<p>mythmom, I agree with you and am also certain that same sex marriage will eventually be legal in the U.S. It already is here in Canada, I'm proud to say. The most recent census results were published yesterday and for the first time, same sex couples were counted, which was a reflection of the law allowing same sex marriage in 2005. The number of same sex couples was 45,345, and 7,465 of those are married. Approximately 10% of them have children. I hope that it isn't much longer before gay couples in every U.S. state have the right to commit to a life together, whether through a civil union or marriage.</p>
<p>My state, Vermont, recognizes civil unions, not marriage, between same-sex couples. The law about civil unions went into effect in 2000.</p>
<p>Vermont became the second U.S. state (after California) to offer legal status to same-sex couples, and the first to offer a civil union status encompassing the same legal rights and responsibilities of marriage.</p>
<p>Many gay couples from all over have flocked to VT to obtain a civil union.</p>
<p>This past July, Democratic House and Senate leaders in the state legislature announced the creation of a committee to study the issue of same-sex marriage.</p>
<p>My first cousin married her long-time partner in MA. We all had tears in our eyes because they had been together for 25 years and had given us all wedding gifts. Now we could finally give them wedding gifts. It made us happy.</p>
<p>Alwaysamom: Yeah, sometimes I really wished I lived in Canada, but I live in NY which is only partially in the US (LOL.) Congratulations on this forward thinking.</p>
<p>Not to throw any more fuel on the fire, but...has anyone seen the news item about the educational film that was banned from a school district in Texas? It's called "This is a Family". Some people in the district objected because it portrayed, among others, same-sex couples with children. The film was being shown to third-graders to promote acceptance of diversity.</p>
<p>onstage, no, I haven't seen that particular news story, but it's certainly something we have all seen before. Wasn't there a flap a few years ago because of an episode of the cartoon "Arthur?" I don't remember the details, but I think it concerned Arthur (the aardvark!)'s friend, Buster (a bunny) narrating an episode or little video about different kinds of families. I know plenty of same-sex couples, with and without children, and I just don't get what the upset is all about! Parents -- whether same sex or opposite sex -- share the same concerns, worries, love, etc. for their kids, and have more in common with each other than they have differences. I just don't get it when people have problems with people of the same sex/gender falling in love. Love is love.</p>
<p>To perhaps state the obvious, NMR, the problem is that a large segment of our society believes that it has the right to impose their personal moral values and judgment on others. Compounding this is that usually those views usually are not grounded on demonstrable facts but on what social psychologists like to call fundamental values - ie they are right because, well, they know they're right, they go to the core of how the person identifies who they are intrinsically and serve as the foundation for the rest of the person's value structure, and are the most difficult to change through logic and reason.</p>
<p>This is not a new phenomenon. It appears when ever issues arise which create conflicts between one group's sense of morality and another's. Interestingly, it always seems to raise it's head most visibly when there are far more compelling and serious issues about which we, as a society should be concerned, for which there are no easy solutions, and which highlight the failures of a current political administration. When a political regime is getting blasted, nothing better than to divert attention to issues of morality. Back in the 80's, Nixon established the Meese Commission to establish a link between pornography and violence, which did so without the benefit of a scintilla of review of any scientific study, for the sole purpose of pushing the repressive moral agenda of Nixon and his supporters and divert attention from other issues. That of course all came to an end with the revelation of the "Watergate" scandal which revealed Nixon for the unethical, sanctimonious and dishonest person that he was.</p>
<p>Today we have the debacle of Iraq, the state of the economy and access to health care as compelling societal issues. What better way to divert attention from a growing and coalescing unity of direction on some of these issues and dissatisfaction with how they are currently being handled than to create a flashpoint over the definition of "family" which can create a rallying point for supporters of the current administration.</p>
<p>Ok, I'm done with my soapbox. This is really starting to get far afield from the original topic of censorship of shows - or is it?</p>
<p>Yes, MNK, I am aware of all that. :) I was just trying to pose a philosophical question about why <em>anyone</em> would really care who marries or sleeps with whom. (Or is it "who"? :)) By the way, there apparently <em>are</em> serious researchers who do see a link between certain violent offenders and their use of violent/torture pornography. As one researcher I interviewed said: "There's porn and then there's porn." Of course, no one has proven that reading/viewing porn <em>causes</em> someone to commit a violent act, but those who do commit violent sexual crimes often view violent porn. (Sorry to use the word "porn" on the MT thread!!!) Causality has not been proven, in other words.</p>
<p>You make a relevant point. There is a vast difference between a "correlation" and "causality". And it seems that those who would impose their personal morality on others often rely on the former instead of the latter. As to the philosophical question, it's really more rhetorical; from your other posts, I suspect you know the answer :) .</p>
<p>Censor porn? NMR, it almost sounds like you'd be in favor of such a thing!</p>
<p>Now we are really off topic, LOL :rolleyes:. But I do believe NMR was referring to violent/torture pornography. I didn't read her post as advocating for censoring porn.</p>
<p>Also, there are certain things that are legal or not, as well are crimes, and this hardly correlates with being gay! Sarahsmom42, are you saying such things are analogous? Being gay is not illegal and is not a crime. Certain acts of torture or violence may be illegal, as well as certain kinds of porn (ie., child porn).</p>
<p>Sheesh! I didn't say any such thing! Let's not get too carried away.</p>
<p>Soozievt, let's look at legality vs. illegality or criminality for a moment. I haven't checked recently, but it wasn't that long ago that a number of states still had sodomy laws on the books. They were often used as a vehicle to prosecute those in a gay relationship. And the definition of "sodomy" under these laws was broader than what is normally associated with the term. It's an interesting and frightening reality that when those who feel compelled to impose their morality on others are able to hijack the legal system, the result is repression of a minority who are doing nothing more than enjoying the privacy of their relationships with other consenting adults.</p>
<p>Hence the clause about separation of church and state.</p>
<p>I am not in favor of censoring anything. I was merely pointing out that some research I have read notes that people who commit certain violent acts tend to be consumers of certain "kinds" of porn.</p>
<p>"Separation of Church and State" - That's part of the problem. It is under constant attack and has been significantly eroded by those who believe they have a "moral imperative" to regulate values for our society. And those who seek to do so often cloak themselves so as to mask their real agenda.</p>
<p>What are you implying? All I've ever said was that the Bishop was doing his job and that there were people who felt that he was doing it well. The church HAS an agenda and it's pretty clear. If people want to put on plays about homosexuals they can put them on in public schools. If you send your child to a church affiliated school, you expect them to uphold the churches teachings, that is why you send them there.</p>
<p>As post #96 is back to the original topic....:)...I agree that when you choose to send your child to ANY parochial school (not just a church affiliated one), you expect them to TEACH the church's beliefs, etc. in their curriculum. However, I don't believe that exposure to literature and plays is the same as teaching beliefs. They are works of literature and art that are not meant to preach. I would expect a religion class to teach their own religion. I would expect an English class, History class or drama group to include all works or art and not censor them if they didn't agree with the characters or issues portrayed. Personally I see that as different than what they teach in terms of religion. I can learn about my religion and its beliefs but still be exposed to literature ,plays, and historical events that I do not agree with but teach me about OTHERS that are different than my ways or beliefs. That is not the same as teaching me these beliefs in a class or service. It is examining the lives of others through books or works of art. When I read a piece of fiction or see art, I don't have to believe in what those who are depicted believe. That is different than a minister, preast, Bishop or Rabbi, etc. who is preaching beliefs for me to follow. The latter definitely would be expected to follow the church, synagogue or sect's beliefs, but the former (fiction, arts, history) would not be expected to follow the religious beliefs but rather to raise awareness of ALL people, whether the same or different than ourselves and our own religion.</p>
<p>Also, the parents at that particular parochial school, the one they CHOSE to send their kids to, apparently were fine with the musical because they allowed their children to be cast and to rehearse it and when the Bishop said no, they found another venue to allow their kids to perform this work of fiction. I doubt that means that the parents do not believe in the teachings of their church but simply that they do not view exposure to works of art that depict those from other beliefs or lifestyles would be the same as following the beliefs or indoctrinating their children to adopt a belief system other than their own.</p>
<p>Lastly, what message does the censorhip give? What would a child in the school think after this incident? What if that child so happens to be gay? I guess they better hide that because the message is they can't even view a play depicting that lifestyle or orientation, and so actually HAVING that orientation would be a big no no and they would not be accepted even within their own church community.</p>
<p>Soozie, I went to Catholic school for 16 years and the teachings of the church were supported in everything from science to math to English. JD Salenger was not taught. It was a Catholic school and we did things the Catholic way. Period.
I agree with you that it's healthy to discuss issues that challenge your faith or that stretch your thinking, but I also respect the idea that the church does not debate it's dogma. It does not consider it up for discussion. They stand by it no matter what, that's why it's been around for thousands of years. When I was in school, we were told that if you didn't like the churches dogma, you could join a different church and go to the public school.
The woman who chose to do this play did so knowing that it would make waves. You can write until you fingers bleed and you will not convince me otherwise. I am a director and I always consider the message of the play and how it will affect the performers and the audience. It's part of selecting a play.
Weather or not the parents of the students in the play supported the idea of performing it is IMO irrelevant. The school is run by the church and the church has the right to do what it did. It stood up for what it believed in.
My H and I are both Democrats and although we were raised Catholic, we don't belong to the church because we can't buy into it'd dogma and think that gays should be allowed to marry. The point is that if I did buy the dogma, I'd be VERY ANGRY if someone came in and put the school in this position and tried to embarrass the church for standing up for what it believes in. Having the courage to stand up for what you believe in is great, but it goes both ways and although I believe that the play is good and has a good message, I can understand why the church did what it did and I respect it. IMO the director should have been fired. If she wants to do these kinds of plays she should work in a public school.</p>
<p>P.S. To your last point: If the director had not started this mess, the kids would never have been put in the position to be hurt. It really makes me angry. This director had hundreds of great plays to choose from. If she wanted something edgy, there are all kinds of edgy plays that could have been done. Why this play, why now? I would never have taken that kind of risk with my students.</p>
<p>Sarahsmom, I am very happy to read what you have to say and am not truly trying to convince you to agree with my point of view. I am just putting out my point of view in response to what others, including yourself, are sharing about this issue and this particular incident. </p>
<p>Again, as I have posted before, I agree that the Bishop and church have the right to decide what will go on under their roof. </p>
<p>I don't agree that by watching a play or reading a piece of fiction, that the church is suggesting that its followers not follow its "dogma". I don't see how watching a play about characters who may follow a different dogma is going against the church's dogma itself. I can watch a play where characters depict Nazis or worship Jesus but not feel that my religion's dogma is at stake or threatened or being challenged. I'd be watching about other groups, not being preached or dictated by anyone to follow a different dogma. By watching a play about others who follow a different dogma, doesn't imply you don't believe in the dogma of your own church. </p>
<p>You wrote:</p>
<p>
[quote]
It (the church) stood up for what it believed in.
[/quote]
That is the part I do no not understand. What does it believe in? The play is not teaching that others should become gay or which lifestyle or beliefs should be followed. The play has characters in it who may not be embraced by the church but the play's theme deals with acceptance of others. Doesn' the church believe in THAT? No, I don't get how this play goes against their dogma. It doesn't "teach" anyone to BE gay (well that is impossible anyway) and it is not dictating that gay marriage is condoned, but rather depicts people with differences and dealing with such differences. By putting on such a play, that doesn't mean the church agrees with gay couples but merely that a play deals with accepting those who are outside of their own "teachings." If every religious group only allowed their followers to see plays and books depicting those of their own belief systems, then the followers will have a tougher time accepting those with who differ from them (look at all the strife in the world between religious sects because they don't accept one another!!). One can be exposed to those who lead lifestyles and who follow different belief systems in order to raise awareness, understanding and acceptance, but without forcing others to adopt the same beliefs and values. I would think that raising awareness and understanding and acceptance would be part of any religion's teachings. That's the whole point here. By censoring viewing works of art or literature that depict those who are different, it closes minds and diminishes the chance of acceptance of others. By viewing such works, one need not be swayed to break from the church's teachings at all, but merely see others for who they are, even if they do not hold similar beliefs. </p>
<p>And as I said, if they cannot even VIEW characters in a play who differ from them (though the play doesn't preach but is merely about ACCEPTANCE), what is a teen to do in that school who may even BE gay? What message does it give other than...."We must shun even viewing stories about gay people and so I will not be accepted by my community?" What does it teach the straight kids? We can't watch a show where some characters are not one of us? </p>
<p>
[quote]
The point is that if I did buy the dogma, I'd be VERY ANGRY if someone came in and put the school in this position and tried to embarrass the church for standing up for what it believes in.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If I were a follower of the church's dogma, I would not think that watching a play which has characters in it that do not follow the dogma, would be challenging my own dogma at all. </p>
<p>You say the church is standing up for what it believes in? What is that? Censorship? The play isn't telling others to do or believe anything that opposes the church. The play is about acceptance in which there are others who do not follow the same dogma. If I watch a play in which characters are not following my own religious beliefs, it doesn't sway me to change my own beliefs at all. </p>
<p>I do not think the teacher tried to embarrass the church. I think the church embarrassed itself. It would not have made the news, I don't think, if not for the decision it made. The church does NOT have to condone gay couples in order for its followers to watch a play in which there are characters who don't follow their dogma. My kids are exposed to others' religions all the time and that doesn't sway them from their own belief systems. It doesn't challenge them to indoctrinate them. They simply learn how others live or what they believe in. And certainly this play was about accepting and being aware of those who are different and don't share similar ways.</p>
<p>Let's say a church doesn't condone premarital sex. Should its followers never watch a play or read a book in which characters do those things? What if they do see a play that depicts such activity? Why if a church has taught its followers its own beliefs, must it be challenged if their followers are exposed to others who don't follow the same beliefs? Personally, I do not think so. I think exposure, awareness and acceptance of others IS or SHOULD be the teaching of any religious leader. This is not the same as having a person come into the school and preach to indoctrinate or advocate beliefs that conflict with the church, in my view. </p>
<p>We are each sharing our views and I respect and accept that our views differ.</p>