You oversimplify the situation. To someone who is looking at this from a homeschooling lens, the two options are not mathematical equivalents that deserve equal treatment. That is your lens. Consider this scenario: DS comes home saying he has decided not to try drugs. Board responds: Woo Hoo!!! :party: :party: :party: Child comes home and says he wants to try drugs. Board responds: YOU are the parent, why do YOU let a child decide ANYTHING! This is not discourteous or hypocritical. It is logical and reasonable. Many people seriously underestimate how strongly other people feel about the perils of public education, how completely unacceptable they consider that alternative. You may not agree with that, but they are every bit as entitled to hold that opinion as you do yours. You do not own anyone any explanation. But you should let go of your idea that people are being "rude" because they do not agree with it. It is not rude to hold or express opposing opinions. It is just a part of life and learning to communicate better will never completely fix the underlying issue that people just hold different views. We all have to learn to accept that. Mostly it has become a forum for people who are not at all interested in Classical Education and many who in fact seem downright opposed to it. A lot of the time homeschoolers here now have to defend both homeschooling itself and study of the classics. Fear of "bashing public schools" has caused a lot of chilled speech around here. It gets old.

I don't know; it is pretty darn easy to manipulate people who are entertained and distracted and not fearful at all. I'd go even farther and say you don't even have to bother to manipulate them. They fall right into line. Consider the book Brave New World. Now days there seems to be a lot of people who would read that book and have no earthly idea why the savage kills himself at the end.

That is okay, Bill. As a believer in theistic evolution, I think it took a pretty long time for God to call us sons and daughters. It seems reasonable to me that the rest is going to take a while, too. I will be patient with myself and my fellow human beings. God has all the time in the universe. ;) "How can we face the gods till we have faces?" C.S. Lewis :confused: Those are some pretty big leaps, I don't follow the "logic." I am not surprised you do not see my logic. The important thing is that that plenty of people do. Take care now! Enjoy that Indian summer if you can. Here in Texas it is getting pretty old! :tongue_smilie:

I can never see how pointing out the horrific effects of failing to follow Church teachings somehow diminishes Church teachings. There are many more good priests than scandalous ones. To focus only on the bad ones is an injustice to the many good ones. "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried." G.K. Chesterton I would be surprised if this issue and/or the Crusades were not brought up every time the word Catholic is mentioned. It may be worth discussing briefly because it is how the Catholic Church is being silenced just like you see the Mormons being silenced and discredited because of the actions of a few rather than their formally stated teachings (see it at work on this thread). This furthers the entire agenda that I have pointed out where the state steps in and takes the place of the Church supposedly because it will be too wise to make the same mistakes other human beings seem to make. :confused: Highly organized institutions, like the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church, are major targets for this campaign to silence any organization that stands apart from and inbetween the people and the state. Families are targeted by redefining marriage and other methods because they are highly decentralized and require a different tactic to dismantle.

Candy is often given to children as a reward. But it is not good for them, and wise adults will abandon the idea. Wise adults cannot be manipulated by the idea of post-death brides. To be so manipulated is childish. (@Bill: Paul has some wise words here about putting away childish things, but, Bill, I know you don't want to hear from Paul, so I won't quote him. I did not bring up the teachings of Paul. Someone else did. And I think you are very civil, and so am I. But we both still seem to get banned from the board at times, and I don't want that! This is not snarky, Bill. I really do respect your aversion to him and will try to continue to make my arguments outside the teachings of Christianity for most subjects. I have brought it up only as sideline points or to answer others, not ever as my logic for maintaining the definition of marriage.) Sometimes things are better in theory than in reality, and humans largely abandoned pedophilia, incest, homosexuality, and polygamy on the large scale (meaning governments have not subsidized that behavior in a long time). There were probably good reasons for that. Christianity (sideline argument here), other major religions, and evolution seem to be in agreement on the issue. But the state wants to take on the role of God(religion)/nature to usurp power for itself, so here we are contemplating them again. It seems to be working, too. Before anyone leaps on me for lumping homosexuals in that dubious group, I am not suggesting that they are all moral equivalents of each other. I am only suggesting that they are outside a very specific biological boundary that was written in nature before we can imagine. There are good reasons to respect that natural boundary (which exists to produce and protect children not for the whims of adults) when we form public policy on the grand scale. Emotionally supporting monogamy in general is good for society as well, and no one is withholding monogamy from anyone, but we do not need the state to support it in all variations of relationships. I think I have covered everything I want to say and am starting to repeat myself. I would encourage people who stumble on this thread to read the article posted by Critter (page 8, I think?). It say it all better than I have. Please, if you want to respond to my posts, please read them all and try to follow the entire context of what I have said first. I will not likely respond unless something not already covered comes up. Thanks to everyone for an interesting and civil discussion on a very difficult subject. Best wishes to everyone for the coming week.

I have already addressed this, Bill. Over and over. They cannot engage in the "same sort of marriage relationships" because it is biologically impossible. Nature and science say so. Not the government or religion. Why is this biological fact tossed aside? I have also explained that. Who can answer that? Do we really want the state to dictate relationships instead of nature? That is the crucial question! Gays can live monogamous lifestyles. They can commit to one another. It is very healthy for them to do so. The state does not need to fund it as the state's interest in couples should be held in check (We don't want them in our bedroom, remember?). The state only has an interest in couples who are inherently able to procreate because the state has an interest in children. The purpose of maintaining the current definition of marriage is not to suppress gays or polygymists who, like everyone, currently enjoy a level of freedom completely unheard of in history or in some other cultures right now; it is to suppress an overly invasive state and to help support (just a little bit in the limited way we are able) the raising of children.

It is always nice to "see" you, Bill. I hope you are enjoying a great summer! I disagree that there is an inherent demolition of marriage in the Christian teaching. That is quite a stretch. Please refer to Theology of the Body for Beginners by West for a complete treatment of Christian sexuality as it must be understood completely to comprehend. Most people do not naturally lean toward celibacy. Making a case for having it be holy takes a firm teaching, and it could even lean toward sounding over stressed to some ears. But as I have pointed out elsewhere, this boundary does serve functions in society that are healthy for both adults and their offspring. There are consequences when people are not celibate when they should be. In Catholic teaching, those called to a holy vocation are also called to be celibate so as to focus on the work of God. This marriage between God and clergy protects families against the dangers of an overburdened clergy - one that should be willing to die for their dedication to God, but ought not take a family along with them to that death. It is a tough calling, and yet it has endured. Celibacy has to have a strong case to support it, so perhaps it seems overstated to some. I didn't bring up Paul, or religion in general, although others on this thread have done so. Religion is not my concern with this topic except for the small point I made in my previous post, but it is not using religion to support the heterosexual marriage definition. Please refer to my other posts to get my take on this topic. Your logic here about procreation certainly would be the same for homosexuality, so where the current cultural climate is concerned, it supports heterosexual marriage. I don't think it is a valid argument either way though, and I would not use it. Well, I am pretty sure that the number of children infected with HIV within a monogamous, biological family unit is going to be very small by comparison to other demographics. Children are highly protected in many ways in a tight, biological unit. And that is a desirable outcome for a healthy and independent population. Independence is not favored by everyone, however. The same is of course true of a homosexual population, but that is not a valid argument against homosexual marriage. It is also not any kind of argument against the Christian vision of family and marriage nor is it what we see in the Christian culture, regardless of what Paul may have taught. Other than trying to point out how irrational you think Paul was, I do not quite see where you are going here. It was tricky to disregard a long history of polygamy, so the teachings were fairly radical across the board. However they did succeed in changing culture, and for many centuries they held and were foundational for the rise of Western culture. For people who hate Western culture, this is interpreted in a different way though. It is a huge topic and far reaching. I don't think many here want to go there right now. Perhaps another thread? The last part was not aimed at your post, Bill. It is a general comment. Again, it is a pleasure to "see you" on the boards!

But wait a minute, I did not make the argument that same sex marriage leads to plural marriage. I made the argument that states should only fund (with collective taxpayer funds) the single relationship that has the potential to produce offspring. I made the argument that this is the scientific definition for the term marriage. That is perfectly illustrated with the interracial marriage example where reason was followed to its natural conclusion. If we dilute that term to mean any cohabitational relationships then we will overburden the taxpayers for no good reason. And we will just have to come up with another term to describe this unique relationship as it will not cease to be unique. Let us be honest. This is, as you said in another post, not about the spiritual or emotional union of adults. The state has no power to interfere with that just as it has no power to bestow rights or make things legitimate. This is about resources. Money. Power. To force the taxpayers to subsidize those relationships outside of the biological boundary invites controversy and demonizes traditionalists (conservatives) , invites abuse of the system, and wastes resources (when benefits are thrown at highly unstable relationships - and heterosexual ones are already severely struggling). So you see, there is another agenda. The agenda is to give the illusion that the state does in fact have the power to bestow rights. This is necessary because rights have to come from somewhere. If they do not come from God, and we have long been teaching this, and now we see they do not come from nature or science (a new development), then they MUST come from the state (so the twisted logic goes). Once we have established the falsehood that the state bestows rights and can interfere with personal relationships, the state can revoke rights and dictate relationships, and of course, crush the Church, which is one of the few large scale institutions that stand outside of the state. Power is the end game. Consequences. Biology is ruthless. The heart of man, even more so.

What it is is a ringing endorsement of celibacy, something that everyone can and should practice at certain points in their life. While the Church happens to teach these concepts and other concepts surrounding sexual relationships discussed in this thread, they are tied to the natural law and biology, and have roots in all major religions. But it is the honest practice of science that tells us the reasons why those boundaries have physical and psychological merit both for the adult parties and their offspring. Honest being the operative word. All societal views toward sexual activity should strongly respect procreation and children rather than just the satisfaction of adult desires or else the tendency to slip into selfish and destructive behavior is inevitable. And that behavior inevitably ends up exploiting women and children, especially children. Is it fear mongering to note that children end up HIV positive because of the behavior of adults? Then by all means, count me among the fearful because biology can be ruthless. Again, thankfully in the US and most of the West, people can do what they would like to do within a broad framework of freedom so long as they are willing to cope with the consequences. However, they should not require all the collective taxpayers to applaud, endorse and fund everything they choose. To point this out is not bigoted, anti-gay, or fear mongering.

Now I am wondering, did you read the article that Critter posted? That article answers in very great detail all of the points that you have brought up in all your posts. It particularly has an excellent answer to your infertile couple and racial questions. I would greatly appreciate it if you would review that article as my paraphrasing of it will definitely be lacking. However, I will try because it has crucial points that are integral to my post, and I do realize that many people will not read that article despite the fact that it is well worth the effort. I have made the argument that the definition of marriage should remain as is because that term is based upon biology and the unique characteristic of the man/woman relationship which is the only relationship that is capable of procreation. It is true that not all heterosexual relationships are able to procreate, but neither the state nor the individuals in the relationship are able to determine that definitively for all time. With heterosexual copulation... you just never know, do you? ;) The racial issue is the same. That terrible law fell for the same reason this one should stand. Biology. Basically it was unsustainable that interracial couples could not marry for the simple reason that biology said that they could procreate. There was no biological basis to deny marriage to couples who were able to procreate. Biological procreation is the definition of marriage at its core, especially where the state is concerned. Please read Critter's article. It states it much better than I do. At the end of the day this supposed right is not linked to anything. It is a desire. A desire that can be reasonably fulfilled within the framework of a state that is not overburdened with producing benefits for every possible combination of relationship. The issue is not about rights or feelings or religion or any of that. It is an issue of resource allocation by the collective taxpayer. A line needs to be drawn for civil and economic stability. It should be drawn where biology drew it. That is simple enough. Unless there is another agenda at work.

Not a hijack in any way. Let me explain. My post and Critter's completely address this post and similar ones. That is why the thread moved in this direction as it logically must. It is all part of the same discussion. The definition of marriage. It doesn't matter where Critter's argument came from. What does that have to do with the logic of the argument? Is the argument flawed somehow? Please address that if you think so. Let's stay on topic. Just sayin'! That is an excellent question, Martha. Why can't we follow this idea through to its logical conclusions?

Good question. The only interest that the government has in any relationship is children. The government doesn't care what happens in the bedroom EXCEPT that what happens in the bedroom, between one man and one woman, produces children. Five men and one woman don't produce a child. Two women and one man don't produce a child. They don't all contribute. Only one of each sex will produce another living, human being. Two men do not produce a child. Two women do not produce children. Some heterosexual couples do not produce children. But heterosexual couples have the potential to produce children. Moreover, heterosexual couples produce a child that they are both physiologically and emotionally invested in. Biologically, they are deeply invested. This biological link is why the government invests in them. Most societies, and certainly those in the West, decided a long, long time ago that this biologically connected unit was the most likely to survive and prosper. To produce thriving young. And so governments invested in that relationship, too. To be sure, other combinations end up with children as well, and thankfully so. And they can do very well also. People are vastly resourceful when they need to be. But with the limited resources of the state which belong to the collective taxpayer, that is the one relationship that the full weight of the state is thrown behind. Just to make things a little more likely to prosper. That is the motive. And the biological link makes for a reasonable and logical line in the sand against the slippery slope of various permutations of marriage. Take away the government's investment in that one type of relationship and watch what happens. Look at the military benefits if you want an example. Give those resources to every possible combination of relationships and see how fast we go bankrupt. We are headed there so fast now it hardly matters, but that is another thread. The state doesn't back marriage to give it legitimacy or because it is a right. It has no power to make "legitimate" or to bestow "rights"! It never had that power in the first place. The state backs marriages to hopefully encourage them to last for the sake of the children. Nothing more. It is a very practical purpose. So, if consenting adults want to be married, they should not wait around for the state to recognize their union. But they should also not be hurt or resentful when the state (the collective taxpayer) doesn't recognize or fund their social experimentation. The state should have no obligation to do so. I should also add that it is not just that the state bestows certain benefits on married couples to help them support children, the state also expects a certain level of responsibility from married people toward each other and their offspring. Thus we have alimony/patrimony and child support laws. In other words, it demands from those relationships in accordance to what it gives. At least it should. Perhaps that has not been stressed enough for too long.

She is obviously diggin' that new drug being marketed to homeschoolers. :lol:

Lots and lots of empty commercial property here, too. We own some of it, and small businesses just can't get a foot hold. Mostly due to lack of capital and crushing regulations that only large corps can sustain. There has been little change that I can see in lending practices. We have been working on a mortgage and it is such a laughable process. My dh and I just about can't believe what we see in the way of regulations in the process that are supposed to be there to "protect us" but really they just fleece us. What WOULD we all do without a "well disciplined" government to control everything? Can't wait to see how they do with the genetically altered salmon they plan to grow in Panama. Lol! Still, I don't think it has been as bad in Texas as much of the rest of the country. We simply did not have the kind of bubble here to burst in the first place.

Some people who like this song probably also like movies like Silence of the Lamb or books like Crime and Punishment. They enjoy getting into the bad guy's head. That is okay for them, I guess. But I think it is a little naive to think that a lot of repetitious exposure to evil thoughts and images do not have the potential to affect you or your children negatively. (Sorry, Mrs. Mungo. I couldn't resist.) It boils down to the motivations of the listener. It could be cathartic or obsessive, insightful or destructive. I'm reminded of parable of the two wolves that live inside of us. Which one grows? The one we feed.

They tried this and for all I know they still do it. I remember my mother was horrified when I came home from first grade and explained that there were "reading groups." They had names. Blue, Red, White, Brown, Black. And, the Brown and Black were the lowest ones. My memory is not really clear enough to reconstruct the reality of this situation, but my mother's reaction is firmly entrenched in my mind. She was outraged. And not just because some ethnic groups might end up more frequently in the lower groups (a big problem). She was well aware that flawed assessments could cement children into inappropriate groups, something that other cultures might not mind (the price you might pay for overall success), but the individual and class mobility is highly valued in American culture. So perhaps in a less diverse population such as found in Asia tracking might fly, but in the US this would be problematic for a variety of reasons. Our society is not trying to focus on a single goal - academic achievement. It is trying to do too many things that are poorly defined and often with questionable motives, including providing daycare so everyone can "work." And the focus of those goals shifts constantly depending on whose agenda is front and center at the moment.

:iagree: In Rome there is something amazing around every single corner. You can rent an apartment instead of staying in a hotel (cheaper) and then live like the locals. The market near the Vatican is amazing and off the tourist path, and the restaurants some blocks off the tourist sites are much more enjoyable. Travel by subway and bus - cheap. Taking some day bus trips lets you see the beautiful countryside. You can take a couple of days at a farm if you want to leave the city life. We did that. Hiking, horseback riding, traditional cheese making tour, castle tour. Total switch and also how locals really live (sort of). I agree with making your peace about not seeing everything. But you will love whatever you do see! Have a great time!

I have made my arguments and you have now countered. This is good, so much better than simply attacking my motives on the subject. Excellent support of your viewpoint here. So again... Now. This thread is starting to feel like a zombie movie to me. I am all alone. They are surrounding me. Yes, the metaphor definitely can be useful. ;) It has been fun, guys! Take care out there, and watch out for the boogie man. I hear he still gives those zombies a run for their money! :D

That is AMAZING! I love it! Where are you getting that I am rejecting that? THAT is the whole goal of classical education. And it is amazing. I have moments like that all of the time with my dd. (ds... not so much... he is more inclined to ask about electricity and how it works. LoL). The poster who brought up economics really hit the nail on the head, if choices have to be made (and they do), then this type of stuff in a curriculum should be limited. Fluff is all too abundant. Really. My point has been all along that paying for this is in college is probably not the best use of resources and would become completely unnecessary with a good education. You are doing it already and tuition free! That is JMHO, and I am entitled to it. Stop telling me it is wrong when your (not your personally but generally) whole point is that no one's opinion is ever wrong. Besides, you can always chalk it up to a superiority complex and dismiss it like Dot just did (which isn't a rude comment, right?).

Well, I was thinking that Macbeth survived, stadiums do not generally allow the killing of people or animals for entertainment, porn has been frowned upon widely by most people, and the killing of Christians didn't survive in the civilized world, but... again it seems we are being forced to accept that "it is all good and nothing matters," (like Stacy pointed out), so no surprise these things are all shifting around lately. I am not sure how many people that work on films have that kind of degree. Obviously the entire enterprise came into existence without such a thing, so it can clearly be done without one. She doesn't want them to tell her the art of movie making, she wants them to teach her the technology and techniques and leave off on the philosophizing about it. She can do that on her own time and without spending a dime.

So you do think that Latin = zombie class. Okay. But my daughter is not the main point of my part of this discussion. Far from it. I do have a dog in this race though, and I have taken time to understand the subject. I am sorry if my POV comes off as "snobbish" to you. That is what you are reacting to, if I try to read your mind like you just did mine. You sound offended because I think my child's education is "superior," although I did not say that. I can see why you might react to my posts in that manner, and for that I apologize, but I think you are totally ignoring a whole lot of other things that I said. This is a classical education board, so it should not surprise anyone here that some people think that type of education is superior and will say as much, and your post, because it talks about my personal motives is crossing a line. It doesn't bother me though, because I do care about how I come off and I want to understand how you are taking things. The truth is that I do think my kid's education is better than the standard degree, but just barely. It is very hard now days to get a good education by the standard methods available all around us. You really do have to work hard to get one. In our household we are not classically trained by any stretch of the imagination. But we do respect those people who are or who were in the past. I also respect those people who have studied math and science in a truly rigorous manner because I think that is equally under attack by those who would equate watered down math and science subjects with hard-core ones. That just isn't happening quite the same way, nor does it carry quite the same implications for indoctrinating ideas that these subjects carry. And I never suggested we take away people's freedom to choose what to study. My first post says clearly there is room for debate. I have also made comments that make it very clear (if you are even reading them -?) that I find the subjects VERY interesting and worthwhile. I just think it is silly to charge money for some subjects that colleges should offer as "enrichment" or by some other means. These subjects just seem separate from what should be included in any coherent degree program, especially if it is being offered in many places. Anther option which I like would be for employers to stop giving such credit to degrees at all and look for other things when hiring. Maybe the stranglehold of the degree process needs to crack a little. I don't know. There are many angles to look at this. What a "degree" means should at least be clear and understandable, or it is, in fact, cheapened. I do not know why it is so hard to find something to agree upon, somewhere.

Personal attacks that include mind reading on your part are not helpful, and I would request that you stick to my points and refrain from them, please. Using the small bit of personal information I brought into this thread in this manner makes the title of the thread all the more appropriate. "Unbelievable."

But it is okay for you to assume that we have not made any effort to learn about this topic? That is a very wrong assumption. I am up to my ears in understanding this topic. Including my financial ears. We know people have not studied Latin and Greek because we have met them. And mine HAS studied Latin as well as a lot of classic literature and history. People who have done a lot of that are not what I am concerned about. Saying that people who have done that have the same degree as people who have not done that is of great concern to me. They are not equal educations. Some of us have kiddos in college and we have seen what they are studying and compared it to other colleges and other classes. There is plenty of rhyme and reason going on, and some of it is quite worrisome when you do actually "make an effort to learn about [the] topic."

I will find out first hand from my dd who is in film school now, maybe not on this particular topic but related themes. I am very skeptical that the themes they present will be well balanced. It still seems that there is a strong preference for only some points of view. I admit to being quite jaded by what I have seen in academia with my kiddos so far. That is why a broad history and literature background is so vital. I'm looking forward to hearing what she studies. I just want to say that I loved District 9. Very clever. It was so much better, IMO, than Avatar.

So will they study zombies from the point of view of a "culture of death"? Something completely obvious like that? Will that theme be considered?