The problem is the definition of "tolerance". If you go look at the organizations the "We are Family" foundation is affilitated with, and look at their definition of tolerance, you'll find that they don't accept "Not liking gays" or thinking gays will burn in hell as tolerant.

The problem for many people like myself is that we aren't being asked to tolerate, we are being asked to accept, or even openly validate. Expressing our beliefs about homosexuality is to them an act of intolerance.

To me, such flies in the face of REAL tolerance. If we are taught that we should tolerate things because they are okay, then we aren't really learning tolerance. If we are taught to tolerate "non-traditional" families by having our own beliefs shouted down, then we haven't learned to tolerate people we disagree with, we've just been talked into agreeing with them.

When you tell kids that their personal religious beliefs are intolerant when the religion in question is barred from any sort of response, then you are unconstitutionally using public school to combat religious thought. They removed the aspects of the teacher's guide that was a problem for the AFA, and I commend them for it.

Honestly, the only people keeping this from going away are the people that keep bitching about it. For everyone else, including the two sides involved, it was over ages ago...

I'm not surprised to find out the Anti-Defamation League is behind this latest attempt to socially engineer children:

"The opportunity to bring that message to children around the entire country is truly exciting," said Caryl Stern, senior associate national director of the Anti-Defamation League. "We know at ADL that people are not born as little haters, we learn to hate. And just as we learn to hate, we have to unlearn to hate."

Doesn't sound like Caryl Stern has been around two year old kids to me. Anyhoo, it is a slippery slope. Here in Canada the gay lobby has fought to indoctrinate kindergarten children; I think that's wrong.

Here is the problem the AFA has with the video; I think they make a good point:

"In a telephone interview Thursday, (AFA head) Vitagliano said he does not object to the "innocuous" video itself but to the accompanying teaching guide, which he said "distorts the definition of family to produce a nontraditional model." Vitagliano pointed to a section where children are asked who is in a family, and if they say "a mommy," "a daddy," "a sister" or "a brother," the teacher is prodded to "ask further questions of the class."
"We feel that this is part of an attempt to include same-sex couples in the institution of marriage and the family," he said."

Ladies and gentlemen, that is radical political indoctrination of children. It's time extreme groups like the ADL stop hiding behind the banner of "fighting racism" and are exposed as the social-engineering reverse-racist family busting thug racket that they are.

David St. Hubbins

Just think. If these organizations asked us to tolerate the incestuous and the polygamous as real people, the liberals would be just as pissed that such an organization is teaching their children to openly accept such behavior or be labeled a bigot. Of course, I'm sure these tolerance groups think of the polygamous and the incestuous as subhuman as other liberals do (which we know is true because denying the right to marry = treating a group as subhuman as many gay marriage advocates would say).

I was not aware of "We Are Family's" definition of tolerance, and if it has been distorted to mean acceptance then I take back my indictment of the AFA for having a problem with the message. I agree that attempted indoctrination of children at that young of an age is reprehensible and wrong. Organizations aside, I think that my article still contains a pertinent point about tolerance, and how a lot of things would be a lot better if certain people were, and certain other people could be satisfied with that.

Just think. If these organizations asked us to tolerate the incestuous and the polygamous as real people, the liberals would be just as pissed that such an organization is teaching their children to openly accept such behavior or be labeled a bigot. Of course, I'm sure these tolerance groups think of the polygamous and the incestuous as subhuman as other liberals do (which we know is true because denying the right to marry = treating a group as subhuman as many gay marriage advocates would say).

Yeah, thanks. I think you already made this point the last million times that you've said it. It's too bad that you have to screw everything up by making broad generalizations about groups of people, since the point is quite good and valid, albeit beaten into the ground so much its rendered nearly unrecognizable.

I don't know if you're trying to make me feel as a hypocrite, or if you're trying to convince me of something, but you're wasting your time. I'm not a liberal (although I agree with them on many things), so don't try to target me with your attacks. I also happen to think that there isn't anything wrong with incest (as long as there are two consenting adults involved), and ditto for polygamy (with the necessary numerical adjustment to my previous parenthesized caveat), so if you're trying to convince me, you can go ahead and stop with that.

Although I wonder: Do you tolerate incest and polygamy, or are you just trying to make those that disagree with polygamy and incest but agree with homosexuality look like hypocrites?

Yeah, thanks. I think you already made this point the last million times that you've said it. It's too bad that you have to screw everything up by making broad generalizations about groups of people, since the point is quite good and valid, albeit beaten into the ground so much its rendered nearly unrecognizable.

Sometimes it's necessary to beat a dead horse until people acknowledge it. It's what I'm going to do with pro-choicers who oppose aborting gay fetuses too, so it's nothing personal. Besides, don't you think you're beating the whole Sponge Bob is gay thing into the ground?

I don't know if you're trying to make me feel as a hypocrite, or if you're trying to convince me of something, but you're wasting your time. I'm not a liberal (although I agree with them on many things), so don't try to target me with your attacks. I also happen to think that there isn't anything wrong with incest (as long as there are two consenting adults involved), and ditto for polygamy (with the necessary numerical adjustment to my previous parenthesized caveat), so if you're trying to convince me, you can go ahead and stop with that.

Really? Perhaps I'm wrong, but didn't we have debates concerning gay marriage deserving to be legal and polygamous marriage and incest marriage not? If so, then I apologize.

Although I wonder: Do you tolerate incest and polygamy, or are you just trying to make those that disagree with polygamy and incest but agree with homosexuality look like hypocrites?

I tolerate anything between consenting adults as much as I tolerate homosexuality between consenting adults.

Sometimes it's necessary to beat a dead horse until people acknowledge it. It's what I'm going to do with pro-choicers who oppose aborting gay fetuses too, so it's nothing personal. Besides, don't you think you're beating the whole Sponge Bob is gay thing into the ground?

Yes, I acknowledged that in the first paragraph of the article, and the majority of the article is not about that.

Really? Perhaps I'm wrong, but didn't we have debates concerning gay marriage deserving to be legal and polygamous marriage and incest marriage not? If so, then I apologize.

We had our debate and I declined comment at the time, thinking that my opinions on those subjects required more elaboration than I cared to give in a response to another article. My views, however, have always been as I elaborated in my previous response, although I admit our previous discussion made me think more about the subject, and eliminate some of the reservations that I had about incest and polygamy. My position, however, was always that there is nothing wrong with incest or polygamy between consenting adults.

I sometimes find Christians like messybuu very hard to tolerate, yet in a classroom situation I would always promote a celebration of their way of life. I don't agree with the institution of marriage, I think it is outdated and silly, but I strongly support Christians' rights to indulge in it if they choose. I would even teach kids about it. And even though I think that communal models of parenting are far superior to the mummy and daddy model provided by the Christian tradition, I would still be happy for children to be open about the fact that they believe in nuclear families. Now I expect my Christian students to be equally tolerant when gay parenting comes up, because, while it's not for me, it seems about as good a model as the Christian model.

"Expressing our beliefs about homosexuality is to them an act of intolerance. "

It has more to do with the antagonistic ways you and many other Christains express these views. I have heard some Xians express their beliefs in admirable, tolerant ways around gay people who have found their approach non-threatening and refreshing. As for validating their way of life, I would expect you to validate in the same way I wqould validate your way of life, silly as it seems to me, and even though I consider it to be wrong according to my beliefs.

The more gay men there are, the more women for the rest of us.