re: Pride month incident - how would you have handled this?

I don't celebrate sexual preferences. That's my position.

quote:

---

Mainly I’m just annoyed that liberals and gays put us in this situation every year.

---

You put yourself in the situation in this made-up story.

quote:

---

The gay pride flag for me is as offensive as a swastika or something like that[

---

Oh, well that's incredibly stupid. Maybe don't be so incredibly stupid.

quote:

---

That’s a windmill you built all on your own to tilt at.

---

No it isn't, and you know why.

quote:

---

I said everyone wants to indoctrinate children on the subject one way or the other, and it looks as though you agree with me on that point.

---

Not at all. Your first claim is that half of America (give or take, you said) is very motivated to indoctrinate children to their point of view on homosexuality and likewise with the other half.

Then when I proved that to be false, you retreated to "an overwhelming majority," while falsely claiming that religious people are all up in children's faces with religious doctrine regardless of the children's parent's feelings.

And again, we both know why. Because you are trying to frame this as an equivalent scenario when it very obviously isn't.

But I'll get to that in a minute. Now you're back to claiming that "everyone" wants to indoctrinate children on the subject, and you have no basis to claim that, and it isn't even close to being true IMO.

What looks to be true to me is that the average person who does not support homosexuality is in reality reluctant to talk to their children about it. You saw some of those people on this thread.

I'm not saying that's a good thing (I have never understood why people are so scared to talk to children about sex), but I know it's a thing. And that thing disqualifies it as an "indoctrination," since you insist on that word. So maybe I don't agree with that application of the word after all.

Looking it up, here's what Google returned:

quote:

---

Indoctrinate means to teach a person or group to accept a specific set of beliefs uncritically, actively discouraging independent thought or questioning.

Key Characteristics

Uncritical Acceptance: The goal is for the subject to adopt the ideology blindly rather than evaluate it.

Repetition: It often involves persistently repeating information until it is accepted as absolute truth.

Bias: The instruction is highly one-sided, dismissing or ignoring alternative viewpoints.

---

Religious people IME might qualify for the key characteristics of bias and/or uncritical acceptance. No way they qualify for the repetition element. The vast majority are scandalized to have to have that conversation once, much less repeatedly.

And my experience of people who might be nominal Christians—which is the strong majority of Christians according to the data—is that most of them don't strongly object or affirm. They kind of just drift along, passively following the world's values instead of Christ's, but far from being militant.

And there's a reason for that. Even if they personally don't object, their church probably does. And they, by nature, do not wish to rock the boat. They aren't going to lean hard into something that their church disapproves of (the notable exception being if one of their children comes out as gay, but even then they are more likely to quit the church than try to argue with it).

There are some exceptions, of course. Members of churches who worship leftist ideology instead of God tend to have militant members who would turn up at a PRIDE march (as well as any other leftist protest), but they are a minority.

So we're actually talking about a small minority of people who have strong enough opinions on this to satisfy the requirements for "indoctrination," not the entire population of the country, as you have claimed repeatedly.

Secondly, you keep trying to avoid the reason that institutional indoctrination matters and keep falsely claiming that it doesn't.

I can give you several examples of one side in this debate indoctrinating children according to the definition and key characteristics above. It's easy. Just about any elementary or junior high school in the country at this point does it.

I'd like for you to give me realistic examples that supports the other side doing so.

Not at church. Again, you could claim bias and unconditional acceptance, but unless the children in question go to Westboro Baptist Church, no way you're going to fulfill the repeatability characteristic. I've been going to my current church for about 13 years now. I can remember twice that my pastor brought up homosexuality in church.

Same with parents at home. At school, children are greeted by a PRIDE flag in their classrooms and mention of the LGBTQAI+ meetings in the morning announcements.

Every day.

If someone doesn't use the preferred pronouns, they get in serious trouble.

What's the parallel at home? What do you imagine is happening in families in which people do not affirm homosexuality? Child comes down to the breakfast table and Dad says, "Hi son, good morning. Now I know I say this to you every morning, but just so you understand, we don't agree with any homo nonsense in this family, and if I hear you say anything about homosexuality that affirms it, you're grounded for a month."

If not, again, the situations are not equivalent. Not even close.

I think your end of this conversation suffers from you being very out of touch with what the average religious family is like.

quote:

---

When, where, and how that indoctrination should occur is a potentially related, but separate, discussion

---

Except that you made it a part of this discussion with your response in the exchange that I originally quoted. That was why I jumped in on this in the first place, because you communicated that you think it's just fine and morally equivalent for someone else to indoctrinate children that don't belong to them...that "both sides" are doing the same thing. They aren't. One is influencing the mind of a child that they have the right and responsibility to influence and the other is influencing the mind of a child that they do not have the right to influence on that subject.

So I'll ask my own question with a preferred yes or no answer: According to the definition of the word "indoctrinate" above, do you think it's o.k. for adults to indoctrinate children who do not belong to them?

comparing gay pride flag to being as offensive as nazi flag tells me all i need to know about you... kinda sad for a grown man

quote:

---

For us it is frankly something we feel is a religious obligation more so than a political opinion

---

I guess the order to love thy neighbor as thyself isn’t part of your religious beliefs?

quote:

---

I’m just annoyed that liberals and gays put us in this situation every year.

---

You don’t think there are conservative gays? Please tell me what you think of Scott Bessent. People push LGBTQ matters on politics and it’s misinformed

I note that in your prior response you skipped over the part where I said cultural institution indoctrination was needed not only against the counter, but against neutrality.

Anyway, I feel like you started with this premise that immediately struck most as far fetched and have now just watered it down to meaningless. Which is fine I suppose, but what was the point, exactly?

I have, admittedly, been there

Are they pushing to force this onto everyone else including young children?

Idk I don’t have children nor can anyone really generalize that! I’m confused how people say things are being pushed onto people and I know tons of gay people who just want their space, rights and to be left the frick alone.

quote:

---

Idk I don’t have children

---

Thank god

quote:

---

I’m confused how people say things are being pushed onto people

---

fightin tigers got destroyed in this argument a couple months back