PDA

View Full Version : Teacher discharges gay fairy tale in crowded classroom, corrupts 20 children


Pages : [1] 2

Count Alex's Losses
04-27-2006, 11:11 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060427/us_nm/rights_gays_massachusetts_dc

BOSTON (Reuters) - Two families filed a lawsuit on Thursday against a Massachusetts town and its public school system after a teacher read a gay-themed fairy tale to children without notifying them first.


The suit against Lexington, about 12 miles west of Boston, seeks unspecified damages after the book "King & King" was read to a classroom of about 20 mostly 7 years olds. It is believed the first of its kind, the families' lawyers said.


The complaint said the school had "begun a process of intentionally indoctrinating very young children to affirm the notion that homosexuality is right and normal in direct denigration of the plaintiffs' deeply held faith."
It also charges that Lexington broke a 1996 Massachusetts law requiring that parents be notified of sex-education lessons. It names Lexington Superintendent of Schools Paul Ash and several other school and town officials.


Ash said the school was under no legal obligation to inform parents the book would be read. "This school district is committed to a welcoming environment for all kids. We embrace the diverse nature of the community," he told Reuters.


"King & King" tells the story of a crown prince who rejects a bevy of beautiful princesses, rebuffing each suitor until falling in love with a prince. The two marry, sealing the union with a kiss, and live happily ever after.
Ash has said reading the book was not intended as sex education but as a way to educate children about the world in which they live, especially in Massachusetts, the only U.S. state where gays and lesbians can legally wed.


It was read during a lesson on different types of weddings.
The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Boston alleges violations of the federal civil rights of the two sets of parents, David and Tonia Parker, and Rob and Robin Wirthlin. The families are devout Judeo-Christians, it said.


"I was concerned that I had not broached this topic with my young child yet and I was concerned that the point of view that was being presented was different from our family's personal moral values," Robin Wirthlin told a news conference.


The suit also accuses the town and school officials of violating the Massachusetts civil rights code and the state's parental notification law, according to the parents' attorney, Boston law firm Denner Associates.
"This is plainly a civil-rights matter," their lawyer, Jeffrey Denner, told Reuters.


The issue erupted when Robin Wirthlin complained to the school's principal after her 7-year-old son told her about the reading last month. She then turned to the conservative Massachusetts-based advocacy group Parents Rights Coalition, which issued a statement on the case to the media last week.


David Parker has been entangled with the town's school system since he was arrested a year ago for trespassing when he refused to leave school grounds until authorities promised to excuse his son from classroom discussions on same-sex parents.


His son, who at the time was about 5 years old, had brought home a "diversity book bag" that included the book "Who's in a Family?" The book includes pictures of same-sex parents along with other types of families.
"King & King" was ranked eighth among the top 10 books people wanted removed from libraries in 2004, according to the American Library Association. Its Berkeley, California publisher, Tricycle Press, said complaints over the 32-page book first surfaced in 2004 in North Carolina.
Written by two Dutch women, the book has sold about 15,000 copies in the United States since it was translated and published in 2002.

Fish
04-27-2006, 11:12 PM
That's gay.....

Simplex3
04-27-2006, 11:14 PM
If I hear the word "diverse" again I may puke. This has got to be one of the most over-used words in America. "Price gouging" and "windfall profits" are coming up strong, however.

Phobia
04-27-2006, 11:15 PM
Wow. That's amazing. I'm all for stopping the persecution of gays, but cramming that crap down the throats of our children is just as wrong IMO.

Rausch
04-27-2006, 11:16 PM
That's gay.....

It's redundant...

Count Alex's Losses
04-27-2006, 11:16 PM
Wow. That's amazing. I'm all for stopping the persecution of gays, but cramming that crap down the throats of our children is just as wrong IMO.

Yeah, I think I agree. While filing a lawsuit is WAY over the top, I think children should be required to get signed permission slips for this sort of thing.

jspchief
04-27-2006, 11:16 PM
"I was concerned that I had not broached this topic with my young child yet and I was concerned that the point of view that was being presented was different from our family's personal moral values," Robin Wirthlin told a news conference.
Yea, because 30 minutes of storytime is probably going to override the values you'll instill in your children over their entire childhood. :rolleyes:

Fish
04-27-2006, 11:17 PM
It's redundant...

and redundant...

Simplex3
04-27-2006, 11:18 PM
Yeah, I think I agree. While filing a lawsuit is WAY over the top, I think children should be required to get signed permission slips for this sort of thing.
Just to play devil's advocate here:

What about Cinderella? The story of a chick who meets a guy and marries him after only knowing him for a few hours, but they live happily ever after? Give me a break, talk about giving kids a warped sense of reality.

Reaper16
04-27-2006, 11:19 PM
I'm a person who finds nothing wrong with homsexuality, but I disagree with this. Kids that young aren't old enough to comprehend relationships like that, let alone straight ones.

This is 100% a case of a teacher projecting his/her values and beliefs onto students. Seven year old students. It's not only unprofessional and of questionable moral ground, it's pathetic.

Rausch
04-27-2006, 11:19 PM
Yeah, I think I agree. While filing a lawsuit is WAY over the top, I think children should be required to get signed permission slips for this sort of thing.

Or just wait to discuss it until sex-ed age.

KCChiefsMan
04-27-2006, 11:20 PM
I'm definately not gay, but I'm not homophobic. I am educated, which I believe most people need to be, to understand homosexuality. Fact, it's a genetic disorder. We don't have hatred towards people with other genetic disorders, why this one? I don't think it's harmful that book was read to the class.

Now come on now, everybody is going to throw some gay jokes at me, so bring it on!

Reaper16
04-27-2006, 11:20 PM
Or just wait to discuss it until sex-ed age.
:clap:

Count Alex's Losses
04-27-2006, 11:21 PM
Fact, it's a genetic disorder.

Is being bisexual a genetic disorder, too?

jspchief
04-27-2006, 11:24 PM
God forbid you accidentally give these kids the notion that gay people exist.

Much better to shield them from reality.

KCChiefsMan
04-27-2006, 11:26 PM
Is being bisexual a genetic disorder, too?

I would assume so for men, but it's socially acceptable for women...so don't know

Count Alex's Losses
04-27-2006, 11:29 PM
I would assume so for men, but it's socially acceptable for women...so don't know

Wait a second...so depending on how society accepts something, it may or may not be a genetic disorder?

tk13
04-27-2006, 11:36 PM
Wait a second...so depending on how society accepts something, it may or may not be a genetic disorder?
Funny, that would make KCChiefsMan a genetic disorder.

Fish
04-27-2006, 11:36 PM
Wait a second...so depending on how society accepts something, it may or may not be a genetic disorder?

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/1859/donotquestionauthority9ua.gif

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-27-2006, 11:37 PM
I'm definately not gay, but I'm not homophobic. I am educated, which I believe most people need to be, to understand homosexuality. Fact, it's a genetic disorder. We don't have hatred towards people with other genetic disorders, why this one? I don't think it's harmful that book was read to the class.

Now come on now, everybody is going to throw some gay jokes at me, so bring it on!

the fact that you call being gay a 'disorder' proves that although you may be educated, you've never taken (or if you have, absorbed) a queer theory course. I understand where you are coming from, and I am aware that you are probably one of the more concilliatory voices on this board towards gay people, but to call it a disorder pathologizes in a way that makes it akin to mental illness. I don't see gay people as having the same inherent problems as schizophrenics, and I doubt that you do either. Are you sure you really want to use such terminology?

Rausch
04-27-2006, 11:37 PM
Wait a second...so depending on how society accepts something, it may or may not be a genetic disorder?

When has that NOT been true?...

Count Alex's Losses
04-27-2006, 11:38 PM
Funny, that would make KCChiefsMan a genetic disorder.

ROFL

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-27-2006, 11:40 PM
The fact of the matter is that homosexuality is a naturally occurring trait in all of the natural world. There is absolutely nothing wrong or abhorrent about it. One of the best things to come about from this teacher reading such a tale in class is that it will expose the children to homosexuality at a much earlier age. Since it has been substantially documented that gay people raise children who end up just as healthy and productive as straights, and that gays are no more likely to abuse their children either sexually, mentally, or physically, I do'nt see why even people who claim to be 'pro-gay' on this board have any semblance of a problem with this.

Rausch
04-27-2006, 11:41 PM
the fact that you call being gay a 'disorder' proves that although you may be educated, you've never taken (or if you have, absorbed) a queer theory course. I understand where you are coming from, and I am aware that you are probably one of the more concilliatory voices on this board towards gay people, but to call it a disorder pathologizes in a way that makes it akin to mental illness. I don't see gay people as having the same inherent problems as schizophrenics, and I doubt that you do either. Are you sure you really want to use such terminology?

I don't see why not.

I have ADD. Having it makes me act and think differently than other people.

Does that make it or me bad?

No.

Would it make Gay people (who act and think differently) bad?

No.

SPchief
04-27-2006, 11:41 PM
Wait a second...so depending on how society accepts something, it may or may not be a genetic disorder?


Just admit it, you're looking for a reason for it to be alright to be gay.

We'll accept you, just stop pretending.

Rausch
04-27-2006, 11:45 PM
The fact of the matter is that homosexuality is a naturally occurring trait in all of the natural world. There is absolutely nothing wrong or abhorrent about it. One of the best things to come about from this teacher reading such a tale in class is that it will expose the children to homosexuality at a much earlier age. Since it has been substantially documented that gay people raise children who end up just as healthy and productive as straights, and that gays are no more likely to abuse their children either sexually, mentally, or physically, I do'nt see why even people who claim to be 'pro-gay' on this board have any semblance of a problem with this.

I don't have a problem with it, but people who think differently, in any way, have a right to in this country.

That includes both sides to all arguments. Your intolerance of what you consider "bad" or "wrong" is in no way any different than the arguments of the people you'll argue with on this thread...

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-27-2006, 11:46 PM
I don't see why not.

I have ADD. Having it makes me act and think differently than other people.

Does that make it or me bad?

No.

Would it make Gay people (who act and think differently) bad?

No.

Considering that homosexuality was classified as a mental illness for the better part of a century, and only removed as such from the DSM in the 1970's, there are clear historical problems (not to mention cultural and eugenic implications--as though everyone who is not straight is inherently defective) with calling it a genetic disorder. What about it makes people function incorrectly?? Is it the fact that they won't procreate?? Well then do we classify all women who have gone through menopause, and all infertile people as being genetic maladies as well? Furthermore, when you can pathologize someone's behavior, then you run the risk of falling down the slippery slope that allows you to deny other tenets that can take away their ability to have a livable life.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-27-2006, 11:49 PM
I don't have a problem with it, but people who think differently, in any way, have a right to in this country.

That includes both sides to all arguments. Your intolerance of what you consider "bad" or "wrong" is in no way any different than the arguments of the people you'll argue with on this thread...

*if* I couldn't be backed up by the facts on this, and it were just a manner of opinions, then I would agree with your statement, but there has never been any study that has proven that homosexuals are incapable of doing anything less well than heterosexuals (except compiling a range of sexual mores of the opposite gender). My 'beliefs', if you want to call them as such, are grounded in fact, not dogma, and there is a big difference between the two.

Ultra Peanut
04-27-2006, 11:49 PM
DAMN THE HOMERSEXUL AGENDA

Always suin' upstandin' people to force their beliefs on them...

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-27-2006, 11:51 PM
I don't have a problem with it, but people who think differently, in any way, have a right to in this country.

That includes both sides to all arguments. Your intolerance of what you consider "bad" or "wrong" is in no way any different than the arguments of the people you'll argue with on this thread...

To clarify: I'm not saying that people shouldn't have the Constitutional right to be homophobic--as much as it sickens me, they do have such a right. What I am miffed about is how people could choose to be so in the face of overwhelming personal and statisical evidence that undermines every facet of that prejudice.

Rausch
04-27-2006, 11:51 PM
Considering that homosexuality was classified as a mental illness for the better part of a century, and only removed as such from the DSM in the 1970's, there are clear historical problems (not to mention cultural and eugenic implications--as though everyone who is not straight is inherently defective) with calling it a genetic disorder. What about it makes people function incorrectly?? Is it the fact that they won't procreate?? Well then do we classify all women who have gone through menopause, and all infertile people as being genetic maladies as well? Furthermore, when you can pathologize someone's behavior, then you run the risk of falling down the slippery slope that allows you to deny other tenets that can take away their ability to have a livable life.

You're still under the assumption that abnormal=bad.

It is not normal to be gay, or have ADD, or be color blind.

That doesn't make it bad, or wrong, or illegal.

It makes you different.

People hate to admit this because even abnormal people think "bad" when they hear the word. "I'm different than most people" causes a rough road for a lot of people in life.

But that doesn't mean you aren't abnormal. You are.

And I wouldn't have it any other way... :)

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-27-2006, 11:55 PM
You're still under the assumption that abnormal=bad.

It is not normal to be gay, or have ADD, or be color blind.

That doesn't make it bad, or wrong, or illegal.

It makes you different.

People hate to admit this because even abnormal people think "bad" when they hear the word. "I'm different than most people" causes a rough road for a lot of people in life.

But that doesn't mean you aren't abnormal. You are.

And I wouldn't have it any other way... :)

I'm not under that assumption--society is. Normativity is a dangerous trap that constructs people to act and live a certain way that no one can in fact do. But this impossibility does not change the fact that people feel the need to judge others based on their supposed adherence to normal. It would be *wonderful* if everyone embraced the fact that they were abnormal, because that is factually true--but that is not reality. The problem I had with the above phrasing is 'disorder', and disorder is something that definitely has a negative connotation, and any other dissemination of it really isn't a correct read. It isn't structured as a word the same way that 'abnormal' is..

Rausch
04-27-2006, 11:59 PM
Considering that homosexuality was classified as a mental illness for the better part of a century, and only removed as such from the DSM in the 1970's, there are clear historical problems (not to mention cultural and eugenic implications--as though everyone who is not straight is inherently defective) with calling it a genetic disorder. What about it makes people function incorrectly?? Is it the fact that they won't procreate??

Well, yes.

Though I'd say behavioral disorder. There is no proof what makes a person gay or straight anymore than what makes one person like spinach or not.

Well then do we classify all women who have gone through menopause, and all infertile people as being genetic maladies as well?

No, but they DO have an imbalance. A way in which the human body is not properyly functioning.

And that makes it an invalid point. There is no biological error (that is proven) in gay/bi people.

Furthermore, when you can pathologize someone's behavior, then you run the risk of falling down the slippery slope that allows you to deny other tenets that can take away their ability to have a livable life.

Of course you could.

Should that mean we should no longer admit an abnormality or disorder?

Phobias are irrational and often disorders, but having one of snakes doesn't make you a bad person. It's still an abnormality.

el borracho
04-28-2006, 12:01 AM
One of my favorite childhood memories was going to an after school learning program that specifically looked at different cultures of the world. I was probably about 5 or 6 at the time (this was in Kindergarden)and we would meet each Friday after school and have guest speakers from around the world, and watch short documentaries and even try foods from different cultures. I can distinctly remember eating sushi for the first time at one of these after school meetings at age 5 or 6.

Remarkably, I didn't become Japanese after the lesson.

Soooo... I don't know. I guess I don't really see the big deal here. It isn't like the school exposed the children to gay porn, they just exposed them to the reality that there are gay people in the world. I really, really doubt that this knowledge will damage these kids in any way so I don't see where the situation merits a lawsuit. On the other hand, parents have the right and responsibility to teach their children morals and values. Seems like these parents would be better off enrolling their children in a private (religious) school.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-28-2006, 12:02 AM
Well, yes.

Though I'd say behavioral disorder. There is no proof what makes a person gay or straight anymore than what makes one person like spinach or not.



No, but they DO have an imbalance. A way in which the human body is not properyly functioning.

And that makes it an invalid point. There is no biological error (that is proven) in gay/bi people.



Of course you could.

Should that mean we should no longer admit an abnormality or disorder?

Phobias are irrational and often disorders, but having one of snakes doesn't make you a bad person. It's still an abnormality.

But by simply saying that they have an 'imbalance' you pathologize that behavior, whether you realize it or not. What is the 'proper' way for a human body to function? What is irrational about homosexuality? If there is no biological error, then there should be no imbalance or irrationality.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-28-2006, 12:03 AM
One of my favorite childhood memories was going to an after school learning program that specifically looked at different cultures of the world. I was probably about 5 or 6 at the time (this was in Kindergarden)and we would meet each Friday after school and have guest speakers from around the world, and watch short documentaries and even try foods from different cultures. I can distinctly remember eating sushi for the first time at one of these after school meetings at age 5 or 6.

Remarkably, I didn't become Japanese after the lesson.

Soooo... I don't know. I guess I don't really see the big deal here. It isn't like the school exposed the children to gay porn, they just exposed them to the reality that there are gay people in the world. I really, really doubt that this knowledge will damage these kids in any way so I don't see where the situation merits a lawsuit. On the other hand, parents have the right and responsibility to teach their children morals and values. Seems like these parents would be better off enrolling their children in a private (religious) school.


I agree with almost all of your post, but is there something inherently immoral and lacking in values about gay people??

Rausch
04-28-2006, 12:06 AM
I'm not under that assumption--society is. Normativity is a dangerous trap that constructs people to act and live a certain way that no one can in fact do.

Tough $#it, everyone has their own cross.

But this impossibility does not change the fact that people feel the need to judge others based on their supposed adherence to normal.

And if you let that shape your life you'll never be happy. Wah.

People don't need a reason to hate you. If they don't have one provided they'll come up with one. Deal with it.

It would be *wonderful* if everyone embraced the fact that they were abnormal, because that is factually true--but that is not reality. The problem I had with the above phrasing is 'disorder', and disorder is something that definitely has a negative connotation, and any other dissemination of it really isn't a correct read.

Tough $#it. Don't shy away from reality because the majority of people are ignorant. Don't be so fearful of what someone else thinks that you start ignore what you know is true.

YOU have a problem with texbook definitions, deal with it.

YOU are a part of the same problem.

"But if I use that word people will think of me in a negative light because they don't know what it means."

You better get use to it.

Rausch
04-28-2006, 12:08 AM
But by simply saying that they have an 'imbalance' you pathologize that behavior, whether you realize it or not. What is the 'proper' way for a human body to function? What is irrational about homosexuality? If there is no biological error, then there should be no imbalance or irrationality.

It's obviously a behavior.

And it's not a normal behavior, by definition.

ABNORMAL does NOT = BAD.

It means abnormal.

Stephen Hawking is about 12,000 different types of abnormal.

Is he bad?

el borracho
04-28-2006, 12:10 AM
I agree with almost all of your post, but is there something inherently immoral and lacking in values about gay people??
Not at all in my opinion. But I believe that is the parent's complaint in this case, isn't it?

el borracho
04-28-2006, 12:11 AM
"I was concerned that I had not broached this topic with my young child yet and I was concerned that the point of view that was being presented was different from our family's personal moral values," Robin Wirthlin told a news conference.

Mr. Kotter
04-28-2006, 12:12 AM
I'm not under that assumption--society is. Normativity is a dangerous trap that constructs people to act and live a certain way that no one can in fact do. But this impossibility does not change the fact that people feel the need to judge others based on their supposed adherence to normal. It would be *wonderful* if everyone embraced the fact that they were abnormal, because that is factually true--but that is not reality. The problem I had with the above phrasing is 'disorder', and disorder is something that definitely has a negative connotation, and any other dissemination of it really isn't a correct read. It isn't structured as a word the same way that 'abnormal' is..

Ah, yes; if societal "norms" and sociological research and classification makes one uncomfortable--you can simply choose to reject it. That makes sense....

You choose to ignore the sociologists? Fair enough. I'll choose to ignore a politically correct psychology "leadership" that allows itself to be extorted, despite the clear disagreement of a large plurality of it's own membership.

KCChiefsFan88
04-28-2006, 12:17 AM
Yeah, I think I agree. While filing a lawsuit is WAY over the top, I think children should be required to get signed permission slips for this sort of thing.


The same thing should apply to any religious or biblical teaching in a public school setting as well. For every story like this there are probably at least 10 incidents of over-zealous teachers trying to shove Jesus and all their Bible crap down kids' throats.

Count Alex's Losses
04-28-2006, 12:18 AM
The same thing should apply to any religious or biblical teaching in a public school setting as well. For every story like this there are probably at least 10 incidents of over-zealous teachers trying to shove Jesus and all their Bible crap down kids' throats.

I agree 100%

Rausch
04-28-2006, 12:28 AM
The same thing should apply to any religious or biblical teaching in a public school setting as well. For every story like this there are probably at least 10 incidents of over-zealous teachers trying to shove Jesus and all their Bible crap down kids' throats.

No argument here...

Mr. Kotter
04-28-2006, 12:29 AM
The same thing should apply to any religious or biblical teaching in a public school setting as well. For every story like this there are probably at least 10 incidents of over-zealous teachers trying to shove Jesus and all their Bible crap down kids' throats.
As a teacher, I'll tell you this: you are full of crap.

Mr. Kotter
04-28-2006, 12:30 AM
No argument here...
Bullshit. Maybe 30 years ago. Not today. Not with the threat of lawsuits.

One example: we now call Christmas break, "Winter break".....yet this week we just celebrated "A Day of Silence".....:rolleyes:

BucEyedPea
04-28-2006, 12:32 AM
If there are homophobes does that mean the opposites are heterophobes?

There was a kindergarten teacher on another board who highly supported this stuff...called it "Critical Literature." There is also another called....I think it's "Heather Has Two Mommies." It ain't just gays they're doing...it's all kinds of PC stuff. And believe me teachers are being trained in it.

I think it is wrong to burden young children with adult issues and problems.
Of course the idea is to get them as young and impressionable as possible so they can "socially engineer" them to think a certain way.

Mr. Kotter
04-28-2006, 12:38 AM
If there are homophobes does that mean the opposites are heterophobes?

There was a kindergarten teacher on another board who highly supported this stuff...called it "Critical Literature." There is also another called....I think it's "Heather Has Two Mommies." It ain't just gays they're doing...it's all kinds of PC stuff. And believe me teachers are being trained in it.

I think it is wrong to burden young children with adult issues and problems.
Of course the idea is to get them as young and impressionable as possible so they can "socially engineer" them to think a certain way.

Good take.

Private schools are different, of course; but public school teachers are given "in service" training and indoctrination into politically correct "diversity" and "multi-cultural" training CONSTANTLY. They've been beating us over the heads with it for 20 years...

Guru
04-28-2006, 12:49 AM
If there are homophobes does that mean the opposites are heterophobes?

There was a kindergarten teacher on another board who highly supported this stuff...called it "Critical Literature." There is also another called....I think it's "Heather Has Two Mommies." It ain't just gays they're doing...it's all kinds of PC stuff. And believe me teachers are being trained in it.

I think it is wrong to burden young children with adult issues and problems.
Of course the idea is to get them as young and impressionable as possible so they can "socially engineer" them to think a certain way.
:clap: :clap: :clap:

Pitt Gorilla
04-28-2006, 12:54 AM
Just to play devil's advocate here:

What about Cinderella? The story of a chick who meets a guy and marries him after only knowing him for a few hours, but they live happily ever after? Give me a break, talk about giving kids a warped sense of reality.I agree. In fact, kids shouldn't hear about any kind of relationship. Only stories couched in seclusion should be considered.

Taco John
04-28-2006, 12:56 AM
If you're going to send kids to public schools, expect them to learn public values. Period. If you want your kids to learn your values, then send them to schools that share your values. If you haven't contacted your congressman about the issue, but still want to bitch about it, feel free to shout to the wind. You're never going to win this battle until you demand control of your tax dollar, and you'll never get control of your tax dollar voting for Republicans or Democrats.

http://www.lp.org

BucEyedPea
04-28-2006, 12:58 AM
Well I loved fairy tales growing up and KNEW they were not true stories any more than there was a Tinkerbell,a boy who never grew up but who could also fly above London! Lmao!

So should Disney put out a new animated feature classic on Roman orgies too because it's true even today?

Pitt Gorilla
04-28-2006, 01:01 AM
Well I loved fairy tales growing up and KNEW they were not true stories any more than there was a Tinkerbell,a boy who never grew up but who could also fly above London! Lmao!

So should Disney put out a new animated feature classic on Roman orgies too because it's true even today?I'm pretty sure that the story that was read was a fairy tale (in more ways than one).

BucEyedPea
04-28-2006, 01:04 AM
If you're going to send kids to public schools, expect them to learn public values. Period. If you want your kids to learn your values, then send them to schools that share your values. If you haven't contacted your congressman about the issue, but still want to bitch about it, feel free to shout to the wind. You're never going to win this battle until you demand control of your tax dollar, and you'll never get control of your tax dollar voting for Republicans or Democrats.

http://www.lp.org

I actually don't disagree with that.
Luckily there's been an exodus from the public schools
I have had my kid in a private school since Kindergarden.
But we should still complain while taking the kids out.
Because you still have to watch some private schools as the teachers pretty much get the same training...and this stuff is also in a lot of the new textbooks they sell in private schools. Things like: the people make the laws in America because it's a democracy. What a load of disinformation.

I also witnessed a salesman at my kid's Kindergarden trying to sell the owner on such a textbook for the older kids...midschool...she cracked me up with her response. Sir! I have NO gay children in my school! LOL!

BucEyedPea
04-28-2006, 01:05 AM
I'm pretty sure that the story that was read was a fairy tale (in more ways than one).


I doubt it. When it's obvious fantasy you know the difference than fiction that is somewhat reality based but a created storyline. You can actually check out some of those books on line too.

There was another one I saw that even had incest overtones and stuff like that in it.

tk13
04-28-2006, 01:09 AM
I think it is wrong to burden young children with adult issues and problems.
Of course the idea is to get them as young and impressionable as possible so they can "socially engineer" them to think a certain way.

Yeah, but that's kinda what school is anyway... it's social engineering. At that age you have the ability to make kids think all kinds of things, whether it be about gay marriage or some kinda romantic male/female story. The real question is how you think the kid should be "engineered".

I mean, I can see the argument, I think 7 years old is young for such a heavy issue.

That said, you're talking about a state where gay marriage happens. That's what is being overlooked in this discussion. Everybody is attacking this from a perfect heterosexual relationship manner where everybody in the class grew up in a common heterosexual family and would find this unusual. What happens when you get a kid in that class that has been adopted by two same sex parents? To him this isn't bizarre at all. And how do you address this to the other kids in that class who see that kid comes from a "different" family? They're going to wonder what is up. I don't know the answer to that. But I think it's a good question. It's an adult issue but it's one kids in that state might very well have to deal with.

Ultra Peanut
04-28-2006, 01:11 AM
By the way, kids should also be kept from being indoctrinated with thoughts of interracial couples being acceptable. That's just sickening.

Rausch
04-28-2006, 01:13 AM
By the way, kids should also be kept from being indoctrinated with thoughts of interracial couples being acceptable. That's just sickening.

I'm a part of one, but if some inbred douche doesn't want his kids to to believe in it it's still his choice.

BucEyedPea
04-28-2006, 01:14 AM
Yeah, but that's kinda what school is anyway... it's social engineering. At that age you have the ability to make kids think all kinds of things, whether it be about gay marriage or some kinda romantic male/female story. The real question is how you think the kid should be "engineered".

I mean, I can see the argument, I think 7 years old is young for such a heavy issue.

That said, you're talking about a state where gay marriage happens. That's what is being overlooked in this discussion. Everybody is attacking this from a perfect heterosexual relationship manner where everybody in the class grew up in a common heterosexual family and would find this unusual. What happens when you get a kid in that class that has been adopted by two same sex parents? To him this isn't bizarre at all. And how do you address this to the other kids in that class who see that kid comes from a "different" family? They're going to wonder what is up. I don't know the answer to that. But I think it's a good question. It's an adult issue but it's one kids in that state might very well have to deal with.

Well...I am from Massachusetts originally. Still have lots of family and friends there. A lot of people in Mass are upset about it...and that battle is not over up there to overturn it.

There was even a school incident, where parents were not allowed in, where homosexual activist taught gay fisting techniques etc. that was considered an outrage.

Rausch
04-28-2006, 01:23 AM
There was even a school incident, where parents were not allowed in, where homosexual activist taught gay fisting techniques etc. that was considered an outrage.

If they're willing to give equal time to solid BJ techniques to the young ladies I'm all for it.

In that area...

Ultra Peanut
04-28-2006, 01:23 AM
I'm a part of oneFor some reason, I find this painting amusing:

Guru
04-28-2006, 01:28 AM
Well...I am from Massachusetts originally. Still have lots of family and friends there. A lot of people in Mass are upset about it...and that battle is not over up there to overturn it.

There was even a school incident, where parents were not allowed in, where homosexual activist taught gay fisting techniques etc. that was considered an outrage.
:shake:

ChiefsFanatic
04-28-2006, 02:21 AM
Wow. That's amazing. I'm all for stopping the persecution of gays, but cramming that crap down the throats of our children is just as wrong IMO.

I thought it was a story, not an indoctrination into the gay and lesbian brotherhood.

ChiefsFanatic
04-28-2006, 02:25 AM
Of course the idea is to get them as young and impressionable as possible so they can "socially engineer" them to think a certain way.

I have never met a child who was a racist, or a homophobe, that wasn't mimicking the actions of their parents.

el borracho
04-28-2006, 02:30 AM
ROFL "De negro y española sale el mulato"

I love that they thought they had to number them so we could distinguish which was which.

KCChiefsMan
04-28-2006, 04:09 AM
the fact that you call being gay a 'disorder' proves that although you may be educated, you've never taken (or if you have, absorbed) a queer theory course. I understand where you are coming from, and I am aware that you are probably one of the more concilliatory voices on this board towards gay people, but to call it a disorder pathologizes in a way that makes it akin to mental illness. I don't see gay people as having the same inherent problems as schizophrenics, and I doubt that you do either. Are you sure you really want to use such terminology?

well schizophrenia is not a genetic disorder. Gay people have an extra Y chromosome in their gene structure...making it a genetic disorder.

KCChiefsMan
04-28-2006, 04:14 AM
well schizophrenia is not a genetic disorder. Gay people have an extra Y chromosome in their gene structure...making it a genetic disorder.


well I should have said that schizophrenia can be biological......I'm drunk, so it's probably a bad time to discuss this. My main point is, gay people are born with this......and it's not the normal way, but they can't help it..in fact, if there is anyone to blame, it's the father because they are the one's who give them that extra chromosome. Anywho...I'm drunk and probably shouldn't give my educated opinion on this subject, but I don't think that people should hate gays because it is not their fault...I do think it's nasty as hell...but the ghey's dont....ok I'm drunk! good nite

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-28-2006, 04:26 AM
well schizophrenia is not a genetic disorder. Gay people have an extra Y chromosome in their gene structure...making it a genetic disorder.

That is absolutely false.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-28-2006, 04:29 AM
If you want to talk social engineering, you might want to start here:

Heteronormativity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Heteronormativity is a term used in the discussion of sexual behavior, gender, and society, primarily within the fields of queer theory and gender theory. It is used to describe (and frequently to criticize) the manner in which many social institutions and social policies are seen to reinforce certain beliefs.

Beliefs
These include the belief that human beings fall into two distinct and complementary categories, male and female; that sexual and marital relations are normal only when between two people of different genders; and that each gender has certain natural roles in life. Thus, physical sex, gender identity, and gender roles should in any given person align to either all-male or all-female norms, and heterosexuality is considered to be the only normal sexual orientation. The norms this term describes or criticizes might be overt, covert, or implied. Those who identify and criticize heteronormativity say that it distorts discourse by stigmatizing alternative concepts of both sexuality and gender and makes certain types of self-expression more difficult.

[edit]
Origin of term
The term was coined by Michael Warner in 1991 in his Social Text article, "Introduction: Fear of a Queer Planet" (Social Text, 1991; 9 (4 [29]): 3-17.), one of the first major works of queer theory. The concept can probably be traced to Adrienne Rich's notion of compulsory heterosexuality. In a series of recent articles Samuel A. Chambers has tried to theorize heteronormativity more explicitly, calling for an understanding of heteronormativity as a concept that reveals the expectations, demands, and constraints produced when heterosexuality is taken as normative within a society.

It has been used in the exploration and critique of the traditional norms of sex, gender identity, gender roles and sexuality, and of the social implications of those institutions. It is descriptive of a dichotomous system of categorization that directly links social behavior and self-identity with one's genitalia. That is to say (among other things) that, because there are strictly defined concepts of maleness and femaleness, there are similarly expected behaviors for both males and females.

Originally conceived to describe the norms against which non-heterosexuals struggle, it quickly became incorporated into both the gender and the transgender debate. It is also often used in postmodernist and feminist debates. Those who use this concept frequently point to the difficulty posed to those who hold a dichotomous view of sexuality by the presence of clear exceptions — from freemartins in the bovine world to intersexual human beings with the sexual characteristics of both sexes. These exceptions are taken as direct evidence that neither sex nor gender are concepts that can be reduced to an either/or proposition.

In a heteronormative society, the binary choice of male and female for one's gender identity is viewed as leading to a lack of possible choice about one's gender role and sexual identity. Also, included in the norms established by society for both genders is the requirement that the individuals should feel and express desire only for partners of the opposite sex. In the work of Eve Sedgwick, for example, this heteronormative pairing is viewed as defining sexual orientation exclusively in terms of the sex and gender of the person one chooses to have sex with, ignoring other preferences one might have about sex.

In a heteronormative society, men and women are interpreted to be natural complements, socially as well as biologically, and especially when it comes to reproduction. Woman and men are necessary for procreation, therefore male/female coupling is assumed to be the norm.

[edit]
Heteronormativity and patriarchy
Heteronormativity is often strongly associated with (and sometimes even confused with) patriarchy. However, a patriarchal system does not necessarily have a binary gender system, and vice versa; it merely privileges the masculine gender over all others, regardless of the number of others.

Still, heteronormativity is often seen as one of the pillars of a patriarchal society: The traditional role of men is reinforced and perpetuated through heteronormative mores, rules, and even laws that distinguish between individuals based on their apparent sex or their refusal to conform to the gender roles that are considered normal to their society. Consequently, feminism can be seen as concerned with fighting heteronormativity and the prescriptions it is seen to have for women.

[edit]
Defense of heteronormative structures
Heteronormativity is a way of describing social structures built around a certain gender model. Challenges to the label may result from a belief that the description of a structure as heteronormative implies that the normative structure is inherently wrong. One of the most common criticisms of the concept of heteronormativity is that it is politically correct. A well-known recent example of this was a March 11, 2005, FOX News story which referred to the debate over a heteronormative comment made by actress Jada Pinkett Smith at Harvard University as "politically correct nuttiness". [1] This description of a term as political correctness may be applied for a number of reasons. When used as a criticism, it often implies that the use of such carefully chosen wording and terms is a form of repression of speech, although this implies that the articulation of important concepts is prevented or hindered by politically correct regulation of speech by intellectual elites.

However, the basic fear that this criticism represents is that those who describe current social structures as heteronormative may wish to undermine the fundamental assumption that sex and gender are naturally dichotomous. Critics may also fear that those who challenge heteronormativity render moot any justifications for heteronormative social structures, such as the appeal to natural law or certain religious notions. Such people may actually consider departures from the heteronormative structure (e.g., LGBTI — lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex) as abnormal, diseased, or immoral. Therefore, when social structures are described or criticized as being heteronormative, this may be seen as a challenge not only to the structures themselves, but to the underlying religious and philosophical justifications for the normality and the appropriateness of those structures.

The possible responses from those who subscribe to heteronormativity to individuals and groups who depart from heteronormative experience range from tolerance, pity, and shunning to attempts to help members of these groups gain normalcy through compassionate, forceful, or ultimately even violent means. Events which have brought the idea of heteronormativity more into the foreground of social discourse, such as the Jada Pinkett Smith speech, do not necessarily represent such treatment. Ms Pinkett Smith's comments were not homophobic in that they did not represent active criticism of LGBTI people. However, her comments were heteronormative in that they made the assumption that normal relationships are only those which occur between a man and a woman. Critics that describe her speech as heteronormative stated, "Our position is that the comments weren’t homophobic, but the content was specific to male-female relationships." [2]

[edit]
Social and political manifestations of heteronormativity
There are many things that are often pointed at to illustrate the concept of heteronormativity, both historically and in contemporary society.

[edit]
Intersexed people
Intersexed people have biological characteristics which are not unambiguously either male or female. If such a condition is detected, intersexed people are almost always assigned a gender at birth. Surgery (usually involving modification to the genitalia) is often performed to produce an unambiguously male or female body, without the individual's consent. The child is then usually raised and enculturated as a member of the assigned gender, which may or may not match their gender identity throughout life or some remaining sex characteristics (for example, genes or internal sex organs).

Some individuals who have been subjected to these interventions have objected that had they been consulted at an age when they were able to give informed consent then they would have declined these surgical and social interventions.

Gender theorists argue that gender assignment to intersex individuals is a clear case of heteronormativity, in which biological reality is actually denied in order to maintain a binary set of sexes and genders.

[edit]
Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people
Lesbian, gay, bisexual behaviour is strongly disapproved of in many societies (bisexual behavior is more frequently tolerated historically and in many societies), both socially and legally. Many argue that this is because it challenges the heteronormative position that sexual relations exist purely for reproductive means. If it cannot be suppressed so far as to at least disappear from the public view, then the notion is said to be encouraged that gay men are not really "men", but have a strong female component (and vice versa), or that in a non-heterosexual partnership there is always a "male" (active) and a "female" (passive) partner. This has in some cases gone so far that homosexuals were encouraged (in Europe and North America in the 1960s and 1970s) or even forced (in South Africa in the 1980s and 1990s) to undergo sexual reassignment procedures to "fix" their sex or gender.

[edit]
Transgender people
Transgender people often seek gender reassignment therapy, thereby violating the assumption that only unambiguous female or male bodies exist. They may not develop a gender identity that corresponds to their body; in fact, some never develop one that is plainly male or female. Often, they do not behave according to the gender role assigned to them, even before transitioning; this is especially true for transmen, but also many transwomen. After transitioning, transgender individuals often identify as gay or lesbian, and are often lumped together with homosexual people (relative to their birth sex), although this is almost never correct. While some transmen did identify as lesbians for a time (although still a minority), transwomen who identified as gay men are very rare.

Some societies consider transgender behavior a crime worthy of capital punishment, including Saudi Arabia and many other non-western nations. In other countries, certain forms of violence against transgender people may be tacitly endorsed when prosecutors and juries refuse to investigate, prosecute, or convict those who perform the murders and beatings (currently, in some parts of North America and Europe [3] [4]). Other societies have considered transgender behavior as a psychiatric illness serious enough to justify institutionalization.

Certain restrictions on the ability of transgender people to obtain gender-related medical treatment has been blamed on heteronormativity. (See the article on transsexualism.) In medical communities with these restrictions, patients have the option of either suppressing transsexual behavior and conforming to the norms of their birth sex (which may be necessary to avoid social stigma or even violence), or adhering strictly to the norms of their "new" sex in order to qualify for gender reassignment surgery and hormonal treatments — if any treatment is offered at all. These norms might include dress and mannerisms, choice of occupation, choice of hobbies, and the gender of one's mate (heterosexuality required). (For example, transwomen might be expected to trade a "masculine" job for a more "feminine" one — e.g. become a secretary instead of a lawyer.) Attempts to achieve an ambiguous or "alternative" gender identity would not be supported or allowed. Some medical communities, especially since the 1990s, have adopted more accommodating practices, but many have not.

Many governments and official agencies have also been criticized as having heteronormative systems that classify people into "male" and "female" genders in problematic ways. Different jurisdictions use different definitions of gender, including by genitalia, DNA, hormone levels (including some official sports bodies), or birth sex (which means one's gender cannot ever be officially changed). Sometimes gender reassignment surgery is a requirement for an official gender change, and often "male" and "female" are the only choices available, even for intersexed or transgender people. Because most governments only allow heterosexual marriages, official gender changes can have implications for related rights and privileges, such as child custody, inheritance, and medical decision-making.

beer bacon
04-28-2006, 05:20 AM
Just to play devil's advocate here:

What about Cinderella? The story of a chick who meets a guy and marries him after only knowing him for a few hours, but they live happily ever after? Give me a break, talk about giving kids a warped sense of reality.

She is also a hussy that has no filial respect :mad:

I don't want my kids being fed that filth. Spare the rod, queer the child.

patteeu
04-28-2006, 07:06 AM
If you're going to send kids to public schools, expect them to learn public values. Period. If you want your kids to learn your values, then send them to schools that share your values.

Good point. With gay marriage being legal in Massachusetts, it's hard for me to understand why it isn't appropriate for gay relationships to be as openly acknowledged as heterosexual relationships in their public schools. I sympathize with the people who are upset about this kind of social indoctrination, but the solution isn't a lawsuit, IMO, it's moving to a different school district, taking your kids out of the public school system, or counter-programing them at home.

patteeu
04-28-2006, 07:11 AM
well schizophrenia is not a genetic disorder. Gay people have an extra Y chromosome in their gene structure...making it a genetic disorder.

Apparently drunk trumps educated.

patteeu
04-28-2006, 07:13 AM
I can't imagine how bad my course options would have to be to make me elect a course in Queer Theory.

jspchief
04-28-2006, 07:18 AM
I mean, I can see the argument, I think 7 years old is young for such a heavy issue.It wouldn't be such a "heavy" issue if we didn't make such a production out of it in the first place.

Hiding kids from the reality of the world will just make their reaction to said reality that much more severe when they finally do confront it.

This wasn't a book about sex or fisting or gay orgies. It was about a boy that liked other boys instead of girls. The parents that are opposed are going to instill their opposing values on their kids day in and day out. One story isn't going to warp a child's psyche. It may however make them aware that not everything in life is black and white, mommy, daddy, brother, sister, dog.

Two years from now, 99% of these kids will be using the word f ag to insult their classmates anyway.

Bob Dole
04-28-2006, 07:20 AM
Bob Dole doesn't recall the subject of "different kinds of marriages" being a part of the second grade curriculum.

Oh wait...there weren't different kinds of marriages.

jspchief
04-28-2006, 07:21 AM
Bob Dole doesn't recall the subject of "different kinds of marriages" being a part of the second grade curriculum.

Oh wait...there weren't different kinds of marriages....and Skip doesn't remember a curriculum about free blacks.

Times change.

Mile High Mania
04-28-2006, 07:24 AM
I thought it was a story, not an indoctrination into the gay and lesbian brotherhood.

If you read the whole article, you'll notice at the bottom that there was a previous issue at the school when they were talking about same sex parents to the children.

I do understand both sides of the story here. I have a 4 year old, 2 year old and newborn on the way. I've never really given it much thought as to when I need to address certain items, but the thought of a school having an obvious agenda like this one is not good in my opinion.

I realize schools address certain social concerns and should try to teach our kids about the real world they live in, however talks of same sex parents and stories with homosexual themes to kids under 10 isn't appropriate.

Amnorix
04-28-2006, 07:28 AM
If I hear the word "diverse" again I may puke. This has got to be one of the most over-used words in America. "Price gouging" and "windfall profits" are coming up strong, however.


Nah, "liberal media" and "ownership society" are the two biggest. I'm sure I could list a few more with a moment's thought.

Mile High Mania
04-28-2006, 07:28 AM
It wouldn't be such a "heavy" issue if we didn't make such a production out of it in the first place.

Hiding kids from the reality of the world will just make their reaction to said reality that much more severe when they finally do confront it.

This wasn't a book about sex or fisting or gay orgies. It was about a boy that liked other boys instead of girls. The parents that are opposed are going to instill their opposing values on their kids day in and day out. One story isn't going to warp a child's psyche. It may however make them aware that not everything in life is black and white, mommy, daddy, brother, sister, dog.

Two years from now, 99% of these kids will be using the word f ag to insult their classmates anyway.

I don't plan on hiding my kids from the realities of the world, but I also don't plan on talking about any sexual relationships at the age of 7 either. Let us know how the straight vs non-straight discussion goes with your kid(s) when he reaches 2nd grade.

Other realities of the world are that teens drink and have sex... what are your thoughts on that when your kids reach their teens?

jspchief
04-28-2006, 07:36 AM
I don't plan on hiding my kids from the realities of the world, but I also don't plan on talking about any sexual relationships at the age of 7 either. Let us know how the straight vs non-straight discussion goes with your kid(s) when he reaches 2nd grade.

Other realities of the world are that teens drink and have sex... what are your thoughts on that when your kids reach their teens?When did sex ever enter the equation? That's like saying Sleeping Beauty teaches heterosexual sex because the prince kisses the princess.

Letting a 7 year old know that some people are different is hardly graphic. Kids are going to encounter different folks everywhere in life.

Why is that man brown?
Why is that lady really fat?
Why does that (retarded) boy look funny?
Why did that man/woman kiss that other man/woman?

Because, Sweet Pea, that's the way they are. People come in all types of shapes and sizes and colors. That man must like that other man, and people give kisses to the people they like.

It's not like your child is going to come back at you with "Yea, but how do they get it on?"

It's already to late to hide the queers. They are all over TV and movies. Whether you like it or not it has become more acceptable and will continue on that path. As far as I'm concerned, the kids might as well realize it's part of society.

Bob Dole
04-28-2006, 07:37 AM
...and Skip doesn't remember a curriculum about free blacks.

Times change.

I guess Bob Dole's flippant remark at the end skewed the message.

Bob Dole doesn't recall "marriages" being a part of the curriculum in any grade, much less the second grade.

jspchief
04-28-2006, 07:38 AM
I guess Bob Dole's flippant remark at the end skewed the message.

Bob Dole doesn't recall "marriages" being a part of the curriculum in any grade, much less the second grade.My bad.

I miss the tone of your posts a lot, don't I?

ChiefsFan1965
04-28-2006, 07:40 AM
I think it's great that the story was read. I don't sense there was an "agenda," just simply another kids story based in reality. If there were lots of stories read about divorce divorce divorce wouldn't there be an outrage too? It happens far more frequently than a same sex parent household does to kids and is a reality. A lot of people want to live in fantasy and pretend it's a perfect world with everyone living the same life. I think if kids are armed with knowledge of what's out there they might be at least aware of it and then make their choices later about where they fit in.......as opposed to being ridiculed or perhaps suicidal because of their difference. That's what it is all about Harmony in a world of difference :)...to me @ least.

jspchief
04-28-2006, 07:43 AM
I think it's great that the story was read. I don't sense there was an "agenda," just simply another kids story based in reality. If there were lots of stories read about divorce divorce divorce wouldn't there be an outrage too? It happens far more frequently than a same sex parent household does to kids and is a reality. A lot of people want to live in fantasy and pretend it's a perfect world with everyone living the same life. I think if kids are armed with knowledge of what's out there they might be at least aware of it and then make their choices later about where they fit in.......as opposed to being ridiculed or perhaps suicidal because of their difference. That's what it is all about Harmony in a world of difference :)...to me @ least.Good post.

Make it a "dirty little secret" and kids will be sunconsciously taught that it's dirty

Mile High Mania
04-28-2006, 07:46 AM
JSP ... as I said previously, I can understand both sides of the debate here. And, when I said 'sexual relationships', I wasn't just talking about flat out sweaty sex.

The school had previously talked to kids under 7 about 'same sex' parents... now there's the story of the two kings. They're talking about sexual "relationships".

Again, we won't be shielding our kids from the world in a bubble... but, I do think that 7 is a bit young for any school to be talking about any sexual relationships.

jspchief
04-28-2006, 07:51 AM
JSP ... as I said previously, I can understand both sides of the debate here. And, when I said 'sexual relationships', I wasn't just talking about flat out sweaty sex.

The school had previously talked to kids under 7 about 'same sex' parents... now there's the story of the two kings. They're talking about sexual "relationships".

Again, we won't be shielding our kids from the world in a bubble... but, I do think that 7 is a bit young for any school to be talking about any sexual relationships.A 5 year old or 7 year old doesn't know what a "sexual relationship" is.

They know "mommy and daddy", or "mommy and step daddy", or "daddy and girlfriend/scretary". All the school is doing is teaching them that there's also "mommy and mommy", and "daddy and daddy".

In 3 or 4 more years, they're going to be faced with trying to keep these kids from bullying the children of gay parents (especially in this state). Teaching them that it's part of life now may make that easier.

This is textbook homophobia.

Mile High Mania
04-28-2006, 07:53 AM
Textbook homophobia? Well, thanks for the life lesson... we obviously differ in opinion and that's cool.

jspchief
04-28-2006, 07:59 AM
Textbook homophobia? Well, thanks for the life lesson... we obviously differ in opinion and that's cool.Unless you're saying they shouldn't read stories where heteros kiss too, I don't see how you can call it anything but homophobia.

Mile High Mania
04-28-2006, 08:06 AM
Unless you're saying they shouldn't read stories where heteros kiss too, I don't see how you can call it anything but homophobia.

You're missing the whole point, it's more than just the story being read... I think 5-7 years old is a bit young for these converstations and we disagree. That's cool. I'll do my best to have my kids ready to handle all of life's situations and to treat everyone with the respect they deserve.

I do not think that kids hearing these stories will magically turn gay... I just think there are other agendas that a school could have with kids at this age.

FAX
04-28-2006, 08:15 AM
Both Mr. jspchief and Mr. Mile High Mania make excellent points.

There has, obviously, been a great deal of time and resources invested in the study of early childhood development through the years. It is, arguably, utterly unnecessary to "teach" children in the 2nd grade about the complexities of adult relationships as their capacity to assimilate this information into a form of understanding is limited at best.

For that reason (and assuming the school has competent faculty), I have to believe that this material was introduced into the classroom for reasons other than education. If true, that is a problem because it serves no true educational purpose.

Even though I am, without question, a heathen, I sent little FAX to a Christian, private school from K to 12. The more I learn about our public educational system, the better I feel about that decision.

FAX

jspchief
04-28-2006, 08:17 AM
You're missing the whole point, it's more than just the story being read... I think 5-7 years old is a bit young for these converstations and we disagree. That's cool. I'll do my best to have my kids ready to handle all of life's situations and to treat everyone with the respect they deserve.

I do not think that kids hearing these stories will magically turn gay... I just think there are other agendas that a school could have with kids at this age.Maybe you don't realize that teaching kids about non-conventional families is part of a lot of school curriculums. It's the after effect of all the divorces and the wide variety of family structures that evovled from them.

Just like I think it's oaky to teach the class that there's nothing wrong with Johnny having two sets of parents, I also think it's ok to teach the class that it's ok that Johnny has two daddies.

KCTitus
04-28-2006, 08:21 AM
Maybe you don't realize that teaching kids about non-conventional families is part of a lot of school curriculums. It's the after effect of all the divorces and the wide variety of family structures that evovled from them.

Your opinion aside, it should not be part of any cirriculum. Try math, reading, writing and history...and stick to that. Leave the homosexual stuff to the parents outside the classroom.

If the Pledge of Allegience is unconstitutional and the 10 Commandments cannot be anywhere near a school, homosexuality should also be avoided.

Mile High Mania
04-28-2006, 08:24 AM
Maybe you don't realize that teaching kids about non-conventional families is part of a lot of school curriculums. It's the after effect of all the divorces and the wide variety of family structures that evovled from them.

Just like I think it's oaky to teach the class that there's nothing wrong with Johnny having two sets of parents, I also think it's ok to teach the class that it's ok that Johnny has two daddies.

No, I realize what is going on. We just have different opinions.

FAX - if I lived in the Dallas school district, there's no question I would have the kids in private schools. We're outside of Dallas and the schools are much better, so I can avoid that other route... for now.

Mile High Mania
04-28-2006, 08:25 AM
If the Pledge of Allegience is unconstitutional and the 10 Commandments cannot be anywhere near a school, homosexuality should also be avoided.

:clap:

jspchief
04-28-2006, 08:26 AM
Your opinion aside, it should not be part of any cirriculum. Try math, reading, writing and history...and stick to that. Leave the homosexual stuff to the parents outside the classroom.
I agree for the most part. But that ship has already set sail. Somewhere along the way, someone decided Schools should be surrogate parents, and we needed to jam diversity down their throats at gunpoint.

I do think that's it's all part of an attempt to teach tolerance, which isn't such a bad thing.

DaKCMan AP
04-28-2006, 08:27 AM
Stephen Hawking is about 12,000 different types of abnormal.

Is he bad?


Yes.

http://www.geocities.com/dakcman/gator_champs2.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/dakcman/logo_head.jpg

KCTitus
04-28-2006, 08:27 AM
...if I lived in the Dallas school district, there's no question I would have the kids in private schools. We're outside of Dallas and the schools are much better, so I can avoid that other route... for now.

Our school district, thankfully, is very cautious about 'extracarricular' teachings and usually notifies the parents with an opt-out slip. We opted out of a 'human sexuality' class when my son and daughter both hit the 3rd grade. That's the only one we objected to, thus far...

JBucc
04-28-2006, 08:28 AM
Goddamn queer lovers.

KCTitus
04-28-2006, 08:31 AM
I agree for the most part. But that ship has already set sail. Somewhere along the way, someone decided Schools should be surrogate parents, and we needed to jam diversity down their throats at gunpoint.

I do think that's it's all part of an attempt to teach tolerance, which isn't such a bad thing.

Unfortunately, you're pretty much right on that...the schools have become surrogate parents for many children because the parents are not acting like adults.

From my perspective, it's not so much about teaching tolerance is it is an attempt to 'normalize' the behavior. My religious faith doesnt permit me to accept that, and thats what Im going to teach my children. Does that mean I teach them to go 'Phelps' on gay people? Not hardly, but I would be a bit miffed if the school district attempted to teach my children something that directly conflicts with my beliefs.

In the end, I think the mistake was not notifying the parents ahead of time. The fact this didnt happen suggests something nefarious, IMO, and that's what bugs me about it.

jspchief
04-28-2006, 08:38 AM
From my perspective, it's not so much about teaching tolerance is it is an attempt to 'normalize' the behavior. My religious faith doesnt permit me to accept that, and thats what Im going to teach my children. Does that mean I teach them to go 'Phelps' on gay people? Not hardly, but I would be a bit miffed if the school district attempted to teach my children something that directly conflicts with my beliefs.I can respect that perspective. I disagree with it, and think you're fighting a losing battle, but I respect where you're comng from.

I think that's where Taco's comments about public schools applies, and it sounds like you're already on that.

Garcia Bronco
04-28-2006, 09:21 AM
I'm definately not gay, but I'm not homophobic. I am educated, which I believe most people need to be, to understand homosexuality. Fact, it's a genetic disorder. We don't have hatred towards people with other genetic disorders, why this one? I don't think it's harmful that book was read to the class.

Now come on now, everybody is going to throw some gay jokes at me, so bring it on!

It is not a fact that it's a genetic disorder. To say that you would have to argue that there does not exist a person the chooses to be gay.

Sully
04-28-2006, 09:25 AM
Try math, reading, writing and history...and stick to that.

I can't get a job teaching "History." I have to get a job teaching "Social Studies." As I was growing up, I never had a "history" class till at least Junior High (I think maybe high School). Before that it was "Social Studies." If this isn't a part of studying society, I don't know what is.

Ultra Peanut
04-28-2006, 09:27 AM
Elves are faggots.

Garcia Bronco
04-28-2006, 09:27 AM
Unfortunately, you're pretty much right on that...the schools have become surrogate parents for many children because the parents are not acting like adults.

From my perspective, it's not so much about teaching tolerance is it is an attempt to 'normalize' the behavior. My religious faith doesnt permit me to accept that, and thats what Im going to teach my children. Does that mean I teach them to go 'Phelps' on gay people? Not hardly, but I would be a bit miffed if the school district attempted to teach my children something that directly conflicts with my beliefs.

In the end, I think the mistake was not notifying the parents ahead of time. The fact this didnt happen suggests something nefarious, IMO, and that's what bugs me about it.

I don't get that stuff either...teach them what's in the math book...the grammer book...the history book...and send them home.

Ultra Peanut
04-28-2006, 09:28 AM
I can't get a job teaching "History." I have to get a job teaching "Social Studies." As I was growing up, I never had a "history" class till at least Junior High (I think maybe high School). Before that it was "Social Studies." If this isn't a part of studying society, I don't know what is.They should only teach the children about things normal people do, not those blacks or evil gays or lazy mexicans with their sombreros and tequila.

I WILL NOT HAVE MY CHILD COME HOME SMELLING OF TEQUILA

Mile High Mania
04-28-2006, 09:28 AM
I can't get a job teaching "History." I have to get a job teaching "Social Studies." As I was growing up, I never had a "history" class till at least Junior High (I think maybe high School). Before that it was "Social Studies." If this isn't a part of studying society, I don't know what is.

There are milllions of various aspects to the studying of society... do we need to open up pandora's box to the minds of 5-7 year olds?

Inspector
04-28-2006, 09:29 AM
I really don't see anything wrong with letting parents make the decisions about educational curriculumns.

They probably love their children as much as the school authorities. Who knows? Maybe more.

When my kids were little I knew they were going to be getting an education about a variety of subjects - math, english, science, etc... And I was OK with all of that. AND, I knew what was coming. No surprises.

This is a hot enough issue that I can see the logic in allowing parents to have a say prior to the actual classroom experience.

BucEyedPea
04-28-2006, 09:30 AM
I don't get that stuff either...teach them what's in the math book...the grammer book...the history book...and send them home.


Haven't' you seen the New Fuzzy Math?

It has no right or wrong answers!

History book: several pages on Marilyn Monroe...two sentences on George Washington.

No wonder they don't know were any country is on a map!

Point is they are not getting educated....they are mainly getting socially engineered for some social experiment.

Mile High Mania
04-28-2006, 09:31 AM
They should only teach the children about things normal people do, not those blacks or evil gays or lazy mexicans with their sombreros and tequila.

I WILL NOT HAVE MY CHILD COME HOME SMELLING OF TEQUILA

It was only a matter of time before some numbnut tried to force race into the issue. Good job.

Ultra Peanut
04-28-2006, 09:32 AM
Haven't' you seen the New Fuzzy Math?

It has no right or wrong answers!

History book: several pages on Marilyn Monroe...two sentences on George Washington.

No wonder they don't know were any country is on a map!

Point is they are not getting educated....they are mainly getting socially engineered for some social experiment.Okay, that's it. Stop spreading the urban legends and misinformation, or I'll be forced to insult your terrible grammar and sentence structure.

BucEyedPea
04-28-2006, 09:33 AM
It was only a matter of time before some numbnut tried to force race into the issue. Good job.

Ahem...note birthdate 1985.
Educated in the 1990's.
You're witnessing a product of the socially engineered generation.

Ultra Peanut
04-28-2006, 09:35 AM
It was only a matter of time before some numbnut tried to force race into the issue. Good job.Oh, sorry. I guess we shouldn't even discuss groups of people who are different from the norm in this very thread. After all, it's a hot-button topic, and we wouldn't want anyone's poor, fragile mind to be filled with information that might give them a different perspective on things.

School's for rote repetition, not learning!

jspchief
04-28-2006, 09:35 AM
Point is they are not getting educated....they are mainly getting socially engineered for some social experiment.Schools are just doing what parents have started expecting of them.

When a Columbine happens, everyone wants to know why the school didn't intervene. But when a school tries to teach tolerance they are socially engineering our kids.

Ultra Peanut
04-28-2006, 09:37 AM
Ahem...note birthdate 1985.
Educated in the 1990's.
You're witnessing a product of the socially engineered generation.You've cut my ego to ribbons! I don't actually hold these beliefs that people are generally dumb****s and fearful of the unknown, I've simply been socially engineered!

I'm also transgendered. You think public school in rural Tennessee, for the five years I went, did that to me?

Mile High Mania
04-28-2006, 09:38 AM
Oh, sorry. I guess we shouldn't even discuss groups of people who are different from the norm in this very thread. After all, it's a hot-button topic, and we wouldn't want anyone's poor, fragile mind to be filled with information that might give them a different perspective on things.

School's for rote repetition, not learning!

Feel free to twist away... there's one subject matter that is being discussed in this thread. If you have another agenda that is off topic, feel free to start another thread.

BucEyedPea
04-28-2006, 09:38 AM
Schools are just doing what parents have started expecting of them.

When a Columbine happens, everyone wants to know why the school didn't intervene. But when a school tries to teach tolerance they are socially engineering our kids.

While I agree in part with your post....I don't really agree that some of these things are intended as mere tolerance alone. I mean have you not seen some of these books: math, social studies (history) and some of the things activists have said. And for all the tolerance that's being taught it was the 1990's that saw the explosion in school violence. Something's not adding up.

CoMoChief
04-28-2006, 09:39 AM
This might be the funniest thread title ever.

Ultra Peanut
04-28-2006, 09:39 AM
Feel free to twist away... there's one subject matter that is being discussed in this thread. If you have another agenda that is off topic, feel free to start another thread.The discussion is about a hot-button topic that wouldn't be a hot-button topic if people didn't spaz out over things that don't matter in the least.

Mile High Mania
04-28-2006, 09:40 AM
Schools are just doing what parents have started expecting of them.

When a Columbine happens, everyone wants to know why the school didn't intervene. But when a school tries to teach tolerance they are socially engineering our kids.

Kid stories with homosexual themes.... Columbine ... that's a wild connecting of the dots.

JBucc
04-28-2006, 09:42 AM
I don't know which I should be more offended by, this or Sponge Bob.

patteeu
04-28-2006, 09:42 AM
Your opinion aside, it should not be part of any cirriculum. Try math, reading, writing and history...and stick to that. Leave the homosexual stuff to the parents outside the classroom.

If the Pledge of Allegience is unconstitutional and the 10 Commandments cannot be anywhere near a school, homosexuality should also be avoided.

I don't disagree with your stick-to-the-basics approach, but...

Math and writing could probably be taught with minimal controversy, but for reading and history, you have to determine what they are going to read (Harry Potter? Huckleberry Finn? Heather Has Two Mommies? etc.) and which version of history they are going to be taught (Columbus discovered America, hurray! or Columbus spread disease and death throughout the pristine new world, boohoo.)

IMO, the local school boards should be making these decisions and the decisions shouldn't have to satisfy every single parent in the district. OTOH, maybe it's time to rethink public education altogether.

Mile High Mania
04-28-2006, 09:43 AM
The discussion is about a hot-button topic that wouldn't be a hot-button topic if people didn't spaz out over things that don't matter in the least.

Well, then I'd like to bring up public nudity. Why is it that we freak out at the site of beautiful bare breasts? Let's teach 5-7 year olds that the human body is a normall thing and that wearing clothes is society's way of keeping greatness away from our eyes.

What other hot button topics can we bring in?

JBucc
04-28-2006, 09:44 AM
Well, then I'd like to bring up public nudity. Why is it that we freak out at the site of beautiful bare breasts? Let's teach 5-7 year olds that the human body is a normall thing and that wearing clothes is society's way of keeping greatness away from our eyes.

What other hot button topics can we bring in?Bestiality should be legal! I"m not a freak!

jspchief
04-28-2006, 09:44 AM
Kid stories with homosexual themes.... Columbine ... that's a wild connecting of the dots.My comment about Columbine was in response to someone's comment about schools not sticking to core curriculums. I was in no way trying to link it with "homosexual themes".

If you want to argue with me, at least pay attention to the context in which my comments are made. Reading comprehension is not over-rated.

Lzen
04-28-2006, 09:45 AM
If you're going to send kids to public schools, expect them to learn public values. Period. If you want your kids to learn your values, then send them to schools that share your values. If you haven't contacted your congressman about the issue, but still want to bitch about it, feel free to shout to the wind. You're never going to win this battle until you demand control of your tax dollar, and you'll never get control of your tax dollar voting for Republicans or Democrats.

http://www.lp.org


Wait a second. Weren't the Republicans supporting school vouchers so that parents could choose private schools? In any case, I can't just choose to send my kid to private school. They are just too expensive for a simple gov't employee like myself and my wife. Now, I might be able to pull it off if the gov't didn't take my money from me to pay for public schools.

BucEyedPea
04-28-2006, 09:47 AM
Now, I might be able to pull it off if the gov't didn't take my money from me to pay for public schools.


yeah...but then you'd get laid off because you couldn't be paid.

Mile High Mania
04-28-2006, 09:47 AM
My comment about Columbine was in response to someone's comment about schools not sticking to core curriculums. I was in no way trying to link it with "homosexual themes".

If you want to argue with me, at least pay attention to the context in which my comments are made. Reading comprehension is not over-rated.

Not trying to argue with you ... I just thought it was an odd statement. Nothing personal.

Ultra Peanut
04-28-2006, 09:48 AM
Well, then I'd like to bring up public nudity. Why is it that we freak out at the site of beautiful bare breasts? Let's teach 5-7 year olds that the human body is a normall thing and that wearing clothes is society's way of keeping greatness away from our eyes.

What other hot button topics can we bring in?HEY MAN I'M TALKING ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE NOT NUDITY

Bestiality should be legal! I"m not a freak!It must be stretching day on Camp Stupid.

Lzen
04-28-2006, 09:49 AM
By the way, kids should also be kept from being indoctrinated with thoughts of interracial couples being acceptable. That's just sickening.

So we're back on that homosexuality's plight is the same as racial equality argument? I call BS.

JBucc
04-28-2006, 09:49 AM
It must be stretching day on Camp Stupid.We're not allowed out of our straight jackets.(NOT Gay jackets) Right now I'm typing with a popsicle stick in my mouth.

BucEyedPea
04-28-2006, 09:49 AM
I don't know which I should be more offended by, this or Sponge Bob.

I get a sneaking suspicion that there are hidden birth control messages in him.
Don't you?

Inspector
04-28-2006, 09:52 AM
Your opinion aside, it should not be part of any cirriculum. Try math, reading, writing and history...and stick to that. Leave the homosexual stuff to the parents outside the classroom.

If the Pledge of Allegience is unconstitutional and the 10 Commandments cannot be anywhere near a school, homosexuality should also be avoided.

:clap: :clap:

jspchief
04-28-2006, 09:53 AM
Not trying to argue with you ... I just thought it was an odd statement. Nothing personal.It sounded an aweful lot like you were taking my statement way out of context.

The fact is, we can sit here and say schools should stick to the "3 Rs", but school curriculums are the product of what the community has demanded, either through voting, PTAs, or lawsuits. The social engineering (I'm not talking about forcing queers on you, I'm talking about it in a broader sense) aspect of today's schools is a direct result of parents expecting schools to be surrogate parents.

The customer is getting what they asked for. It turns out they just don't like it.

JBucc
04-28-2006, 09:54 AM
I get a sneaking suspicion that there are hidden birth control messages in him.
Don't you?I was refering to that one episode where he had some gay friend or something. I never actually saw it. Also I'm not really offended by this. In fact I don't care at all.

Lzen
04-28-2006, 09:56 AM
If I hear the word "diverse" again I may puke. This has got to be one of the most over-used words in America. "Price gouging" and "windfall profits" are coming up strong, however.

Or how about "homophobia"?
:rolleyes:

JBucc
04-28-2006, 09:57 AM
Or how about "homophobia"?
:rolleyes:or "the"

BucEyedPea
04-28-2006, 09:57 AM
When did sex ever enter the equation? That's like saying Sleeping Beauty teaches heterosexual sex because the prince kisses the princess.

Letting a 7 year old know that some people are different is hardly graphic. Kids are going to encounter different folks everywhere in life.

Why is that man brown?
Why is that lady really fat?
Why does that (retarded) boy look funny?
Why did that man/woman kiss that other man/woman?

Because, Sweet Pea, that's the way they are. People come in all types of shapes and sizes and colors. That man must like that other man, and people give kisses to the people they like.

It's not like your child is going to come back at you with "Yea, but how do they get it on?"

It's already to late to hide the queers. They are all over TV and movies. Whether you like it or not it has become more acceptable and will continue on that path. As far as I'm concerned, the kids might as well realize it's part of society.

The thing is education just does not happen in a controlled environment...nor should they be a "captive" audience which is the problem with these ages. It's just a way to be authoritarian about one point of view when there are no critical thinking skills at that age. It's unfair.

We all learn things, in fact more, from living life too. Kids will learn of all these things as the get older and interact with the society.

The problem began because the left controls the teaching establishment, and has owned every state legislature lock-stock-and-barrel to shove their agenda down other people's throats sugar coating it with the label "tolerance." It is more than that. In some circles it's referred to as cultural Marxism. The end product is that it divides and creates contention.

Baby Lee
04-28-2006, 09:57 AM
A 5 year old or 7 year old doesn't know what a "sexual relationship" is.
Don't want to squik folks out with details of my life at 7yo [don't worry, it was 100% kid initiated and involved, EDIT: oh, and 100% hetero :thumb:, no creepy uncles], but that is BS.

Lzen
04-28-2006, 09:59 AM
Your opinion aside, it should not be part of any cirriculum. Try math, reading, writing and history...and stick to that. Leave the homosexual stuff to the parents outside the classroom.

If the Pledge of Allegience is unconstitutional and the 10 Commandments cannot be anywhere near a school, homosexuality should also be avoided.


:thumb:

BucEyedPea
04-28-2006, 09:59 AM
I was refering to that one episode where he had some gay friend or something. I never actually saw it. Also I'm not really offended by this. In fact I don't care at all.
Well, I was actually joking.
Ya' know the birth control sponge.
He, he....guess I only thought it was funny.

JBucc
04-28-2006, 10:00 AM
I say let them find out about gay people at the age people start realizing they're gay. I don't know what that is, but I don't think it's 7.

JBucc
04-28-2006, 10:01 AM
Well, I was actually joking.
Ya' know the birth control sponge.
He, he....guess I only thought it was funny.He. I got ya now.

Sully
04-28-2006, 10:01 AM
There are milllions of various aspects to the studying of society... do we need to open up pandora's box to the minds of 5-7 year olds?

How many of them are debated so hotly in today's society around every corner?
Movies, TV Shows, the News.
"Pandora's Box" is already opened. It's there. It's not hidden away, not to be heard of except for some "Lib Agenda."
And those other aspects of studying society? I assume they are being taught as well, as this was one fraction of one day of an entire school year. I doubt seriously, though many would have you fear "The Agenda!!," that this is now the norm in every classroom every day.

Inspector
04-28-2006, 10:06 AM
Well, I was actually joking.
Ya' know the birth control sponge.
He, he....guess I only thought it was funny.

Well, with that explanantion, I too understand the humor.

I had temprarily forgotten about sponges being used for contraception.

Contraceptives have never been used in my houshold.

Now that I think about it, I bet that has a lot to do with the fact that we have 5 offspring. (Can't really call them children, ages 25 - 33)

Lzen
04-28-2006, 10:07 AM
yeah...but then you'd get laid off because you couldn't be paid.


ROFL That's a good one.

Lzen
04-28-2006, 10:08 AM
We're not allowed out of our straight jackets.(NOT Gay jackets) Right now I'm typing with a popsicle stick in my mouth.

Are you sure that's a popsicle?

JBucc
04-28-2006, 10:09 AM
Are you sure that's a popsicle?It's not that kind of wood

jspchief
04-28-2006, 10:09 AM
Don't want to squik folks out with details of my life at 7yo [don't worry, it was 100% kid initiated and involved, EDIT: oh, and 100% hetero :thumb:, no creepy uncles], but that is BS.You're probably not the only one that played doctor. But did you really understand it as it relates to the sexual realtionships of adults? I don't think I did.

Lzen
04-28-2006, 10:10 AM
or "the"

You know, I think you're onto something. How about we try to not use that word from here on out? :thumb:

JBucc
04-28-2006, 10:11 AM
You're probably not the only one that played doctor. But did you really understand it as it relates to the sexual realtionships of adults? I don't think I did.I remember hearing some kids about that age sing some song that went like "I want you to play with my ding-a-ling, my ding-a-ling" Obviously they knew that the ding-a-ling was to be played with, but I really don't think they knew the implications of doing so.

BucEyedPea
04-28-2006, 10:12 AM
Is being bisexual a genetic disorder, too?

I hear one can just toggle an x or y chromosome with the new genetic engineering....the possibilities are endless these days.

jspchief
04-28-2006, 10:14 AM
I remember hearing some kids about that age sing some song that went like "I want you to play with my ding-a-ling, my ding-a-ling" Obviously they knew that the ding-a-ling was to be played with, but I really don't think they knew the implications of doing so.Great song. I karoake'd it at a company christmas party one year.

el borracho
04-28-2006, 10:14 AM
Wait a second. Weren't the Republicans supporting school vouchers so that parents could choose private schools? In any case, I can't just choose to send my kid to private school. They are just too expensive for a simple gov't employee like myself and my wife. Now, I might be able to pull it off if the gov't didn't take my money from me to pay for public schools.
Can't afford what you want so you complain about what you are given.

Lzen
04-28-2006, 10:15 AM
You're probably not the only one that played doctor. But did you really understand it as it relates to the sexual realtionships of adults? I don't think I did.

I know I liked playing doctor with girls at that age. But I'd have to say that I had no idea about what sex was really about.

Lzen
04-28-2006, 10:16 AM
Can't afford what you want so you complain about what you are given.

Gov't takes my money so that they can "give" my children public school education? That's really wonderful. 4321

Crush
04-28-2006, 10:18 AM
Cause we all know that Jesus was more worried about homosexuality instead of helping the poor and refraining from judging others.

jspchief
04-28-2006, 10:20 AM
I know I liked playing doctor with girls at that age. But I'd have to say that I had no idea about what sex was really about.Exactly. You knew it was wrong, but you don't really understand it in a "sexual relationship" sort of way. I don't think I knew it was part of what mommy and daddy did in the bedroom.

I just don't think it relates.

el borracho
04-28-2006, 10:20 AM
Gov't takes my money so that they can "give" my children public school education? That's really wonderful. 4321
They take my money for the same purpose and I don't even have children. By the way, do you know what fraction of our tax money is devoted to education?

Lzen
04-28-2006, 10:21 AM
jspchief, you make some very good arguments. I just think it comes down to this. On such a hot-button issue, schools should get parental permission - give parents an opt-out. That is, unless they really want problems (such as a lawsuit).

Lzen
04-28-2006, 10:22 AM
Cause we all know that Jesus was more worried about homosexuality instead of helping the poor and refraining from judging others.

There are several places in the Bible that points out homosexuality being wrong. Do you really want to go down that road?

JBucc
04-28-2006, 10:23 AM
jspchief, you make some very good arguments. I just think it comes down to this. On such a hot-button issue, schools should get parental permission - give parents an opt-out. That is, unless they really want problems (such as a lawsuit).I kind of agree. If schools need permission to test for scholiosis or to see how fat there kids are or for the puberty talk they should need a permission slip for this.

JBucc
04-28-2006, 10:23 AM
Cause we all know that Jesus was more worried about homosexuality instead of helping the poor and refraining from judging others.Jesus loves homos(that doesn't sound right), he just doesn't love homosexuality. I on the other hand hate them all.

pikesome
04-28-2006, 10:25 AM
Since we're talking schools and gays, I've wondered how gay's feel about Darwin. He pretty much lables them as "bad" as a result of his evolution therory. Seems kinda funny in that logic only works if it benifits you.

Lzen
04-28-2006, 10:26 AM
They take my money for the same purpose and I don't even have children. By the way, do you know what fraction of our tax money is devoted to education?

Honestly, I have no idea. If someone could provide a factual assessment, I'd be very interested in seeing it. Especially if it would show a breakdown of individual tax dollars towards education spending.

On a simlar note: our school system had someone a couple years ago that swindled them for half a mil before they noticed. I don't remember exact details, but it was disgusting. Not sure that they were even able to recover those $$$. What a shame.

Lurch
04-28-2006, 10:27 AM
Cause we all know that Jesus was more worried about homosexuality instead of helping the poor and refraining from judging others.

Luke 17:3 (New International Version)

In His words: "So watch yourselves. If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him...."

Lzen
04-28-2006, 10:30 AM
In His words: "So watch yourselves. If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him...."

Thank you, Lurch. So often people quote or refer to things in Bible without understanding what a particular passage means. And no, I'm not claiming to be an expert by any means. But often it's non-believers/Bible basher/Christian bashers that refer to things in our Bible to prove their point. :shake:

***Still trying to not use that one word. :D

jspchief
04-28-2006, 10:31 AM
jspchief, you make some very good arguments. I just think it comes down to this. On such a hot-button issue, schools should get parental permission - give parents an opt-out. That is, unless they really want problems (such as a lawsuit).I would agree. Even if they aren't legally obligated, I think from a common sense angle it makes sense.

I just got the feeling from the article that it wasn't about that as much as it was about "they're trying get their gay all over our children".

Like Taco said, your best remedy is private school.

Lzen
04-28-2006, 10:33 AM
I would agree. Even if they aren't legally obligated, I think from a common sense angle it makes sense.

I just got the feeling from the article that it wasn't about that as much as it was about "they're trying get their gay all over our children".

Like Taco said, your best remedy is private school.

I would send my kids to private school if I could. Not everybody makes that kind of dough.

BIG_DADDY
04-28-2006, 10:36 AM
I've been saying this all along. Out here we have celebrate diversity week in schools and teachers that tell students they may be gay. What's next teaching the boys to gulp the goop in PE class?

I think the whole thing is stupid. I think we send our kids to school to get an education NOT to have a gay agenda pushed on them. 5-7 year olds shouldn't even be thinking about this shit IMO. One more reason to privatize schools. I am still a big fan of the voucher system.

jspchief
04-28-2006, 10:36 AM
Since we're talking schools and gays, I've wondered how gay's feel about Darwin. He pretty much lables them as "bad" as a result of his evolution therory. Seems kinda funny in that logic only works if it benifits you.I don't think Darwin labels any creature as "bad".

In fact I doubt his theory adresses the subject in any manner at all, since it's not really applicable. Being gay doesn't neccessarily mean you are less likely to survive your environment. If any particular species was exclusively gay it would, but Darwin's theory would be supported by the fact that any such species is long extinct.

In other words, the point you're trying to make is full of hot air.

jspchief
04-28-2006, 10:39 AM
I would send my kids to private school if I could. Not everybody makes that kind of dough.Thems the breaks.

Public service isn't always intended to provide the best option available. It provides the neccesities. When you ride public transportation, you're forced to ride next to the stinky guy. When you live in public housing, it's not going to be a 4500 sq ft walkout ranch.

BIG_DADDY
04-28-2006, 10:41 AM
I would send my kids to private school if I could. Not everybody makes that kind of dough.

Voucher system.

Baby Lee
04-28-2006, 10:41 AM
You're probably not the only one that played doctor. But did you really understand it as it relates to the sexual realtionships of adults? I don't think I did.
Can't say I remember every detail, and I didn't play 'doctor' or 'post office' so I don't know exactly people envision those games entailing, but what I and a few neighborhood girls [one at a time, pervs] did comported pretty darn accurately with at least the mechanical aspects of what grownups do.
Put if this way, what happened made me [or at least made me aware I was] fairly impervious to the 'homo indoctrination' that is the topic of this thread.

Garcia Bronco
04-28-2006, 10:42 AM
Gayness cannot be pinpointed as genetic. It could be just as much learned as it could be genetic. In truth it's probably both, but to expose young impressionable minds to having sex with the same gender is irresponsible and in poor taste. If my kid was read that garbage the teacher would soon have serious health problems.

Lurch
04-28-2006, 10:44 AM
I don't think Darwin labels any creature as "bad".

In fact I doubt his theory adresses the subject in any manner at all, since it's not really applicable. Being gay doesn't neccessarily mean you are less likely to survive your environment. If any particular species was exclusively gay it would, but Darwin's theory would be supported by the fact that any such species is long extinct.

In other words, the point you're trying to make is full of hot air.You don't think the whole "survival of the fittest" framework has implications for homosexuality? Okay. Heh.

BIG_DADDY
04-28-2006, 10:47 AM
Gayness cannot be pinpointed as genetic. It could be just as much learned as it could be genetic. In truth it's probably both, but to expose young impressionable minds to having sex with the same gender is irresponsible and in poor taste. If my kid was read that garbage the teacher would soon have serious health problems. :clap:

Lurch
04-28-2006, 10:48 AM
Thems the breaks.

Public service isn't always intended to provide the best option available. It provides the neccesities. When you ride public transportation, you're forced to ride next to the stinky guy. When you live in public housing, it's not going to be a 4500 sq ft walkout ranch.

But if the public schools become a social engineering experiment, that offends the sensibilities and values of a significant portion of society....they are no longer "public" schools. They are politically correct social engineers pushing an agenda. If the trend continues, vouchers WILL become a reality sooner rather than later.

Lzen
04-28-2006, 10:48 AM
Voucher system.

I'm all for that. Last I knew, they weren't able to get it passed.

jspchief
04-28-2006, 10:52 AM
You don't think the whole "survival of the fittest" framework has implications for homosexuality? Okay. Heh.On an individual level? No. It may affect that individual's ability to propogate the species, but it doesn't affect that species' ability to propogate any more than a woman that's unable to conceive or an infertile man.

How does being gay interfere with your ability to survive? It doesn't. It only affects your ability to reproduce (although that's not even true technically).

It also has no real affect on the ability of an entire species to survive, just like an individual deer born crippled doesn't.

jspchief
04-28-2006, 10:55 AM
But if the public schools become a social engineering experiment, that offends the sensibilities and values of a significant portion of society....they are no longer "public" schools. They are politically correct social engineers pushing an agenda. If the trend continues, vouchers WILL become a reality sooner rather than later.I agree. And I hope it does expedite the voucher system.

If I had my way, I would be able to opt out of all kinds of taxes through my own wealth. I'd just as soon get a SS voucher for investing privately. And I'd like there to be vouchers for neighborhood communities that are willing to provide their own road services. etc, etc.

Lurch
04-28-2006, 10:57 AM
On an individual level? No. It may affect that individual's ability to propogate the species, but it doesn't affect that species' ability to propogate any more than a woman that's unable to conceive or an infertile man.

How does being gay interfere with your ability to survive? It doesn't. It only affects your ability to reproduce (although that's not even true technically).

It also has no real affect on the ability of an entire species to survive, just like an individual deer born crippled doesn't.

Hmmmmm. Being gay is like being a crippled (individual) deer. Okay. Heh.

Lurch
04-28-2006, 11:01 AM
I agree. And I hope it does expedite the voucher system.

If I had my way, I would be able to opt out of all kinds of taxes through my own wealth. I'd just as soon get a SS voucher for investing privately. And I'd like there to be vouchers for neighborhood communities that are willing to provide their own road services. etc, etc.

Yup. I'm more Libertarian than anything else, but our public schools have become an experiment in social engineering that parents ought to be able to opt out of (with their hard earned tax money), in my opinion.

jspchief
04-28-2006, 11:03 AM
Hmmmmm. Being gay is like being a crippled (individual) deer. Okay. Heh.In the sense that you're not an ideal member of the species, yes.

Homosexuality wouldn't be the type of trait that would ideally evolve in a species.

But if you're going to use Darwin to dismiss homosexuals, then you have to dismiss infertile men and women too. And to a further extent, handicapped people, dwarfs, etc etc.

BIG_DADDY
04-28-2006, 11:14 AM
In the sense that you're not an ideal member of the species, yes.

.

And remember, never take shit off of any crippled deers.

pikesome
04-28-2006, 11:15 AM
I don't think Darwin labels any creature as "bad".

In fact I doubt his theory adresses the subject in any manner at all, since it's not really applicable. Being gay doesn't neccessarily mean you are less likely to survive your environment. If any particular species was exclusively gay it would, but Darwin's theory would be supported by the fact that any such species is long extinct.

In other words, the point you're trying to make is full of hot air.

Uh, no not full of hot air. The central point in Darwin's theories is that changes to a life form happen through accidents and that the changes are "weighed" by they're ability to help the life form succeed by spreading its genetics. His studies involved looking at differences in animals and trying to work back to what the advantage that change offered the species. Any change that retarded a species ability to propagate would be removed by natural selection.

How does this relate to gayness? Two ways, the first being the constant attack by "learned" people on anyone who questions Darwinism. I'm not saying that creationist are right, but their biggest opponents turn right around and hold a logically unsupportable position. Which leads to the second way, the amount of personal choice involved in homosexuality. If homosexuality is not inborn then it won't receive protection like being black or female does. If someone dislikes you because you choose to do something they don't like, the law doesn't offer much protection. On the other hand, if your gay because you were born that way then we can cover you by the same civil rights rules as race and sex discrimination. Darwin's theories preclude homosexuality from being "ok", it not only doesn't help spread genetics it retards that process. It also cast some doubt on the amount genetic influence in homosexuality.

I just sought to point out that mindless regurgitation of a certain dogma does not begin and end with the religious. The religious attack evolution for their own reasons, however the uber-liberal have no intention of thinking things through either.

Lzen
04-28-2006, 11:22 AM
In the sense that you're not an ideal member of the species, yes.

Homosexuality wouldn't be the type of trait that would ideally evolve in a species.

But if you're going to use Darwin to dismiss homosexuals, then you have to dismiss infertile men and women too. And to a further extent, handicapped people, dwarfs, etc etc.

Are you trying to say that drarves and handicapped people can't have sex and reproduce?

jspchief
04-28-2006, 11:28 AM
Uh, no not full of hot air. The central point in Darwin's theories is that changes to a life form happen through accidents and that the changes are "weighed" by they're ability to help the life form succeed by spreading its genetics. His studies involved looking at differences in animals and trying to work back to what the advantage that change offered the species. Any change that retarded a species ability to propagate would be removed by natural selection.

How does this relate to gayness? Two ways, the first being the constant attack by "learned" people on anyone who questions Darwinism. I'm not saying that creationist are right, but their biggest opponents turn right around and hold a logically unsupportable position. Which leads to the second way, the amount of personal choice involved in homosexuality. If homosexuality is not inborn then it won't receive protection like being black or female does. If someone dislikes you because you choose to do something they don't like, the law doesn't offer much protection. On the other hand, if your gay because you were born that way then we can cover you by the same civil rights rules as race and sex discrimination. Darwin's theories preclude homosexuality from being "ok", it not only doesn't help spread genetics it retards that process. It also cast some doubt on the amount genetic influence in homosexuality.

I just sought to point out that mindless regurgitation of a certain dogma does not begin and end with the religious. The religious attack evolution for their own reasons, however the uber-liberal have no intention of thinking things through either.The hole in your theory is that Darwin's theory of natural selection deals with beneficial genetic mutations that are passed on to the entire species.

Individual anomalies are always going to be present. None of Darwin's theories suggest that all negative genetic mutations will die out.

Besides, Darwin's theory is a slow process that takes place over hundreds/thousands of centuries. Even if he had suggested that homosexuality should eventually die out (which he doesn't), we don't have anywhere near the data to know where we are in the stage of that evolution. For that matter, it could be the species' adaptation to over-population.

jspchief
04-28-2006, 11:31 AM
Are you trying to say that drarves and handicapped people can't have sex and reproduce?uhh, no.

I'm saying per Darwin's theory, they are not best suited for the benefit/survival of the species. By Pikesome's logic, they would also be "bad".

pikesome
04-28-2006, 11:32 AM
In the sense that you're not an ideal member of the species, yes.

Homosexuality wouldn't be the type of trait that would ideally evolve in a species.

But if you're going to use Darwin to dismiss homosexuals, then you have to dismiss infertile men and women too. And to a further extent, handicapped people, dwarfs, etc etc.

I'm not dismissing homosexuality, I just refuse to put it on a pedestal. The central point I'm concerned with is the amount of personal choice involved. Is homosexuality a compulsion stemming from a genetic mutation, or is it a lifestyle decision a person makes? Some of one, some of the other? What separates homosexuals from people who have sex with sheep or children or dead bodies? This is the important question and has direct relation to the OP. If gays are the way they are because they want to be, it would have an effect on how readily it would be brought up in school.

Having read my posts on the subject, I'm sure someone is warming up the standard "homophobe" insult. Don't bother, you are greatly overstating how much the lives of others concerns me.

patteeu
04-28-2006, 11:32 AM
Cause we all know that Jesus was more worried about homosexuality instead of helping the poor and refraining from judging others.

Aren't we supposed to keep Jesus out of the public schools?

Pitt Gorilla
04-28-2006, 11:33 AM
Your opinion aside, it should not be part of any cirriculum. Try math, reading, writing and history...and stick to that. Leave the homosexual stuff to the parents outside the classroom.

If the Pledge of Allegience is unconstitutional and the 10 Commandments cannot be anywhere near a school, homosexuality should also be avoided.The Court found the Pledge unconstitutional? When?

KCTitus
04-28-2006, 11:35 AM
I can't get a job teaching "History." I have to get a job teaching "Social Studies." As I was growing up, I never had a "history" class till at least Junior High (I think maybe high School). Before that it was "Social Studies." If this isn't a part of studying society, I don't know what is.

Odd...I never had a 'social studies' class until high school. We can differ on studying homosexuality, but at the 2nd grade level, I think it's a bit inappropriate. I dont want my 2nd grader learning heterosexuality at that age, why in the world would I want to expose them to homosexuality?

KCTitus
04-28-2006, 11:36 AM
The Court found the Pledge unconstitutional? When?

The 9th Circus did...I dont remember, in the last few years.

BucEyedPea
04-28-2006, 11:37 AM
The 9th Circus.


Is that what they're callin' it now! Good name...was 'bout time! ROFL

BIG_DADDY
04-28-2006, 11:38 AM
Odd...I never had a 'social studies' class until high school. We can differ on studying homosexuality, but at the 2nd grade level, I think it's a bit inappropriate. I dont want my 2nd grader learning heterosexuality at that age, why in the world would I want to expose them to homosexuality?

The gay agenda won't be happy until their teaching 1st graders how to smoke a mean pole.

Lurch
04-28-2006, 11:40 AM
The gay agenda won't be happy until their teaching 1st graders how to smoke a mean pole.

You're so cold, man. You'd understand if you were a crippled deer.

pikesome
04-28-2006, 11:41 AM
uhh, no.

I'm saying per Darwin's theory, they are not best suited for the benefit/survival of the species. By Pikesome's logic, they would also be "bad".

I'm using the word "bad" just in relation to Darwin's theory, not a judgement on homosexuality's value as people. If your gay and unconcerned that what you are doing does not improve and possibly hurts the human race, fine by me. Individual members of the human race aren't required to even care, let alone behave in a certain way to benefit the species. I real have very little interest in prohibiting homosexuality. But I'm not gonna call it any more than it is, a kink. In the same zip code with people who need to imagine things during sex to get off.

KCTitus
04-28-2006, 11:42 AM
...Individual members of the human race aren't required to even care, let alone behave in a certain way to benefit the species...

There's a whole website devoted to said individuals, aptly named the Darwin Awards.

jspchief
04-28-2006, 11:44 AM
I'm not dismissing homosexuality, I just refuse to put it on a pedestal. The central point I'm concerned with is the amount of personal choice involved. Is homosexuality a compulsion stemming from a genetic mutation, or is it a lifestyle decision a person makes? Some of one, some of the other? What separates homosexuals from people who have sex with sheep or children or dead bodies? This is the important question and has direct relation to the OP. If gays are the way they are because they want to be, it would have an effect on how readily it would be brought up in school.

Having read my posts on the subject, I'm sure someone is warming up the standard "homophobe" insult. Don't bother, you are greatly overstating how much the lives of others concerns me.

Who's putting it on a pedestal? It sounds to me like some people are trying to acknowledge it as a part of human culture. That's no more of a pedestal than the acceptance of any other previously ridiculed demographic.

As for the cause of homosexuality, I'm not sure we'll ever truly know the cause. My personal belief is that most of it is genetic, and some of it is simply personal choice. I do think an individual's perception on the cause of it will always be the root of the debate.

What seperates them from pedophiles, beastialphile(?), and necrophiliacs is the level of social acceptance. Similar to what seperates a mildly crazy person from a psychopath. Society is only willing to accept so much. And while the line may have once been drawn at gays, it is shifting IMO.

As for pulling your victim card out, at least wait until it happens before you start sniveling about it.

BIG_DADDY
04-28-2006, 11:52 AM
You're so cold, man. You'd understand if you were a crippled deer.
ROFL

pikesome
04-28-2006, 11:52 AM
What seperates them from pedophiles, beastialphile(?), and necrophiliacs is the level of social acceptance. Similar to what seperates a mildly crazy person from a psychopath. Society is only willing to accept so much. And while the line may have once been drawn at gays, it is shifting IMO.



Should we read pedophile stories in school? What if 2 or 3 parents complained that they were being discriminated against because they like to have sex with children? You say that it has to do with what society accepts, I call bullshit. Most people do not support homosexuality, I sure you would have a tough time finding a majority who don't look down on it. In school it's not about what society wants, look at the fracas over evolution. It's about which groups can successfully push it's message farther, faster.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-28-2006, 11:56 AM
Should we read pedophile stories in school? What if 2 or 3 parents complained that they were being discriminated against because they like to have sex with children? .

So you now equate homosexuality with pedophilia? The slippery slope argument just does not apply. THe story in question was about a relationship between two consenting adults, not Uncle f*cker taking his nephew behind the woodshed and molesting him.

You say that it has to do with what society accepts, I call bullshit. Most people do not support homosexuality, I sure you would have a tough time finding a majority who don't look down on it. In school it's not about what society wants, look at the fracas over evolution. It's about which groups can successfully push it's message farther, faster.

At one time society hated 'n*ggers, k*kes, sp*cs, and basically all other non-white straight, protestant people. That is not an excuse. I think that this excerpt goes along way towards qualifying what homophobia in our society is really analogous to:

Per Wiki:

Heterosexism is a belief or argument that male-female sexuality is the only natural, normal, or moral mode of sexual behavior, and is also used to refer to the effects of that cultural ideology. The word 'heterosexualism' has also been proposed to mean essentially the same thing. [1] This word has been suggested as an alternative to homophobia [2], in part because it uses a parallel structure to sexism or racism.

Heterosexism should not be confused with heterocentrism, which is an (often subconscious) assumption that everyone is heterosexual, and the attitudes associated with that assumption. Heterocentrism often shows up in less intentional ways in every day life. For instance, when a woman says she is going on a date, many people will ask, "What's his name?" or "Is he cute?" assuming it is a heterosexual date. Nevertheless, these people may not have anything against same-sex dating. In queer theory, the term heterocentrism is closely related to heteronormativity.

Donger
04-28-2006, 12:00 PM
So you now equate homosexuality with pedophilia? The slippery slope argument just does not apply. THe story in question was about a relationship between two consenting adults, not Uncle f*cker taking his nephew behind the woodshed and molesting him.



At one time society hated 'n*ggers, k*kes, sp*cs, and basically all other non-white straight, protestant people. That is not an excuse. I think that this excerpt goes along way towards qualifying what homophobia in our society is really analogous to:

Per Wiki:

Heterosexism is a belief or argument that male-female sexuality is the only natural, normal, or moral mode of sexual behavior, and is also used to refer to the effects of that cultural ideology. The word 'heterosexualism' has also been proposed to mean essentially the same thing. [1] This word has been suggested as an alternative to homophobia [2], in part because it uses a parallel structure to sexism or racism.

Heterosexism should not be confused with heterocentrism, which is an (often subconscious) assumption that everyone is heterosexual, and the attitudes associated with that assumption. Heterocentrism often shows up in less intentional ways in every day life. For instance, when a woman says she is going on a date, many people will ask, "What's his name?" or "Is he cute?" assuming it is a heterosexual date. Nevertheless, these people may not have anything against same-sex dating. In queer theory, the term heterocentrism is closely related to heteronormativity.

Homosexuality may not be abnormal, but it is by definition unnatural.

jspchief
04-28-2006, 12:03 PM
You say that it has to do with what society accepts, I call bullshit. Most people do not support homosexuality, I sure you would have a tough time finding a majority who don't look down on it. In school it's not about what society wants, look at the fracas over evolution. It's about which groups can successfully push it's message farther, faster.I disagree. The growing presence in pop culture tells me that is gaining acceptance. Popular TV shows like Will and Grace wouldn't exist if it wasn't.

And be fore you claim it's Hollywood pushing it's agenda, this is the same Network that pulled a show last fall without airing a single episode because of outrage from Christians. The people still dictate what's acceptable, and there's not nearly enough people that care on this topic.

There may be a large majority of christians in this country, but IMO many of them are ambivalent on the issue. They aren't outraged enough at the growing presence of gays in our culture. Whether you want to believe it or not, it is becoming more acccepted every day.

jspchief
04-28-2006, 12:06 PM
Homosexuality may not be abnormal, but it is by definition unnatural.I would disagree that it's not abnormal. It is abnormal

I also disagree that it's unnatural "by definition". We don't know if it's natural or not. It may be an anomaly, but there are millions of naturally occuring anomalies in this world.

Lurch
04-28-2006, 12:07 PM
I disagree. The growing presence in pop culture tells me that is gaining acceptance. Popular TV shows like Will and Grace wouldn't exist if it wasn't.

And be fore you claim it's Hollywood pushing it's agenda, this is the same Network that pulled a show last fall without airing a single episode because of outrage from Christians. The people still dictate what's acceptable, and there's not nearly enough people that care on this topic.

There may be a large majority of christians in this country, but IMO many of them are ambivalent on the issue. They aren't outraged enough at the growing presence of gays in our culture. Whether you want to believe it or not, it is becoming more acccepted every day.

Nipple.

Lurch
04-28-2006, 12:09 PM
I would disagree that it's not abnormal. It is abnormal

I also disagree that it's unnatural "by definition". We don't know if it's natural or not. It may be an anomaly, but there are millions of naturally occuring anomalies in this world.
So now, gays are anomalous crippled deer?

el borracho
04-28-2006, 12:10 PM
I wonder how people's stances will change in the next decade or two when we can reference related social issues in Canada. What effects will gay marriage and a blind eye to marijuana have in our northern neighbors?

BIG_DADDY
04-28-2006, 12:10 PM
So you now equate homosexuality with pedophilia? The slippery slope argument just does not apply. THe story in question was about a relationship between two consenting adults, not like when Uncle f*cker took me behind the woodshed and molested me.




Wow

Lurch
04-28-2006, 12:11 PM
I wonder how people's stances will change in the next decade or two when we can reference related social issues in Canada. What effects will gay marriage and a blind eye to marijuana have in our northern neighbors?
Gives new meaning to, "hey, hoser...."....eh?

jspchief
04-28-2006, 12:11 PM
So now, gays are anomalous crippled deer?Sure.

Do you have anything constuctive to add? Or is does civil conversation/debate bother you to the point that you have to interrupt?

Lurch
04-28-2006, 12:12 PM
Sure.

Do you have anything constuctive to add? Or is does civil conversation/debate bother you to the point that you have to interrupt?

Nipple.

jspchief
04-28-2006, 12:13 PM
I wonder how people's stances will change in the next decade or two when we can reference related social issues in Canada. What effects will gay marriage and a blind eye to marijuana have in our northern neighbors?I'd say we have the advantage of a guinea pig. Canada is finally good for something other than hunting and fishing :thumb:

el borracho
04-28-2006, 12:15 PM
I wonder how people's stances will change in the next decade or two when we can reference related social issues in Canada. What effects will gay marriage and a blind eye to marijuana have in our northern neighbors?
I may not have stated that well. I didn't mean to relate gay marriage to marijuana use except in the sense that both are illegal here in the states at least in part for fear of social degradation.

pikesome
04-28-2006, 12:24 PM
So you now equate homosexuality with pedophilia? The slippery slope argument just does not apply. THe story in question was about a relationship between two consenting adults, not Uncle f*cker taking his nephew behind the woodshed and molesting him.

Now you've hit two points at once. Why is sex with a 14 illegal? Because we have decided, in this country, that someone of that age is not equipped to deal with the ramifications of sex, especially when involved with an adult. This seems to have a direct relation to the OP. You've also hit one the one reason I can't be anti-gay, "two consenting adults". I might not buy into any other argument for homosexuality, but the idea that people can do what they want, with who they want IS THE ONLY DEFENSE HOMOSEXUALITY NEEDS.



At one time society hated 'n*ggers, k*kes, sp*cs, and basically all other non-white straight, protestant people. That is not an excuse.

Read the post I quoted, I'm not the one who floated the idea of society approving or not.


I think that this excerpt goes along way towards qualifying what homophobia in our society is really analogous to:

Per Wiki:

Heterosexism is a belief or argument that male-female sexuality is the only natural, normal, or moral mode of sexual behavior, and is also used to refer to the effects of that cultural ideology. The word 'heterosexualism' has also been proposed to mean essentially the same thing. [1] This word has been suggested as an alternative to homophobia [2], in part because it uses a parallel structure to sexism or racism.

Heterosexism should not be confused with heterocentrism, which is an (often subconscious) assumption that everyone is heterosexual, and the attitudes associated with that assumption. Heterocentrism often shows up in less intentional ways in every day life. For instance, when a woman says she is going on a date, many people will ask, "What's his name?" or "Is he cute?" assuming it is a heterosexual date. Nevertheless, these people may not have anything against same-sex dating. In queer theory, the term heterocentrism is closely related to heteronormativity.

Ok, wiki posts are worth almost nothing. Actually, I think you could successfully argue that they are worse than nothing because of the amount blatant disinformation that pass as wiki in many places.

Heterosexism is the only natural, normal sexual orientation. Arguments to the contray are without merit. Sex's purpose is not to make you feel good, it could care less about your enjoyment. It's sole purpose is the spread of genetic material. Human beings have found pleasure and enjoyment as a side effect and the aspects not directly related to procreation have taken on greater meaning but that doesn't change what sex's primary purpose is. This is not to say that the other aspects are unimportant, to individual humans, they are vastly more important than procreation most of the time. Just because someone would like to think that there is nothing abnormal about having homosexual sex, it doesn't make it "normal".

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-28-2006, 12:26 PM
Wow

That's some clever post vandalism...

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-28-2006, 12:29 PM
Now you've hit two points at once. Why is sex with a 14 illegal? Because we have decided, in this country, that someone of that age is not equipped to deal with the ramifications of sex, especially when involved with an adult. This seems to have a direct relation to the OP. You've also hit one the one reason I can't be anti-gay, "two consenting adults". I might not buy into any other argument for homosexuality, but the idea that people can do what they want, with who they want IS THE ONLY DEFENSE HOMOSEXUALITY NEEDS.




Read the post I quoted, I'm not the one who floated the idea of society approving or not.



Ok, wiki posts are worth almost nothing. Actually, I think you could successfully argue that they are worse than nothing because of the amount blatant disinformation that pass as wiki in many places.

Heterosexism is the only natural, normal sexual orientation. Arguments to the contray are without merit. Sex's purpose is not to make you feel good, it could care less about your enjoyment. It's sole purpose is the spread of genetic material. Human beings have found pleasure and enjoyment as a side effect and the aspects not directly related to procreation have taken on greater meaning but that doesn't change what sex's primary purpose is. This is not to say that the other aspects are unimportant, to individual humans, they are vastly more important than procreation most of the time. Just because someone would like to think that there is nothing abnormal about having homosexual sex, it doesn't make it "normal".

If sex's sole point is to spread genetic material, then why do animals often pleasure each other when not in heat or the rut?? I'm going to take pleasure for 600...

Furthermore, if you have a problem with a given wiki post, then flag it or make changes yourself. It's set up as a massively peer reviewed form of information, and has been statistically shown to have similar to fewer errors than the Encyclopedia Brittanica

tk13
04-28-2006, 12:32 PM
I read this whole thing and I still don't think anyone addressed the point. Everyone is applying this to their own neighborhood. These kids still live in a state where this kind of relationship is encouraged, whether you or I agree with it or not. You can say they shouldn't be exposed to it, but they likely will be exposed to it.

If not through school then somewhere else. Because let's be honest, that's where they are gonna discover it, in school or on their own, because the general state of parenting is crap, and it's out there, and when they learn, it's probably going to be from somebody who has an agenda. I hear all this talk about agenda, agenda, well no crap, everybody has an agenda.

BIG_DADDY
04-28-2006, 12:32 PM
That's some clever post vandalism...

Add everybody thought your uncle was taking you out to the woodshed all those years to play darts. Do you still walk funny?

Logical
04-28-2006, 12:35 PM
Yea, because 30 minutes of storytime is probably going to override the values you'll instill in your children over their entire childhood. :rolleyes:

This to me is the crux of the matter, make this no big deal and your children will not make a big deal out of it and the value you instill will over-ride if you are parenting correctly. Of course if you are parenting correctly you should be instilling tolerance anyway.

Logical
04-28-2006, 12:38 PM
I'm definately not gay, but I'm not homophobic. I am educated, which I believe most people need to be, to understand homosexuality. Fact, it's a genetic disorder. We don't have hatred towards people with other genetic disorders, why this one? I don't think it's harmful that book was read to the class.

Now come on now, everybody is going to throw some gay jokes at me, so bring it on!

Well you are at least 1/2 right, it is a genetic condition but it is not a disorder. You say you are tolerant then you classify it as if it is a disease.:rolleyes:

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-28-2006, 12:38 PM
I read this whole thing and I still don't think anyone addressed the point. Everyone is applying this to their own neighborhood. These kids still live in a state where this kind of relationship is encouraged, whether you or I agree with it or not. You can say they shouldn't be exposed to it, but they likely will be exposed to it.

If not through school then somewhere else. Because let's be honest, that's where they are gonna discover it, in school or on their own, because the general state of parenting is crap, and it's out there, and when they learn, it's probably going to be from somebody who has an agenda. I hear all this talk about agenda, agenda, well no crap, everybody has an agenda.

I just find it odd that there is so much conservative outrage over this one example, as though children aren't inundated with images of heteronormativity and the 'correctness' of heterosexuality at every point and step of their formative years. This was not a manifesto or a polemic, it was a story, a story about real things that happen in the world and it was absent of any of the markers of perceived 'racy' or 'inappropriate' material. It doesn't matter whether this story was read in Boston or Birmingham, homosexuality is a consistent, natural, and fully valid aspect of our contemporary society, and for these parents and people on this board to feign outrage at such a thing is discriminatory and short-sighted.

pikesome
04-28-2006, 12:43 PM
If sex's sole point is to spread genetic material, then why do animals often pleasure each other when not in heat or the rut?? I'm going to take pleasure for 600...

The pleasure aspect is to makes sure the subject does it as much as possible. Other animals have figured out ways to capture that same feeling just like we have. Think lab rats with a button that releases drugs. Life evolved this way to ensure it's continuded evolution. Sex didn't start in the primordal soup nor was it invented by cavemen.

Furthermore, if you have a problem with a given wiki post, then flag it or make changes yourself. It's set up as a massively peer reviewed form of information, and has been statistically shown to have similar to fewer errors than the Encyclopedia Brittanica

I don't play in the Wiki toy box. I thought it was a bad idea when it was dreamed up and hasn't shown me anything to change my mind.

jettio
04-28-2006, 12:44 PM
Since this is Lexington, Massachusetts, where the minutemen stood up to the redcoats, that book might be less pro-gay than it is anti-royalist. I think it is a way of letting the kids know that the Anglo monarchs and their Tory supporters tend towards buggery and the packing and smoking of fudge and pole, respectively. NTTAWWT.

jspchief
04-28-2006, 12:45 PM
This to me is the crux of the matter, make this no big deal and your children will not make a big deal out of it and the value you instill will over-ride if you are parenting correctly. Of course if you are parenting correctly you should be instilling tolerance anyway.This is why it's not a bifg deal to me.

If I were opposed to homosexuality for whatever reason, I wouldn't feel threatend by this. I'm confident that the things I teach my kids on a daily basis will override the occasional opposing viewpoint, whether it be that blacks aren't equal, drugs are bad, or god is killing soldiers because the military allows gays.

The the way you raise your child is much more powerful than these other assaults on your viewpoints.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-28-2006, 12:48 PM
The pleasure aspect is to makes sure the subject does it as much as possible. Other animals have figured out ways to capture that same feeling just like we have. Think lab rats with a button that releases drugs. Life evolved this way to ensure it's continuded evolution. Sex didn't start in the primordal soup nor was it invented by cavemen.



I don't play in the Wiki toy box. I thought it was a bad idea when it was dreamed up and hasn't shown me anything to change my mind.

I would imagine that most childbirth is quite painful, and a pain in the ass for the child bearer, especially when tending to helpless younglings. Yet life still continued in spite of this. Your argument isn't consistent.

vailpass
04-28-2006, 12:53 PM
The gay agenda won't be happy until their teaching 1st graders how to smoke a mean pole.
ROFL Too true.

Baby Lee
04-28-2006, 12:53 PM
I would imagine that most childbirth is quite painful, and a pain in the ass for the child bearer, especially when tending to helpless younglings. Yet life still continued in spite of this. Your argument isn't consistent.
Who was your sex ed teacher?

pikesome
04-28-2006, 12:54 PM
it's probably going to be from somebody who has an agenda. I hear all this talk about agenda, agenda, well no crap, everybody has an agenda.

This is what PO's me. The issue with the story doesn't concern me, not my kids or my kid's school. No one involved is innocent, they all want to push their agenda and I'm getting a little tired of being told what I should find to be acceptable or not. I've set here and tried to lay down my thoughts on the matter, for better or worse, but I know that very few care what my position is if it's different than theirs. This is the current state of the world and I'm increasingly not liking it.

Baby Lee
04-28-2006, 01:01 PM
The gay agenda won't be happy until their teaching 1st graders how to smoke a mean pole.
http://www.csps.minx.co.uk/epiimgs/407/sp407_garrison.jpg
Dirty Sanchez. Very Good Bebe.
Can anyone name an another.
Ohh, Hot Karl. That's correct Butters.

pikesome
04-28-2006, 01:01 PM
I would imagine that most childbirth is quite painful, and a pain in the ass for the child bearer, especially when tending to helpless younglings. Yet life still continued in spite of this. Your argument isn't consistent.

Actually you provide one of the best arguments supporting my position. Children, the whole enchilada, have many drawbacks yet continues to happen. To counter the less than enjoyable aspects, Mother Nature gives us a sex drive that makes people do ill-conceived things and the greatest high upon completion. While there are other things that feed the process too, the bonding that forms with parents, the pleasure payoff just starts the process.

Inspector
04-28-2006, 01:11 PM
Glad my kids are grown up.

If not, I'd go broke with paying for private schools. Or, I guess, I'd be having my wife get into that home schooling stuff. We're sort of considering it with our grankids. After reading this thread, I'm thinking home schooling is probably in our grandkids future.

Mosbonian
04-28-2006, 01:13 PM
Letting a 7 year old know that some people are different is hardly graphic. Kids are going to encounter different folks everywhere in life.

Why is that man brown?
Why is that lady really fat?
Why does that (retarded) boy look funny?
Why did that man/woman kiss that other man/woman?

Because, Sweet Pea, that's the way they are. People come in all types of shapes and sizes and colors.

Too bad we don't spend as much time and effort addressing the one in bold as we do all of the other "socially & politically correct" ones you mention here.....

Everyone has a problem when people use the word "queer" and "faggot" when referencing gays, but no one seems to have a problem when someone uses the word "retarded" when referencing special needs kids.

Where are all of the educational processes for indoctrinating the children about special needs kids?

mmaddog
*******

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-28-2006, 01:15 PM
Actually you provide one of the best arguments supporting my position. Children, the whole enchilada, have many drawbacks yet continues to happen. To counter the less than enjoyable aspects, Mother Nature gives us a sex drive that makes people do ill-conceived things and the greatest high upon completion. While there are other things that feed the process too, the bonding that forms with parents, the pleasure payoff just starts the process.

That is in no way related to your point--your assertion was that sex is only pleasurable so that we would continue to do it.

Clearly, that isn't the case, as you elucidate above.

BIG_DADDY
04-28-2006, 01:15 PM
http://www.csps.minx.co.uk/epiimgs/407/sp407_garrison.jpg
Dirty Sanchez. Very Good Bebe.
Can anyone name an another.
Ohh, Hot Karl. That's correct Butters.
ROFL

jspchief
04-28-2006, 01:17 PM
Too bad we don't spend as much time and effort addressing the one in bold as we do all of the other "socially & politically correct" ones you mention here.....

Everyone has a problem when people use the word "queer" and "pillowbiter" when referencing gays, but no one seems to have a problem when someone uses the word "retarded" when referencing special needs kids.

Where are all of the educational processes for indoctrinating the children about special needs kids?

mmaddog
*******I realize your situation, and can assure that I'm not that far removed from a similar situation. But you have to understand that that word is not neccessarily derogatory. It has an applicable definition.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-28-2006, 01:18 PM
Who was your sex ed teacher?

A rabid moralist who when pounding a Bible with some form of endnotes about Indians, the American West, Baptism of the Dead, and Christ, told us that it was ok to have several wives despite the fact that it was clearly a consistently misogynistic practice. Then there was the whole no-caffeine thing. I wonder where he came from :hmmm:

Duck Dog
04-28-2006, 01:19 PM
To be fair everyone should be tolerant of my intolerance.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-28-2006, 01:19 PM
Glad my kids are grown up.

If not, I'd go broke with paying for private schools. Or, I guess, I'd be having my wife get into that home schooling stuff. We're sort of considering it with our grankids. After reading this thread, I'm thinking home schooling is probably in our grandkids future.

Sounds like an excellent way to instill your kids with a fundamental lack of social skills. Great..."I hate queers, so I"ll just protect my precious grandbabies from them by keeping them at home all their childhood".

Very mature response.

vailpass
04-28-2006, 01:22 PM
Sounds like an excellent way to instill your kids with a fundamental lack of social skills. Great..."I hate queers, so I"ll just protect my precious grandbabies from them by keeping them at home all their childhood".

Very mature response.

Yes, then how would they ever grow to be the social butterfly that is a 23 year old student who sits alone in his room day and night and types on a message board?

It's Friday, you are a 23 year old American male within striking distance of 18-24 year old college females. Shouldn't you be with a few buddies right now enjoying some pre-happy hour beers and deciding who is wing man for tonight??

BIG_DADDY
04-28-2006, 01:24 PM
Sounds like an excellent way to instill your kids with a fundamental lack of social skills. Great..."I hate queers, so I"ll just protect my precious grandbabies from them by keeping them at home all their childhood".

Very mature response.

Did your trips to the woodshed with your uncle increase your social skills?

Oral skills maybe but social?

Mile High Mania
04-28-2006, 01:29 PM
Sounds like an excellent way to instill your kids with a fundamental lack of social skills. Great..."I hate queers, so I"ll just protect my precious grandbabies from them by keeping them at home all their childhood".

Very mature response.

Actually, the mature response is twisting comments and essentially telling everyone that differs from your opinion that they're idiots.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-28-2006, 01:29 PM
Yes, then how would they ever grow to be the social butterfly that is a 23 year old student who sits alone in his room day and night and types on a message board?

It's Friday, you are a 23 year old American male within striking distance of 18-24 year old college females. Shouldn't you be with a few buddies right now enjoying some pre-happy hour beers and deciding who is wing man for tonight??

Nice one. I'm in my office posting while taking a break from grading papers and organizing portfolios to prepare them for submission. My fiancee is at home asleep as she works as an RN in a PICU. There is nothing I can do either professionally (I'll get fired) or personally (no more sig. other) about said 18-24 year old females. It's a pretty nasty conflict of interest to bone people who could be in your class next sem..

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-28-2006, 01:31 PM
Actually, the mature response is twisting comments and essentially telling everyone that differs from your opinion that they're idiots.

1)--that was an idiotic response
2)--that was clearly the implication of his post.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-28-2006, 01:32 PM
Did your trips to the woodshed with your uncle increase your social skills?

Oral skills maybe but social?

If intelligence were mass, you would be antimatter.

vailpass
04-28-2006, 01:34 PM
Nice one. I'm in my office posting while taking a break from grading papers and organizing portfolios to prepare them for submission. My fiancee is at home asleep as she works as an RN in a PICU. There is nothing I can do either professionally (I'll get fired) or personally (no more sig. other) about said 18-24 year old females. It's a pretty nasty conflict of interest to bone people who could be in your class next sem..

:banghead: Damn man, being in the henhouse and not being able to pluck the chickens, that's just not right. Congrats on being engaged and all but damn...... :banghead:

Good luck with your portfolios. I remember when my brother was going through that (ceramics), he finally landed a good gig through Purdue.

Duck Dog
04-28-2006, 01:36 PM
Actually, the mature response is twisting comments and essentially telling everyone that differs from your opinion that they're idiots.


Nice one, nailed him perfectly with one simple sentence.

Mile High Mania
04-28-2006, 01:36 PM
Nice one. I'm in my office posting while taking a break from grading papers and organizing portfolios to prepare them for submission. My fiancee is at home asleep as she works as an RN in a PICU. There is nothing I can do either professionally (I'll get fired) or personally (no more sig. other) about said 18-24 year old females. It's a pretty nasty conflict of interest to bone people who could be in your class next sem..

No wonder you're so passionate about the rights of those teachers... there's a bond.

ChiefsFanatic
04-28-2006, 01:40 PM
This is why it's not a bifg deal to me.

If I were opposed to homosexuality for whatever reason, I wouldn't feel threatend by this. I'm confident that the things I teach my kids on a daily basis will override the occasional opposing viewpoint, whether it be that blacks aren't equal, drugs are bad, or god is killing soldiers because the military allows gays.

The the way you raise your child is much more powerful than these other assaults on your viewpoints.

Amen!

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-28-2006, 01:41 PM
:banghead: Damn man, being in the henhouse and not being able to pluck the chickens, that's just not right. Congrats on being engaged and all but damn...... :banghead:

Good luck with your portfolios. I remember when my brother was going through that (ceramics), he finally landed a good gig through Purdue.

It has its moments of frustration, as there have been times when I have had quasi-sexual advances made towards me by very attractive students--but it's just something you can't do. I'm in a clear power relationship over them which just negates any ethical move towards them.