Changing the definition of marriage in textbooks.

It amaze me how the political agenda of many could go so far as to change wording in textbooks to align with their perspective of what marriage is and should always be: between a man and a woman. It apparently is not good enough that the books say, "individuals who marry" rather than "husbands and wives".

Mary Helen Berlanga, a member of the State Board of Education asked that the panel approve the textbooks for the Texas high school & middle school without changes being made to them. She noted that, "[they're] not supposed to make changes at somebody's whim. It's a political agenda, and we're not here to follow a political agenda."

I agree. We need to stop throwing our political views on our children. How do we expect to have independent-minded children if we have to make grey areas either black or white for them, thereby rendering their own thought processes & unique perspectives useless? I have found a couple of bullet points in an outline that reviews the roles of education--and this stuck out:

iii) Encourage inquiry, not conformity.
It may be inconvenient for the adults but it is important that children grow up with questions, rather than answers. At each age the questions will naturally be different but the ability to inquire and to learn for oneself is more important than to obey and follow unquestioningly what one is told to do. It follows that there must be no fear in our relationship with the child since fear kills inquiry and initiative. The child must be free to make mistakes and learn for itself without the constant fear of being rebuked by an adult. Such a mind is rational, flexible and not dogmatic, open to change and not irrationally attached to an opinion or belief. This implies the absence of all propaganda for any belief, including nationalism. "Our country is the best country, our culture is the best culture" is not true --- it is propaganda, which divides people.

I've never sensed so much bigotry & hatred in our country than I have these past couple of years. I am not gay but I can't imagine how isolated many homosexuals must feel when the nation pretty much alienates them because their lifestyle doesn't align with the view of the majority. Wedge issues are created that divide us more than unite us. I've heard many people say that homosexuals shouldn't even be recognized at all--not even with "civil union" status. I can understand that from their moral perspective, but to suggest law be made of it based on your religious principles alone is downright shameful.

I'm going to be a practicing homosexual starting today and I plan to unionize civilly just to piss the world off! You know, I never completely understood the reasoning behind the need that gays felt in marching down the street, parading their sexual orientation, but it's suddenly clear now; It's like a big fuck you to the oppressors.