My post today was about free range meat vs grain meat, but this whole debacle pulled ahead.
Reading along one of my many mommy sites, I came across this statement that Mitt Romney issued.
"Last night's debate was just the latest example of how out of touch the Democratic presidential candidates are with the American people. Not one candidate was uncomfortable with young children learning about same-sex marriage in the second grade. This is a subject that should be left to parents, not public school teachers. We need to strengthen our families by passing a federal marriage amendment and also insisting on marriage before having children. Change in Washington requires Democrats with the courage to stand-up to their ultra liberal base and do what's right for our children."
First, as a parent, I plan on teaching my child about same sex marriage/relationships as early as I plan on teaching him about sex, sexuality, other genders, and other races. To me, I think it is my personal obligation to help my son understand all the differences that one person might come across. I hope to enlighten his little mind so that bigotry and prejudice do no lie there. Furthermore, I have an obligation to the human race to teach my son about things where such atrocities firmly plan their roots.
As a teacher, I hope that critical life situations are applicable in my classroom, not because I live for shock value, but because it is important to create a amicable, yet mind stimulating class room. Do I expect some of my children to come from mommy/mommy houses and daddy/daddy house, yes. Should these children feel like they belong in my class, ooh yes! Sweeping hot topics under the rug, hurts the social aspect of the classroom as any topic would.
Lastly, as a single mother....Federal marriage amendment my ass. I'm not married. I don't want to be married. I'm not sure I will ever get married. BUT I am sure I will have more children. I don't think that I will ever fit in Mitt's "cookie cutter world." I know I'm not the only one out there that feels this strongly against this idea. How can you say you are the voice of the people when, in fact, the voice of the people show they aren't marriage bound. You can't honestly say that every American wants to be married. I mean look at the divorce rate and you will see that most people who are want out as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
My hope and prayers for you will be that "having more children" will only include adoption if marriage will be excluded from your life porfolio. There are many little ones out there who will need a great Mother into which you are blossoming! GOD the CREATOR of all things - inlcuding marriage - has specific 'guidelines' for all to follow if their ultimate goal is eternal life with HIM. Read HIS WORD thoroughly and you will find what HE expects.
I do plan on adopting one child, but I also plan on having one more biological child. If I am infact married when this happens, it will be purely out of coincidence.
My idea of marriage isn't mandated by law, which I believe should not have any place in government. Marriage, to most, is started by a religious celebration and continued by faith in each other's fidelity. Some times it is carried on with God, Some times with out God. My idea of marriage does not resemble any of this.
To be married, to me, is to share a life with another human being. You don't always have to live under the same roof, or eat the same things, or believe the same things. It is a partnership in which you rely on one another for support, friendship, and love. When I feel that I can achieve this with someone, then I will be married. I might not have signed a document mandated by law stating such, but I will consider myself married.
I have a hard time putting logic behind the "guidelines" laid out for me in the Bible. The Catholic Church changed the book of the bible by removing scrolls that belong with the Bible as other gospels. This is just one instance that people in power manipulate facts to keep general popluation under control. There is also the fact of translations ... many translations. When I think that I think of the game telephone.
While researching the history of sex, I noticed the idea of the "wait until marriage" issue need not apply until Queen Victoria took throne. Even then she believed, and tried to instil in women, that sex was a man's sport, not intended for women to enjoy; women should rarely objectify themselves to this animalisic behavior. I don't agree.
I do not feel wrong or shameful because I have a child out of wedlock. I know that society looks down on women like me and labels them whores, sluts, tramps, leaches, so on so forth. I even get it from the government when I need to collect child support. "Oh here take this paternity test so we can prove you aren't a lying whore, so you can get your money."
If I do have a wedding, it will be out of pure celebration. The jury is still out on if I will sign anything for me to leagally state Married on my tax return. I don't need a ring on my finger or a signature on a piece of paper to be proof that my loved one will stay. I will believe it until they leave me (which has obviously happened before).
Honey I know you've been hurt very badly twice by the same man but this doesn't mean you get the privilege to redefine marriage. If you want you can use the Biblical difinition since that is where marriage originated from, but since you seem so angry against the Lord your God I would suggest you just check out webster dictionary, certainly this won't be so offensive. While I will say Mitt Romney suffers from the same disease that most Republicans do, that being they think they can dictate and force their opinions on anyone they want, I would ask only one thing of you. Please don't allow any man or woman to rule your heart, let the one who knows you and who cares for you have it for safe keeping. That "correct man" will honor and respect you for that and if he doesn't he isn't the right one not only for marriage but for child rearing as well. Mitt is a fool but that doesn't mean we need to accommmodate him in his ignorance. The wise will always seek an honorable means to repell this unwise.
As for your class room, you and I have talked about this matter a little bit. Seems to me that creating self thinkers and teaching young minds on how to use them positively doesn't leave room for a lot of anything else. Before educating any child in a certain declared forum you need to research out the consequenses of that material. Am I saying that certain reading material is bad and should be banned? NO, I am saying that just because you don't ban certain reading material doesn't mean the mind of an individual is ready for what you want to put into it. DON'T be a Mitt Romney on the other end of the spectrum, both are wrong. When teaching young minds that are easily influenced if you don't create an atmosphere where good dwells and positive aspirations make a child want to rise above that which they are capable of aren't we just making a statement that makes life so difficult for them. That statement being mediocrity is okay, being satisfied with where they are at is fine, and thinking they can't change it anyway is just a way of life. Sad statement wouldn't you say? Shouldn't teaching be so constructive to the individual as to say "you are important and you can achieve anything." When you teach in this manner I just don't see where what Mitt Romney or anyone else says matters. The reading material then is set, the atmosphere is ready, and when the child gets to the place where THEY can decide what they want to read it will be available to them.
You are so correct about so many things....
*Sex education should always begin in the home;
*Parents should never shirk the responsibility of keeping abreast of current events and theories and expressing their own opinions about such to their children;
*Bigotry and prejudice are 'jump starters' to misunderstandings and ultimately hatred;
*Teachers have the responsibility to create an amicable classroom environment conducive to meeting the learning style of each child who passes through her portal;
*Our government has no business in mandating a federal marriage amendment;
*Elected government officials need to reflect BEFORE speaking personal thoughts - each was selected/elected to represent the majority of the constituency;
*There are some Americans who do not entertain thoughts of marriage;
*Marriage is a partnership;
*In times past, the Catholic church was noted for keeping the general population 'in the dark' (hence The Dark Ages) so as to control power and wealth;
*There are many translations (and transliterations as well as unauthorized) copies of the Bible;
*Queen Victoria had an odd outlook on the practice of sexual intimacy between consenting adults (note I purposefully did not write marriage);
*Society, in general, tends to negatively label/profile women who have children out of wedlock;
*You have the right to decide if you will have a 'wedding ceremony' as part of your celebration of the sealing of your lifetime partnership with a consenting male.
Just wanted you to know that I agree with you on these previous points of interest in your blog. BUT....
Are you blocking me from here as well? Based upon what I am assuming is your mantra, you are censoring my comments because you have prejudged me to be a "BNF" and incapable of contributing other viewpoints that may merit brief attention - especially if the viewpoint is contrary to your own. I would say that if indeed this is factual, then your censorship is hypocritical to your stated philosophy of how others are to be treated (your word preference I believe is tolerated.) So where's the TOLERANCE?
No matter how disillusioned or angry you are with me, I still LOVE you!
Post a Comment