I'm not sure if anybody mentioned this (yes, this is one of those "I didn't read the whole thread..." posts), but one of my friends had really good luck teaching her kids to ride their bikes by taking the pedals entirely off. The kids just used the bike kind of scooter-style, and then, once they found their balance, they put the pedals back on, and the kids were able to start riding without much difficulty at all.

Who exactly are GLBT groups trying to keep in their homes or deny (actual, legal) rights to? And what have atheist groups gotten done? Last I checked, I'm still free to attend my church, pray any time I want, teach my children whatever I want regarding my religious beliefs, marry somebody of my faith and have it legally recognized, adopt a child, and not be fired from my job because of my religious affiliation. I'm not really sure what rights atheists have taken away from me. Do I think some of the New Atheists are annoying? Yes. But, until they start denying me rights--not my "right" to force other people to pray or to live by my morals, but my actual right to live according to my beliefs and to practice my faith--I don't think they can be compared to the Christians who want to deny rights to GLBT people. At all.

My son recently got interested, but hasn't learned yet. Our next door neighbor has a 7 yo DD and she still has training wheels, too.

I LOVE fall food. It's my favorite. My ILs were in town yesterday and watched the kids while DH and I went out to dinner. I had a side of roasted brussel sprouts which were just amazing. I can't wait to make them at home.

So you see questioning this woman's mental health as the same as making a death threat toward her?

For what it's worth, I think Bill Mahr is a total jerk, and I think he has a tendency to be both misogynistic and homophobic. I don't find him funny, at all. And certainly if he was talking about gay people being barred from public places, even in jest, I wouldn't think it was at all funny.

Do you consider two straight people or two friends who embrace after they see something that fills their hearts with joy--like, say, their child/a child laughing happily--to be a PDA? Should we just show NO affection to one another in public? Because even from this woman's description, it seems pretty clear that there was nothing sexual or lustful about the hug. Should we not hug our children, because that's a PDA? Her blog post itself is not injustice, but she is most certainly calling for injustice. If somebody writing that gay people should not be in public places, then I most certainly hope there's an outcry! If you don't want people to be critical of your views, don't post them online.

Cute. There was a Bob the Builder episode where the dump truck had a duck in it, and they said "Your dumper quacked!" So now Thomas will say, "The baby's dumper quacked!" That cracks us all up.

Are they trying to make it illegal for you to do so? Is there any push by GLBT rights organizations to pass a law saying that people can't say homosexuality is a sin? To prevent people who believe that from marrying? To make it legal for employers to discriminate against conservative Christians in hiring, solely on the basis of their religious beliefs? Or, to put it another way, is there any concerted effort by GLBT rights supports to legislate injustice against people who think homosexuality is a sin? I assure you--very seriously, this is true--if all Christians who think homosexuality is a sin did was DARE to call it a sin, and treat it, in their public rhetoric and legislative efforts, exactly the same way they treated the sins of greed, gossip, gluttony, covetousness, idolatry, and premarital sex, the GLBT community would not care at all. They would probably weep with joy. Although that could lead to one of those awful joyful embraces that the woman writing the blog post mentioned... And, FWIW, the vast majority of supporters of GLBT equality, both outside and within the church, are straight people.

Well, I think this gets to what I see as an unfortunately common attitude among some American Christians, which is that if they are not allowed to force others to conform to their personal standard of ethics, they are somehow being persecuted or denied rights.

I don't think people care that they think it's a worse sin. They care that this woman feels that gay and lesbian people should not be in public places lest her children see them. The problem with seeing homosexuality as the worst sin is that it makes people want to pass all sorts of unjust legislation based on it.

I just feel like this isn't simply "over-the-top" jumpiness; this is a clear example of Christians singling out homosexuality as a uniquely terrible sin. I cannot imagine that if she saw an unmarried straight couple engaging in the same behaviors she saw this lesbian couple (if that is what they were, rather than two sisters or very close friends, which is possible given her description), would she have had the same reaction? If not, why not? If what she saw these "lesbians" doing would not have bothered her if she'd seen an unmarried couple doing it, then she's elevating homosexuality to the status of a worse sin. I don't doubt that this woman is unstable and has problems. But, the issue is that her instability and problems have manifested themselves in a very particular way, that they probably would not manifest themselves in if she were not part of a Christian culture that views homosexuality as uniquely sinful and as somehow more dangerous than any other sin. I think that's why the comments were so angry. This couple wasn't having public sex. They were, if they were a couple at all, embracing over their shared joy at a laughing child. I mean, that's beautiful. It's beautiful whether they are straight or gay. And to have this woman vilify them for it, and respond the way she did...well, I can understand why that would cause great hurt.

What did this woman witness that needed to be stopped?

Here is what the woman in the blog post was objecting to: Now, where in the Bible does it say, "Thou shalt not laugh at your baby boy swinging?" "Thou shalt not, while fully clothed, embrace somebody of the same sex?" Where exactly are these women--at the moment this woman is watching--engaging in sinful behavior? I have, in the past, embraced female friends in public. In one instance I can remember, a friend who very distraught, and we hugged and I rubbed her back while we were out in public. Was I sinning? If my actions were not sin, then why would the same actions by these women suddenly be sin? That's what is so wrong about this woman's attitude. It's not like she saw two people having public sex. She saw two people doing things that, if she hadn't perceived them to be lesbians, she wouldn't have considered sinful or wrong at all. This wasn't about sex. She has NO idea if these two women are having sex or not. Maybe they aren't. Maybe they are celibate lesbians. So then where's the sin? This woman is not thinking about what these two women were doing at that moment. She was imaging what they are doing in their bedroom. And, AFAIK, that's a sin, whereas hugging somebody of the same sex is not. The sad thing is, she admits in her own post that these women hugged because they were so happy to see the baby boy laughing. Even she didn't see this as an embrace motivated by lust or sexual desire. She considers two women embracing because of the joy they feel at seeing a baby laugh to be so offensive that she is horrified that her children had to witness it. I agree with previous posters who think there's probably some mental instability at work. But, this woman's attitude is just wrong.

Who is asking for that? The question is, when you go to the park, do you get outraged if you see anybody not just engaging in behavior that you think the Bible doesn't condone, but if you even see anybody who looks like they, when they are in the privacy of their bedrooms, might be engaging in behavior you think the Bible doesn't condone? Do you think that whether or not somebody engages in behavior the Bible condones should determine not just whether they deserve equal rights, but even if they should be out in public at all?

I think a mistake people often make is confusing injustice and intolerance. Personally, I don't care how personally intolerant somebody is. I do think that tolerance is, in general, a virtue. Like any other virtue, it's not always the best course, especially when it conflicts with another virtue (like justice). (Patience is a virtue, but that doesn't mean that people should have just waited patiently for slavery to end, for example.) But, in general, tolerance is a virtue and we should be tolerant of others. But, I don't really care if somebody else wants to be intolerant. They can be as intolerant of gay people as they want. The woman writing the blog post can keep gay people out of her home or yard. She can write any cruel thing about them that she wants. That's her choice. I'm sad for her, and I hope and pray she changes her heart, but I have no desire to stop her from doing those things. I'm perfectly willing to tolerate her intolerance, not in the sense of applauding or agreeing with it, but in the sense of allowing her the freedom to be personally intolerant. That is a different issue that legislated and/or institutional intolerance. When intolerance because legislated or institutionalized--when gay people are denied equal rights, when an employer discriminates against a person because of their sexual orientation, when a school culture is one of harassment and bullying of those perceived to be gay and teachers and administrators either do nothing or join in, if this woman were to get her way and gay people were to be barred from going to the park--then it had become injustice, and we should not tolerate injustice. There is no virtue in that, ever. The woman writing the blog post seems to be confused on this issue. She seems to think that somebody disagreeing with her personal stance on homosexuality is somehow denying her her freedom. She seems to think that somebody being personally intolerant of her attitude is the same thing as her desire to legislate injustice against GLBT people. That's not the case, at all.

I appreciate where your heart is on this, but I don't think I agree. I don't think people are uniquely defensive about "sexual sin." In the United States, I'd actually say that we are far more defensive about other sins, like greed. I don't know many people who are willing to admit that their big home and/or 2-3 cars and/or many clothes and/or stockpile of food and/or huge savings account aren't necessary items or means of being responsible, but evidence of greed. I know I'm loathe to admit that myself. I am so, so willing to write off my selfishness and greed as being about providing for my family or meeting needs, and most people--especially most American Christians--are not only willing to accept that, but actually applaud me for it. So I think that we are, especially as Americans, far more quick to justify our gossip or greed or gluttony or whatever other "minor" sin we're committing as acceptable or even as commendable, than we are to justify sexual sin. The only "sexual sin" I see Christians coming out in droves to support is homosexuality. And, most of the Christians supporting it are people who are straight, so it's not that they are trying to justify their own behavior. That's just not what this is about. Many, like me, I imagine, would be willing to admit that they have sinned sexually in the past--I have, by having premarital sex--but still don't see homosexuality as inherently sinful. It's not that I think "anything goes" sexually, and I don't know any Christians who think it does. It's that I think this one particular thing that's been labelled sinful isn't always sinful. Yes, gay people can sin sexually. I'm sure many do, just like many straight people do. But, I don't think that sex between two same-sex partners in a relationship of life-long commitment is sin. And, more importantly, I don't think that being gay is a sin. The thing is, though, I think pro-gay and anti-gay Christians are coming from two different perspectives. For anti-gay Christians, the issue is sex: it's about acts/desires and whether they are right or wrong. Honestly, when I think about homosexuality, I don't think about sex. I think about justice. To me, and to most pro-gay Christians I know, it's about justice, not sex. I'm not thinking "Oh, these actions and desires are all perfectly morally acceptable." I'm sure they aren't. I'm sure gay people sin sexually just as much as straight people do, which is a lot. But I'm not thinking of that. I'm thinking, "Oh, these people were made in God's image, and they deserve to be treated with love and respect, and they deserve justice." The morality of what they are doing in bed isn't something that I think about, any more than I think about the morality of what any straight couple I know is doing in bed.

Do you know why? Do you have any idea of the pain that Christians like this woman have caused GLBT people? How many children have been thrown out of their homes because of parents who believed those things? How many people have committed suicide because people like that, who made up their families and communities and entire support system, rejected them? How many people have been horrible abused by their churches because their churches held those beliefs? If you don't understand why there is anger in the comments, I highly suggest that you find some GLBT Christians. Go to a GLBT-welcoming church, just to visit, and talk to some gay people there. They will tell you stories that, if they don't make you furious and make you cry, I don't know what would. That doesn't justify hatred, but it sure makes it MUCH more understandable than the completely and totally irrational, baseless fear and hate this woman was expressing. Sin has consequences. The egregious sins that Christians have committed on the GLBT community has consequences, and that's what you're seeing. Those comments are the wages of sin that Christians have brought upon themselves by the inexcusable, horrific campaign of hate, misinformation, and discrimination that they have waged on GLBT people for decades now. You reap what you sow.

I hope you can understand why. The amount of pain that Christians have caused the GLBT community is almost unthinkable. It is certainly sinful. This woman wants to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. AFAIK, nobody in the GLBT community is trying to deny her right to worship as she wishes, to marry who she wishes, or to raise her children as she wishes. So, if they are angry, that's why. I'm not saying the comments are right or justified, but the anger is certainly understandable. The woman posting on her blog seems to not really understand what it means to impose your morals on other people, or when/why it's a problem. That is just absurd. I mean, honestly, it's hard for me not to start seeing red, because of how ridiculous it is, and how often it's been used to justify hatred and prejudice. I can feel my blood pressure go up reading this, and I'm a straight woman. I can imagine how a GLBT person would feel reading something like that, seeing this woman compare having her children see gay people out in public with being denied the right to marry another consenting adult whom you love. There is a HUGE difference between those two things. I really don't think that could be more obvious. Nobody is imposing morality on this woman. Nobody is telling her that she must teach her children that homosexuality is right. Nobody is forcing her to marry another woman. Nobody is making it illegal for her to make a blog post about how terrible homosexuality is or her priest from teaching that it's a sin. She is perfectly free to live her life according to her moral beliefs, without any impediment at all, and with complete legal support. What she is not free to do is to force other people to live according to those beliefs, as well. She seems to think that being denied the ability to force the rest of the world to live as she thinks they should is somehow forcing alternative moralities upon her. To use an example that I hope might resonate with people, I think that spanking is wrong. Morally wrong. However, spanking is legal. Does that mean that people who spank are forcing their morality upon me? Does that mean that the government is forcing the pro-spanking agenda upon me? Of course not. I am free to live my life as I wish. I don't have to spank my kids. Nobody is imposing their morality on me just because they are allowed to do something that I think is wrong, and even do it right in front of me. If this woman can't recognize that, no wonder people are angry. To somehow claim that, because the park won't ban gay people from going there, gay people are doing something to this woman that is morally equivalent to denying equal rights to gay people is, aside from being incorrect on just about every possible level, deeply offensive.

This. I'm not sure why this seems like something that is difficult for children to understand or that would destroy their innocence. This is not a discussion about sex. It has nothing to do with sex. It's about couples and families. A young child is not going to even think to ask sex questions. My son, who is 7, knows that some people are gay. He knows gay couples. He also knows the mechanics of intercourse. It has not occurred to him to ask me how same-sex couples have sex, and I don't imagine he'll be asking that for a very long time (if he does indeed ask me). I've basically explained it like this: "Most men fall in love with women, and most women fall in love with men, but some men fall in love with other men, and some women fall in love with other women." That's it. And, I don't think he even asked me to explain. We had a lesbian living next door a few years ago. One time her girlfriend brought her flowers, and my son, I guess knowing that flowers are what you give to somebody you love, said, "You love her! You're going to marry her!" He had never heard of homosexuality. He didn't ask about it. He'd never heard of gay marriage, and he didn't ask about it. He didn't think about whether it was right or wrong, any more than he thought about whether my best friend and her boyfriend living together without being married was right or wrong. It was a total non-issue, it raised no alarming questions, and it didn't require sex ed or a moral lesson or anything of the kind. It just was. But, my kids see things that I don't want them doing all the time. We live in a city. I've actually found it much, much harder to explain to my son why I don't give money to everybody who asks me for it (because I know that many of them will spend it on drugs/alcohol/gambling, and I prefer to give food).

I don't know, I doubt she's getting that from her church. She's probably getting it more from secular sources--like right-wing talk radio--and from Christian parachurch organization--like Focus on the Family--and from politicians trying to scare voters into supporting them than from anything she's hearing from her priest. At least I hope so. I do think churches have a big responsibility to teach people not to hate. More than that, actually; they have to teach them to love. I mean, that's why I go to church. I am terrible at loving people, and church is the only place I can go where there's a bunch of other people all trying to learn how to love better, too. If the people in your church are coming out more hateful and afraid than they were when they went in, then you are doing it wrong. So then the question is, how can you best love somebody like this woman? I don't know her, so all I can do from this distance is pray for her, that God will change her heart (being fully aware that there's lots of things God needs to change my heart on, too, including not feeling anger and hatred toward people like this woman, because that is my first response when I read her words). If a close friend expressed that kind of thing, I guess I'd feel like the best response would be to try to figure out why they were so scared. I don't think you could argue them out of their position, because it's just not reasonable. Gay people aren't out to get them, they aren't out to "recruit" their children, they have no scary agenda, and her children are no doubt exposed to tons of stuff that she'd rather they didn't see that she just ignores every day. So the facts are out there, and if she wanted to see them, she would. But this woman isn't in a place to see them, and I think there's really nothing you can do, at that point, except love her where she is, and pray and hope that she will move past her fear and hatred at some point.

Overall, though, the amount of reading people do goes up and up each year; the internet has actually increased the amount of reading most people do. So, while much of that reading might be "fluff," there's just a lot more reading done overall (our lives today are very text-based, significantly moreso than in the past), and it's hard to conclude that we are doing less substantive reading. Plus, it's not like most people in the past were just sitting around reading novels. Time to do sustained reading--not to mention the ability to do it--has been a luxury for most people throughout history. Read what was said about novels in the 1700s. It sounds a whole lot like what people say about the internet today.

I see absolutely no reason to believe that the average colonial American was more literate than the average American today. There is simply no evidence indicating that, and all evidence we do have on literacy rates indicates that rates have only risen since they've started being tracked. I know that's not a popular thing to say on this board, but as far as I can tell, it's what the evidence indicates. One single issue of the NY Times, from things I've read, has more information in it than your average colonial person would have encountered in their entire lifetime. Does that mean that people today are exponentially more intelligent? If people aren't willing to concede that, then I think it's disingenuous to conclude that colonial people were more literate based on their ability to read (and we don't have any idea how many people actually read the book or understood it--how many people today have Bibles on their shelves that they've never read?) Common Sense.

I'm an adjunct and I homeschool. Several of the families I know who homeschool have a parent who is a professor or part-time faculty. It makes sense, especially for part-timers (although even in general academics have pretty flexible schedules compared to other jobs). You have time, you have teaching experience, and you are likely living quite close to a university, so you've got access to all of the educational resources that that entails. Plus, I think a lot of academic-types tend to question conventional wisdom, including around educational issues. I don't think I've ever had a homeschooled student.

In this case, I think the OP is talking about her 4yo DD. Honestly, I'm not sure most 4yo will be talking about an upcoming party or a party they went to a day or two before. But, for 4yos, I can see how giving out anything to just some of the class could be potentially very disruptive and cause a lot of hurt feelings. Even if kids don't want to go to the party or care either way--and I'm guessing many 4yos don't--just having somebody else get the actual physical invitation could cause problems.