Monday, May 30, 2011
Scott Rose vs. parental rights.
Just about two days ago, I stumbled across this web page and found a fellow heteroactivist under attack. I decided to wade into this fray and test one of my Achilles questions against his most eloquent attacker.
I asked Mr. Scott Rose...
Do you support how some sex education classes for grades K thru 6 welcome schoolchildren INTO the glbt community WITHOUT the consent or knowledge of that child’s parents?
His response was...
"Enlightened human beings of whatever sexual orientation constantly interrelate with one another, as sexual relations are far from being the only thing of importance in life. For example, a heterosexual man with an interest in sailing could very well go out on a lake one day in a sailboat with a lesbian couple and the lesbian couple's children. The way you have phrased your question, Carl Rowan Morris, conspicuously implies that LGBT adults around children in the ages of K through 6th grade would commit child rape on those children. The direct evidence suggests that Catholic priests are far more likely that non-priest LGBT adults to rape children. Anti-gay bigot adults, on the other hand, absolutely should not be permitted to endanger their children's welfare by teaching them irrational anti-gay hate. The children taught that hate by their parents are the ones who become anti-gay bullies in school. That bullying besides damaging the gay victims also hinders the bully from receiving the best possible education. So to answer your question, yes, it is terrible for anti-gay bigot parents to hinder their offsprings' enlightened integration into the contemporary world by teaching them homophobia, the irrational fear of gay human beings, which you have expressed with your stupid question."
Mr Rose's is so fancy and so eloquent as he accuses me of implying child rape, WHILE he admits his support of violating the civil rights of parents that won't support the sexual actions of the glbt community. He calls speaking to a child about ENTERING the gay community, behind the backs of that child's parents, an "enlightened integration into the contemporary world."
Wow. That was some of the smoothest poison I've ever heard.
Isn't Mr. Scott Rose himself guilty of bigotry when he openly advocates the violation of another person's civil rights after he labels that person an "anti-gay bigot"? Isn't it possible to teach kids not to bully each other without glorifying homosexuality? Does Mr. Rose hate those who don't support the concept of a man having sex with another man (anti-gay bigotry according to him) so much that he advocates taking their children away from them? Look at the paragraph marked May 27th at 3:17pm. How will he respond to my question..."How are you better than "anti-gay bigots" when you openly admit your support of violating a parent's right to supervise their child's education?
Again, my evidence is here.