Are the children of elected officials off limits?
I just got an email from Jill over at Writes Like She Talks and she’s not happy with a post written by Matt over on Right Angle Blog that posts information from the facebook of Jennifer Brunner’s son.
I’m a parent of college age students. My first reaction to reading what he had on his facebook was “OMG did anyone not tell him that this stuff is PUBLIC!”. As a parent, I would not be happy if my bunch paraded their escapades around the internet creating an unprofessional reputation that could cost them jobs, as well as embarrass family members. Especially if any of them was majoring in Political Science…
I’ve taken the time to caution mine about what they put out there on the net. Unfortunately no one appears to have done that with him. MySpace and Facebook have been the source of numerous news stories where people have experienced real life consequences for what they have done on the net.
As to the is it fair to target children of elected officials? My personal opinion is that children should be left out of the muck and mire that we like to toss at each other. I remember how disgusted I was when people made fun of the way children were dressed during a supreme court nomination process, I remember how disgusted I was when people made fun of Rick Santorum’s children. I was also disgusted when people made comments about John Kerry’s children and and the Bush twins, and John Edwards children, and on and on…So, it will be interesting to see how many people who thought it was perfectly fine to make fun of children who had parents of one political party and will take issue with this facebook situation. I know a few people will be consistent on this issue, believing the standard, “if it’s wrong, it’s wrong”.
And, it’s already starting, the justification of how what I take issue with is “different” and it’s not different. I don’t have the energy to go thru and provide all the various examples of children of elected officials being picked on by the media or blogs nor should I have to. It’s out there, it’s happened and while I wouldn’t post what Matt did on RAB? This constant bash fest feeds this type of thing into a constant battle of one upmanship.
SO word of advice to all of you high schoolers and college age students who don’t have me as a parent – don’t put anything on your MySpace or your Facebook that you wouldn’t want Mom, Dad, and your boss to read. It will save you a lot of hassle in the end…
April 5th, 2007 at 11:05 amIf we look real close at the photo’s two of them show that are part of someone else’s photo albums and they contained his name. No conspiracy theory being advanced. It is just whomever took his picture also used his name in the description.
So, do things that are naughty off camera.
April 5th, 2007 at 11:37 amExactly NC, in doing the Blog it column for the Toledo Free Press and in visiting my own bunches assorted webpages quite a few kids out there don’t seem to have grasped how easy it is for pictures they post to end up in the wrong hands. There have been many times when I’ve seen especially a MySpace page and wondered what in the blue hell were they thinking by putting that type of information/photos on the net…
April 5th, 2007 at 11:49 amFacebook has this; “You should have control over your personal information.
Facebook helps you share information with your friends and people around you. You choose what information you put in your profile, including contact and personal information, pictures, interests and groups you join. And you control with whom you share that information through the privacy settings on the My Privacy page.”
Myspace has this;
“Please choose carefully the information you post on MySpace.com and that you provide to other Users. Your MySpace.com profile may not include the following items: telephone numbers, street addresses, last names, and any photographs containing nudity, or obscene, lewd, excessively violent, harassing, sexually explicit or otherwise objectionable subject matter. Despite this prohibition, information provided by other MySpace.com Members (for instance, in their Profile) may contain inaccurate, inappropriate, offensive or sexually explicit material, products or services, and MySpace.com assumes no responsibility or liability for this material. If you become aware of misuse of the MySpace Services by any person, please contact MySpace or click on the “Report Inappropriate Content” link at the bottom of any MySpace.com page.”
April 5th, 2007 at 12:00 pmWell-balanced post, good advice, what we know and love from you.
That said, it still is a little sad that we have to be making this warning, you know? I know, that’s not reality, but still…Having fun, being silly, looking bad in a picture and even making some bad choices aren’t in and of themselves actions people need to be embarrassed about – only contrite and wiser.
Anyway – thanks for taking the time to write about the issue again.
And I agree – kids are off limit. Billy Carter? Fine – he’s an adult, a curiosity but no real weight on Jimmy. Most of the other examples you cite, not okay.
There is still, though, Lisa Renee, the issue of a particular political party calling itself the family values party. I mean, you do see the irony there, no?
April 5th, 2007 at 12:03 pm“kids are off limit.” And yet Billy Carter is an adult.
How do we define, “adult.” Over a certain age…
My oldest is 27 and she has posted some pics on line that made my teeth mash, but she is an adult and will suffer and learn from her conseuqences.
Is this somehow different because a relative of a politico is involved and he is an adult?
April 5th, 2007 at 12:10 pmJill, I don’t see any irony in this, at all. Infact I’m probably more pissed off than you are about this, but my anger and disgust stems from the hypocrisy I see way too many times. As I wrote in a comment over on your blog, the continued selected outrage really bothers me. The rush to judgement to point fingers when fingers can be pointed back. It’s hard to stand up to the “majority” and I realize that most people will select to not comment when they see something that don’t agree with happening within their “own” group. I know I have made myself unpopular in some circles and I do not regret speaking up when I disagree.
I can’t slam Matt for doing something that others have done, I can’t create some fake outrage of “OMG how could he” when really to be 100% perfectly blunt? People in our own group of Ohio bloggers have done worse.
I can say or really write, that all of this should stop and as I wrote in my email, if we are going to now from this day forward stop picking on the children of candidates and elected officials, I’m all for it, as I was all along but not supportive of another episode of selected outrage where the bad behavior of one side/party/person is made an issue without any realization that both sides have done this.
April 5th, 2007 at 12:29 pmI just meant to distinguish between young children implicated in Lisa Renee’s original post (”I remember how disgusted I was when people made fun of the way children were dressed during a supreme court nomination process, I remember how disgusted I was when people made fun of Rick Santorum’s children. I was also disgusted when people made comments about John Kerry’s children and and the Bush twins, and John Edwards children, and on and on…”
versus Billy Carter.
April 5th, 2007 at 12:29 pmI should add, though I’m sure you know Jill, I’m not frustated with you as an individual but I am frustrated with the general behavior of the blogosphere at times and even the larger media when it comes to the selected outrage issue.
April 5th, 2007 at 12:39 pmWell, now let me see if I’m getting this any better – you are calling my outrage selective without saying, Jill – you are exhibiting selective outrage!
But I don’t see my outrage as selective – but you do, is that correct?
Now – that means that you’re making a judgement on me – you are saying, Jill, I know you have seen other outrageous things of the same level of outrageousness and you haven’t said a word and therefore you are being a hypocrite.
Now – I might be wrong – maybe you aren’t saying that – please do correct me.
But if you are saying that, I think that’s unfair to me. I’m NOT saying that I might be less sensitive to when it happens on other blogs, but honestly – I cannot think of a single incident parallel to this use of Brunner’s kids, Lisa Renee, that I’ve witnessed or heard of for that matter. I don’t go looking for it and I don’t subscribe to blogs or search out blogs that have that kind of slant.
So – again, I’m asking – what exactly are you saying? Are you saying that I’m being hypocritical just because I should know it exists and I don’t condemn it often enough? I’m getting lost here.
April 5th, 2007 at 12:40 pmI think it is hypocritical for those who have seen other people especially children made fun or and who have participated in making fun of children to act as if this episode with Matt is an outrage – that is selective outrage.
It’s also selective outrage once you are aware of the other incidents and not acknowledge the previous histories but that is not hypocritical. This has happened over and over again Jill, with the battle of the blogs and the attack bs and the personal drama and it never ends. It never ends because both sides keep it alive and continue to play. In a game that has no rules it’s only a matter of time before one side goes to far.
I don’t know what you were aware of or not aware of, but I am aware of many episodes of attacks on children, attacks on family members and personal attacks on both sides with personal information that should never been released being released to create some sort of “web vengence”. I can only speak to what I’ve seen and the years of dealing with this even on message boards before blogs even became popular.
Does that make where I’m coming from more clear?
April 5th, 2007 at 12:53 pmWell – I think your sense of outrage about what seems to be and feels to be never-ending is very clear. I suppose I need to think about what I do pick and choose, of what I do see, that rises to the level of saying something.
April 5th, 2007 at 1:12 pmActually no, had you not done this, none of this would have come out and maybe, just maybe some high schooler or college student will stop and realize that they have some pretty darn embarrassing stuff on their MySpace or their Facebook and take a second thought as to what could be done with it by others.
Maybe the next time someone decides to go into attack mode enough of us will have had enough that both groups will go after them…
You were posting from your own experiences, and you should.
April 5th, 2007 at 1:16 pmWhen do they stop being children and join the adult world.
A kid will always be someones kids but they are still considered adults after a certain age
April 5th, 2007 at 1:35 pmRAB’s attack is pathetic. Period. Any such attack on a politician’s children is pathetic. Period.
There is a single sponsor on RABid – a Remax real estate agent named Brian Kirk. I think it would be a good idea to let him know that he is sponsoring these personal attacks. His info is posted at here
April 5th, 2007 at 1:59 pmThey were all pictures that other people posted of me, which I cant do anything about, besides asking them to remove them. Even if I were to delete my account the pictures would still be there.
April 5th, 2007 at 2:02 pmI won’t contact an advertiser because I have not done so when blogs on the left who have paid sponsors have acted in a manner I don’t agree with, so for me to do something like that would make me a hypocrite. Something I try to avoid as much as possible.
April 5th, 2007 at 2:05 pmJohn, all you can do is make the best of it, and in the future remember anytime you let somebody take a photo of you like that? You might not want it on the web. I’ve seen friends of my bunch do similar things and thankfully, I was able to address it so they dealt with it before it got to what happened to you. Not that I agree with you being used to get at your mother as an elected official but you have to watch your back even if you are just a regular student.
April 5th, 2007 at 2:11 pm“Not that I agree with you being used to get at your mother as an elected official but you have to watch your back even if you are just a regular student.”
In the end when it is all said and done I wonder how much of an impact it will have on the Secretary of State?
Is she responsible for her son’s actions when he is away at college?
Students do some amazing things while in the halls of higher learning.
April 5th, 2007 at 2:16 pmFor the love of humanity, will you stop it already, Lisa? John Brenner is very much a political figure. He is not merely the son of the Secretary of State. He is a political activist and he posted photos of himself breaking the law. If a conservative activist posted such photos, you would barely be able to control your glee as you blogged about it. This isn’t the same as making fun of the Bush twins; not by a long shot. They aren’t involved in politics. John is.
April 5th, 2007 at 3:53 pmExcuse me? I don’t know you and it’s obvious you don’t know me. I wouldn’t blog with “glee” about trying to hurt someone.
If you knew me, you’d know that I don’t support any type of this bs no matter who’s posting it and no matter who it’s about. Which is why in this case despite the attempts of justification of why it’s okay that Matt did or the attempts at justification on why the other episodes directed at younger children is okay – I say neither are okay.
If you want to argue the particulars this wasn’t done in the context of writing about John Brunner as a political figure, it was being done in the context of “Jennifer and Rick Brunner’s son”. Which would still make you totally offbase on your comments to me since I stated it’s not a smart idea for anyone no matter WHO their parents are to post this kind of stuff on their MySpace or their Facebooks. Perhaps you should re-read my post for the love of humanity and context.
April 5th, 2007 at 4:03 pmLet’s use a real-life example of another instance…when, during a vice-presidential debate, Dick Cheney’s daughter was ‘outed’ as being gay. While it wasn’t an actual ‘outing,’ it was a deliberate attempt to use his daughter’s sexual orientation against him.
Many on the ‘left’ defended this by saying she was an adult, even though she was his daughter, and she was fair game.
So in this case, you’ve got the adult son of an elected official doing something that MAY cause embarrasment to his mother.
Either adult relatives of elected officials are fair game (especially when they are actively involved in the campaigns) or they’re off-limits.
I don’t really care which side you come down on – off-limits or not – but be consistent in your application of your own rule.
April 5th, 2007 at 5:16 pmI think Mary Cheney outed herself before the debate;
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2000/07/31/mary.html
Are the kids fair game? I suppose by political operatives they are. Do they matter to me as a voter, no. No more so than who the first lady is or a persons brother as I am not electing the daughter or wife but the candidate and it seems to be more of a distracting tactic more than anything else.
John Brenner is alleged to be pictured smoking something, President Bush was a heavy drinker and partier too, ho hum….And President had/has a thing for the ladies, ho hum…
April 5th, 2007 at 5:49 pmI agree everyone should try to be consistent, Maggie, that is part of the problem. Generally I don’t support making an issue of family members, children, or even spouses unless it can be demonstrated it has some sort of a direct connection to that person’s ability to perform the duties required for that office.
April 5th, 2007 at 5:58 pmI am amazed that you seem to be taking as much heat for your perfectly sensible stance as Matt is for his blog entry.
April 5th, 2007 at 7:43 pmI would have to agree with Lisa on this for the most part. Children, parents, relatives, etc… should be off limits. Unless of course they become politically active.
If the above relations get involved in politics, activist groups, and things like that, then they become fair game. If not, they should remain off limits
Lisa, like you I will speak out when I disagree with things in our party. As I have in the case of the idiots at the GOP posting a bloggers mothers phone and address on thier front page. I am also besides myself with laughter that Bennett is getting slapped around by Brunner, which doesn’t earn me GOP points.
To many people from both parties follow the party line like step-n-fetch and are afraid to speak out. It is one thing to be loyal, it is another to be a spineless party hack.
I cannot think of when I have ever agreed with the little troll at Right Angle Garbage (RAG), but on this one I would have to agree. Little Matty and his Ken Blackwell action figure may have got this one right.
It seems Brunner’s son, according to RAG’s last post, is involved in political activities, if this is true – then the little troll has done no wrong, Brunners son is fair game. If it is not true, consider the source – it’s Little Matty!
King
April 5th, 2007 at 8:09 pmThank you for the “perfectly sensible” statement Daniel, I appreciate that very much. I think the reason there are more comments is it is very easy to comment here, people don’t have to sign up or wait to be moderated so it does encourage more discussion. At least that’s what I’d like to tell myself is the reason why (smile).
King, I understand Matt’s additional post where he points out that John Brunner was involved in campaign activity, but in the context of which the original post was done, I still stand by my initial belief that it’s not appropriate to use children in this game of political tit for tat. I have read some of your posts before so I do know that you have no problem calling it as you see it as well. There are a few of us, and I am glad about that.
April 5th, 2007 at 8:28 pmOnce upon a time, children were off limits. Back when politics and politicians still believed in integrity, ethics, and mutual respect.
In the modern political arena though, nothing is off limits; it’s all about winning, power and The Party.
Now, where did I leave that “wayback” machine. . .
April 5th, 2007 at 9:04 pmMaggie, when an uncloseted lesbian is called a lesbian, it’s a statement of fact on the part of the speaker. However, those hearing that word may run it through the filter of unenlightened bigotry and, thus, hear it as an insult. I feel sorry for those who consider words like “homosexual”, “lesbian” or “gay” a slur. It’s sad how many “family values” supporters revealed themselves at that time as supporters of only some family members (i.e. those who pass a sexual orientation litmus test).
April 6th, 2007 at 12:22 amThe fact is that the child has nothing to do with the politician, no matter the age. The child could be cracked up and in rehab, but that does not take away from the effectiveness of the politician. The fact that some jackass is searching facebook for a politician’s child is the real story here. If anything, whoever discovered and published this on RAB should be the one criticized. RAB is making republicans look like a bunch of assholes.
April 6th, 2007 at 1:58 amI’m waiting for Tina Skeldon’s comments on this subject.
April 6th, 2007 at 4:36 amBHL – thanks for making my point for me.
Whether you are the speaker referring to Cheney’s daughter, or a blogger referring to Brunner’s son, you are doing so in the hope/belief/I don’t know what… that it will somehow cause embarrassment or discomfort to the elected official. It doesn’t matter my personal beliefs on either situation – the speaker/author thought SOME people would disapprove of the issue – therefore think less of the elected official. That was the only purpose in both of these situations.
You cannot criticize one without criticizing the other. And I don’t really care whether you think both are okay or both are wrong…but you must be consistent otherwise, you’re a hypocrite with double standards.
April 6th, 2007 at 8:29 amHooda – that’s funny. Take a look at the attacks on Andrew Jackson’s family during his presidental campaigns.
As to the larger topic at hand, if the children are actively involved in the campaign, or publically involved in politics, they’re open for discussion. So, Chelsea Clinton – leave her alone. Amy Carter – another story.
April 6th, 2007 at 9:17 amPho & Phyffe’s “Dream Police” Phorce. It’s inside of their heads
Here we go again. No one elected Pho to be the blog “police”… But, as always, Pho falsely believes his editorial opinion is higher than anyone else.
Schmidellpucky…
http://phosnorkapages.blogspot.com/2007/04/on-brunners-son-bennetts-phone-number.html
Who is Pho to determine who is “wrong… wronger… wrongest” ??
Oh that’s right… He’s God-like in his “little-man syndrome” delusions of grandeur and ignorance. As we speak, Pho is standing his ground on various topics that he’s long been proven wrong about.
The proverbial blog police are inside of your head Pho. Quit acting like Andy Griffith’s side-kick Barney Phyffe.
Pho… Phyffe… Phum… you’re both wimpy and dumb.
The image Pho has of himself inside of his blog police head is not the real image that everyone else senses about him. It’s just his imagination getting carried away in Walter Mitty style!
April 6th, 2007 at 2:50 pmMM – unless I missed something – Pho hasn’t commented on this thread. I read what he wrote on his blog but I really would appreciate my blog not being used to offer your thoughts on another bloger who doesn’t even visit here on a regular basis.
April 6th, 2007 at 3:23 pmNice try, Maggie — but, of course, a complete perversion of what I said.
Both John Edwards and John Kerry mentioned Mary Cheney’s sexual orientation during the campaign — both times in the context of the matter being debated, neither time as an insult, attack, or whatever other term you want to apply to it. Because gay and lesbian are neutral words for people who believe, as do Edwards and Kerry, saying that someone is gay is like saying someone has blue eyes or brown hair. It’s not a loaded word at all for them. The person who says using such words is either “hearing” the words through their own bigotry, thereby attaching meaning to them that was not there when they were spoken — or they’ve bought into the manufactured response to them on the part of the right wingers.
The faux uproar was all about Mrs. Cheney going into manufactured explosive mode because she wanted to redirect the conversation — moving it away from her and Dick’s failure to extend their acceptance of gays in their own lives to the gays throughout the entire country. This display of hers was obviously planned after Dick Cheney reacted to Edwards’ comment by thanking him, leaving hanging in the air the conflict between what the Cheneys lived and what they promoted as the way for others to live.
When Kerry made a similar comment that drew the same distinction, Mrs. Cheney was ready with her wagging finger and tongue. The more noise she could make and the more she could twist the comment into what it was not, the more apt people would be to look away from the fact that the party that wanted to deny our gay citizens their civil rights, the party that wanted to have two Americas, the party that wanted to label something that people are born with as a “choice” and a deviant one at that — the better it would be, perception-wise, for those who didn’t want themselves revealed as hyprocrites they are.
Edwards and Kerry pointed to the Cheneys’ enlightened side; it was the Cheneys who emphasized the opposite. It became political when the Cheneys refused to own up to their true beliefs and actions because doing so would diminish their ability to extract votes from those they chose to deceive. It was the Cheneys who misused their daughter for political purposes, not Edwards or Kerry.
Politically, they’re against equal rights for gays, against gay marriage, against births outside of marriage — but personally they await with joy the birth of their grandchild to an unmarried gay couple that can never have sex as a married couple. It would be interesting to hear how they’d explain to that child how their campaign against gay marriage has enhanced that child’s life and how letting that child’s parents marry would have threatened, say, D & L’s marriage. They know first hand the varieties of love, the varieties of family units. They live it, they accept it, and they deny it to others. What a steaming pile of manure. That’s why the remarks made by Edwards and Kerry HAD to be turned into something they weren’t.
April 6th, 2007 at 3:23 pmBHL – you’re trying to turn this to anti-gay/pro-gay discussion and I’m not going there.
The point is that the speaker of the words (Cheney’s case) or the author of the words (Brunner’s case) both believed that the words would cause problems for the elected official. It doesn’t matter the opinion or position of the speaker/author. Both the speaker and the author thought that the words would – in some way or another – cause difficulties for the elected official. I’m not going to discuss the WHY or the HOW the words would cause problems because that’s not relative to the point.
If Cheney’s daughter is fair game, then Brunner’s son is fair game. If Brunner’s son is off-limits, then Cheney’s daughter is off-limits. I’m curious what your position is on this one – fair game or off-limits – and if your position applies equally to both elected officials, and to all elected officials…because you seem to be saying that Cheney’s daughter was fair game. If so, and you believe that Brunner’s son is also fair game, then you’re being consistent in your position and I appreciate that.
April 6th, 2007 at 5:00 pmI’m not turning it into an anti-gay/pro-gay discussion at all. Pay attention. I’m telling you that saying the remarks about Mary Cheney were an attack on her father shows an utter ignornace of Edwards’ and Kerry’s attitudes. Because the person making the remark about Mary Cheney sees nothing negative about being gay, it cannot be an attack. However, if someone who hates gays calls another a faggot, whether they’re gay or not, they are launching an attack.
Ann Coulter recently demonstrated how to use homosexuality as a weapon and a tool to play to a certain bigoted audience. Edwards and Kerry were displaying exactly the opposite. I’m surprised you can’t see that and instead keep portraying the remarks about Mary Cheney as intended to “cause problems for the elected official.” No matter how many times you say that, it won’t make it true. All it does is distort the facts of the matter in the name of partisan politics. I was hoping you’d be above that.
I also fail to see where I even remotely implied that Cheney’s daughter was “fair game” — that’s a Rovian concept as applied to Valerie Plame, a valued intelligence asset of the United States, not something that has any application here. That you put it in those terms shows you cannot get past the notion that being gay is a negative. Mary Cheney has been living openly as a lesbian — a gay activist who put her political savvy to work on her father’s campaign. She was not some shrinking violet with a deep, dark secret she thought was dirty. She didn’t hide who she is, but her parents treated the mention of a widely known fact — a fact about love, as it happens — as somehow unseemly and nasty. They were the ones using gayness as a vehicle for attack — at their daugher’s expense.
By comparing the remarks about Mary Cheney to what’s been revealed about Brunner (possible illegal drug use) is stunning. Bulletin: there’s nothing illegal about being gay, though there are some who want it to be a crime. You just can’t move past the mistaken belief that the truth about Mary Cheney is bad, can you? That’s sad.
What’s sadder is that you then put that mistaken belief into the minds and hearts of Edwards and Kerry — and then decried it. You’ve created a false atttitude, falsely attributed it to them, then displayed a false disgust for what you’ve falsely accused them of doing. And you seem to be so deceived by your own deception, you don’t even realize you’re doing it.
April 6th, 2007 at 8:39 pmNot to get off topic, but name one civil right that homosexuals don’t have?
April 6th, 2007 at 11:55 pmAnd also name the constitutional provision that corresponds with that civil right.
April 6th, 2007 at 11:59 pmThis whole “kids” issue, for me, has not one bit of relevance to the candidate.
Mary Cheney is a lesbian, hooray!
John Brenner had snaps taken of him and posted on the web, hooray!
So, what, just a thought. What does it matter? We spend time debating a “kids” actions and we should, in my opinion, look to the parents actions while in office or what the parents have done in the past.
April 7th, 2007 at 7:18 amSticking into the morass;
“…name one civil right that homosexuals don’t have?”
“And also name the constitutional provision that corresponds with that civil right.”
Marraige comes to mind.
And there is no constitutional provision that allows it as I think the framers of the constitution felt that no every right had to be documented for the generations and as the constitution is living document it could be amended and has been.
Woman could not vote until there was legislation as well as the Civil Rights of 1964.
And I suspect at some point in time, gays and lesbians will be allowed to marry, through legislation after many decades of debate.
The idea for me becomes, because a legislative body has not set out a civil right for the masses, does that mean there are civil rights that are inherited as human beings and are not so until validated by the legislatures?
April 7th, 2007 at 7:30 amLisa – Great job hosting this debate, as always.
BHL – You must have incredibly thick blinders on to think Kerry’s comment in the debate was not aimed at damaging Dick Cheney’s reputation with Christian conservatives. What most fascinated me about it was how it exposed Kerry as completely out of touch with what the vast majority of Christian conservatives actually believe. They do not “condemn” gays and lesbians. They feel all sex out of wedlock is damaging to a person’s self-concept and self-respect. Biblically, it is called “sin,” just as other human actions and habits which are self-destructive are categorized as “sin.”
Why didn’t Kerry’s slimy effort, and its repetition by Edwards later, chase away Christian conservatives from the Bush-Cheney ticket? Because these people recognized the love Cheney and his wife have for their daughter, the love their daughter has for them, and the power of God’s love to heal EACH of us of ALL our sins. This wasn’t about politics, to Christian conservatives. It was about family love.
The political side of the gay rights debate is very often a struggle for Christian conservatives, who find themselves castigated in the media for their beliefs and on the defensive versus schools and the culture in their efforts to teach their faith and moral values to their children. Sometimes, they respond with what I would consider an out-of-proportion backlash against groups arrayed against them. I think gay marriage bans passed in many states fall into that category. If you, BHL, would dare attend a Christian conservative church for a few services, you would find determined outreach efforts aimed at uplifting all kinds of groups – the very groups the media tries to convince people conservative Christians “condemn.” You would also find people humble enough to admit they don’t know all the facts and have no right to judge, but a calling to witness revealed truth and to LOVE others, no matter what their “sins” may be.
It is a sad commentary on American culture that people who try so hard to bring caring and healing to others are the primary target of ridicule in society.
April 7th, 2007 at 9:26 am“You would also find people humble enough to admit they don’t know all the facts and have no right to judge, but a calling to witness revealed truth and to LOVE others, no matter what their “sins” may be.”
While I do not attend church of any sort, we do see many making noise about gays and a whole host of other issues on TV, hear it on the radio, read about it in newspapers and on the web and so on.
The effort to teach and spread the faith is at times wrapped in a take it over leave attitude and if some leave, well then they are doomed to no salvation as they are accepting of the “word.”
If the effort was wrapped in a discussion of; here is what I believe and let us talk with out the comments about not being saved and going to a warm place, then some would not react the way they do.
“You would also find people humble enough to admit they don’t know all the facts and have no right to judge, but a calling to witness revealed truth and to LOVE others, no matter what their “sins” may be.”
And also a person humble enough to know that they do not have all the facts could be also wise enough to know that one’s truth may not hold true for all.
Just as some Muslims call none believers infidels and condemn those to an existance devoid of happiness and pleasure in the next life, so do some of the witnesses. I have a Muslim friend who has tried to convert me, very subtly and I have read and still do read the Koran from time to time and after turning down the conversion, shoulders were shrugged and we are still friends and share a laugh and friendship with no ominous warnings of my failure to convert.
And just for the record, I consider myself to be a born again pagan. I believe that there is a creator and there are messengers in the form of prophets but not of them holds the key to all that is known and what could be known and even Billy Graham freely admits that us non-believers will find a comfortable place for us to have in the next life.
April 7th, 2007 at 10:12 amPaul, apparently you missed what happened in Ohio when the GOP decided it was a great idea to deny our gay citizens access to the same civil marriages (and the rights that accompany marriage) that the rest of us enjoy. To make sure the legislation failed, the strategy that was developed relied on conservative Christians doing what the GOP rightly predicted they would do. Outreach and healing? Oh, sure.
Rove and Blackwell and Parsley organized an outreach program through churches to heal the “problem” of gays coming into the mainstream.
Trying to parade the anti-gay agenda as just one more part of the no-sex-out-of-wedlock mantra is a joke. Just as it’s a joke to assume that every gay person is having sex. Once that assumption gets transformed into “fact” simply by saying it, then the pretense becomes “We aren’t against gays; we’re against their sex out of wedlock” — but then there’s that little matter of gays not being allowed to get married, and conservative Christians organizing to make sure it stays that way. What a perfect Catch 22. It’s all so transparent and pathetic. And you say I’m the one with blinders on?
April 7th, 2007 at 12:37 pmNeighborhood Concern -
You write that you base your opinion of Christian conservatives on the way they are presented by the media – a media that goes out of its way to ridicule them and their beliefs, building caricatures and then tearing them apart. I don’t like the people the media presents as “Christian conservatives” either. Fortunately, the media’s stereotypical Christian conservative hardly even exists. Then again, the media’s attacks wouldn’t work so well if it was admitted that most Christians are not judgmental, do not condemn to hell anyone who doesn’t hold precisely their beliefs and do more to assist others in need than the government and all other aid groups combined by about a factor of 10.
On the witnessing issue, if someone tried to “convert” you by saying “Heaven or hell, take it or leave it” – they were a very poor witness indeed.
I must say, though, I am glad to see you quote Billy Graham – who is the quintessential Christian conservative.
BHL -
If you read my entire comment, you would have noticed I believe gay marriage bans have been a defensive overreaction by some Christian conservatives to what they see as an assault on their right to teach their faith to their children. Efforts by liberal groups to roll back parentally-taught morality by inserting acceptance of extra-marital sex into curriculums has angered parents trying to fight against a popular culture that teaches sex is just another form of exercise, other people (male and female, but primarily female) are merely objects to use for our own pleasure and that all things are relative.
You might be surprised to learn I personally favor allowing gay marriage, as long as it is held to the same standards and expectations as heterosexual marriage (which, granted, isn’t a high hurdle in today’s world). I’ve written on it several times, and received surprisingly few letters to the editor opposed to my viewpoint – even in small town, Christian conservative northwest Ohio.
I agree with you that political strategists have used Christian conservative fears of losing the ability to pass on their beliefs to their children. I’ve written against that as well.
However, certainly you can recognize how parents might be more easily “snookered” into these gay marriage ban initiatives because of the fear that if judges force a change on this issue, they might also force public schools to teach a “non-judgmental” outlook on sexuality and family relationships that in fact promotes promiscuity outside of wedlock. Ted Strickland ending a successful abstinence-only teaching curriculum doesn’t exactly build trust, either.
You say it’s a “joke” to claim sex out of wedlock is the real issue, but that really demonstrates how little you understand Christian conservatives. That is precisely the issue. There are openly gay priests, preachers and lay persons across many, many denominations who have chosen a life of celibacy, just as there are heterosexuals who have done the same. Nobody is “condemning” them – they are important and respected members of the church. There are also men and women who have homosexual desires but have chosen the route of heterosexual marriage and by their faith have remained true to their vows. They are seen as no different than any other member of the body of Christ. After all, we all have our temptations and struggles.
Finally, I would at least partly agree with you on the “Catch 22″ for gay Christians who have no desire for a heterosexual relationship and do not have the gift of celibacy. That’s why I favor gay marriage. If I and like-minded Christians could argue the case in a less emotional environment, many Christian conservative groups might come to agree. Unfortunately, thanks to liberal extremists who seem bent on destroying the very concepts of human dignity, commitment and sexual purity, mine and like arguments are drowned out by legislative and judicial battles.
April 7th, 2007 at 5:57 pmSo, Paul, you see value in people with homosexual desires living the lie of a heterosexual marriage? You think abstinence-only teaching has relevance to today’s youth? You think human dignity and commitment are being destroyed by liberal extremists? I wonder who these extremists are and what’s extreme about them — and how they’re destroying human dignity and commitment. As for “sexual purity” — does that mean that one who has sex is dirty? “Gift of celibacy”??? Oh, please.
You said: “I agree with you that political strategists have used Christian conservative fears of losing the ability to pass on their beliefs to their children. I’ve written against that as well.”
You’re not agreeing with me. I never said that. It’s not about passing on beliefs to their children. It’s all about acting on their own beliefs that homosexuals are lesser beings and deserve less than everyone else.
Joe and John getting married has nothing to do with what Steve and Eve teach their children.
Nor did the denial of rights to homosexuals cause me to teach my child that there’s something inferior about the love homsexuals feel for one another.
What we teach our children is up to each of us. But it’s also up to each of us to end bigotry and stop denying equal rights and equal treatment to homosexuals. To pretend that doing so would infringe on parenting is like saying giving African Americans equal rights would infringe on parenting.
April 7th, 2007 at 11:30 pm“You write that you base your opinion of Christian conservatives on the way they are presented by the media…”
No. Not at all. I was merely citing some cases of the take or leave it attitude.
I wrote what I wrote based on personal experiences.
“Then again, the media’s attacks wouldn’t work so well if it was admitted that most Christians are not judgmental,…..”
I cannot understand why it is a “media attack” when the media reports what people say or do?
Do not say it to the media and the media will not report it and do not do it and the media will not report it.
What is all this “attack” nonsense.
If people are so fearful of being “attacked” then maybe they should look at themselves for the reasons.
It is a tired tactic to cry out ATTACK!!!!!
“…..do more to assist others in need than the government and all other aid groups combined by about a factor of 10.”
And is in missionaries that work amongst the people of the word and if they get a few converts along the way all the better.
And I am not attacking anyone, but if the work was done for just doing the work and not with the underlying mission to convert then it would be a true humanitarian effort and not one of help and conversion.
Now wait….
“That’s why I favor gay marriage. If I and like-minded Christians could argue the case in a less emotional environment, many Christian conservative groups might come to agree. Unfortunately, thanks to liberal extremists who seem bent on destroying the very concepts of human dignity, commitment and sexual purity, mine and like arguments are drowned out by legislative and judicial battles.”
You favor gay marriage….you consider yourself to be a conservative Christian…..if the like minded Christians could discuss and come to a conclusion….and yes it is liberal extremists that are stumbling block.
I am going to have look just what groups are for and against gay marriage as me thinks you are speaking in double talk.
And maybe you can define for me; “human dignity, commitment and sexual purity” in a greater context than just a religious context.
April 8th, 2007 at 6:50 amI read this the other day and laughed and thought, he’s right;
“I thought I might declare a winner in the spirit of the old Yiddish joke in which two disputants ask the rabbi to resolve their argument. After hearing the first man the rabbi says, “You are right.” Then the second man protests and tells his side, after which the rabbi says, “You are right.” The men go away puzzled and disappointed whereupon a third person complains to the rabbi, “They can’t both be right.” The rabbi looks at him and says, “You’re right, too.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17971270/site/newsweek/
April 8th, 2007 at 7:07 amBHL –
Why is the choice of heterosexual monogamy “living the lie”? A person who is attracted to both sexes can certainly choose to live his or her life with just one, right? We do have a capability to control and guide our innate desires, don’t we?
I happen to be attracted to many women, but am committed to marriage. Am I “living the lie” if I don’t sleep with every one I could?
We are much more than the sum of our desires, and we are certainly not mere automatons running through life without free will or goal. Claiming we are so limited and without control is precisely the assault on human dignity of which I wrote.
Similarly, the question of the “relevance” of abstinence education belies the belief we have no control over society or its future. Consider: If we stop teaching math in schools, before long, Americans will become incapable of being savvy consumers and of doing most jobs. The economy would crumble, and employers – those that remained – would no longer operate under the assumption that their workers could do math. They’d computerize or simply not operate in the U.S. Math would lose its relevancy. Now suppose someone came along and said, “Hey, our children would have a lot better future if we were teaching math.” Many would say such a curriculum would be irrelevant. But if implemented, it wouldn’t take long before the value of knowing math became valuable and sought after. Its “relevance” would rebuild.
We are no where near such dire straits on the question of abstinence until marriage, but the overall trend in the last few decades has been troubling for those of us who do not want to see families trapped in poverty, children raised in daycare and schools as the primary source of values, rather than parents. The substantially increased rates of sexually-transmitted diseases hardly needs further expansion.
The opposition toward abstinence education is clearly an effort to make promiscuity just another “choice.” That is an assault on commitment – commitment to oneself as valuable and worthy of emotional engagement, and commitment to such engagement with another, based on love.
It also is an assault on sexual purity – the belief that my body is not just a piece of meat to be used or abused by me and anyone else, but is an integral part of who I am, and my sexuality includes my mind, emotions and spirit.
If some on the left cannot agree that these concepts are worthwhile – concepts upon which marriage has always been based – I fail to see the attraction to marriage (heterosexual or homosexual) at all. If it’s about the tax breaks, lobby for a line item. If it’s about survivorship or visitation rights, see a lawyer and work up a POA or a will.
If it is about spending your life with the one person whom you love, then you are clearly acclaiming that person’s and your own dignity, you are clearly making a permanent commitment and you are clearly standing up for purity between the two of you.
If so, I couldn’t be happier for you – and I don’t think we have anything to argue about on the issue.
However, the dismissive attitude toward abstinence clearly shows your willingness to see schools teach values which contradict those taught in a typical Christian conservative home. That’s the big fear that politicians use to push anti-gay marriage legislation – and why many Christian conservatives do not trust liberals when they say this is “only” about the right for gays to marry. They see a slippery slope leading to polygamy, open marriage, pedophilia, sex education in schools which literally teaches specific sexual techniques and the insertion of these kinds of “values” into the reading books of much younger children. Every time I personally think such fears are wildly unrealistic, there will be some report of a school introducing a reading book about “daddy’s other special friend” or “my new extra mommy” or “special ways I can be loved.” Those examples are frightening even to me. Why should I believe that such things won’t become a regular part of the curriculum, by court order, in coming years, if liberals are trying to remove abstinence education now?
NC -
The media “attacks” by being very selective in whom it quotes. All your examples in that prior post were from media sources (TV, web, etc.). If your experiences of judgmentalism were in personal situations (rather than media sources), you have been singularly unfortunate in the people you have met.
I won’t deny Christians wish to see people convert. We hold this hope because we find great strength and peace in our faith, and want to see others enjoy those same benefits. Some people may be “pushy,” but the vast majority will hardly even mention their faith unless they are asked. Many people who do convert do so because they see how faith has caused people to ACT for the good of others, for example on those missions whose motives you question. We don’t judge the success of what we donate or build or spend time on based on a tally of conversions. We do it because it is right, and helping others brings internal, emotional rewards that come from new relationships. Any conversions which may occur are icing on the cake which (we believe) are the work of God, not ourselves.
April 8th, 2007 at 12:36 pmYou wrote: “The opposition toward abstinence education is clearly an effort to make promiscuity just another ‘choice.’”
Yep, clearly that’s it. I don’t want my daughter to get sex education that includes info on birth control. Rather, what I clearly want is for her to know that among the healthy choices available to her is the choice to go out and screw everything in sight. Really, Paul, what are you smoking?
And when you said “Why is the choice of heterosexual monogamy ‘living the lie’?” — I guess you forgot that your example was the person who desired homosexual sex being married to someone of the opposite sex, with that being some kind of admirable thing (and don’t think I didn’t notice that you deftly turned the person into a bi-sexual once you were challenged on the honesty of such a relationship … cute, but too little too late). Would you feel likewise if someone married to a person of the same sex were longing for a partner of the opposite sex, yet s/he stifled that desire and stayed with the person of the same sex? Or do you see this moral victory as going in only one direction? I already know what you’ll claim, but you’ve revealed too much about your views for me to buy it. You tried to veer away from the question at hand by bringing up your attraction to multiple women as being comparable. All that is, is being alive. Husbands and wives can chuckle about it. But there’s not a lot chuckling when one’s spouse is attracted to someone of the opposite sex. To pretend that it’s the same thing is to fool yourself, not me.
Permeating that whole choice thing is the notion that our sexual orientation is a choice. It’s not. I was born heterosexual. My best friend was born gay. He can’t choose to want a woman any more than I can.
Oh, and by the way, sex education does not promote promiscuity. You are confusing it with the morality you want children to be taught. That’s fine. It’s every parent’s right to instill that morality 24/7, but don’t foist *your* morality on *my* children in the context of a classroom. Classrooms are where information, not personal bias, should be provided — and that includes information relevant to those living in a world that’s fuller than the one where you appear to dwell.
Do you really not see the difference between teaching a skill and real-world information like math and the promotion of your individual morality? I would never tell my child that virginity was better than sex, and I would never want to see her marry with zero sexual experience unless that is what she wanted. Nor would I encourage her to choose prostitution for her life’s work, and I wouldn’t advise her to ignore love and character when selecting a partner for an out-of-wedlock pairing. Your terrain has no middle ground, and allows for no trust in the goodness and wisdom of our children to make smart, even moral, choices once they have access to unbiased information. It’s a shame you think so little of them that repression and the withholding of information is your only hope for keeping them from living a life of depravity.
All your talk of control is just that. Talk. You seem to think liberals do not exercise control, that they don’t know beans about commitment, that they want to trample on purity (what’s that? a blissful state of denial that human beings are sexual animals?), that they consider their bodies just a piece of meat to abuse and degrade, and that all they want is indiscriminate sex and a lot of it. Be careful. Making a leap like that can give you a terrible hernia.
April 8th, 2007 at 3:42 pmPaul, I forgot to mention: I’ll come back to see if you respond, but I’m done with this topic. You get the last word.
April 8th, 2007 at 3:43 pmHuh? I’ve read the constitution several times, and no where in it is marriage even mentioned, let aloned named as a fundamental right. Sure, there is an equal protection argument concerning taxation and wills, but anyone can name whomever they want to benefit from his or her will. I don’t understand, given this, how homosexuals are treated as a minority under the law. Marriage is a states rights issue.
April 8th, 2007 at 11:12 pmI thought I was done with this, but I guess not after seeing Kurt’s post.
Does doing the right thing require situation-specific wording in the Constitution? If it did, African Americans would still have their own drinking fountains and women wouldn’t be allowed to vote.
Straight people have a right to marry. Gay people do not. Read the Constitution any way you want, but you aren’t going to change that disparity by doing so.
Someone in intensive care can be visited by relatives, but not by a same-sex partner.
Spouses are next of kin and are notified when someone’s injured or killed. If you can’t be a spouse, you can’t be next of kin. Nor can a same-sex partner determine when life support is turned off or kept running.
Families trump same-sex partners when it comes time to make plans and decisions for funerals and burials.
In most cases, a same-sex partner cannot be include in his or her partner’s benefit package at work, nor can same sex partners buy family coverage from insurance companies.
A same-sex partner does not have access to a pension paid to his or her partner when that partner dies.
A same-sex partner does not receive the social security benefits of a deceased partner.
Estates do not pass equally to spouses and unrelated partners.
Same-sex partners do not enjoy the same legal protections when relationships dissolve. There’s no marriage, so there’s no divorce or legal recourse to ensure the fair division of property.
Adoptions are more difficult for unmarried couples.
Same-sex partners cannot have benefit of the spiritual yet legal bond that straight people enjoy, with a few rare exceptions in progressive states.
Marriage (or prevention thereof) is a states rights issue in the same way that slavery was a states rights issue: matters of human equality are universal, and do not stop at the state line. Sooner or later, right thinking (as opposed to right-wing thinking) people will win out and marriage will be available to all. Things move slowly in our country, but they do move. Brace yourself.
April 9th, 2007 at 3:12 am“The media “attacks” by being very selective in whom it quotes. All your examples in that prior post were from media sources (TV, web, etc.).”
And if a leader is shown making a statement that says, and some have, that these and those are not going to be saved as they are not worthy of being saved and it was not a commentary by a newscaster, blogger, quote or what ever and let us say that these people have their own television shows and channels and on, is it still an “attack” by the media when some of the conservative religious people want it their own way and make pretty silly statements that there is only way to heaven, the way they beleif and all others are false, attack then by the media, or is it just showing them in action.
Tolerance of others beliefs and not just those considered to be the mainstream is short supply by some, some.
And now will come, well exactly, tolerance of Christians in short supply. Well this has never been confirmed for me, as there are billboards, churches and so on and the claim further fail to hold water, at least for me, when it is a veiled attempt to make the Christian faith the faith of the land as some are driven by the desire to convert everyone to the same faith as they are driven by scripture to do so.
“If your experiences of judgmentalism were in personal situations (rather than media sources), you have been singularly unfortunate in the people you have met.”
I made it quite clear that my experiences are based on personal events and I will make it clear here once more and I am not alone as I know other people as in acquaintance, family and other friends that have the same, this is the way and yours is false tactics used.
April 9th, 2007 at 5:33 am“I’ve read the constitution several times, and no where in it is marriage even mentioned, let aloned named as a fundamental right.”
There are quite a few fundamental rights that are not mentioned in the constitution and the general consencus is for some that if it is not mentioned then they do not exist and there are others that see that the constition is silent and wish to silence all discussion and all thoughts by passing an amendment that will set out what that right is.
Marraige has been as noted addressed on the state and local levels. Licenses are issued and so on. As things change the more they remain the same when the idea of “permitting” gays to marry there was and is an outcry that marraige will become weakened. As a hetereosexual man with a wife I fail to see how marraige will be weakened.
Yes, some will say that this verse and passage says this or that and there is verse and phrase that claims that beating ones wife is permissible.
April 9th, 2007 at 7:36 amIt is sad to see people so incredibly skeptical of the good intentions of others, regardless of whether one agrees or not with the specific issue. Why is it that so many liberals simply MUST attack people, rather than issues?
It is also sad that BHL and NC live in such a dark and hopeless world that they feel the need to lash out at whole categories of people. Isn’t that precisely what you claim to be against (on the gay rights issue)?
Scientific studies have consistently shown a range of attraction from purely homosexual to purely heterosexual for everyone. I would think, BHL, someone so emotionally involved in this issue wouldn’t turn attraction into some black-and-white, no-choice whatever affair, when there is no evidence this is the case. But, as is sadly typical, liberals only promote science when the science is on their side of the argument.
You speak of “control” by conservatives favoring abstinence education. You want your daughter informed of choices of protection should she choose sex prior to marriage. Great! Teach her! I’ll be doing the same for my daughter and son. But why do you feel it necessary to impose your belief that sex prior to marriage is somehow worthy of praise on my children through public education? You claim such protection-oriented education is “objective.” Have you sat through these lessons to see? Have you read the curriculum booklets? They typically begin with a statement, such as “If you choose to have sex …” That statement drains sexuality of all but its physical content. Thus, we are starting with an assumption that sex is a choice without moral consequence. If you feel that way, so be it. But why must my child be taught, with the authority of the school, such a limited, undignified view? Abstinence education makes assumptions based on self-respect – a moral position which empowers teens, particularly girls being pressured. If that moral position is so terrible for many liberals, then I would suggest a compromise which removes sex education from schools and returns the responsibility to parents.
BHL and NC both speak of “constitutional rights” which may not be specifically delineated in the founding document. If that is the case made for gay marriage, certainly it can be made at least as strongly for my right to teach my values to my children without the forced government imposition of liberal values through the education system. After all, I pay my taxes like everyone else.
I’ll never understand why liberals feel it is perfectly fine and proper to impose their views through government action on others, often to the point of silencing the opposition. I know that’s what liberalism is – state control of individual choices – but I don’t understand the “why.”
I don’t seek the “final word,” BHL. I simply wished to further the debate toward some points of common ground. Yet, even in agreeing on the need to include homosexual marriage as government-sanctioned unions, I have received nothing but attacks and rejection from you. Liberals building bridges? You have demonstrated very clearly why it is so difficult to find common political ground even on issues where people AGREE, simply because you label entire catagories of people as unworthy of working with.
Lisa -
I see you’ve moved the debate to its own posting. Thank you for your thoughts and the service you provide by hosting these forums.
April 9th, 2007 at 9:24 amMr. Miller, with all due respect, please show me where I “lashed out.”
This is a thoughtful exchange of ideas and concepts between people.
“It is sad to see people so incredibly skeptical of the good intentions of others, regardless of whether one agrees or not with the specific issue. Why is it that so many liberals simply MUST attack people, rather than issues?
It is also sad that BHL and NC live in such a dark and hopeless world that they feel the need to lash out at whole categories of people.”
I am not attacking anyone. I am merely responding to what you state.
The issues are put forth by people as people make the issues, no attack there.
I am not a liberal, no attack there.
My comments may appear to be liberal, but in real life I am moderate and I try to stay in the middle.
I have never “attacked” anyone on this blog. I am guilty of trying to foster a dialogue to broader our understanding of others, no attack once again.
My world is filled with light and joy and I share in the thoughts of the creator and the prophets and I do subscribe to a “faith” of sorts and please show me where I have attacked anyone, please, and show me where I have labeled a whole group of people the same, please.
You noted that I mentioned Rev. Graham and did not “attack” him or label him the same as Pat Robertson.
There are no attacks from me, unless you consider a counter point of view an attack.
Now, with an attack free atmosphere;
“If that is the case made for gay marriage, certainly it can be made at least as strongly for my right to teach my values to my children without the forced government imposition of liberal values through the education system. After all, I pay my taxes like everyone else.”
“I’ll never understand why liberals feel it is perfectly fine and proper to impose their views through government action on others, often to the point of silencing the opposition.”
And like you I pay taxes and so my neighbors and relatives and I do not understand on the same thought why a group or groups would also seek to advance a value that is religiously based seeks to “impose” their values on the school system when it goes against my thoughts that religion and religious ideas should not be taught in public schools.
And like you I wonder why certain groups try and “silence” the debate by claiming that they are under “attack” when people have a counter point of view.
I am at a loss to understand the stance of allowing gay marriage and teaching religious values in schools.
Marriage of what ever stripe is a institution between adults and all years in school marriage was never discussed nor taught and religion was never taught or discussed except in a historical sense and marriage and religion we discussed that at home or in the church I once attended.
No attacks were made in the production of this blog post.
April 9th, 2007 at 9:56 amI have not attacked you, Paul. But I have torn apart your arguments.
That you see this in personal terms is clear because you keep returning to the point that you support gay marriage. But this isn’t about you. It’s about the conservative agenda, and that is far larger than you, Sir.
If you are threatened by a teaching tool that begins with the words “If you choose to have sex,” and see that as code for “go have sex, defile yourself, disrespect yourself, etc.” — well, I can see why you’re in a dither about sex education. But I trust kids to see the word “if” and I also trust them to know that, ultimately, the choice is theirs whether we arm them with the information they need to make wise choices or we leave them in the risky position of relying on what they hear from their peers. I trust them to be less apt to make dumb choices when they’re informed.
You cannot wish away the hormonal rush these kids experience, and you cannot control it offering them nothing more than the advice that they just say no.
You might find life easier to withstand if you can get past the idea that having sex without benefit of marriage is the end of the world and the corruption of all that is good in a person. Your children are timebombs that are apt to explode in your face if you don’t — because they happen to be human beings. I hope they don’t go through life thinking they must hide from you an essential side of themselves in order to keep you whole.
That black, white, gray thing you mentioned doesn’t relate to anything I said. And as for lumping whole categories of people together, maybe you should re-read your post to see what you did with liberals. Certainly you understand discussions of this sort are about agendas and not individuals. And certainly you recognize a straw man argument when you use it.
By the way, my world is light and bright and happy, but thanks for your concern.
(With a wink to NC: No down ‘n dirty sex was performed in the production of this blog post.)
April 9th, 2007 at 2:45 pmNice ‘n snarky, BHL, but you haven’t even bothered with my arguments, merely shifted the debate like a shell game.
Range of sexual attractions? You claim it “doesn’t relate” to the choices in lifetime relationships we make. Huh?
The fact that many (probably most) people believe sexuality is a moral as well as physical issue is similarly dismissed by you. You skip down the rhetorical road of my supposedly being “threatened” by the “information” teens “need to make wise choices” and the assumption I am “wish(ing) away the hormonal rush” of adolescence. If you are so much more enlightened than I, filleting my arguments like a chef, then why not explain why schools should be teaching all children that sexuality does not have a moral component? Better yet, explain why you demand gay marriage as right if you don’t believe sexuality has a moral component. As I stated in an earlier post, all the “fringe benefits” of marriage can be attained by a little lobbying for a tax break and a good personal affairs lawyer. If the marriage isn’t going to be built on a monogamous commitment, why get married at all?
I never said the gay marriage debate in any way is about “me,” by the way. I merely pointed out that I was on the same side as you. Yet, in the name of ideological purity, you cannot even accept allies in the debate who happen to be conservative. Is this about doing what’s right or just about exercising ideological power?
By the way, you can’t really get away with saying sexuality has a moral component where marriage is concerned and at the same time support teaching teens in the early years of learning about their sexuality that it does not have a moral component.
I also notice you simply ignore the idea of returning the responsibility of sex education to parents. You instead assume it will be “peers” who provide the sex education. Isn’t that precisely what has happened in the past 30 years WITH sex education in schools? Far too many parents have given up a crucial responsibility to their children because they are uncomfortable with the subject and have an easy out in letting the schools take care of it. The result? Increased single-parent homes, increased disease, increased high school drop-out rates and a crushing cycle of poverty now stretching into second and third generations. Sexual promiscuity among teens has repercussions, and the way teens are “taught” sexuality “information” today clearly encourages them to see sex as just another choice. Unfortunately, that choice, growing the more it is repeated, may well set the stage for a very difficult life for the teen and the resulting children and even grandchildren.
So, what say you? Should or should not parents be returned this responsibility?
The fact you need to give your assumptions about the future emotional well-being of MY children, calling them “timebombs,” is a perfect example of the personal attack method. Why did you stop there? Couldn’t you think of a good insult for my mother, too?
I have no worries about how my little stars will shine through their lives. They know my love – and God’s love – is not conditional on their actions. They already wish to do what is right, for God, for others and for themselves, not merely to please me but because it makes them feel good about themselves. Sure, they need to be disciplined when they stray, as any child does, but they know it is out of love. Why? Because we talk about it. As they grow, they are making more and more choices on their own – and making the right ones.
Just as their mistakes today have no bearing on my love for them, their mistakes tomorrow – on any issue – won’t separate them from my love. They also know the same is true on a much more vast scale in their relationship with God. Indeed, that is the crucial lesson I hope to impart, and hope to see them exercise in their own lives. I’ll make plenty of mistakes along the way myself, after all, needing reaffirmation of their love as much as (or more than) they’ll need mine. The world is full of fallible people.
You assume I think sex out of wedlock is the worst of all mistakes, the “end of the world.” I don’t believe that about any mistake. There is always forgiveness and redemption. My children know this, and are steady and strong, curious and courageous because of it.
Nevertheless, I do believe sex outside of marriage is wrong. It is a concession to the lie that we are controlled by our desires. It is just one such concession among many. For teens, however, it carries some very serious consequences which can shrink their self-esteem and set barriers to their future choices. Parents are far better placed to discuss this and similar issues than lowest-common-denominator public education.
I did lump “liberals” together, and apologize. I have seen the extremes of viewpoints under people who claim to be “liberal” and should know better.
The specific agenda which I and most other people of faith (Christian and non-Christian) feel impelled to battle against is the consistent de-moralization of all human actions. Use of public education to accomplish this becomes personal because it is aimed directly at our children. Your opposition to abstinence education indicates you, too, find the imposition of an agenda on children is wrong. (And yes, I admit abstinence education makes assumptions which are part of an agenda that sees sexuality as containing a moral component.) Therefore, couldn’t we at least agree that ALL such agendas should be kept out of public education?
NC –
“And now will come, well exactly, tolerance of Christians in short supply. Well this has never been confirmed for me, as there are billboards, churches and so on and the claim further fail to hold water, at least for me, when it is a veiled attempt to make the Christian faith the faith of the land as some are driven by the desire to convert everyone to the same faith as they are driven by scripture to do so.”
I think you are saying Christians are intolerant. Isn’t that attacking a group?
Christians don’t wish to convert “the land.” We do wish to witness to every person, one at a time – not by threats of doom for all but the strictest of denominations (which very few believe, anyway) but by loving, helping, caring, building and being there when no one else is willing – doing the things our Teacher taught us to do. We don’t get any heavenly brownie points for this, nor for conversions credited. We do it because we believe it is the right thing to do, and doing the right thing has internal, emotional and spiritual rewards.
The choice to commit to faith in God is personal, between each person and God. “Conversion” implies switching from one belief to another. I’d say most Christians (there I go, lumping again!) would argue the feeling is more one of “completion” – after searching for spiritual understanding, the basic Christian message of God’s absolute love and redemption through Jesus, God with us, puts all our prior pieces of enlightenment into one beautiful work of spiritual art. We don’t all believe the same details, but we do all believe God is Love. We may not each live up to that ideal in all our actions, myself included. That’s why faith is a reliance on God’s strength and forgiveness.
While we Christians are to be bold in our beliefs and actions, we are not to be judgmental – “intolerant” in today’s lexicon. Eternal decisions are entirely in the hands of the Good Shepherd, and there’s certainly nothing there to fear. We are called to act in love and to speak in defense of love, for God and for neighbor. When moral debates such as gay marriage or abstinence education arise, we may come to different conclusions on the right course of action, but we have to start from that same point: Love.
April 10th, 2007 at 10:32 am“I think you are saying Christians are intolerant. Isn’t that attacking a group?”
No, not at all.
Just as you pointed out, some are a bit more dedicated to the conversions.
“When moral debates such as gay marriage or abstinence education arise, we may come to different conclusions on the right course of action, but we have to start from that same point: Love.”
I would agree and also an open mind is needed as there are some that are not so open to a different point of view, some, no attacks on a group, just stating what I have witnessed and had told to me.
And we all should be aware that we do not know what is right for another or as one older than me said to me;
Each one of us have a telephone and when the phone rings we pick it up and say Hello…there may be an answer and there may not. And when the caller says, Hello, the call has been answered.
April 10th, 2007 at 11:10 amMr. Miller;
Getting back to the original post topic, “Are the children of elected officials off limits?”, what are your opinions on the matter, for a Christian point of view, no attacks, I would really not have to repeat this; no attacks as I have not attacked anyone, just discussing is all I am doing.
April 10th, 2007 at 11:13 amNC -
We did stray pretty far from Lisa’s original post, didn’t we!
Here’s what I wrote at my blog:
http://northwestohio.net/cblog/archives/358-The-Brunner-post,-journalism-and-conservatism.html#comments
Short version. The attack (and it clearly was an attack) on Sec. of St. Brunner through her son was clearly out of bounds. The point I made during my site’s comments was, “If we don’t stand by our conservative values, why bother with the political battle at all?” If conservatives are really “pro-family,” we have to live it, not just claim it.
April 11th, 2007 at 9:52 am“We did stray pretty far from Lisa’s original post, didn’t we!”
That’s what happens when discussions, good discussions, take place.
All the best
April 11th, 2007 at 9:54 am