Pro-Family Rally a Success!
April 4th, 2008 by Peter
“They converged in big numbers at the state Capitol today to rally against same-sex marriage and for the right to homeschool their children.” That was how Channel 3’s Al Terzi began a 5:30 pm Eyewitness News report about FIC Action’s Pro-Family Rally and Lobby Day yesterday. You can see the report that ran on the 12:00 pm edition of Eyewitness News by clicking here.
A “crowd of about 125” attended our Rally, according to today’s Courant. That number appears on page B3, in a caption beneath a beautiful Shana Sureck photo of my daughter Elizabeth, age 7. You can view the Courant’s “Family Institute of Connecticut rally” photo gallery by clicking here. The Rally was also covered by Fox 61’s News at Ten show, the Archdiocese of Hartford’s “Crossroads” television program and airmaria.com.
We want to thank all of you who took time out of your busy day to attend our Rally and lobby your legislators for faith and family. The last time that full same-sex “marriage” was not before the legislature—2006—our Rally attracted 50 people. That 125 of you turned out yesterday to fight on six different bills is a sign to our opponents that we will defend the family whenever it is attacked—regardless of whether the attack is out in the open or “under the radar.”
We also want to thank all those who contributed to the Rally’s success. Rep. Arthur O’Neill (R-Southbury) addressed us on the need to restore the parental rights bill that he has championed. Pastor Adam Soderberg of South Church in Hartford gave a stirring speech on moral decay and our right to self-government. Pastor Jeff Roman of First Baptist Church in Tolland and Fr. Joseph Looney of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem inspired us with their prayers. Representatives David Aldarondo (D-Waterbury) and Selim Noujaim (R-Waterbury) offered bipartisan support for faith and family with their presence.
The Rally also marked the unveiling of FIC’s new youth wing with a remarkable speech by Chelsea Rankin, age 17. Several of FIC’s youth members were present at the Rally. Chelsea’s inspiring talk on youth who dare to defy the low expectations of the anti-family movement is just the first of many important contributions they will be making in the future.
We have been inundated with pictures of the Rally taken by many you who were in attendance. We will include a sampling of these wonderful photos in a future e-mail alert.
Once again, thank you so much for making our annual pro-family lobby day a success! Watch your in-box for news on future pro-family events and updates on the battles still to be won.
Darn, I was going to attend but I actually worked in the office not at home and forgot all about it. I would have come to listen, not carrying a protest sign 🙂 Glad the weather wasn’t too bad for you.
David,
I am very heartened to read that you thought of attending the rally “to listen.” It is so good to have a civil, respectful exchange of ideas and opinions (on both sides), rather than throwing out of ‘red meat’–which often occurs in disagreements over issues such as SSM–and which often elicits angry response. (I sometimes may be guilty of throwing out ‘red meat’ myself, or responding angrily in kind.)
I hope I may continue to improve in my efforts to present thought-provoking ‘bits’ in a non-confrontational manner–with the objective that more mutual understanding may occur and accrue.
David,
By your comment regarding the rally (which you had thought of attending)–I was also caused to ponder (again) the effects of putting on a white FIC-provided sticker or a yellow “EQUALITY NOW” sticker, at a rally or Judiciary Committee public hearing. It’s too easy–if only subconsciously–to think of those wearing the *other* colored stickers as ‘enemies.’
Of course there are simple, positive effects (of putting on these stickers) in terms of identifying ourselves to each other (since many are from all over the state and have never met each other) and for an easy way for “the press” to count and identify the attendees on various sides of an issue.
But last year when I attended a rally day in Hartford, and had brought along our foster child in a stroller–I did not have a ”white sticker” on. I had allowed our 2 yr. old to be out of the stroller for a time in the LOB, and she was creating a big scene about getting back into it. It was also a new stroller with a 5 or 6 point restraint system with which I was unfamiliar. So–I was very grateful to accept the proffered assistance by 2 women wearing the yellow stickers, to get a very uncooperative child back into the stroller. I pondered after–would they have been so eager to help if I had been wearing a “white sticker?” The answer is probably yes–but sometimes we make artificial ‘walls’ between ourselves with the stickers or buttons, or political party labels that we wear or identify ourselves by.
I will further illustrate this by a simple experience I had last month when attending the public hearing on the SSM bill 5925. In the hall outside the hearing room, I spoke to a young woman about her cute, but fussy baby (later I found out his name is Jake). The baby was hiding the “yellow sticker” which she wore on her shirt.
Later, when I saw and heard this same young woman and her civil union partner testify in the hearing, I had to honestly wonder if I would have so readily spoken to her in the hall had I first seen the “yellow sticker” she was wearing.
Even though I heard and recognize the point they were testifying about, and have no doubt that they are both caring and nurturing mothers to their child–I believe that what they are doing, in deliberately bringing a child into **fatherlessness,** is WRONG for the child, and thus not good for the broader culture.
It’s interesting that both interactions with “the other side” were spurred by children.
I can’t help thinking it would be nice if you could stay in touch with the family you met at the hearing on 5925 and see what kinds of commonalities there are between you and them. And see what kind of man Jake grows up to be.
alis,
One of the many things that a loving lesbian couple cannot give to their son (or daughter) is the role modeling of a healthy marriage between a man and a woman. I am not saying this to be confrontational–it is just FACT.
A young boy, teenager, and young man learns how to treat girls he will date (and hopefully select one he will eventually marry) by observing the interactions of his mother and father–how they treat each other, and work together as a complementary partnership of the two sexes (genders). The mother and father–male and female–are two halves of a whole; and two women (or two men) cannot provide that model for their child or children.
As a result, any children brought into such a “family” are being deliberately deprived of very important elements required for optimal development of the WHOLE child.
You seem to be saying that Jake will never be able to treat women well, never be able to work in a partnership with a woman, and never be able to have a successful marriage to a woman. You say a male/female parented family is ‘REQUIRED” for optimal development of a child, which means, therefore, that Jake will necessarily be a stunted version of a whole human being.
Shall we then also say that every son of a wife-beater will necessarily be a wife-beater himself? Every child of an alcoholic parent will necessarily be an alcoholic?
I don’t think it works that way, actually, or we’d have been writing off complete generations.
Why on earth can Jake not learn from his loving lesbian parents that one treats one’s date/partner/spouse with love, honor, respect? That spouses are a partnership that works together for the good of the family, one partner complimenting the other in strengths and weaknesses? I don’t understand why the partners must have different genitalia in order to illustrate what a happy and constructive relationship/partnership/family unit is.
Jake probably has grandparents who are heterosexually married. Perhaps uncles and aunts. His parents probably have friends who are heterosexual couples and Jake will probably have many friends whose parents are heterosexual couples. He will learn to work cooperatively with girls and women throughout his education and into the workplace. In a world where about 90% of humanity is heterosexual, I doubt Jake will lack for examples of heterosexual relationships partnerships and marriages.
If heterosexual parents in a two-parent home were the only criteria for turning out WHOLE children, the world would be a much better place today. It takes more than “complementary” genitalia and cohabitation to be good parents.
alis,
I don’t have time to address all the fallacious statements and specious arguments you have made. (So please feel free–anyone else–to add comments to alis.) But here are responses to a few of your statements in post #6:
1. No, not “every son of a wife-beater” or “child of an alcoholic parent will necessarily” follow the bad example of the parent–but a terribly high percentage, if not the majority, DO become a spouse abuser or alcoholic.
2. No, this is not a world “where about 90% of humanity is heterosexual.” It is a world where at least 97% or 98% “of humanity is heterosexual.” Since you’re so inaccurate with your facts and statistics, alis, you cannot expect reasonable people to accept what you say when you play fast and loose with existing FACTS, let alone your making rosy predictions based upon adult WANTS, rather than scientifically conducted sociological RESEARCH.
3. Most IMPORTANTLY–alis, any 2 women who DELIBERATELY bring a child into a world where he (or she) will have no male parental presence in the home–are *teaching that child by EXAMPLE,* that men are “expendable.” These women are teaching their children that men are ONLY “REQUIRED” for the purpose of *sperm donation.*
What is little Jake supposed to do as he grows up–accept the notion (that you propose) that he totally *ignore the EXAMPLE* of his “moms” that men and “fathers” are totally UNNECESSARY–or do his moms plan on teaching him “do as we say, NOT what we do?” I guess we all know how well THAT works!
In Jake’s situation–which his “mothers” have set up for him–it would be quite understandable, for instance, if when he becomes a teenager he happens to get a girl pregnant, that he could rationalize:
“Well, her baby does not need me, a father–after all, my moms raised me without a dad. This girl, who I’m too young to marry and take care of anyway, can take care of our baby without any *daddy* involved.”
Tricia,
I can’t say it better so I’ll use your words:
“I don’t have time to address all the fallacious statements and specious arguments you have made.”
1) I agree, many of them do. So, in order to avoid that anyone raised in an abusiver or alcoholic household should not be allowed to breed.
2) The 10% figure was accepted for many years and using it does not mean that Alis “inaccurate” with her facts. It means that no one really knows. And actually, using the 2 or 3% figure that you prefer actually makes the whole discussion even more insane. The percent within that 2% who actually want to produce and/or raise children is unknown also but I would feel safe to say it’s less than 50%. So you are saying that if 2% of the population wants to marry a person of the same gender, and siginificantly smaller percent want to raise children, society will suffer and perhaps collapse? What was it you said about rational people?
3) The 2 women were quite likely raised heterosexual households where the father was part of the picture. Yet they grew up to love and want to form a family with another woman. If your theory was correct that simply couldn’t happen. The example they got was of what you consider normal, they were probably taught that it was normal but they became who they were supposed to be.
Your last point isn’t even more bizarre. Boys raised in heterosexual households are doing exactly what you say and that’s what you should be addressing – reality not conjecture.
“you cannot expect reasonable people to accept what you say when you play fast and loose with existing FACTS, let alone your making” DISASTErOUS “predictions based upon adult WANTS, rather than scientifically conducted sociological RESEARCH.”
Exactly Tricia, so instead of launching into a totally emotional response with no basis in fact you should take the time to actually find real research that supports your position. If 98% of the people are heterosexual, then it is clearly that 98% that is producing children with problems who grow into adults with problems. So instead of shrieking about what you THINK might happen, put your energy to a better use. And as a bonus, since one of the unsupportable claims from your side is that homosexuals are the result of unhealthy upbringing, if you work on getting the heterosexual family healthier there will be less of us down the line for you to worry about. Oh, but wait, then who could you blame the world’s ills on?
My goodness Tricia. Settle down a little.
1. Perhaps you can supply the statistics on how many COA’s become alcoholics, how many sons of wife beaters become wife beaters, and the percentage of sons raised by lesbian mothers who … fail in whatever ways you think they are bound to fail as human beings.
Reasonable people are not going to accept your arguments when you don’t provide any statistics or relevant citations to sociological research (by an unbiased source).
2. I went with the historic Kinsey 10% and added “about” because the stats are all over the place. Figures given for the percentage of homosexual human beings range from 1.5% to 10% of the population (or from “none” to “everyone’s latent”). So, discounting the obviously biased sources on either end of the spectrum, let’s go with 95% heterosexuality as a compromise figure. It only makes my point 5% stronger: Jake is going to have more than enough opportunity throughout his life to see heterosexual relationships in action. Given the statistics (and we can use your 98% heterosexuality if you’d like), he’s going to see more heterosexual relationships than homosexual ones. He will not lack for role models and examples.
3. With all due respect, you have absolutely no idea what Jake’s parents are going to teach him about men, about relationships, about fatherhood. His only examples will not be his parents — he will not be raised in a bubble.
Your fantasy example is simply ridiculous. “Well, her baby does not need me, a father–after all, my moms raised me without a dad. This girl, who I’m too young to marry and take care of anyway, can take care of our baby without any *daddy* involved.” You can’t pretend that would be the default attitude of a boy raised by lesbian parents. And you know as well as I that that attitude and behavior has been around as long as humanity. What it *is* is the attitude of a boy who was not taught responsibility at home, regardless of the number or gender of the parents.
If I had to make a guess, I’d bet Jake’s parents might even teach him a little more about respecting women and parenthood than is taught in the average hetero family.
In the years of raising my children in a reasonably affluent white suburb, I have encountered families and children of all stripes. I’ve seen the sons of church-going conservatives become drinking, sexing party machines and the sons of single mothers go on to get graduate degrees and become wonderful husbands and fathers. I know male and female children of gay parents and all are (to my knowledge) heterosexual — and have seemingly healthy relationships. (They’re not out of school yet and so aren’t married yet.) The only gay kids I know in town are the offspring of heterosexual parents and, upon reflection, all are two-family homes.
Not all two-hetero-parent families turn out perfect children. Not all single-parent families turn out imperfect children. Not all same-sex-parent families turn out perfect or imperfect children.
We can talk about your specious and incorrect scenarios and statements, but at the end of the day all I wished for was that you could have the opportunity to watch a child grow through the years of being raised by his lesbian parents because perhaps it would be good for you.
Trish, they’re coming at you strong because your last post was so obvious and sensible. Thanks for your good work.
alis,
Which of my statements are “incorrect?” I stand by everything I wrote. You have disproved NOTHING in my last post.
In fact, you (and David) have absolutely FAILED to address—because you **cannot, so you IGNORE it and try to further OBFUSCATE**the issue—the most important point I made. That point is that:
“any 2 women who DELIBERATELY bring a child into a world where he (or she) will have no male parental presence in the home–are *teaching that child by EXAMPLE,* that men are “expendable.” These women are teaching their children that men are ONLY “REQUIRED” for the purpose of *sperm donation.*”
Note the word “DELIBERATELY,” alis. [Of course I know that many single (usually not by *choice*) women raise successful children alone, despite the great odds against that achievement.]
Little Jake’s moms are teaching him by EXAMPLE, EVERY DAY in his home, that “men and “fathers” are totally UNNECESSARY.” No matter what other WORDS they say, or messages to the contrary–“ACTIONS speak louder than words,” alis. I know that is trite–but do you deny that it is true? No matter how many people Jake may know (during his life) who provide possible positive role models of a healthy heterosexual marriage, the STRONGEST influence in a child’s life comes from the parents, IN the home.
I guess that you are a typical ‘liberal’ who does not totally dwell in the REAL WORLD, alis—especially to make such insulting statements as:
“If I had to make a guess, I’d bet Jake’s parents might even teach him a little more about respecting women and parenthood than is taught in the average hetero family.”
Tricia, the fact that you dare to accuse Alis of being insulting proves that you don’t at all understand how offensive you are towards LGBT people. Or maybe you do and think because as a heterosexual you are clearly so far superior to us that talking down at, attacking, and verbally abusing us is totally acceptable. Well, Tricia, it isn’t. I don’t hold out much hope that you will ever understand that but if you do I wonder if you’ll have the class to apologize to those you have hurt. You have no idea if someone you come into contact with is gay, or if someone in your own family is actually struggling with same sex attractions. If you throw around the nonsense you do on here then you are potentially causing great harm. Is that your “right” because you call yourself a Christian, because you are heterosexual? I know you make yourself feel better by saying “it’s the behaviour, not the person” but your targets know better. Your hysterical projections of what might happen to a boy raised by two women are a reflection of what is in your own head, of what you would do in their situation. You do not know them, their values, their attitude towards men so you create a worse case scenario and claim that those of us who disagree aren’t seeing reality.
Let me tell you some of the “reality” I have seen. For most of my adult life I have lived in neighborhoods filled with children who were conceived in the momentary pairing of a boy who learned from his “father” that the way to treat women is like an atm machine, and a woman who never learned the self-respect to say no, or to insist that safer sex practices be used to help prevent pregnancy or disease, or to realize that the male has no intention of being around should a child result. Where did they learn this? From their heterosexual parents who were themselves likely emotionally damaged. I’ve seen children being raised by their grandparents because their parents did not have the skills to make it through life and have died, are drug addicted and/or in prison. I know one family where the children had to watch their drunk mother do things like lay down in the middle of the road hoping she gets run over. One son spent time in prison because he shot his father in both knees. Another son was in and out of juvy hall starting at around 10 yrs old – had he been set on the right path back then he could have been an amazing leader. We tried to reach him, we tried to reach the girl attempted to teach a 5 year old to perform oral sex on her younger brother, I believe she had her first child at 13. My heart still breaks everytime I think of the children in one family I knew, they were beautiful, kind, loving and sensitive, the youngest had such a joy in him that it was contagious. Their parents were both crack addicts, both made money selling their bodies and I heard in later years that she was found frozen on a back porch. I spent years working on the streets with homeless men and women who were there because they never learned to cope with responsibility. They were not weak people, they were just not given the skills needed to survive. I am not saying all this to condemn heterosexual relationships, or to put down the man/woman/children model of family. Your superior attitude does not allow you to see that what you say is best, isn’t always. There are children who are far better off because they never met their fathers and were given positive role models by other males in their extended family. One of my nieces is a good example. Her dad took off when she was two and I believe she is alive today because of it. He was a drunk worked as a bartender, would come home intoxicated just about the time my sister had to leave for work and he would fall asleep with my niece in the playpen for hours, more than once we could not wake him up when we came to visit and stood outside the door listening to her cry. Imagine the things that could have happened. This story actually has a happy ending, he almost died, went home to where he grew up, sobered up and is leading a very productive life. She did not meet him until she was 7 I think and in the 4 years sense they have developed a very close loving relationship though they live in different states. Are you really going to say that she would have grown up “better” if he had stayed? As a matter of fact she was raised much of her life by my sister and her roomate (not a sexual relationship) but two women none the less. She declared at 9 that she is not a lesbian, she has a healthy attitude about being female and how to relate to the boys and men in her life. I was there for her and my sisters male friends were very important in her development. In your version of “reality” she should be damaged goods, unable to properly relate to people. So much for your reality.
To borrow Peter’s phrase, what is “obvious and sensible” is that every child be raised in a household where he/she is loved, accepted, nurtured and raised to respect themselves and others. That is reality, Tricia, not a rigid family form that YOU think is best and that if you look at history, has not been the norm. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong, and that’s the difference between you and me – I don’t condemn your family but you think somehow it’s your right and/or duty to condemn Jake and his moms. How you manage to call yourselves “pro-family” never ceases to amaze me.
David,
It “never ceases to amaze me” how “hysterical” YOU often are when posting here. (I hope and pray your *real life* is much more tranquil.)
In your eagerness to take offense at everything the opponents of SSM say, you have attributed WHOLE SENTENCES, and MOTIVATIONS, to me—of things I have never said, and DO NOT BELIEVE, and feelings I DO NOT HAVE! Here is just one example:
I DO NOT “condemn Jake.” He is an innocent victim of the choice “his moms” made, to bring him DELIBERATELY into a FATHERLESS “family. I disagree that I “condemn” his moms, although I strongly do believe they have made a wrong choice for children. As Michael Coren of the National Post in Canada wrote April 15 in “Canada’s biggest mistake: Gay marriage”:
“to consciously create unbalanced families where children can never enjoy the profound difference between man and woman, mother and father, is dangerous social engineering.”
And David, these tragic examples you cited in your April 17 post, of children brought into dire circumstances of abuse or substance abusing parents, or (to put it mildly) extremely dysfunctional “families”—I agree that these situations are deplorable. Who would not?
Those deplorable situations are all too common in today’s society (in this country anyway)—and are EXACTLY the reason we need to get back to the traditional “man/woman/children model of family.” The further we get away from that model, the more problems multiply in this nation. (btw, if a woman is married to an abuser or addict who won’t GET HELP and is a danger to others, ESPECIALLY children, she needs to take action to get those children out of harm’s way—rather than wait for HIM to leave.)
Tricia, your responses to David and alice are just not cricket. They keep setting up straw men, each one more repugnant than the last, and you . . . you just ignore them and address the real issues. Or worse, you cut down the straw men yourself. How unsporting of you.
Oh, and that, as David puts it, “rigid family form” (you know, mothers and fathers raising children) that you have the audacity to say is best with nothing more to support you than all of recorded history and every generalizable sociological study on the subject . . . . Well, David says, “if you look at history, [that] has not been the norm.” Are you sure you don’t want to defend at least this one straw man? Surely you could find at least one book to support David’s claim. Try the library. Maybe there’s something in the fantasy and fiction section.
Newsflash for NaCN and Tricia – “Father Knows Best” and “Leave It to Beaver” were not documentaries. They were fiction, and hardly represent family life of any era. The only thing that has been the “norm” and “traditional” is that the male inpregnates the woman and the woman if she is lucky gives birth to a child. After that there are countless varieties of what was called a family. You dream of a world where all conform to what you think is best. But, another newsflash, that’s not for you do decide. In some cultures providing the seed is about all the male did, in others he impregnated multiple women. In others, children were/are raised by nannies with the parents funtioning basically as figure heads. Children were fostered, sent to boarding schools at a young age or basically raised by all the adults, dare I say “the village”. NaCN, all of recorded history calls you deluded or just a liar, your choice. Mom, Dad and Junior living happily in a nice house with a yard and picket fence has never been the norm in this world. If your vision of recorded history only includes a few decades in the USA then I guess I have to say you are correct. But all that aside, it is simply not your right to decide what others call family. Tricia, I think that to DELIBERATELY bringing a child into a “family” that will brainwash them into hating all those who are different, who will refuse to let them mix with people of other cultures and beliefs, who will go so far as to keep from public schools and “educate” them at home – a social experiment that failed miserably in the past, and will shield them so much from “the world” that the child grows up a clone of the parents and continues the pattern of abuse and hatred in the name of “god”, is disgusting, apalling and a hideous form of child abuse. That is what leads to social unrest, hostility and violence. That is what produces the Al Queda and that is what you advocate over and over and over again. But, I defend the right of parents to raise their children their way – abusive situations aside.
You can have what you call a traditional family, no one is trying to stop you, no one is threatening that. But you CANNOT judge others because they don’t conform to your model. Tricia, deny it all you want you condemned Jake’s family, you condemn all same sex relationships and you condemn our very existence. You do this with every word you type. And I was dead on with my description of your motivation. You spout worst case scenarios that are based purely on your imagination and inability to even try to understand that strong, healthy, well balanced children can be produced by family structures unlike yours. You totally deny the ability of gay and lesbian couples to be good parents. And by doing that you belittle us as individuals, again showing your true feelings towards us. If you can face yourself with such disdain for others, fine that’s your business but when you allow that to color your actions and words towards us you have crossed the line. It’s pretty funny that you would call me hysterical considering that in most of your posts you resort to typing in all caps multiple time in each sentence. If you were unaware that is considered shouting in the internet world, though in your case I imagine it as a high pitched, shrill noise bordering on shreeking. So who is the hysterical one here?
As I have said multiple times, absolutely live the family life that you choose, raise your children as you see best, for the most part that is a very successful model but it is not perfect and at times results in damaged, hurting people. That is who you should spend your time and energy trying to change. Divorce, spousal abuse, child abuse – these are all things that are a threat to the “traditional family” and ultimately to society at large. Rather than exercising your hate based obsession with a tiny percent of the population why not try to do some good, and make a difference in the future of the country by addressing the real issues. You demonstrate a cold, harsh disrespect for others on here, is that what you are teaching your children?
NaCN, if Tricia or others would discuss the true issues I would probably have little to disagree with. But it seems that few on here are able to do that when it concerns same sex relationships. I guess it’s easy to throw stones at others while totally ignoring the fact that you are not “without sin”.
Interesting conversation. ‘Cept, David, I think you mis-spoke when you blurbed the word “newsflash.” I think you meant that you were having a “flashback” from a college LSD trip (or something.)
First off, it’s interesting that you would choose the word “fiction” when describing versions of history because, frankly, that’s the best word to describe yours. For example:
I know I’ve heard this somewhere before. It was a Monty Python movie… or perhaps the Hartford Courant. Not sure. But suffice to say the fact is that since, oh, the fourth century or so, the entire western world accepted the “norm” and “traditional” family and disdained any other form. As for other cultures, you seem to have neglected other interesting facts pertaining to them; such as how women were basically owned by men and indeed were basically used as sperm repositories, etc. You’ve also failed to show us a single historical culture that has accepted homosexuality as normal – and survived. And please, please, please tell us which culture it is where all males do is “provide the seed…” I know several guys that are waiting for your answer with baited breath and packed bags.
As for home schooling being “a social experiment that failed miserably in the past”… I don’t know what failure you’re talking about, but I do know the facts of American history in this regard, and the facts are that before the main onset of compulsory public schooling in the early/mid 20th century, the literacy rate in the US was at an all time high. This nation of home schooled dirt farmers had a complex literacy rate of between 93 and 100 percent by the year 1840 and following. (“Complex” meaning people were able to read and comprehend classics. Shakespeare, Poe, Thoreau, Twain, etc.) These numbers held true up until the main onslaught of compulsory public schooling just after WWII. By Korea, literacy fell to 81 percent. By Vietnam, the literacy rate (at this time, “literate” was considered a fourth grade reading level) was just 73 percent. Not to mention the blatant social engineering (to put it mildly,) literacy aside, that has taken place in the classroom… So what’s truly “disgusting”, my friend, is allowing children to be stupefied and brainwashed by the anti-education propaganda machine that affectionate progressives label “publik skool.” Keep it if you want it. No charge.
But I digress.
And, unfortunately, I’m also out of time. I will say though, that I enjoy how you falsely accuse others of judging then go on to judge them yourself. You’ve also managed to eloquently construct straw men while continuing to avoid the real questions presented in this discussion.
Bye.
David,
Wow, you sure use a lot of words to make your point, almost as if you think logorrhea makes fact. Well, here’s a “newsflash” for you, David: fact makes fact. To borrow your phrasing, “it is simply not your right” to remake facts to your own liking.
The fact, which you refuse to accept, is that the normal family structure through all recorded history is mothers and fathers raising children. Don’t obfuscate by trying to make white picket fences part of the norm.
Tell you what, David. You can put this matter to rest once and for all. Instead of ranting, provide some fact-based research that shows that, historically, the normal family structure is /not/ mothers and fathers raising children.
While your at it, try to find a generalizable sociological study that finds that any other family structure is just as good.
(I’m not going to ask you to support your new assertion that home schooling is “a social experiment that failed miserably in the past.” The fact is that home schooling was, historically, the norm and that home-schooled children today generally do much better; but one issue at a time.)
One more point, David. Your posts here do not reflect well on you at all. Most of the invective you hurl actually applies to your own posts. Here are some examples:
“You demonstrate a cold, harsh disrespect for others on here.”
“If [you] would discuss the true issues I would probably have [less] to disagree with.”
“I guess it’s easy [for you] to throw stones at others.”
Rather than claiming that those who disagree with you are filled with hate and bigotry of “Al Queda” proportions, try responding calmly and with reason. At least that leads to respect, if not agreement.