The Progressive Left’s agenda of promoting promiscuous sex without consequences is going gangbusters, isn’t it?
So…. anyway, enjoy your Saturday night.
The Progressive Left’s agenda of promoting promiscuous sex without consequences is going gangbusters, isn’t it?
So…. anyway, enjoy your Saturday night.
Take it away, Throbert McGee
Daniel Simmons, a deputy attorney general in Delaware, has admitted to “fourth-degree rape” (Delaware-ese for “statutory rape”) of a 16-year-old boy that he met through Grindr.
Having read between the lines in the news accounts, I would surmise that the boy quite happily agreed to go to second or third base with the 34-year-old Mr. Simmons (who’s not at all bad-looking), but then Simmons decided to “steal home” and was rather rough about it.
Whether this has political relevance, I’m not sure. Simmons almost immediately confessed after his arrest, presumably because he was struck by Remorse of Conscience and realized it was terribly wrong for an adult man to use an LGBT teenage boy as a FleshLight®. (Or, possibly, the mofo is just setting the stage for a plea bargain, because he knows that he was actually guilty of offenses beyond “fourth-degree rape.”)
So it’s possible that the RainbowBorg won’t be too interested in circling the wagons around Daniel Simmons and claiming that he’s being railroaded by a kangaroo court because of his sexual orientation.
But stranger things have happened…
In Nancy Pelosi’s Progressive Utopian Collective known as San Francisco, an “artist” has converted a delivery truck into, essentially, a rolling bathhouse.
The Hook-Up truck – a conceptual “art” installation consisting of a box truck converted to a sex suite on wheels, including temperature controls, birth control, safe sex accouterments, and a camera option, in case you and yours decide to make the escapade a YouTube sensation, is finally open for service the weekend of May 2nd and 3rd.
“This is a game for adults who want to play with sex,” says Emerson. “You have to be nice, and cool,” she said, adding “No Drunks!, but everyone is welcome to join us. There will be a party going on all the time!”
The lefty collective known as The New Republic is as fanatically pro-Gay Marriage as the left thinks everybody is supposed to be; i.e. the “right” to a piece of paper signed by a bureaucrat that legitimizes a gay relationship trumps any other economic or political consideration.
The TNR Collective is now on record as demonstrating their respect for committed, monogamous relationships by advocating that they be discredited and discarded as a social institution.
The current model of lifelong, cohabiting monogamous partnership has never been such an outdated ideal.
And from there, the author proceeds to trash the entire notion of committed, monogamous partnership in favor of a more selfish ideal of using partners for gratification on an as-needed basis and discarding them when no longer needed. The author is also strongly in favor of children growing up without fathers.
If you think life-long commitment is still needed to start a family, a replacement for that has been found too. Earlier this month it was reported that the number of single women seeking artificial insemination with a sperm donor has doubled in five years.
There is no way that this cultural trajectory ends well.
I’m not going to reproduce the latest nasty, mean-spirited comment (in Tweet form) from the gay community’s self-appointed Moral Arbiter; suffice it to say, it uses the progressive left’s very favorite word (because profanity is how weak minds attempt to express emphasis) and it is a vile insult directed at people of far superior moral character than he. You can read it at this link.
And judging by the responses to his Tweet, his followers are as vile and reprobate as he is.
Commenter Throbert, who speaks Latin and Russian (I know this), suggested we ought to discuss this Truvada/PrEP thing. So… let’s discuss, won’t you?
Truvada was developed by evil capitalist pharmaceutical companies as a treatment for HIV; but if taken daily, it can reduce the risk of HIV infection among people having unprotected sex by 90%. The treatment costs over a thousand dollars a month. And, of course, a number of people think … much like Sandy Fluke’s party favors … the Government should pay for it, or force insurance companies to force those who don’t engage in unprotected secks to pay for it?
If you’re a Democrat/Progressive the answer is simple: “[Expletive] Yeah! The Government should pay for that/Force other people to pay for that!” Because Democrat/Progressives believe the Government should fund almost everything… the exceptions being the military and the Border Patrol. And if you disagree… you hate gay people and want to outlaw gay sex. Not only should PrEP be funded, but Christians should be forced by law to provide catering services to bathhouse orgies.
People thoughtful enough not to be Progressive Democrats may see more somewhat more complexity to the issue. One issue being the fact that everybody in the civilized world has known how to not get infected with HIV since 1984. If folks had universally adhered to the HIV-prevention guidance we’ve known about for thirty years, AIDS would be as rare (in the first world anyway) as an honest politician or an accurately predictive Global Warming model.
Even proponents of the drug admit that it’s not exactly… medically necessary.
“For folks who are having a significant amount of unprotected sex, it’s a slam dunk — not only giving them protective medicine, but engaging them in testing, a whole package of regular health care,” he said.
i.e. We’re not curing cancer here, we are talking about subsidizing a promiscuous lifestyle choice. It’s one thing to make that choice, quite a different thing to demand that others subsidize it.
“Personal responsibility for one’s actions has simply been thrown out the window in a community in which we are too often concerned about stigma and moral judgment,” he wrote. “We dare not speak against the reckless behavior of others because we wring our hands over the omnipresent worry that we will shame one another.”
Just caught Erin Burnett on CNN talking about something I had noticed earlier today as trending on Yahoo!
Yup, that’s right, number one above.* On his “700 Club” television show yesterday, his co-host Kristi Watts read a letter from a woman having trouble forgiving a cheating husband. Watts called infidelity “one of the ultimate betrayals“, but Robertson said the woman should “stop talking about the cheating.” After asking some good questions which get at the heart of what it means to be good husband, he otherwise seems to miss the point, dismissing the problem of infidelity — and failing to understand the full meaning of marriage, particularly the marital vows:
He cheated on you. Well, he’s a man, okay, so, what you do is begin to focus on why you married him in the first place, on what he does good.
. . . .
But recognize also, like it or not, males have a tendency to wander a little bit. And what you want to do is make the home so wonderful that he doesn’t want to wander. But, think of the temptations that are out there. The Internet is filled with pornography. Magazines are filled with pictures, salacious pictures of women. Anywhere you turn around, there is some solicitation to the sense to entice a man. And so what you have to do is say, “My husband was captured and I want to get him free.”
Yes, Mr. Robertson is right; males do have a tendency to wander, but marriage vows exist to restrain that tendency, to remind a man that he has, to borrow a term many social conservatives like, made a covenant with a woman, forging a bond more important that the momentary gratification a dalliance with another women might offer.
What this man did was wrong and to earn forgiveness, he should first admit that.
Marriage has evolved for a great many reasons, one of them to control that tendency to wander. Mr. Robertson should have said as much. He should have said that what the cheating husband did was wrong — and criticized him for violating his vows. And for causing pain to a woman to whom he had sworn fidelity. (more…)
When I drove cross country in 2007, I had a conversation with a friend who, had since I left the DC-area in 1999, married his partner in a church ceremony. Until he met his husband, my friend refrained from sexual activity, doing his part to set an example of the “responsible” single homosexual and not wanting to engage in sexual activity without emotional attachment.
In our conversation in ’07, several years after he and his beloved exchanged their vows, he confessed that he wished he had experimented more in his single days. Despite this change in attitude about those days, he remain committed to the ideal of marital monogamy; he would remain faithful to his betrothed. That conversation came to mind this afternoon when I read Jennifer Rubin’s latest commentary on Anthony Weiner:
Women whom he apparently told his wife about before their marriage but could not bring himself to give up. The press isn’t invading his mind or his bedroom; it’s looking at his Tweets and talking to the women on whose Timeline he was willing to risk his marriage, his career and his self-respect.
Emphasis added. My friend recognizes in word and deed what Weiner understood only in word, that marriage vows change things. A gay man understands the meaning of marriage, a notion which a powerful straight man refuses to integrate into his life. If Weiner wasn’t willing to give up his sexual flirtations with other women, why then did he get married?
Even as the gay man referenced in this post recognizes the mistakes (if mistakes they were) he had made in not “experimenting” before he met his beloved, he won’t let his past failure alter his existing marital vows.
Some men, both gay and straight (and I would dare say some women as well), refuse to recognize the responsibilities which inhere in the very idea of marriage. In exchange for the lifelong commitment of your betrothed, you agree, to borrow an expression, to forsake all others. Here, the gay man instructs a straight counterpart on the meaning of marriage.
FROM THE COMMENTS: David in N.O. writes, “BTW, any marriage supporter who says extra-marital trysting is ok is no supporter of marriage of any kind.” He got that right.
Living monogamous isn’t that difficult. It comes down to making a relationship a priority over getting your rocks off with a stranger. Granted, the latter can be fun, but the former is, to me anyway, more gratifying.
His comment corresponds with anecdotal evidence I have accumulated from successfully partnered and married acquaintances, friends and family members. Almost all report how easy it is to remain faithful to their partner. Some may acknowledge that attractive individuals continue to turn their heads, while others just say that it’s “wrong” to cheat (as one of my straight female friends did in a rather emphatic tone when I asked her why she had never had an affair*).
It does seem that for some, particularly those who were promiscuous in their youth, that monogamy develops naturally out of the relationship. Many realize that a “roll in the hay” (as it were) might offer a moment’s pleasure, but fails to provide the level of connection and intimacy as does their relationship.
Now, I do have some friends in open relationships and they do seem quite balanced individuals, so that arrangement may work out well for them. But, I also encounter a number of gay men who entered a relationship without either partner expecting to refrain from hookups only to find that, after a time, they stopped seeking outside sources of sexual ‘recreation.” Monogamy just evolved without either seeking it.
Perhaps, the editors of Newsweek and Time really don’t want to see state recognition of same-sex marriage. Given that fact that each magazine has now promoted a man who wears his contempt for Christianity on his sleeve, it seems their editors are little interested in changing the minds of the overwhelming majority of Americans who profess that faith.
Or maybe said editors are oblivious (or indifferent) to the faithful and believe that most people have a worldview similar to their own — only they just need be made aware of it. Reader Peter Hughes alerted me to a post on Newsbusters analyzing Dan Savage’s Time magazine interview:
In this week’s issue, Time magazine followed Newsweek in honoring gay sex columnist Dan Savage and offering him space to trash conservatives. The liberal media sets Savage up as an anti-bullying activist, then lets him push conservative faces in the dirt. In December Newsweek printed him saying “F— John McCain” and asserting Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was clearly a “c—sucker.”
Why does this fellow have to be so nasty so often? Maybe he’s having a perpetual bad day? When asked what advice he could “give readers of TIME“, this gay marriage advocate chose to express contempt for monogamy:
We talk about love in a way that’s very unrealistic: “If you’re in love, you’re not going to want to have sex with anyone else but that person.” That’s not true. We need to acknowledge that truth so that people don’t have to spend 40 years of marriage lying to and policing each other.
There is no doubt that monogamy is indeed a challenge, particularly for men. But, it does yield rewards in terms of a deeper emotional connection and greater intimacy. If someone wants to shack up with another and have other sexual encounters on the side, he should be allowed that choice, but such a relationship is not marriage. (more…)
While completing work on my dissertation last fall, I found my mind sometimes wandering as I pondered two great issues, those of sex and of happiness. As to the former, I continued my ongoing (and long-running) internal dialogue on where was the appropriate place for a single man to draw the line on sexual activity. As to the latter, I noticed that on days when I was most productive, I usually felt happier than on those when I slacked off.
And as I drove around neighborhoods adjacent to my own where creative artistic types, many sporting tattoos on their incompletely covered bodies, live in close proximity to Hasidic Jews, most wearing near identical clothing almost entirely covering entire bodies (save their faces), I wondered if those who adopt more constraints on their clothing (as well as their personal appearance) could be as happy as those who have eschewed such religious constraints and dress however they please.
While I have been reminding myself to blog on these topics (and the intersection thereof) since I successfully defended my dissertation, this week it seems the universe has been reminding me as much. While browsing at Barnes & Noble, I caught site of this display table, featuring books on happiness:
Then, this week, Memeorandum linked Ross Douthat’s column on monogamy where he wrote about research suggesting a “significant correlation between sexual restraint and emotional well-being, between monogamy and happiness“. Later, Glenn Reynolds linked Douthat’s followup post where the Times columnist noted that in the wake of the sexual revolution:
Female happiness has dropped since the 1970s, despite enormous female economic gains. Marital happiness has dipped as well, even though fewer people get married and it’s easier to leave an unhappy union. (more…)
A friend recently sent me a text which I found it difficult to answer from my cell phone. Indeed, can’t really give him an answer even now. At one point in my life, I would have offered a quick and easy answer, but now I’m not so sure how to address his question without relating multiple, often seemingly contradictory thoughts and including numerous anecdotes.
Here, in its entirety, is the text transcribed:
Casual sex: healthy outlet for the single gay or barrier to finding an LTR?
Now, I would lean toward the former answer, but with lots (and lots (and lots and lots (and lots and lots and lots))) of caveats. We are by nature sexual beings. I don’t think it’s healthy for us to refrain from sexual expression (for a long period) just because we haven’t found a life-partner.
As one who tried celibacy for a while, I realize it has many beneficial aspects for the short term, but realize that once those benefits are realized it kind of feeds on itself. (Note to self: finding a better way to express this.)
Perhaps, when I have given the matter some more thought, I can craft a more insightful post. For now, I’ll just pose his question to y’all and invite you to consider it in the comments section below.
One reason I have a great deal of difficulty taking seriously most (but not all) gay marriage activists (particularly those of my sex) is that they are loath to discuss the emotional significance/meaning of the institution. And as I study male psychology, I wonder that it often takes a woman (or a child, or combination thereof) to activate the nurturing aspects of our psyche that seem to come more naturally to women, aspects essential for developing enduring relationships.
To be sure, there are some men who seem to have already internalized those “feminine” qualities.
Several years back, I had an e-mail exchange with a leading advocate for state recognition of same-sex marriage. He practically bristled at my questions about his failure to address monogamy in the conversation on expanding the definition of this ancient institution. He simply could not (refused to?) see the link between sexual fidelity and emotional intimacy, how that ideal deepens the bond between the two individuals in a marriage.
Indeed, at those meetings on gay marriage, I found that those most willing to point out that monogamy was an (essential) aspect of marriage were (almost*) always women.
Look, I realize these thoughts may seem kind of random, but because of several serendipitous circumstances on my cross country journey coupled with thoughts about my dissertation — and how Athena’s relationship with Tiresias (this paragon of wisdom to the ancient Greeks being the only individual who had lived as both a man an a woman) fits in — has got me thinking about this yet again.
I fear sometimes we men don’t work at developing emotional relationships with other men. That so visual and physical is our sex drive, we don’t want to consider the emotional consequences of infidelity.** This is not to say that men don’t achieve emotional intimacy, indeed, many do. But, they’re not the ones at the forefront of the movement for state recognition of same-sex marriage. (more…)
In stark contrast, a lack of sexual inhibitions, or as some call it, “sexual freedom,” has taken the caution and discernment out of choosing a sexual partner, which used to be the equivalent of choosing a life partner. Without a commitment, the trust and loyalty between couples of childbearing age is missing, and obviously leads to incidents of infidelity. No one seems immune.
But, what really caught my attention was this in neoneocon’s (must-read) post:
Now we have to worry about rampant promiscuity among teens and even preteens, and the deep psychological and even physical damage it can cause (such as STDs). Girls who once were protected by the mores of society and their own fear of the shame of pregnancy are free to enjoy sex—but how many of them are really having all that much fun, and at what cost? How many of them have the maturity to understand what they want and with whom they might be happy? How many are giving in to the age-old pressures of popularity and the needs of teenage boys?
Emphasis added. I would say the pill has been a mostly good thing. It helped launched the sexual revolution which, in turn, made it easier for gay people to start being more open about our sexuality. But, this revolution while mostly a good thing, was not entirely a good thing. It did have some downsides. And these two smart women get at some of the issues we all wish to brush under the table when discussing sexuality.
Past social mores, while often oppressive, did serve a certain purpose. But, some served only to censure folk like us. We are grateful for the lifting of the social stricture on homosexual conduct. But, I wish to draw your attention to the part of neoneocon’s post that I emphasized. Too many of us try to write off the psychological consequences of hooking up. We say that the shame we feel is only a social construct and so try to wish it away.
But, it’s real and often recurring.
I just think we need to consider the psychological consequences of hooking up. (more…)
Given the recent discussion on this blog (notably in the comment thread to my post on Joy Behar) about whether monogamy is essential to marriage, let me draw your attention to a post Glenn Reynolds linked today on a site that is hardly at the vanguard of the marriage movement. Among her “Secrets to a Long Happy Marriage,” Wendy Atterberry includes some tips on “keeping faithful.” Yes, she acknowledges that people may stray, but leads off her list with this point: “Be aware of the dangers and recognise the urge for what it is: a temporary itch, not to be scratched.” (Emphasis added.)
She thus acknowledges that fidelity is key to a happy marriage. And that once that fidelity is compromised, it takes a lot of work to restore trust, requiring both husband and wife to “work through the problem together, with professional help if” necessary.
In case you miss my point, let me repeat, fidelity is essential to marriage and gay people are capable of monogamy.
It’s just too bad the leaders of gay organizations refuse to say as much.
For well over a year now, I have stopped paying attention to the left-wing blogs which distort my views and seek to cast me as something I am not. It’s just not worth my time to attempt to engage with people more interested in belittling conservatives than in understanding–and countering–our arguments.
When, however, a blogger, well, in this case, a blogress whom I generally respect gets my views wrong, I do take notice. Last night, just before bed, I chanced on an incoming link from the normally sensible and sharp, Cynthia Yockey (AKA a Conservative Lesbian). In her broadside attacking me for my alleged views on gay marriage, she misrepresents my recent critique of Joy Behar:
His latest assault on gays and lesbians who are seeking equality in every aspect of their lives, especially marriage equality, is founded on siding with Joy Behar, of “The View,” who recently opined that homosexuals do not deserve marriage equality because she says we are not monogamous. Or somehow, straight people who marry are monogamous, but gay people, who cannot marry, are not monogamous and therefore never deserve to have marriage equality.
I did not side with Joy Behar. I believe gay people are capable of monogamy. In my post, I faulted gay leaders for their silence in the wake of Miss Behar’s recent comments on gays and monogamy. I did so to show my skepticism of their “understanding of the responsibilities and purposes of marriage.” I did not challenge the fitness of same-sex couples to fulfill the obligations of matrimony. (more…)
One of the main reasons I find it difficult to embrace the gay marriage, er, marriage equality movement, is that its proponents seem more interested in the abstract notion of “equality” than in the real institution of marriage. Its advocates are less interested in promoting marriage than in winning, to borrow an expression from my friend Dale Carpenter, a “trophy in the cultural wars.”
We see this again this week when none of the national gay organizations took issue with those in the media who contend that gay people are incapable of meeting one of the primary obligations of matrimony: monogamy. Last Tuesday, January 26, on The View, Joy Behar said that gays, “don’t take monogamy and infidelity the same way that the straight community does.” Two days later in the New York Times, Scott James reported approvingly on the number of gay couples trying “to rewrite the traditional rules of matrimony.” Many are omitting monogamy:
New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.
Now, I don’t know what percentage of those couples consider themselves married. And to be sure, while it wouldn’t be my choice to be part of an open relationship, I do believe individuals should be free to design their relationships as they see fit. Open relationships may well be fulfilling to the individuals involved, but they’re not marriages.
Given that marriage is based on sexual exclusivity, to call a nonmonogamous union “marriage” is indeed to subvert the meaning of the institution.
By refusing to criticize those who see gay people as incapable of monogamy, gay organizations lend credence to social conservative arguments that gay marriage advocates seek to subvert the institution they’re ostensibly trying to promote. I could find nothing denouncing Ms. Behar on the web-sites of the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the National Center for Lesbian Rights or even Freedom (sic) to Marry. Even my various google searches turned up no commentary from the head of these organizations taking Ms. Behar to task for her prejudice against gay people. I could find none addressing the New York Times article.
As can be expected, it was only on blogs where gay people defended the ability of their fellows to meet the same conditions of marriage expected of our straight peers. The folks at Queerty responded that conversations about gay monogamy are best left in hands other than The View gals. Over at Good As You, Jeremy Hooper was astounded that Behar “could have such an uninformed opinion about gay relationships as a whole“: (more…)
Welcome Instapundit Readers!!!
Maybe I shouldn’t read Instapundit on days when I oversleep. While I was eating my breakfast, I kept chancing upon posts which inspired me to pen three of my own (including this one).
This morning, Glenn linked an article that addresses an issue that has long fascinated me, particularly as it relates to the ancient Greeks, but also because it deals with the complexity of human sexuality. The article considers the homosexual practices of ethnic Pushtuns in Afghanistan:
An unclassified study from a military research unit in southern Afghanistan details how homosexual behavior is unusually common among men in the large ethnic group known as Pashtuns — though they seem to be in complete denial about it.
The study, obtained by Fox News, found that Pashtun men commonly have sex with other men, admire other men physically, have sexual relationships with boys and shun women both socially and sexually — yet they completely reject the label of “homosexual.”
Sounds a lot like the ancient Greeks where older men often took a younger man (really a teen) as a lover and sought to educate him while enjoying the pleasures of his body.
But, can we call them “gay”?
It is only recently in human history that we have considered the notion of sexual orientation as an immutable characteristic, with most people physically attracted to members of the opposite sex, a certain percentage (which may well vary across history and culture) are physically and emotionally drawn exclusively to their own sex. To be sure, in the Symposium, Aristophanes was did articulate a view of human sexuality similar to the current notion. But, his ideas didn’t gain much currency until recently. In many cultures, when men had sex with other men, this recreation was just an extracurricular past time. It did not define their sexual identity.
The Greeks of mythology and history, Achilles and Alexander, respectively, held up as gay exemplars, were anything but. While each had a male lover*, neither steered clearer of the “fairer sex.” (more…)
To understand the decline in quality of the debate on gay marriage from its early potential to its current name-calling, you can start by reading two pieces by Andrew Sullivan 19 years apart. In the first, “Here Comes the Groom,” he outlines a solid argument on the merits of extending the institution of marriage to same-sex couples. In the second, “My Big Fat Straight (sic) Wedding,” he rhapsodizes about how wonderful state recognition of gay marriage makes him feel. With said recognition, his “wedding”* “shifted a sense of our own identity within our psyches and even our souls.”
That later form of “argument” is currently on display in a San Francisco court room where lawyers are making a 1970s case for gay marriage, it’s all about feelings, nothing more than feelings. These lawyers have, in the words of my friend Charles Winecoff, turned gay marriage advocates’ “fetish for state-sanctioned self-esteem into a federal case.”
In the trial, Perry v. v. Schwarzenegger, a lesbian couple from Berkeley and a gay couple from Burbank, seek to overturn California’s Proposition 8. And in so doing, Charles reports, they’re trying to make federal law out of a saccharine ’70s song:
[Attorney Ted Olson] Olson opened the show by declaring that “domestic partnership has nothing to do with love” – essentially admitting that the two couples are seeking legal recognition of their feelings. Then the complainants took to the stand to deliver a string of what even theLos Angeles Times called “emotional accounts,” proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that non-celebrities no longer need Oprah (or Jerry Springer) to validate their existence.
First, Jeffrey Zarrillo testified that ”the word marriage” would give him the ability “to partake in family gatherings, friends and work functions as a married individual standing beside my parents and my brother and his wife. The pride that one feels when that happens.” Does he mean that, like Michelle Obama and her country, he never before felt pride being with his partner? In their nine years as a couple, did they never attend any of those events together?
If “the word” means so much, why not just call yourself married? (more…)
Sometimes the best questions our readers ask are the most basic ones. In response to my post calling “abstinence only” sex education anachronistic, DRH asked, “Now for a real tough question. How should sex ed. handle gay & lesbian students?”
It is a great question. And the answer is not as simple as partisans on either side of the debate would like. It’s why I’m willing to cut Kevin Jennings a little slack on the Brewster incident. If he had shown some remorse in the years since the incident (before his appointment to the Department of Education), we would know he appreciated the complexity of the situation.
That leads to the question, how should a teacher handle a gay student, particularly when said student is a minor who approaches him (the teacher) in confidence, fearful his parents will find out?
Should he teach him about safe sex? Tell him that his feelings don’t render him a pariah or deviant, but instead are, while perhaps an aberration or anomaly, in the great scheme of things, natural? Should he discourage that boy from having sex until he finds someone with whom he can share something more than just physical stimulation and release? Or at least teach him about the emptiness and remorse that often follow casual sex and the potential that our sexuality offers for emotional intimacy?
As to the first two questions above, the answer is clearly, “yes.” As to the second two, the answer is not so clear. That education seems to better belong with the child’s family and place of worship. But, what if that place of worship teaches them that homosexuality is not just an aberration, but an abomination? Should it be the public school’s job to contradict that teaching? (more…)