CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
well, i don't know much on the story, so i won't say it's wrong now, but if they were forced to, yeah, it's wrong.
now, if parents agreed to it, than i really don't have any problem with it. i didn't know 1st graders went on field trips to weddings, though. down here in the South East, we attended science museums back in Elementary School. I think there's a lot more educational values in a museum of science... but w/e. or IMAX, i remember seeing shit on Animals in the IMAX theaters.
it's really just ideological... but once again, if the parents agreed, i don't care. the school systems can focus their attention on pushing the gay agenda... for me? i rather take my kid to see a big ass movie on sharks.
Read my argument (and the provided article) on the "No" side for more info. Basically, they weren't forced to. And one of the parents came up with the whole idea.
Not because they shouldn't be exposed to it, but in 1st grade???
I think it's a good idea to teach the younger generation that homosexuality shouldn't be frowned upon because it's abnormal, but in first grade they should be more concerned about other things.
(I'm not sure what this debate is about specifically, so if my opinion doesn't apply down vote me)
It was very wrong for this event to have occurred and it has nothing to do with the morality or immorality of homosexual marriage. This was an inappropriate field trip not because it exposed young children to differing points of view, but because it has nothing to do with school. Schools exist to educated children on academics. Morality, politics, and social issues are the realm of parents; not schools. Regardless of whether this was planned by the teacher or the parents, it is my understanding that the event was approved by the school and possibly even the school board (I'm not clear on the details but do know that in some districts the school board approves field trips).
No matter how one justifies this action it all comes down to this: the school system in San Fransisco is supporting a political and social view. In sponsoring this trip the school has gone very far beyond its mandate to educate children. As I said before the realm of moral, social, and political education is firmly in the parents' ballpark. Schools should be focused on academics at the elementary level. Perhaps in a high school class the discussion of diversity might be more appropriate, when the students are old enough to form their own opinions and better differentiate between a fact and an opinion. But for a six or seven year old to be exposed to these views in a classroom is unacceptable. It is nothing less than political meddling. If the parents of these children wanted to expose their children to the ideas of homosexuality then that should be done outside of an official classroom setting.
Surely if a teacher isn't allowed to pray in school they shouldn't be allowed to discuss their political and moral views either.
After reading the story in the SF Gate, I am no longer quite so sure that I say this is an innocent and right event. First, the argument used by the school administrator to make the case that this is living history and part of teaching civil rights, is fine on the surface but in light of the battle going for prop 8 in the city/state right now is not clearly an innocent statement. I am bothered that a child was wearing a "No on Prop 8" button. I am bothered that the story clearly says the teacher emphasized the word "wed" to make a political statement. Bothered to the point of thinking this was wrong? Not sure but as usual, the details muddy the waters. On the face of it, parents are OK, then I am OK. But I am not sure that it is all quite so straight forward. As usual.
the kids should not have attended the wedding. they are much to young to be exposed to this kind of stuff and its against God's rules. and 2nd off voting no on prop 8 is dumb. its changing the definition of marriage for future generations and who knows what those generations could turn to. i say if you want to be gay go somewhere else.
What do you mean "exposed to this kind of stuff"? The union of two people who have decided to spend the rest of their lives together? Watching their teacher marry the woman she loves? Is that what's wrong to you?
Secondly, what God are you talking about? Last time I checked the 1st amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..." So if you think legal unions should be based on the definition of marriage in the constitution then you are violating the separation of church and state, one of our nations founding principles. So I say to you: if you want to live in a theocracy I suggest you "go somewhere else" and take your bigotry with you.
Where to bean? Where is somewhere else? Why not teach them the differences in all things and show them what it's all about. You're saying....not in my backyard! You're saying not under my God's heaven or watch. We are all children of God Bean and God's children are in all places....so then where should we run off to?
Your belief about marriage doesn't necessarily mean that attending the wedding was wrong.
And I don't support gay marriage, but I'm just wondering how you (or anyone) would answer the following questions: What makes gay marriage "wrong"? God? And even if you disagree with the idea of gay marriage, can you deny the fact that some people really are gay? And if you concede the fact that "gayness" actually exists: if you vote 'yes' on prop 8, are you just trying to force your view on someone? What valid reason do you have to take away from others' happiness, while not necessarily taking from your own (no one's making you become gay)?
What might make same sex marriage "wrong" differs for different opponents. Religiously the bible says it is an abomination. Socially, it furthers the destruction of a core of our nation's stability, the family which has been torn asunder by a constant onslaught since the forties. Scientifically it is an unnatural act as sex, coupling and family are about procreation and the survival of the species. So there are many arguments that can be made as to why it is wrong but it is up to each of us to decide if any of them hold water or are just sophistry or just interesting theories or arguments. Then, if we do come to the conclusion that it is "wrong", we still have the legal issue of whether it is wrong in a legal or constitutional sense, or a moral but not legal sense or just in an "icky" sense. And lastly, the decision as to whether those who do this "wrong" act are evil or criminals or just like drinkers. We agree that drinking too much is bad but we don't arrest anyone just for that. Way too complicated to just ask, is it good or bad, right or wrong, and leave it at that. It is also simplistic to assume that acts by a significant number of others has no effect on us. That was once believed about smoking and drunk driving. If we should not interfere with one man's pleasure if it doesn't hurt someone else, Why is it OK to say that how much Warren Buffett or Bill Gates makes is too much and he should have his income capped or pay more because of it? It doesn't hurt you for him to have 40B dollars, does it? and if so is it any different than how same sex marriage might hurt you?
Are you seriously comparing people getting married to drunk driving & smoking? I suddenly am deeply affected by your opinion. I find it hurtful, ignorant, and sad. Some might even say evil. So I think I will ban you from getting married. So there.
By the way, are you actually implying that gay marriage might at some point turn out to cause cancer?
"Socially, it furthers the destruction of a core of our nation's stability, the family which has been torn asunder by a constant onslaught since the forties. Scientifically it is an unnatural act as sex, coupling and family are about procreation and the survival of the species"
Haven't I read that somewhere before? Oh, wait that's right.
"I would like to develop a couple of ideas for you on the question of homosexuality. There are those homosexuals who take the view: what I do is my business, a purely private matter. However, all things which take place in the sexual sphere are not the private affair of the individual, but signify the life and death of the nation, signify world power..."
-Heinrich Himmler (Adolf Hitler's Top Henchman) Speech to the SS Group Commanders, February 18, 1937
Taking away the right to marry based on color or sexual orientation or religion, is wrong. If California passes prop 8 we will be ALMOST word for word copying Nazi propaganda. As Americans we should be quick to stomp on ANY laws that resemble the Nazis. Or were the Nazi's right???
Here we go again. Someone above asked a question starting "What valid reasons . . . ". I quite clearly started my post answering that different people might have different reasons for disapproving of same sex marriage and proceeded to list some. Nowhere on this site have I been asked, nor have I offered my own personal opinions on gay marriage. So you don't even know my opinion but please don't let that stop you from being hurt, sad, or ignorant. Just please stop imposing that ignorance on ME. And you might want to read the first law of interacting on the internet. The minute you sink to comparing everything to Hitler and the Nazis, you become null and void, totally irrelevant. See below from Anne Applebaum in the Washington Post:
If the Nazis were being invoked more generally -- in warnings, say, about the unpredictability of totalitarian regimes -- they might be a useful part of a number of discussions. Unfortunately, Nazi analogies nowadays are usually deployed to end arguments, not broaden them. Once you inject Hitler or the Third Reich into a debate, you have evoked the ultimate form of evil, put your opponent in an indefensible position -- "What, you're opposed to a war against Hitler?" -- and for all practical purposes halted the conversation.
Supporting Evidence:
invoking Hitler
(www.washingtonpost.com)
If I misinterpreted what your feelings were, I sincerely apologize. And as far as being hurt, I was being sarcastic.
Now, I am in the Bay Area, where this is a VERY sensitive subject. And I was simply stating the arguments against the reasons you were stating (whether they are yours or not, and again apologies if I misunderstood and misread to think these were your views).
I don't believe comparing anything to Hitler is null and void. One of the biggest and most poignant moments of my childhood was meeting a holocaust survivor who spoke at my school. He told me that the reason why he talked to kids about his experiences was because it OUR job to ensure that the things that happened there NEVER happen again. Using the Nazi's is a valid argument in this case. Comparing Prop 8, and the protest of gay marriage to the Nazi's is a useful way to show how ignorant Prop 8 and the propaganda surrounding gay marriage is. And in all honesty how very scary and sickening it all is. It does create an indefensible position. Gay marriage, like interracial marriage and inter-religious marriage, are not things that should have to be defended.
Again, I am someone who is in the bay area, and seeing first hand what's happening here, so I am sensitive.
I am trying to prove a point, and get people to see this in a new way. I am in no way trying to offend, and hope I have not.
First, I never take offense at someone having a different opinion than I do. That is proper, healthy and what makes the world go around. The way they present it can piss me off to no end, of course, lol.
Second, your proximity to the issue adds to your sensitivity to the subject but doesn't mean your opinion is better or worse.
Third, your post confirms that you are doing exactly what I said you were doing. You state, I believe, that because it is equal morally to the Holocaust, that it is indefensible. Your word, indefensible. Well my defense is that killing millions of defenseless, innocent people is NOT morally equivalent with depriving someone of their right to a religious ceremony which that religion doesn't find them eligible for. In fact I could argue that much MORE equivalent, morally, is abortions depriving millions of potential lives of their right to be lived. The difference is that I would never make such a silly comparison because as the article I cited says, comparisons to the ultimate evil are designed, as you admitted you were doing, to transfer the "indefensible" status to the opinion you are arguing against to shut off further discussion.
Last, you haven't asked, but now I will tell you how I feel on the issue and why. I believe homosexuality is unnatural. Not illegal. Not criminal. Not dangerous. Just unnatural. Doesn't make those who carry out such acts bad people in my opinion. I believe sex is based in procreation and survival of the species. That is the source of our urges and is why it gives pleasure IMO. That is just a strict Darwinian point of view. I believe same sex couples should have every right, conveyed by our nation and its government, that a heterosexual couple should have. Same right to inherit, same insurance rights, same hospital visitation rights, same tax treatments, etc. I also believe that marriage is a religious, not a government institution. As far as I can tell, government involvement in marriage comes from two issues, taxation and the census. The government got involved in the marriage business for revenues and for census taking. So, I believe that there should be a civil union. This should not only be used by same sex couples but by a couple of different religions. I do not believe that a rabbi should marry a Jew and a Baptist. I do not believe that a Priest should marry a Catholic and a Muslim. I believe "marriage" is a religious institution and should be reserved as such. I believe the legal rights, tax treatment etc. should be available to any couple. This gives the government the right to pass its own laws concerning polygamy, arranged/forced marriages, how old a person can be to enter into marriage, etcetera. The religious ceremony is a separate issue in my opinion and should not have anything to do with the legal and tax and other issues, IMO.
I am glad you were touched by your contact with a Holocaust survivor. My moment like that was when my mom found some letters after her mom died which she had translated. The letters were from her aunts, uncles and cousins who stayed in Europe and would not leave when my grandparents left for this hemisphere. The part that touched me most was where they all unanimously directed my grandmother and grandfather NOT to feel guilty for the ones left behind. My grandfather and grandmother between them had 11 siblings each with their only families. None survived the concentration camps. You and I just have a very different view of the moral equivalence of these two issues. Maybe it is because we each are close to and have a sensitivity to the opposite event, but I really don't think so.
I really and sincerely think that it is YOU who needs to see the issue at hand in a new way. There just plain ARE more than one legitimate view on this subject, all of the others besides yours are not just hatred. And btw, I am not talking prop 8 specifically because I haven't studied the specifics of the wording. I am talking about same sex marriage in general in this and the related posts
Well said, all of it. In the news right now (at least here) this story is very much intertwined with Prop 8. And I guess that's where I have been tripped up in this debate. I am arguing a very real proposition that will have serious impact if passed, and you are arguing your opinion on a lifestyle.
So if I am debating the lifestyle, I would be debating differently, because I do understand everyone has their own opinion and I very much respect that.
For me this debate went straight to being about Prop 8, for the reason mentioned above. For me, making it a legal debate about something where the outcome will have legal ramifications.
Now what you said about your views, feeling it's "unnatural, but not illegal", is why I am so passionate about this issue. Because not enough people are seeing it that way. It's not about gay marriage being right or wrong, it's about it not being up to us to decide. And that seems to be what is getting lost in the fight out here.
Arguing lifestyle is one thing, but laws that take away people's civil liberties is another, which is why I brought up the SS speech. I'm of course not comparing the holocaust to gay marriage, but people (I mean the specific people here in California who will be voting on this) should be aware before they vote on laws that even remotely resemble laws created by the most hateful group ever to walk the earth.
Though we both have different views here, we both seem to agree that it's not for the us to decide how others live their life, and that's the most important thing of all.
I am not sure how I feel about your marriage v civil service ideas, though I have to admit it would eliminate much of the debates in regards to the definitions of marriage. It's an interesting thought.
I understand what you are saying when you say I need to see it in a new way, but for me it's about getting people to see that Prop 8 should not be based on how any one person sees it, but about legal rights. And now how we see marriage but how the Law sees it. And as we all should remember, the law is blind.
I guess for me any debate on gay marriage is going to be a debate on Prop 8, so I'm going to come at it a little harshly.
I think you get this but i should never assume so and should say it more often . . . . I am not judging you. I do not know you. I am judging, to the extent that my commentary is judging, your words and opinions as stated. Or more accurately, as I read them. Sometimes how I read them, with my own biases and life experiences and opinion, is not true to how you meant them. This is just the limitation of the written word as communication. You don't need to reply if you see no need to do so. I just felt I should say it instead of assuming you realize it.
Thanks for saying so. I didn't feel like you were judging me & I TOTALLY agree with all you said here, and especially agree about the difficulties of debating online. It's very easy to misinterpret what someone is saying when you don't have the benefit of the tone of voice or facial expressions to help you understand.
But I'll still enjoyed the heated discussion, nice debating with you! :)
Are you serious? First graders surprising their teacher on her wedding is nothing less than sweet. It's no different than if the trip was planned to see a straight teacher get married (something not all that uncommon). Kids were not forced to go, and I think the fact that all but two families gave permission for the field trip shows that it's obviously not an issue in their neighborhood. And who knows, maybe those parents opted out because they felt it was inappropriate for their kids to miss school for ANY wedding....
The fact that California schools and the California state superintendent have taken an official stand against prop 8, and are running ads to clear up the lies about "gay marriage" being taught (which in California, Marriage in general never has and never will be taught in schools) just shows how full of lies the campaign is for this Proposition.
To people who had issue with this, get your own life and stop trying to live other peoples.
To clarify, when I say people should get a life, I mean the people who are using this story as another way to spread hate. And as long as I live and breathe I will ALWAYS worry about people spreading hate. Especially in the place where my husband and I are trying to raise our children. I am in California, I am in the bay area. It's not a hypothetical for me. It's hate that I see in my neighbors yards everyday.
But YOU are defining the way someone else feels as hate. Why can't you understand that people can hold a different view than yours without it being hate and/or evil. No doubt some of it is rooted in hatred and no doubt the passion of issues like this one build to hate where perhaps there was none before. But how far are your passionate feelings moving you towards hate when you can only see hatred in someone disagreeing with your opinion instead of just legitimate disagreement? The fact that you live in the Bay area affects your passion for the subject, not the right and wrong of your opinion or you neighbors opinion. After all they live there too. And again, I am not saying there isn't hatred here. Just that hatred by some doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate concerns there too. And I am neither calling you a hater or wrong. Just really playing devil's advocate.
I totally agree with your point. And I try very much to pride myself as being open, and accepting of others peoples opinions and ideas. It's only when I see other people's opinions start to infringe on the legal rights of others, that it becomes a different story. It's one thing to simply accept that others have different opinions, but is a whole other thing to legally force those opinions on others, which is just what Prop 8 will do. It's people forcing their feelings about gays onto an entire population of people. That's where I have a problem.
And I'm in no way trying to be hateful myself, it's just that I try so hard to show my kids that people are people. It does not matter if they are black, white, gay, straight, or even Catholic or Jewish. These ads and this proposition are showing just the opposite. I apologize if my own passion came across as personal or hateful. It's certainly not meant to be. Please don't mistake my passion for hatred.
41 years ago a similar fight for marriage was fought and won And 41 years from now, and arguing gay marriage will be as strange as arguing interracial marriage is today.
The kids chose to go attend the wedding of their teacher. In fact, the parents planned it to surprise the teacher. No one was forced to go; two families opted out without any difficulties.
I'm not saying gay marriage is good/bad. I'm just saying that it wasn't wrong to visit a wedding.
Oh people...this comes down to matters of the church again.
All religions have different views on this. When it comes down to it...Religion should be out of the schools and government and in the homes and hearts.
What I do think is important is that "should children be taught to believe that gay people are evil or different." Should you be teaching your children to hate or look at people who are different though eyes of immorality? What message is that sending them?
This was their teacher, I imagine that they already knew who their teachers partner was. And gay marriages are legal right now, in California.
What a person sex preference is, no child's' business...nor ours. for that fact.
Should you not be teaching them that love is good and hate is wrong?
I don't think that in today world that children think anything about much about gay people. They see it every day and probably have someone in their family that is and if they don't then they haven't come out of the closet yet...because of such attitudes.
Love is the answer...as John Lennon Said "IMAGINE...a world with out hate...
Southern smiles and world peace
Sharon
~The Baby Boomer Queen~
PS...if the teacher that got married is reading these..."Congratulations!"
Why should school resources be used to take kids to a marriage? Any marriage? Even the marriage of their teacher? And has the school system ever organized, in the respect that a field trip is "school system organizing" a field trip to a heterosexual marriage? Or was this trip planned specifically and exclusively BECAUSE this was a same sex marriage? I don't know this buit was the marriage during normal school hours? While the teacher would normally be teaching? Couldnt parents take their kids if the kids wanted to go? Why was the school involved? If so, isn't it possible that using the school system to organize this trip is what you say you are against? The government getting involved where it shouldn't, just as religion shouldn't? Is polygamy next to be accepted as a nontraditional family unit? arranged marriages? Like it or not, Religion, schools, government, families and morality all overlap.
Public schools have only one purpose: to educate young people in academics. They are not a platform for political or social change. I personally have nothing against gay marriages, however I do strongly oppose schools teaching any political opinions. Teaching children to accept people who are different is not the responsibility of the school system. It is up to the parents to teach their children a moral and ethical code that fits into widespread societal standards; that is there are obviously accepted rules and standards in place and these are enforced. However beyond these basic standards no agent of the government can enforce their beliefs.
Schools should be politically neutral and should stick to academics. Instead, this instance illustrates the tendency of teachers to bring their political opinions into a classroom. If the teacher wanted her students at her wedding then she could contact the parents and invite the students to come. But the school should not have approved the trip as a sponsored event.
This is not about the fact that the teacher was gay; I would be equally upset if the teacher was marrying a man and not a woman. The fact is this wasn't an appropriate field trip especially for six and seven year olds who are not old enough to form an informed opinion on their own.
If, as has been represented, each attending child's parent was informed and gave permission, what grounds for complaint can there be? My, or any person or church's views on homosexuality or same sex marriage are not germane here.
From what Kuul says it was planned, announced and the whole nine yards with parental participation. Yes, first grade is young, however, how much do you think these little sponges absorb in a family where bigotry, hatred or ignorance abounds? I've heard a first grader in Alabama refer to a black child as a "NIGGER"...now where do you think that comes from? I've heard worse than that from younger than that as well. It's high time we exposed our children to all the different things that are out there whether it be religion, race, creed, belief system or what have you. We are all different yet share the same hopes, dreams and desires no matter where you are and no matter where you come from. No, it wasn't wrong since it was done in this way. I wish it was like that when I was growing up.
at school board cost and on school time? I would think some would object, yes. The wedding was during school on a Friday. They took a school bus. According to the article one six year old kid wore a "No on Prop 8" button. I think some folks would object to that as well from a six year old who is unable to understand the issues.
The teacher didn't even know about it. It was a parents idea for the trip, and clearly the parent was the one who gave their child the button. Would you object to a child button saying "end racism" just because the child probably did not understand the issue entirely? The class was only supporting their teacher, and actually I know other classes of young children who have done this for straight teachers. Guess what happend? Everyone thought it was a great idea!
The girl's mother's are planning on getting married soon! I think she understands much better then a lot of people that two people who love each other should be able to get married. No "sanctity" of marriage, no religion, no homophobia, no bullshit. And yes I would oppose a button that accuses millions of people a year of murder.
Yeah, other people said it on this side in a round about way, but people need to not worry what other people do. Seriously, just butt out. If parents want to take their kids to a gay wedding, they have every right, if parents don't because they are against gay marriage, fine. The Constitution clearly states the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. This clearly falls under Liberty for the parents of the kids, and Pursuit of Happiness for the homo's. Only closet queers are so against gay people that they give a s*&t;.
No, it is not wrong for first graders to have attended a gay wedding. Children can not be shielded from this kind of information, and there are many parents out there that are anti-gay marriage and are teaching their kids that it is wrong, but are never exposing them to it, or even giving them a chance to see or experience it for themselves. We should be treating everyone with equality, and not to mention not hiding these issues from our children. It is better they know and understand them while they are young, so they can grow up creating their own opinion.