Should gay marriage remain legal?
1. First round is for acceptance only.
2. BoP (Burden of Proof) on me and my opposer.
3. No plagiarism.
4. Minor trolls if you wish. You must however stay on topic.
Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7-point forfeiture.
I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I look forward to a good one!
No Effect on Heterosexual Community
Gay marriage remains only between two of the same sex, and a typical marriage remains only between two opposing sexes. They don't affect each other. So, why does it matter whether you are attracted to the same sex or not?
Defies our Equal Rights
99% of our population believes in equality, maybe some just act contrary to their beliefs. Yes, the 1% exists, but I don't think we'll find it here, considering the levels of intelligence our people here have risen to. So long as what you're doing doesn't affect anyone, you've got all the right in the world to keep doing it.
Now, unless my opponent manages to dispute my first argument, which I don't fully doubt considering the new crazy ideas debaters here have brought up, gay marriage does not affect anyone. How come homosexuals shouldn't have the right to be?
"Denying marriage to two individuals who love each other is to deny them a fundamental freedom."
Diminish Youth Suicide
When we keep something legal for a while, it gradually turns natural for people. Back then, the minority of people built and ruled empires, and the rest are forced to live within the emperor's/emperess's command in return for protection. It would feel unnatural to them if they came here and experienced the freedom we are given. However, this freedom, to US, feels natural; it feels like it's been there for DECADES.
If we keep gay marriage legal, it will someday turn natural, and thus the discrimination of homosexuals will dimish.
Increase on Children Successfully Adopted
Most adoption agencies discriminate againsts homosexuals, making it much more difficult for homosexuals to adopt. By legalizing gay marriage in ALL states, adoption agencies will be forced to grant the same respect to homosexual couples as they do to heterosexual couples alike. Therefore, there would be a huge increase on children successfully adopted.
I await my opponent's arguments.
Gays claim that the "prevailing attitude toward homosexuals in the U.S. and many other countries is revulsion and hostility". for acts and desires not harmful to anyone." The American Psychological Association and the American Public Health Association assured the U.S. Supreme Court in 1986 that "no significant data show that engaging in" oral and anal sex, results in mental or physical dysfunction."
Is the historic stance against homosexuality merely one of prejudice? Is homosexual behavior really as harmless as gays and these health associations assert?
HOMOSEXUALS DIE YOUNG:
Smokers and drug addicts don"t live as long as non-smokers or non-addicts, so we consider smoking and narcotics abuse harmful. The typical lifespan of homosexuals suggests that their activities are more destructive than smoking and about as dangerous as drugs.
In a pioneering study, 6,737 obituaries from 18 U.S. homosexual journals during and after the height of the AIDS epidemic (13 years total) were compared to a large sample of obituaries from regular newspapers. The obituaries from the regular newspapers were similar to U.S. averages for longevity: the median age of death of married, never-divorced men was 75 and 80% of them died old (age 65 or older). For unmarried or divorced men, the median age of death was 57 and 32% of them died old. Married, never-divorced women averaged 79 at death; 85% died old. Unmarried and divorced women averaged age 71 and 60% of them died old.
The median age of death for homosexuals, however, was virtually the same nationwide " and, overall, about 2% survived to old age. If AIDS was the listed cause of death, the median age was 39. For the 829 gays who were listed as dying of something other than AIDS, the median age of death was 42 and 9% died old. The 163 lesbians had a median age of death of 44 and 20% died old.
Even when AIDS was apparently not involved, homosexuals frequently met an early demise. Three percent of gays died violently. They were 116 times more apt to be murdered (compared to national murder rates), much more apt to commit suicide, and had high traffic-accident death-rates. Heart attacks, cancer, and liver failure were exceptionally common. 18% of lesbians died of murder, suicide, or accidents " a rate 456 times higher than that of white females aged 25-44. Age distributions of samples of homosexuals in the scientific literature from 1858 to 1997 suggest a similarly shortened lifespan.
Follow-up studies of homosexual longevity have confirmed these general results. Comparison of gay obituaries who died of AIDS to official U.S. HIV/AIDS Surveillance data demonstrated very close agreement between the estimated median ages of death, as well as the 25th and 75th percentiles of the age-at-death distribution. Another study looked at multiple lines of evidence " including more recent U.S. obituaries and patterns of homosexual partnerships in Scandinavia " again finding that homosexual behavior was associated with a shortening of life of probably two decades."
To my opponent in this debate: can we really argue this in terms of rights? Homosexuals are people, and they need our care and compassion, but giving them something they have a right to is not the same as caring for them. When that something destroys their lives, we should not allow it but rather save them from an early painful death.
"WHAT HOMOSEXUALS DO:
Oral Sex: Homosexuals fellate almost all of their sexual contacts (and ingest semen from about half of these). Semen contains many of the germs carried in the blood, so gays who practice oral sex incur medical risks akin to consuming raw human blood. Since the penis frequently has tiny lesions (and often will have been in unsanitary places such as a rectum), individuals so involved may become infected with hepatitis A or gonorrhea (and even HIV and hepatitis B). Since many contacts occur between strangers (70% of gays estimated that they had had sex only once with over half of their partners), and gays average somewhere between 1020 and 11021 different partners/year, the potential for infection is considerable.
Rectal Sex: Surveys indicate that about 90% of gays have engaged in rectal intercourse, and about two-thirds do it regularly. In a 6-month long study of daily sexual diaries, gays averaged 110 sex partners and 68 rectal encounters a year.
Rectal sex is dangerous. During rectal intercourse, the rectum becomes a mixing bowl for...
-saliva and its germs and/or an artificial lubricant,
-the recipient"s own feces,
-whatever germs, infections or substances the penis has on it, and
-the seminal fluid of the inserter.
Sperm, which is immunocompromising, readily penetrate the rectal lining (which is only one cell thick), and tearing or bruising of the anal wall is very common during anal/penile sex. Because of this, these substances gain almost direct access to the blood stream. Unlike heterosexual intercourse " in which sperm cannot penetrate the multilayered vagina and no feces are present " rectal intercourse is probably the most sexually efficient way to spread hepatitis B, HIV, syphilis, and a host of other blood-borne diseases.
Tearing or ripping of the anal wall is especially likely during "fisting," where the hand and possibly arm is inserted into the rectum. It is also common when "toys" are employed (homosexual lingo for objects which are inserted into the rectum " bottles, carrots, even gerbils). The risk of contamination and/or having to wear a colostomy bag from such "sport" is very real. Fisting was apparently so rare in Kinsey"s time that he didn"t think to ask about it. By 1977, a third of gays admitted to doing it. The rectum was not designed to accommodate the fist, and those who do so can find themselves consigned to "leakage" for life. Anal cancer is 24 times and hepatitis C 10 times more prevalent in gays.
Fecal Sex: About 80% of gays (see Table) admit to licking and/or inserting their tongues into the anus of partners and thus ingesting medically significant amounts of feces. Those who eat or wallow in it are probably at even greater risk. In the diary study, 70% of the gays had engaged in this activity " half regularly over 6 months. Result? "the "annual incidence of hepatitis A in" homosexual men was 22 percent, whereas no heterosexual men acquired hepatitis A." In 1992, it was noted that the proportion of London gays engaging in oral/anal sex had not declined since 1984.
While the body has defenses against fecal germs, exposure to the fecal discharge of dozens of strangers each year is extremely unhealthy. Ingestion of human waste is the major route of contracting hepatitis A and the enteric parasites collectively known as the Gay Bowel Syndrome. Consumption of feces has also been implicated in the transmission of typhoid fever, herpes, and cancer. About 10% of gays have eaten or played with [e.g., enemas, wallowing in feces].
In the late 1970s, the San Francisco Department of Public Health saw "75,000 patients per year, of whom 70 to 80 per cent are homosexual men". An average of 10 per cent of all patients and asymptomatic contacts reported [to the Department]" because of positive fecal samples or cultures for amoeba, giardia, and shigella infections were employed as food handlers in public establishments; almost 5 per cent of those with hepatitis A were similarly employed."
In 1976, a rare airborne scarlet fever broke out among gays and just missed sweeping through San Francisco. A 1982 Swedish study "suggested that some transmission [of hepatitis A] from the homosexual group to the general population may have occurred." The U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that 29% of the hepatitis A cases in Denver, 66% in New York, 50% in San Francisco, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne in the first six months of 1991 were among gays.
Urine Sex: About 10% of Kinsey"s gays reported having engaged in "golden showers" [drinking or being splashed with urine]. In the largest survey of gays ever conducted, 23% admitted to urine-sex. In a large random survey of gays, 29% reported urine-sex. In a San Francisco study of 655 gays, only 24% claimed to have been monogamous in the past year. Of these monogamous gays, 5% drank urine, 7% practiced "fisting," 33% ingested feces via anal/oral contact, 53% swallowed semen, and 59% received semen in their rectum during the previous month.
Other Gay Sex Practices:
Sadomasochism: a large minority of gays engage in torture for sexual fun (15% of lesbians engaged in "piercing, cutting or whipping to the point of bleeding" with their lovers).
Sex with Minors: 25% of white gays admitted to sex with boys 16 or younger as adults. In a 10-state study, 33% of the 181 male, and 22% of the 18 female teachers caught molesting students did so homosexually even though less than 3% of men and 2% of women are bisexual or homosexual.
Depending on the study, the percent of gays reporting sex in public restrooms ranged from 14% to 41% to 66%. The percent reporting sex in gay baths varies from 9% to 60% and 67%. Furthermore, 45%, 64%, and 90% said that they used illegal drugs."
While I'm sure you can easily argue with people over the equal rights of all humans beings, can you still say you believe homosexuality should be allowed even in general, let alone marriage, after reading the horror it inflicts on the their bodies? The horror they inflict on each other? Do we not care enough about them to stop it?
Homosexuality is Genetic
This is an argument not everyone stands by. So, I will be proving that homosexuality is genetic.
"Scientists have found even more evidence that sexual orientation is largely determined by genetics, not choice. That can undermine a major argument against the LBGT community that claims that these people are choosing to live "unnaturally."
That's at least according to a new and groundbreaking study recently published in the journal Psychological Medicine, which details how a study of more than 800 gay participants shared notable patterns in two regions of the human genome - one on the X chromosome and one on chromosome 8.
While many previous studies have looked into potential genetic drivers of homosexuality, these studies often boasted a significantly smaller sample size or lacked common controls. This is the first study of its kind to boast such a robust sample size and also be published in a scientific peer-reviewed paper.
Most stunningly, the team who conducted this study comes from the scientific community that has been hesitant to acknowledge the claims of previous studies, not because of their own opinions, but because of a lack of conclusive data.
The study detailed an in-depth analysis of blood and saliva samples taken from 409 pairs of openly gay brothers, including non-identical twins, from 384 families. The only common characteristic shared by all 818 men was being gay.
Knowing this, the researchers theorized that any single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) consistently found among these men would have something to do with sexual orientation.
Interestingly, five uniquely presented SNPs did indeed stand out, expressed in two portions of the human genome.
"The most pleasing aspect is that the confirmation comes from a team that was in the past somewhat skeptical and critical of the earlier findings," Andrea Camperio Ciani, of the University of Padua in Italy, told New Scientist.
Now the same team is working to compare these gene variants to heterosexual males, expecting that it will not be a common find among "straight" men.
Still, the researchers stress that regardless of genetic preference, genes are but a factor in the greater picture, taking into account that social and cultural pressures can still effect an individual's sexual lifestyle, no matter how they were born."
It is one of the most explosive topics in society today. The social and political ramifications affect the very roots of this country. But is the country being told the truth concerning homosexuality? Is there really a genetic basis for homosexuality?
Former democratic presidential candidate and Vermont Governor Howard Dean signed a bill legalizing civil unions for homosexuals in Vermont. In defending his actions, he commented: "The overwhelming evidence is that there is a very significant, substantial genetic component to it. From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people" (as quoted in VandeHei, 2004). Dean is not alone in such thinking.
Most people are familiar with the idea that research has been performed that allegedly supports the existence of a gay gene. However, that idea has been a long time in the making. Almost fifty years ago, the landmark Kinsey report was produced using the sexual histories of thousands of Americans. While that report consisted of a diverse sample, it was not a representative sample of the general population (Kinsey, et al., 1948, 1953). In 1994, Richard Friedman and Jennifer Downey published a review on homosexuality in The New England Journal of Medicine. In reviewing Kinsey"s work, they noted:
Kinsey reported that 8 percent of men and 4 percent of women were exclusively homosexual for a period of at least three years during adulthood. Four percent of men and 2 percent of women were exclusively homosexual after adolescence (1994, 331:923)....
Physicians treating patients for homosexuality (to bring about a change in sexual orientation) frequently are reported to ethics committees in an attempt to have them cease. Robert Spitzer lamented:
Several authors have argued that clinicians who attempt to help their clients change their homosexual orientation are violating professional ethical codes by providing a "treatment" that is ineffective, often harmful, and reinforces in their clients the false belief that homosexuality is a disorder and needs treatment (2003, 32:403).
Thus, the stage was set for the appearance of a "gay gene."
Simon LeVay Brain Differences:
The first "significant" published study that indicated a possible biological role for homosexuality came from Simon LeVay, who was then at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego, California. In 1991, Dr. LeVay reported subtle differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men (1991). LeVay measured a particular region of the brain (the interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus"INAH) in postmortem tissue of three distinct groups: (1) women; (2) men who were presumed to be heterosexual; (3) and homosexual men.
LeVay's Reported Findings:
LeVay reported that clusters of these neurons (INAH) in homosexual men were the same size as clusters in women, both of which were significantly smaller than clusters in heterosexual men. LeVay reported that the nuclei in INAH 3 were "more than twice as large in the heterosexual men as in the women. It was also, however, more than twice as large in the heterosexual men as in the homosexual men" (1991, 253:1034). This difference was interpreted as strong evidence of a biological link to homosexuality. LeVay"s assumption was that homosexual urges can be biologically based"so long as cluster size is accepted as being genetically determined.
Problems with LeVay's Study:
When looking at the methodology of the LeVay study, one of the key problems is that the study has never been reproduced. As William Byne noted, LeVay"s work has not been replicated, and human neuroanatomical studies of this kind have a very poor track record for reproducibility. Indeed, procedures similar to those LeVay used to identify nuclei have previously led researchers astray (1994, 270:53, emp. added).
Additionally, of nineteen homosexual subjects used in the study, all had died of complications of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). AIDS has been shown to decrease testosterone levels, so it should be expected that those who suffered from that condition would have smaller INAH. Byne continued his comments on LeVay"s work.
His inclusion of a few brains from heterosexual men with AIDS did not adequately address the fact that at the time of death, virtually all men with AIDS have decreased testosterone levels as the result of the disease itself or the side effects of particular treatments. To date, LeVay has examined the brain of only one gay man who did not die of AIDS (270:53).
Furthermore, in a scientific environment where controls and standards are a necessity, LeVay did not possess a complete medical history of the individuals included in his study. He therefore was forced to assume the sexual orientation of the non-AIDS victims as being heterosexual, when some may not have been. In addition, bear in mind that he had no evidence regarding the sexual orientation of the women whose brains he examined. LeVay has admitted:
"It"s important to stress what I didn"t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn"t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain" (as quoted in Byrd, et al., 2001, emp. added).
Many have argued that what LeVay discovered in the brains of those he examined was only a result of prior behavior, not the cause of it. Mark Breedlove, a researcher at the University of California at Berkeley, has demonstrated that sexual behavior has an effect on the brain. In referring to his own research, Breedlove commented: "These findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case"that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it.... [I]t is possible that differences in sexual behavior cause (rather than are caused by) differences in the brain" (as quoted in Byrd, et al., parenthetical item in orig.). Considering this type of research, it makes sense that a homosexual lifestyle (and/or the AIDS condition) could alter the size of the nuclei LeVay was measuring.
What exactly did LeVay find? In actuality, not much. He did observe slight differences between the groups"if you accept the method he used for measuring the size of the neuron clusters (and some researchers do not). When each individual was considered by himself, there was not a significant difference; only when the individuals involved in the study were considered in groups of homosexuals vs. heterosexuals did differences result. Hubbard and Wald commented on this lack of difference:
Though, on average, the size of the hypothalamic nucleus LeVay considered significant was indeed smaller in the men he identified as homosexual, his published data show that the range of sizes of the individual samples was virtually the same as for the heterosexual men. That is, the area was larger in some of the homosexuals than in many of the heterosexual men, and smaller in some of the heterosexual men than in many of the homosexuals. This means that, though the groups showed some difference as groups, there was no way to tell anything about an individual"s sexual orientation by looking at his hypothalamus (1997, pp. 95-96, emp. added).
Being homosexual himself, it is no surprise that LeVay observed: "...[P]eople who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are more likely to support gay rights." In a Newsweek article, LeVay was quoted as saying, "I felt if I didn"t find any [difference in the hypothalamuses], I would give up a scientific career altogether" (as quoted in Gelman, et al., 1992, p. 49). Given how (poorly) twisted LeVay"s data are, and his own personal bias, his abandonment of science may have ultimately been of greater service.
Brain Plasticity: A Fact Acknowledged by All Neuroscientists:
Today, scientists are keenly aware of the fact that the brain is not as "hard-wired" or permanently fixed as once thought"an important factor that LeVay failed to acknowledge. One of the properties of plastic is flexibility"many containers are made out of plastic so that they will not shatter when dropped. In a similar manner, the brain was once considered to be rigid, like Ball" jars used for canning"but we now know the brain is "plastic" and flexible, and able to reorganize itself. Research has shown that the brain is able to remodel its connections and grow larger, according to the specific areas that are most frequently utilized. Given that we know today that the brain exhibits plasticity, one must ask if the act of living a homosexual lifestyle itself might be responsible for the difference LeVay noted? Commenting on brain plasticity, Shepherd noted:
The inability to generate new neurons might imply that the adult nervous system is a static, "hard-wired" machine. This is far from the truth. Although new neurons cannot be generated, each neuron retains the ability to form new processes and new synaptic connections (1994).
Interestingly, since Shepherd"s textbook was published, additional research has even documented the ability of neurons to be generated within certain areas of the brain. This information must be considered when examining comparative anatomical experiments such as LeVay"s. These cortical rearrangements that occur are not as simple as unplugging a lamp and plugging it into another socket. Due to the colossal connectivity that takes place within the brain, any "rewiring" is, by its very nature, going to have an effect on several areas"such as INAH3. Scientists understand these things, yet LeVay"s work is still mentioned as alleged support for the so-called gay gene."
Now that we have hopefully concluded the foolish notion that homosexuality cannot be helped, can we return to the topic of marriage?
I await my opponent's argument.
Errors in DNA can NOT be Fixed
Brad Harrub and Bert Thompson, whom disproved LeVay's findings as a clue to a gay gene, found out that brain is not as "hard-wired" as thought; It can "remodel its connections and grow larger." However, that isn't the case with DNA; DNA errors can not be undone, thus the study aforementioned involving more than 800 gay participants remains undisputed.
Only One Disputed Study
One disputed study can not conclude a general topic, especially when there are so much more studies out there involving different people and different variables.
My opponent also asks me to return to the topic of marriage. The reason I brought up genetics was because towards the beginning, he suggests the shortened lifespan of a homosexual, due to suicide, murder, etc., as a reason to condemn it; To protect people from those things.
However, as my opponent has yet to debunk, homosexuality is genetic. And so, why would it be fair to condemn homosexuality, as it is not to condemn males or females? These are things that we can not prevent. At most, we can encourage homosexuals to try to act their gender, but that is a very difficult task to accomplish.
I await my opponent's arguments.
Now, on the topic of gay marriage. Let's take a look at what it does to one country that allowed it in a long time ago:
"Americans need to understand that the endgame of the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power and the end of First Amendment freedoms."
"I am one of six adult children of gay parents who recently filed amicus briefs with the US Supreme Court, asking the Court to respect the authority of citizens to keep the original definition of marriage: a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, so that children may know and may be raised by their biological parents. I also live in Canada, where same-sex marriage was federally mandated in 2005. I am the daughter of a gay father who died of AIDS. I described my experiences in my book: Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting. Over fifty adult children who were raised by LGBT parents have communicated with me and share my concerns about same-sex marriage and parenting. Many of us struggle with our own sexuality and sense of gender because of the influences in our household environments growing up.
We have great compassion for people who struggle with their sexuality and gender identity, not animosity. And we love our parents. Yet, when we go public with our stories, we often face ostracism, silencing, and threats.
I want to warn America to expect severe erosion of First Amendment freedoms if the US Supreme Court mandates same-sex marriage. The consequences have played out in Canada for ten years now, and they are truly Orwellian in nature and scope.
In Canada, freedoms of speech, press, religion, and association have suffered greatly due to government pressure. The debate over same-sex marriage that is taking place in the United States could not legally exist in Canada today. Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered "homophobic"" (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government.
Why do police prosecute speech under the guise of eliminating "hate speech" when there are existing legal remedies and criminal protections against slander, defamation, threats, and assault that equally apply to all Americans? Hate-crime-like policies using the terms "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" create unequal protections in law, whereby protected groups receive more legal protection than other groups....
Children are not commodities that can be justifiably severed from their natural parentage and traded between unrelated adults. Children in same-sex households will often deny their grief and pretend they don't miss a biological parent, feeling pressured to speak positively due to the politics surrounding LGBT households. However, when children lose either of their biological parents because of death, divorce, adoption, or artificial reproductive technology, they experience a painful void. It is the same for us when our gay parent brings his or her same-sex partner(s) into our lives. Their partner(s) can never replace our missing biological parent.
The State as Ultimate Arbiter of Parenthood:
Over and over, we are told that "permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive anyone of any rights." That is a lie.
When same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada in 2005, parenting was immediately redefined. Canada"s gay marriage law, Bill C-38, included a provision to erase the term "natural parent" and replace it across the board with gender-neutral "legal parent" in federal law. Now all children only have "legal parents," as defined by the state. By legally erasing biological parenthood in this way, the state ignores children"s foremost right: their immutable, intrinsic yearning to know and be raised by their own biological parents.
Mothers and fathers bring unique and complementary gifts to their children. Contrary to the logic of same-sex marriage, the gender of parents matters for the healthy development of children. We know, for example, that the majority of incarcerated men did not have their fathers in the home. Fathers by their nature secure identity, instill direction, provide discipline, boundaries, and risk-taking adventures, and set lifelong examples for children. But fathers cannot nurture children in the womb or give birth to and breast-feed babies. Mothers nurture children in unique and beneficial ways that cannot be duplicated by fathers.
It doesn"t take a rocket scientist to know that men and women are anatomically, biologically, physiologically, psychologically, hormonally, and neurologically different from each other. These unique differences provide lifelong benefits to children that cannot be duplicated by same-gender "legal" parents acting out different gender roles or attempting to substitute for the missing male or female role model in the home.
In effect, same-sex marriage not only deprives children of their own rights to natural parentage, it gives the state the power to override the autonomy of biological parents, which means parental rights are usurped by the government.
Hate Tribunals Are Coming:
In Canada, it is considered discriminatory to say that marriage is between a man and a woman or that every child should know and be raised by his or her biological married parents. It is not just politically incorrect in Canada to say so; you can be saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, fined, and forced to take sensitivity training.
Anyone who is offended by something you have said or written can make a complaint to the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals. In Canada, these organizations police speech, penalizing citizens for any expression deemed in opposition to particular sexual behaviors or protected groups identified under "sexual orientation." It takes only one complaint against a person to be brought before the tribunal, costing the defendant tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. The commissions have the power to enter private residences and remove all items pertinent to their investigations, checking for hate speech.
The plaintiff making the complaint has his legal fees completely paid for by the government. Not so the defendant. Even if the defendant is found innocent, he cannot recover his legal costs. If he is found guilty, he must pay fines to the person(s) who brought forth the complaint.
If your beliefs, values, and political opinions are different from the state"s, you risk losing your professional license, job, or business, and even your children. Look no further than the Lev Tahor Sect, an Orthodox Jewish sect. Many members, who had been involved in a bitter custody battle with child protection services, began leaving Chatham, Ontario, for Guatemala in March 2014, to escape prosecution for their religious faith, which conflicted with the Province"s guidelines for religious education. Of the two hundred sect members, only half a dozen families remain in Chatham.
Parents can expect state interference when it comes to moral values, parenting, and education"and not just in school. The state has access into your home to supervise you as the parent, to judge your suitability. And if the state doesn"t like what you are teaching your children, the state will attempt to remove them from your home.
Teachers cannot make comments in their social networks, write letters to editors, publicly debate, or vote according to their own conscience on their own time. They can be disciplined or lose any chance of tenure. They can be required at a bureaucrat"s whim to take re-education classes or sensitivity training, or be fired for thinking politically incorrect thoughts.
When same-sex marriage was created in Canada, gender-neutral language became legally mandated. Newspeak proclaims that it is discriminatory to assume a human being is male or female, or heterosexual. So, to be inclusive, special non-gender-specific language is being used in media, government, workplaces, and especially schools to avoid appearing ignorant, homophobic, or discriminatory. A special curriculum is being used in many schools to teach students how to use proper gender-neutral language. Unbeknownst to many parents, use of gender terms to describe husband and wife, father and mother, Mother"s Day and Father"s Day, and "he" and "she" is being steadily eradicated in Canadian schools.
InNOutGaming forfeited this round.