It’s a measure of the degree to which American society has been desensitized to the sexual propaganda being fed to our children that the following elicited little comment from parents. In one Oakland, California school, it’s apparently considered fine and dandy to teach kindergartners about the joys of crossdressing. According to the Oakland Tribune:
Some girls like the color blue. Some boys like to wear things that sparkle. Not all girls play with dolls, and not all boys like to play with trucks.
Kindergartners at Redwood Heights Elementary School reached those conclusions on Monday during a lesson about gender and acceptance. “Colors are colors,” “toys are toys,” and “activities are activities” were the mantras of a lesson designed for kindergartners and first-graders. Older children learned more about what gender means, how it’s been expressed in different cultures throughout human history, and that it’s possible to be both genders — or neither.
Redwood Heights is the first elementary school in Oakland to teach children about gender identity and expression with a curriculum developed by Gender Spectrum, a San Leandro-based organization. The school’s parent groups endorsed the lessons as part of an ongoing effort to make the school more welcoming, Principal Sara Stone said.
“Really, it’s about reducing and dispelling stereotypes and prejudices so kids can show up to school and feel like they can learn and thrive without being stigmatized or teased,” said Brett Bradshaw, a Redwood Heights parent who is also chairman of the school’s LGBTQ Affinity group.
Why an elementary school has an “LGBTQ Affinity group” is anybody’s guess. And why it is using a curriculum from an advocacy organization that is as confused–or politically manipulative–as Gender Spectrum (which claims in its FAQ both that gender is “hard-wired” in the brain and that children can “change their minds” about whether they are “cross-gendered”) is also anybody’s guess. But I can guess why they are starting out using this stuff on kindergartners: it’s the old Jesuit maxim, “give me your children until they are six, and they are mine forever.”
Stone said she was surprised that her school’s lessons about gender differences had elicited such outrage, especially since there had been so little controversy among the school’s families. The lessons do not include issues of sexual orientation, she said.
“What is wrong about teaching kids to be caring and kind?” she asked.
Flint said state law doesn’t permit children to “opt out” of lessons other than sex education while they are at school. At least one Redwood Heights student stayed home Monday, he said, and three other families inquired about it.
On Monday morning, children in Cynthia Bagby’s kindergarten class discussed whether there were, in fact, “girl colors” and “boy colors.” Some giggled when Joel Baum, the trainer from Gender Spectrum, read “My Princess Boy,” a nonfiction children’s book by Cheryl Kilodavis about her son who liked to wear dresses and a tiara.
“That’s a funny boy!” one boy said.
After the story was over, Baum and Stone asked the children how the boy must have felt when people in the book laughed at him for being different.
“It may be unusual, but we don’t want to laugh at people, and we don’t want to make them feel bad,” Baum said.
“Clothes are clothes,” he added.
“And people are people,” a girl chimed in.
Right. As Groucho Marx once said in Animal Crackers, ”Well, art is art, isn’t it? Still, on the other hand, water is water. And east is east and west is west, and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.” Which makes as much sense as the teaching the normalization of crossdressing to five-year-olds does.
The Pacific Justice Institute provides more information:
On May 23-24 Redwood Heights Elementary School will be teaching children in grades kindergarten through fifth that there are more than two genders. The two days calendared for this are entitled “Gender Spectrum Diversity Training.” In documents released by the school, students will be taught that “gender is not inherently nor solely connected to one’s physical anatomy.” Further, gender is a “complex interrelationship between (physical traits) and one’s internal sense of self as male, female, both or neither as well as one’s outward presentations and behaviors related to that perception.” Another document from the school advises parents: “When you discuss gender with your child, you may hear them (sic) exploring where they (sic) fit on the gender spectrum and why.”
The activities and reading list include: Grades K-1: “Boy, girl or both? Which Outfit, Which Hairdo? (Reading) My Princess Boy.” Grades 2-3 “What is gender? (Reading) 10,000 Dresses.” Grades 4-5: “Three dimensions of gender. (Reading/Song) All I Want to be is Me.”
“This instruction does not represent the values of the majority of families in Oakland,” said attorney Kevin Snider of the Pacific Justice Institute. PJI has been providing legal counsel to parents in the Oakland Unified School District on this matter. “Though to many this may seem extreme, based upon some of the bills now pending in the Capitol such as SB 48, this will be the new normal in California’s K-12 public schools,” Snider continued.
(Via Stand Firm.)
UPDATE: From Canada, we have this heart-warming story of parents who refuse to disclose the gender of their newborn, because they find parental decision-making on the part of the children “obnoxious”:
The neighbours know [Kathy] Witterick and her husband, David Stocker, are raising a genderless baby. But they don’t pretend to understand it.
While there’s nothing ambiguous about Storm’s genitalia, they aren’t telling anyone whether their third child is a boy or a girl.
The only people who know are Storm’s brothers, Jazz, 5, and Kio, 2, a close family friend and the two midwives who helped deliver the baby in a birthing pool at their Toronto home on New Year’s Day.
“When the baby comes out, even the people who love you the most and know you so intimately, the first question they ask is, ‘Is it a girl or a boy?’” says Witterick, bouncing Storm, dressed in a red-fleece jumper, on her lap at the kitchen table.
“If you really want to get to know someone, you don’t ask what’s between their legs,” says Stocker.
Most of the time, it isn’t necessary to ask, because there are clues. Gotta ask, though: how did Stocker know, the first time he met Witterick, that she was female? Did he have to guess? Was it a mystery? If not, why impose that on their children? (Of course, maybe it was impossible to tell–there are no pictures of the parents. But check out Storm and his brother Jazz.)
Witterick and Stocker believe they are giving their children the freedom to choose who they want to be, unconstrained by social norms about males and females. Some say their choice is alienating.
“What we noticed is that parents make so many choices for their children. It’s obnoxious,” says Stocker.
Jazz and Kio have picked out their own clothes in the boys and girls sections of stores since they were 18 months old. Just this week, Jazz unearthed a pink dress at Value Village, which he loves because it “really poofs out at the bottom. It feels so nice.” The boys decide whether to cut their hair or let it grow.
Like all mothers and fathers, Witterick and Stocker struggle with parenting decisions. The boys are encouraged to challenge how they’re expected to look and act based on their sex.
Read it all (including the five-year-old’s decision not to go to school, and to use the pseudonym “Gender Explorer” on stuff he’s written), and then ponder this question: is the parental ideology that Stocker and Witterick (a pair of unabashed lefties) are employing a form of child abuse, abdication of responsibility, or wave of the future (or all three)?
(Hat tip: Kate.)
May 25, 2011 at 1:13 pm
Apropos of gender “identity”, did you see this story?
http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/babiespregnancy/babies/article/995112–parents-keep-child-s-gender-secret
The mother gave an interview on CBC, which I find interesting. By the way, the kid in the picture with the braids – is a boy.
May 25, 2011 at 1:34 pm
I’ve added a couple of excerpts from this as an update. Thanks for the link, Kate.
May 25, 2011 at 7:42 pm
I think it is abusive, what they are doing. Of course you make decisions for you kids – that’s a parent’s JOB.
May 26, 2011 at 9:35 am
Thank God (and I mean that seriously) we live in a community where this kind of twisted teaching is not allowed, especially as we plan to send our kids to public school.
May 26, 2011 at 11:05 pm
These people are nuts and their kids will be neurotic.
September 13, 2011 at 6:29 pm
‘Twisted’? ‘Abusive’? ‘Neurotic’?
These parents are setting their children on a path that allows them to be themselves, unrestrained by ridiculous social expectations.
September 13, 2011 at 7:19 pm
I think this could be a good thing. So many people are weighed down by their gender. These days girls are expected to wear low cut shirts and short skirts, while boys are expected to be strong guys who play sports. It’s terrible that so many teens are forced by society to become these perfect boys or perfect girls, and how a lot of places pretty much say “conform or be rejected”.
How it is anyone else’s business if educators and parents want to help them escape from that? If children can learn that it’s not as simple as “I’m a boy” or “I’m a girl”, they can surely learn that there isn’t only one path through teenage-hood. Don’t you think that if children can learn that the norm doesn’t have to be the norm, that so many things would be better? Bullying wouldn’t be so bad because could-be bullies are taught that it’s okay to be different. Maybe the high school girls who walk around practically naked wouldn’t feel the need to do so, because they were taught in elementary school that their gender doesn’t define them.
This one simple thing as getting rid of the gender barrier isn’t destroying children. It isn’t going to change them into sex seeking monsters or any other title you came up with in your mind that, no doubt, is wrong and insulting. It’s teaching them acceptance.
If you were really worried about our planet’s children, you would write something about school bullying. About kids who think it’s okay to bully someone because they’re gay or transgender, even though it clearly isn’t.
What these people are doing is preventing hate in our schools. Hate leads to teen suicide, yet it’s those teaching kids to love that are in the wrong? No, you are in the wrong. It’s people like you that ruin society every time you judge someone because of who they are, and how they were born. It’s you that ruins society every time you fight against love, which you are clearly doing.
One thing I really don’t understand about super religious people is their logic. I thought a part of loving God was loving everyone and everything He created, because He created it for a reason. I’d like to think that I love everyone as He indented them to be, and I’m not super religious. I believe, and I try not to sin, and so on. So why am I, a 19 year old girl, able to understand what God wants better than you and people who read your blog? A part of loving God is loving everything He created. He made people gay, lesbian, transgender and go on for a reason. Don’t you think you should love them for it, because He wouldn’t make them like that if He wanted you to hate them.
September 13, 2011 at 9:19 pm
Aislymarie: Thanks for coming by, and for commenting. You sound like a person who takes things seriously, so I’d like to see if I can answer your arguments with some that I hope will make sense.
I think this could be a good thing. So many people are weighed down by their gender. These days girls are expected to wear low cut shirts and short skirts, while boys are expected to be strong guys who play sports. It’s terrible that so many teens are forced by society to become these perfect boys or perfect girls, and how a lot of places pretty much say “conform or be rejected”.
I don’t think it is that people are “weighed down by their gender” as much as they are weighed down by certain expectations. The things you mention are good examples of that. I completely agree that conformity is not something that should be required of children, and it’s terrible when kids are or feel rejected because they don’t (I know that from first-hand experience).
How it is anyone else’s business if educators and parents want to help them escape from that? If children can learn that it’s not as simple as “I’m a boy” or “I’m a girl”, they can surely learn that there isn’t only one path through teenage-hood. Don’t you think that if children can learn that the norm doesn’t have to be the norm, that so many things would be better? Bullying wouldn’t be so bad because could-be bullies are taught that it’s okay to be different. Maybe the high school girls who walk around practically naked wouldn’t feel the need to do so, because they were taught in elementary school that their gender doesn’t define them.
This isn’t being taught to teenagers–it’s being taught to kindergartners. My problem with this program is that I firmly believe that teaching about sexuality of any kind is not appropriate for five-year-olds. High school is another story entirely. As for those HS girls going around practically naked, again I agree that they can and should learn the lesson that being attractive to the opposite sex (or same sex, for that matter) is not the be-all and end-all to their existence. I would suggest that the best time for them to learn that lesson is when they are starting to notice the attraction, say, in the fifth, sixth, or seventh grade. But again, I don’t think the solution to the problem you’re describing, which I agree is a real problem, is to suggest that gender doesn’t matter, because in fact it does. I’ll come back to that in a moment.
This one simple thing as getting rid of the gender barrier isn’t destroying children. It isn’t going to change them into sex seeking monsters or any other title you came up with in your mind that, no doubt, is wrong and insulting. It’s teaching them acceptance.
I wasn’t worried about children being turned into “sex seeking monsters” or anything of the kind. Rather, my concern is two-fold. One, as I mention above, I don’t believe that teaching sexuality is appropriate for five-year-olds. I certainly think it is possible to teach them to respect all people, no matter how different they are, without getting into sexuality issues. Two, I worry about introducing children to an ideologically driven view of sexuality that doesn’t conform to their experience, and indeed is messing with what is likely hard-wired into most if not all people. Children do not have to be taught to notice gender, and to identify people in part by it. They can certainly be taught that there is more to people than gender, and that one does not have to be a boy or a girl to have lots of wonderful qualities. But I think assuming that we can somehow educate children into “getting rid of the gender barrier” in the sense that this program seems to be could really hurt kids.
If you were really worried about our planet’s children, you would write something about school bullying. About kids who think it’s okay to bully someone because they’re gay or transgender, even though it clearly isn’t.
Of course bullying is wrong. I know that from personal experience. I was bullied plenty in my years in public school. I hated it. And it wasn’t because I was gay, but because I was quiet and introverted, loved reading, and wasn’t athletic. I have no problem with anti-bullying programs (though I do think that they have too single-minded a focus on sexuality-related bullying, and that too many people have forgotten that bullying doesn’t have to have anything to do with whether someone is gay or not). As for caring about our planet’s children, my suspicion is that most children across the planet are more worried about stuff like where their next meal is going to come from, whether their parents are going to die of AIDS, or whether they’ll get kidnapped and sold into sex slavery than they are about bullying.
What these people are doing is preventing hate in our schools. Hate leads to teen suicide, yet it’s those teaching kids to love that are in the wrong? No, you are in the wrong. It’s people like you that ruin society every time you judge someone because of who they are, and how they were born. It’s you that ruins society every time you fight against love, which you are clearly doing.
Once again, teaching kids not to hate is great. Teaching five-year-olds about sexuality is not.
“Hate” does not, by itself, typically lead to teen suicide. As one who was on the receiving end as a teen, I would note that most teenagers who are bullied, or subjected to the taunts or even hate of others, do not kill themselves. Usually there are other factors that drive teens in that direction, including organic imbalances, parental disconnection, substance abuse, etc. That’s not to say hate is OK, of course. When it rears its head in schools, it must be confronted. But that can be done without teaching sexuality to five-year-olds.
I do not believe it is loving to allow people to engage in behavior that is self-destructive, or destructive to those around them. In terms of this post, I believe that what the school system is doing in Oakland has the potential to be profoundly harmful to children, as I believe what the Canadian parents are doing has that potential as well. You clearly agree that it is necessary to confront those who you believe are doing or saying something wrong and possibly harmful to others, and I commend you for it. But I would just ask that you grant to me the same desire to be helpful, rather than harmful, to others. That doesn’t mean you have to agree with me; just that you grant that I am not seeking to “fight against love,” when in fact I do not recognize the actions in questions as being loving, but as positively harmful.
One thing I really don’t understand about super religious people is their logic. I thought a part of loving God was loving everyone and everything He created, because He created it for a reason. I’d like to think that I love everyone as He indented them to be, and I’m not super religious. I believe, and I try not to sin, and so on. So why am I, a 19 year old girl, able to understand what God wants better than you and people who read your blog? A part of loving God is loving everything He created. He made people gay, lesbian, transgender and go on for a reason. Don’t you think you should love them for it, because He wouldn’t make them like that if He wanted you to hate them.
Loving everyone God created is indeed part of loving God. But that doesn’t mean loving everything that everyone does. To take an example I think you’d appreciate, loving the child who bullies his classmates doesn’t mean loving his bullying, or refusing to admonish him when he indulges in it.
As for gays, those who know me know that I have no problem relating to and indeed loving gay people. I have several family members who are gay, and they’ve told me that they appreciate the fact that I don’t treat them any differently from the way I treat everyone else. They’re family, and the fact that they’re gay is neither here nor there. I’ve worked with AIDS patients, and always treated them with the respect and kindness that any person deserves. I believe homosexual behavior is wrong, because I believe that God has shown us that it is wrong. It is no more wrong than any other sinful behavior, and gays are no worse sinners than any other. The reason I deal with this subject at all is because there are forces in our society that hold a contrary view, and are seeking to enforce that view on everyone. I oppose that. But that doesn’t make me a hater of gays, no matter how many times someone might assert otherwise.
One other thing. It may be that sexual preference is genetically determined (the scientific evidence of that is practically non-existent to this point, but that doesn’t mean it might not be so). That does not by itself make homosexual behavior either inevitable (there have been many celibate gays) or licit. Some African-Americans are born with a genetic predisposition to develop sickle-cell anemia; that doesn’t mean we don’t treat it, or that if it were possible to eliminate through gene therapy that we wouldn’t. I’m not suggesting we do that to those who might carry a “gay gene,” if there is such a thing. I’m merely pointing out that having been “made that way” doesn’t mean that we are not made with flaws. All human beings are born with a propensity to sin of one kind or another, if not lots of kinds, after all–that doesn’t mean we should encourage them!
Again, thanks for raising these questions, and stating your views. I’d be glad to continue to conversation, if you’d like.
September 14, 2011 at 12:38 am
First of all, I understand that the teachings about gender was directed at a younger group of children, for good reason. Children absorb so much more information while they’re young. It’s like the saying “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks”. It applies to everything. While teaching a younger, five-year-old that gender doesn’t matter (Or that it shouldn’t. Gender usually is focused on a lot, and there are still a lot of people out there who are flat out sexist. It shouldn’t matter) can be relatively easy, teaching someone who’s already older is more difficult. That’s like teaching an already racist twelve year old that being black is okay. The truth is, it’s not going to be easy.
“My problem with this program is that I firmly believe that teaching about sexuality of any kind is not appropriate for five-year-olds.”
What you said could easily be countered with what you quoted yourself:
“Stone said she was surprised that her school’s lessons about gender differences had elicited such outrage, especially since there had been so little controversy among the school’s families. The lessons do not include issues of sexual orientation, she said.”
Well, in the first place, teaching five-year-old children about sexuality isn’t wrong. Teaching them about SEX, well, they’re too young about that sort of thing. But someone’s sexuality shouldn’t not be mixed into that, because there’s a way to teach children about those sorts of things without going to that kind of detail.
The thing is, they didn’t talk to them about sexuality at all. What they did talk about was gender identity, and how someone’s gender doesn’t mean they can’t wear certain colours, like certain things, and so on.
The best time to teach children about all this kind of stuff is when they’re young. You could say that the time to talk about it is when they’re starting to notice attraction and identity, but the truth is they need to learn before then. These are things kids need to know. They need to know that it’s okay, and starting arguments and groups against telling young children about simple things is giving them an illusion that it’s wrong. Because no one talks to little children about death and war, and if they won’t talk about gender identity and sexuality, then where does that leave the LGBT group? If you can’t tell a little child “Those two men are married.” or “That girl has two moms.” or “It doesn’t matter if you’re a boy or a girl, because some boys are born girls and some girls are born boys.” there IS a problem. This is something children should know about, and what they should be taught.
It should also be noted that older adults seem to make a bigger deal out of it than anyone else. My sister was worried about coming out to our parents. My mom was shocked, but accepted it. My dad laughed and said “Duh, I knew that.”. But younger family members and friends didn’t care at all. Our little seven year old cousin didn’t care in the least? “You like girls? Okay.” The truth is that little kids really don’t care. Its just that they learn to.
“One, as I mention above, I don’t believe that teaching sexuality is appropriate for five-year-olds. I certainly think it is possible to teach them to respect all people, no matter how different they are, without getting into sexuality issues.”
Like I said, they didn’t.
“But I think assuming that we can somehow educate children into “getting rid of the gender barrier” in the sense that this program seems to be could really hurt kids.”
Nothing that this program is doing is hurting children. It’s teaching them equality in it’s deepest form. The biggest difference of the human race is gender. It would be a lie to say that people are treated the same whether they’re a man or a woman. This program is working on fixing one of the biggest difference between people, while at the same time working on getting child to realize that ““Colors are colors,” “toys are toys,” and “activities are activities””. Nothing matters, only that you’re happy. And telling a boy that he can’t play with a Barbie because it’s a girl toy isn’t going to make him happy.
“As for caring about our planet’s children, my suspicion is that most children across the planet are more worried about stuff like where their next meal is going to come from, whether their parents are going to die of AIDS, or whether they’ll get kidnapped and sold into sex slavery than they are about bullying.”
What you’re doing right there is covering a big problem with a bigger problem. We’re not talking about starvation or AIDS. We’re talking about bullying. And the truth is that the LGBT group faces more of it then straight kids in homophobic environments. Just because it isn’t as big as a problem as being sold as a sex slave, doesn’t mean we can just ignore it.
““Hate” does not, by itself, typically lead to teen suicide. As one who was on the receiving end as a teen, I would note that most teenagers who are bullied, or subjected to the taunts or even hate of others, do not kill themselves. Usually there are other factors that drive teens in that direction, including organic imbalances, parental disconnection, substance abuse, etc. That’s not to say hate is OK, of course. When it rears its head in schools, it must be confronted. But that can be done without teaching sexuality to five-year-olds.”
First of all, it’s a proven fact that bullying DOES cause suicide, especially amongst gay teens. And hate is bullying. A lot of people are bullied (I wasn’t, but I never drew a lot of attention to myself because of how shy I was, although my sister was and still is bullied) in high school for many reasons. I know for a fact that she’s been facing some bullying now that she’s out, especially at the newer school she’s going to. I noticed that the school with no LGBT or GSA is also the more hateful and homophobic school that she’s gone to.
But back to the point. 4 out of 5 gay teens, I think it was, attempt suicide, which is a lot more than straight teens. Hate does cause suicide, and saying it doesn’t is naive. I understand that there are a lot of factors, but bullying is a huge one. This program can really help that.
Again, they aren’t teaching them sexuality.
“I do not believe it is loving to allow people to engage in behavior that is self-destructive, or destructive to those around them.”
I don’t know where you get this ‘self-destructive’ thing from, so if you could kindly explain how you got that out of educating children about equality I would be very grateful.
“In terms of this post, I believe that what the school system is doing in Oakland has the potential to be profoundly harmful to children, as I believe what the Canadian parents are doing has that potential as well.”
There is absolutely nothing harmful about what they’re doing. I hate to repeat myself again, but teaching children about gender identity is not a bad thing. They need to know and understand that it’s not 100% boy and 100% girl. The world isn’t black and white, there is grey in between.
As for the second part of that statement “I believe what the Canadian parents are doing has that potential as well”, I’ll start by pointing out that, that was sort of racist. Like the Canadian part explains everything or something. Not all Canadian parents choose to raise their children without gender boundaries. It’s their choice whether or not they wish to do so, and it doesn’t concern anyone else because their children are happy. This is not abuse or harmful to them in the slightest. They’re not forcing their son into a dress, and they’re not forcing their daughter to wear boy clothes. They just simply give them the choice of not having their gender define them.
My ‘Canadian parents’ didn’t chose to raise me without a gender boundary. They raised me so I could gain my own opinions, let me learn right from wrong, while at the same time kept a careful eye on me in case I was going down the wrong path. Telling a family that the way they’re raising their children is wrong when their children are happy, just because it doesn’t conform to what people think is wrong and shouldn’t be done. But seeing as people do it anyway, using that same logic, people could be told they’re doing a terrible job of raising their kids if they’re teaching them that being gay is wrong. The thing is, no one cares. You can’t get mad a family for raising their children to not worry about the gender boundary when you allow other families to raise their children to focus on it.
“But I would just ask that you grant to me the same desire to be helpful, rather than harmful, to others. That doesn’t mean you have to agree with me; just that you grant that I am not seeking to “fight against love,” when in fact I do not recognize the actions in questions as being loving, but as positively harmful.”
Maybe you’re not intentionally promoting hate, but the fact is that you are. If you fight against gender identity and sexuality, you’re spreading the word that it’s wrong. That is hate. Not love. When one group is teaching love and equality, and you’re condemning and judging them for that, that is you fighting against love. You have a right to your opinion, but please, if your opinion is harming people, you should stop. What the program and what that family is doing is teaching children that being different doesn’t matter. What you’re doing by saying that’s wrong, is spreading hate.
“Loving everyone God created is indeed part of loving God. But that doesn’t mean loving everything that everyone does. To take an example I think you’d appreciate, loving the child who bullies his classmates doesn’t mean loving his bullying, or refusing to admonish him when he indulges in it.”
Why you think I would appreciate that, I don’t understand. Being. Gay. Isn’t. A. Choice. Being gay isn’t just some random action people do because they want to. When you’re gay, you were born that way. The truth is, no one chooses to be gay. Why would they? Why would someone choose to be mocked? It’s simple: they don’t.
Being a bully is not something you are born with. You are either raised by your parents to hate, or learn from society. But it’s a general choice.
People who love God should love everyone for who they were born to be. If someone is gay, they were born gay, and you would love and accept that about them because God made them to be who they are. If someone is transgender, you should love them because God put them in a body that wasn’t the right gender for them. They didn’t just suddenly decide that they were a girl in a boy’s body, or the other way around. They were born that way, and saying that it was a choice is stupid, because no one in their right mind would chose to be a victim of hate.
Of course you wouldn’t love the bullying someone does. You can love the bully and hate the bullying, yes. But that means nothing in this discussion. You CAN NOT hate anyone for being gay, or promoting equality between genders, or raising their children in an equal way despite their gender, and then turn around and say you love God even though He was the one who made the one you are judging. You can love God, of course, and hate the people he created, but that isn’t loyal. If you were loyal to God, this blog would not exist unless it was to preach about how much you love all the ways people are teaching love. You would gladly support what that one Canadian family decided to do. But you are not, because you haven’t reached the point where you can truly love everything God creates.
“As for gays, those who know me know that I have no problem relating to and indeed loving gay people. I have several family members who are gay, and they’ve told me that they appreciate the fact that I don’t treat them any differently from the way I treat everyone else. They’re family, and the fact that they’re gay is neither here nor there. I’ve worked with AIDS patients, and always treated them with the respect and kindness that any person deserves. I believe homosexual behavior is wrong, because I believe that God has shown us that it is wrong. It is no more wrong than any other sinful behavior, and gays are no worse sinners than any other. The reason I deal with this subject at all is because there are forces in our society that hold a contrary view, and are seeking to enforce that view on everyone. I oppose that. But that doesn’t make me a hater of gays, no matter how many times someone might assert otherwise.”
It’s one thing to love the LGBT community and accepting them as equals. It’s another thing to act like their actions are wrong. Love is love, no matter who is involved.
“I believe homosexual behavior is wrong, because I believe that God has shown us that it is wrong.”
The thing I don’t understand in that statement is this: why would God ‘show’ people that being gay is wrong, when He is the one who makes them gay in the first place? I firmly believe that God loves all His children, and it would probably be greatly disappointing to discover that you consider something He created in the first place is wrong. Also, “homosexual behaviour” is probably a terrible way to put it. Like being gay is a choice when, again, it’s not.
“One other thing. It may be that sexual preference is genetically determined (the scientific evidence of that is practically non-existent to this point, but that doesn’t mean it might not be so). That does not by itself make homosexual behavior either inevitable (there have been many celibate gays) or licit. Some African-Americans are born with a genetic predisposition to develop sickle-cell anemia; that doesn’t mean we don’t treat it, or that if it were possible to eliminate through gene therapy that we wouldn’t. I’m not suggesting we do that to those who might carry a “gay gene,” if there is such a thing. I’m merely pointing out that having been “made that way” doesn’t mean that we are not made with flaws. All human beings are born with a propensity to sin of one kind or another, if not lots of kinds, after all–that doesn’t mean we should encourage them!”
Being gay is not a flaw. That’s like saying that being ginger is a flaw. It’s not something you can control. It’s not going to go away. It’s not choice. What you pretty much said is that you believe that someone who is gay shouldn’t be able to be with their partner, because being with someone you love in a sexual way is a right purely reserved for straight people.