To: Kevin Rose who wrote (146402 ) 11/7/2008 10:06:06 PM From: Brumar89 Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 173976 They aren't privileged as heterosexuals. Unions normally associated with healthy families in which children can be raised have the privilege of marriage. That excludes relative marriage, polygamy/group marriage, same-sex marriage, under-age marriage, etc.a privilege is earned and may be rescinded for irresponsible behavior, whereas a right is inalienable Not sure why you're bringing that up. In fact, marriages can be dissolved by divorce. Even if one party doesn't consent. If marriage were a right, how could it be taken away from one of the married parties w/o their consent? I happen to be in favor of respecting the rights of parents as to what their children are exposed to. In our school system, there are multiple opportunities for children to be pulled out of lessons that parents may object to - mostly biological education. For the record, I am against any sort of 'homosexual agenda' being taught in school, just like I'm against any sort of 'Christian agenda' in secular public schools. Thats fine. But that is not the plan of the activists pushing gay marriage. I believe one of the items posted to you proved that the same institutions fighting for gay marriage in CA had pushed for forced inclusion of "gay education" in MA once gay marriage had been established there. Rather than restrict the rights of homosexuals to marry for fear of what will be taught in schools, why not simply address the school issue directly? Because the same liberal judges who force gay marriage on states will also force gay education on schools in the name of protecting the rights of gay people. Just as the same CA SC judges who forced gay marriage on the state also voted to force Christian doctors to provide fertilization services to lesbian couples: The California Supreme Court Rules That Fertility Doctors Must Make Their Services Available to Lesbians, Despite Religious Objections By JOANNA GROSSMAN Tuesday, Sept. 02, 2008 Can a doctor in California offer fertility services to the public, but refuse to provide them to lesbian patients? In North Coast Women's Care Medical Group, Inc. v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court said no, rejecting a constitutional challenge to the state's broad public accommodations law. .... Benitez and her partner met with Dr. Christine Brody at North Coast to discuss treatment options. During the meeting, Benitez mentioned that she was a lesbian. One of the options discussed was intrauterine insemination (IUI), a type of artificial insemination in which sperm is placed directly in a woman's uterus to increase the likelihood of conception. Though Dr. Brody explained the procedure, she told Benitez that she had a religious objection to performing it on an unmarried woman, and that she would refer Benitez to one of the other physicians in the group , who would be the one to perform the procedure. .....Only one of the doctors in the practice, Dr. Douglas Fenton, had the requisite qualifications, but he, like Brody, had a religious objection to inseminating Benitez. To make a long story short, Dr. Fenton referred Benitez to a doctor outside of their medical practice for further treatment. That doctor performed an IUI , which did not result in pregnancy, but later performed an in vitro fertilization, which did. ....writ.news.findlaw.com Note, that the lesbians weren't even denied treatment, they received the desired fertilization. They sued over which doctor provided the treatment. As we see, its not just a matter of schools. I provided evidence of the Catholic church being forced to stop providing adoption services in MA unless they agreed to arrange gay adoptions. I gave other examples where tax exemption was lost or private doctors or business people were ordered to provide services that violated their consciences. These things have happened in multiple states. It can't be denied that this forced social coercion using government power is part of the program. Also for the record, my children are much more likely to be approached by someone espousing a Christian agenda than a homosexual one Horrors! Should it be illegal to proselytize because of the possibility of offending parents who don't want their kids exposed to certain religions? It should be illegal to proselytize in schools. And it is. Its legal to proselytize by going door to door and attempting to witness to people as groups like the Jehovahs Witnesses and Mormons do. And if gay activists wanted to go door to door and witness the same way, they have that right. They just need to be willing to be turned away as JW's and Mormons usually are.