Gwyneth Paltrow: what’s wrong with second graders learning about homosexuality?

Actress Gwyneth Paltrow, a top gay rights proponent in Hollywood, is thrilled that her second-grade daughter is learning about homosexuality.

In her newsletter GOOP, the Iron Man actress says that when her daughter came home with news about a classmate’s lesbian parents, she was enthusiastic.

“When my daughter came home from school one day saying that a classmate had two mommies, my response was, ‘Two mommies? How lucky is she?!’” she wrote.

Paltrow went on to question how Arkansas school board member Clint McCance, who apologized for publishing a death-wish against homosexuals on Facebook, could base his objection to the homosexual lifestyle on the teachings of the Bible.

“This concept, while foreign to me, is interesting, as it used to justify so much judgement and separation in our society,” wrote Paltrow. “What does it actually say in the bible that will cause some people to be upset by my line of thinking?”

The post was followed by the opinions of several religious voices favorable to homosexuality, including an Episcopal priest and priestess and a Kabbalah practitioner, who dismissed the Bible’s prohibitions as anachronistic or inconsistent with other teachings.

One dissenting opinion, by Anglican clergyman John Stott, outlined the prohibitions against homosexuality in the Old and New Testaments and explained, “The negative prohibitions of homosexual practices in Scripture make sense only in the light of its positive teaching in Genesis 1 and 2 about human sexuality and heterosexual marriage.”

While Paltrow once explained her daughter Apple’s unusual name as a “Biblical” choice, she has rejected any ties to the Judaeo-Christian religious tradition. “I don’t believe in religion. I believe in spirituality. Religion is the cause of all the problems in the world,” she told MSN’s Woman’s Day in March 2010.

lifesitenews.com/news/gwyneth-paltrow-whats-wrong-with-second-graders-learning-about-homosexualit

  1. By what measure of judgement can she state that ALL the bad stuff in the world has been caused by religion? How does she know that?

  2. What does she mean by “spiritual, not religious?” What I personally define as “spiritual, not religious” may not be what SHE defines as "spiritual, not religious."
    There ARE several interpretations of that term. Some see it one way, others another way.

  3. Has she ever actually ever READ the Bible? Because if she actually took the time to read it, she would certainly discover prohibitions against homosexuality and many other things in it. I guess she has not. She would not be asking “why?” if so.

  4. I don’t know what branch of Judaism she is part of (or even if she is a practicing Jew-----guess not) but does she know that (at least) Traditional, Orthodox Judaism explicitly condemns and opposes homosexuality----calling it an “abomination?”

  5. Not EVERYBODY is happy that their children are being taught homsoexuality at such a young age—basically being forced a worldview at a young age whether one wants that view or not—and without the approval of the parents—or even the opportunity to have the child NOT be taught that. How does Ms. Paltrow feel about that?

She needs serious help.

:thumbsup:

She’s an entertainer. Who cares what she’s got to say about anything?:shrug:

While it’s easy for us to dismiss, she is a prominent actress and does influence impressionable young people. We should always be prepared to tell the truth about homosexuality.

Indeed.
You also forget (or may not know) that good ole Gwyneth is positively famous around Hollywood and the Internet as somebody who just loves to push her opinions of how things should or should not be on the rest of us unenlightened, uninformed peasants. :rolleyes:
She has been doing this for a long, long time. Everything from what one should eat to what her movie star frinds buy and what political side of the specterum you should lean on. If one does not agree with her, then of course one is of the unwashed peasants.

A major magazine (I think it was Time magazine) even called her a “smug, intolerable scold.” :eek:

She actually did a self-parody of that trait of hers on Saturday Night Live about a year ago. (Very funny skit, by the way).

Sorry, but I don’t know anyone under the age of 35 who even knows who she is much less cares about her views on human sexuality. Have you ever seen her website? There’s absolutely nothing there of interest to anyone but lady of the manner wannabes.

Here’s the problem: THEY ARE CHILDREN! Why can’t we keep them innocent and let them be children? Why must we sexualize them earlier and earlier?

“I told you so” Sincerely, Humanae Vitae.

[quote="karow, post:8, topic:245220"]
Sorry, but I don't know anyone under the age of 35 who even knows who she is much less cares about her views on human sexuality. Have you ever seen her website? There's absolutely nothing there of interest to anyone but lady of the manner wannabes.

[/quote]

She IS known for (and projects an aura of) upper-crust snobishness.
I remember the first time many people (myself included) began to think of her as somewhat of a snob.

She was asked on the night of the 1997 Oscars what movie she wanted to see win. She said "Any movie as long as it's not Titanic."
The irony of THAT is----James Cameron offered her the role of Rose for the movie but she turned it down----"not my type of movie," she said-------of course the role ended up going to Kate Winslet.

Could her comment have been a case of "sour grapes?"

Or maybe just inherent snobishness?

Who knows....................................

My sentiments exactly.

Oddly enough whilst I agree with your points in the main about her been an example of ‘we artistic types are sooooo much cleverer than you and so much more liberated and freeeeee’ I can empathise with her points on Titanic as I find the movie pure sachharine. Bit been a crotchety old git I also loathe most Disney movies also which should show my misanthropic side nicely.

I find a better model was set by people like John Wayne and Johh Ford and others back in the day. Despite been on different political wavelengths they managed to interact with and respect each other and they didn’t all seem to subscribe to a ‘group think’ mentality where you must always agree with me.

I think she, like so many “celebrities,” like the sound of their voices above all else.

:smiley:

[quote="JharekCarnelian, post:12, topic:245220"]
Oddly enough whilst I agree with your points in the main about her been an example of 'we artistic types are sooooo much cleverer than you and so much more liberated and freeeeee' I can empathise with her points on Titanic as I find the movie pure sachharine. Bit been a crotchety old git I also loathe most Disney movies also which should show my misanthropic side nicely.

I find a better model was set by people like John Wayne and Johh Ford and others back in the day. Despite been on different political wavelengths they managed to interact with and respect each other and they didn't all seem to subscribe to a 'group think' mentality where you must always agree with me.

[/quote]

I have problems with Titanic too, Carnelian------what I was really commenting on concerned more her apparent hypocisy in criticizing a movie she turned down.

The luvvies displaying their claws at each other in hissy fits is all part of the grand tradition of Hollywood. Those actors who didn’t and don’t do it are the exception. That said I do think there was a certain class about some previous generations (or at least some individuals) of movie stars in the US and elsewhere that has been sadly lost. I couldn’t see a James Stewart, Jack Palance or similar individuals renowned for their manners off-screen emerging in this era.

Kids don’t and shouldn’t learn about ANY sexuality (especially not homosexual and other perverted acts) until they are much older than second grade.

Third grade and fourth grade could be teaching kids about puberty, since so many girls are maturing early these days.

As for sex acts, maybe educate them about diseases in middle school. But nobody should be learning any specifics. Especially things that don’t have to do with biology and reproduction.

Of course, celebrities and drug companies and some people in the government who are being given money by lobbyists are going to press for kids to be sexualized younger and younger. The earlier and more promiscuous people are, the more money they make. They don’t care about anyone’s well-being (giving into every urge does not help anyone in any way), they are just there to make a profit.

I would say that wildly succesful celebrities develop a sense of self-importance strong enough that they not only feel that THEIR beliefs are the TRUE, correct beliefs, but that they have a DUTY to share this “high knowledge” with the rest of us who are not on their level. I think that is the point of their behavior.
“Educate” us, so to speak. :rolleyes:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.