo-sex in his city: Sarah/Jessica not for Parker

by Jeremy Hooper

Picture 9-70You know David Parker, the Massachusetts farther who caused a major stink when his child was given the option of reading a book on gay acceptance, and who proceeded to take his case to federal court?  And you know how he keeps claiming that his case is only about parental notification and not anti-gay bias?  Well check out these quotes that are running today in WorldNetDaily and decide for yourself what his fight is really all about:

"But [the recent 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruling] ignores the fact that the most basic free exercise is your teaching your children right from wrong in their formative years," he said. "That is completely being undermined by the rulings of these federal courts so far.

"Teachers are being postured to have a constitutional right to coercively indoctrinate little children [into whatever they choose to teach,]" he noted.

"It's not just exposure to an idea, to the [offensive] books, It's the teacher's manipulating the mind of children to embrace dangerous ideologies, because the teacher happens to believe it's a good ideology.

"It brings these battlegrounds to the psyches and minds of little children," Parker said. "Their little minds should not be the battleground for culture wars.

"Proper boundaries have to be established. This is absolutely of national significance. No parent wants to put their very little children in positions in which they're minds are being used as battlegrounds," he said.

"What the pro-homosexual camp has done is positioned so-called 'gay' rights' to completely trump parental rights and parental authority in public schools," he said.
...
"The human secularist religion of the [National Education Association,] buttressed by the power of the state, will now turn public schools into the next secular synagogues," Parker said. "[They say], 'We're just preparing the kids to be citizens.' But it's a religion. It is a devious and evil form of religion."

He says teachers who give kids the option of reading a book about gay families are creating a "battleground" and claims that the idea of queer acceptance is a "devious and evil form of religion," yet WE are the ones who are manipulating minds for ill?  He's trying desperately to ingrain faith-based bias into kids' minds, and yet it's the adults in church-separated schools who teach kids that the world is populated with queer people (who, it should be reminded, can legally marry the Bay State) are the ones who are "indoctrinating" and "embracing dangerous ideologies"?  And he claims that public schools have a constitutional obligation to ignore real and tangible gay people so as to not to ruffle others' religious feathers, and yet WE are the ones who are trumping rights?

Seriously, this so-called "culture war" often seems like one long episode of "Law & Order: Things We Should Not Still Be Debating in the 21st Century Unit"

Dad challenging 'manipulation' of kids [WND]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

I just LOVE the end of the WND article where the write of the article writes that the two princes became lovers. Now, I haven't read the book, but I'm pretty sure there is no mention of sex in it. I'm also guessing that if one of these princes was a princess, WND would not have used the word "lover."

Of course, now we'd be dealing with transgenderism and gender identity - which could make some heads at WND explode :-)

Maybe the people who post to this blog should get together and write a book - *King and Queen-to-King*.

Posted by: stojef | Feb 21, 2008 1:00:54 PM

I wonder how he feels about Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs?

Posted by: a. mcewen | Feb 21, 2008 6:01:56 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails