It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

School Clams Up on 'Gay' Pledge Cards Given to Kindergartners

page: 22
15
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Epinephrine
 


I never said you called me gay, nor was I defending myself against that. I was simply explaining the difference between a heterosexual and homosexual. I was born to be attracted to women. You were born gay and have learned to lie to yourself about what excites you. That is fine, your choice. But pretending what used to excite you no longer does, does not prove homosexuality is a choice. If you were gay, you know as well as I do that you still get excited by the same things that you did then. You know the truth. I know the truth. Most people who are educated on the psychology of developement and sexuality know it. So why are you trying to convince others of something you know yourself you cannot prove is true? Either you never were gay or you still are and just do not act on it. That does not make it a choice. That makes you confused and a *SNIP*.



Mod edit: No more name calling please.

Courtesy Is Mandatory

[edit on 11/13/2008 by Hal9000]




posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
Good Morning, everyone...

The topic this morning is, unless I totally misread the title of the thread, "School Clams Up on 'Gay' Pledge Cards Given to Kindergartners". Not each other.

It really isn't that hard to be civil to each other. Having said that, the civility starts now. Get back on topic, leave each other out of it, and discuss the topic at hand like mature adults.

Thank you.


It seems to me that this thread is more about whether or not they are "recruiting kids to be gay" Which lead to whether or not it is a choice. One poster claims it is a choice because he made that choice and then unchose it later on. It is the natural evolution of the thread. Either we need to not discuss whether or not it is recruitment and then we can avoid discussing whether or not it is a choice and thus avoid challenging anyone that claims they made that choice.

So, I am all for getting back on topic but we are going to have to go back to the first page for that now.



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Epinephrine
I was criticizing their flawed methods, not the idea of therapy to treat homosexuality.

The common theme with people who have successfully treated their homosexuality is that it seems to take years to make a complete conversion. If hormones are truly a major factor in homosexuality then it makes sense that it would take years for the hormones to completely change the body and rewire the brain, like the years that humans go through puberty or that transexuals are on hormones to alter their bodies.

Young, prepubescent children should not be exposed to homosexuality or specifically taught that they need to support homosexuals. At best, this is overt political manipulation of children. At worst, this is gay recruitment.

Give your boys zinc supplements before they hit puberty


[edit on 12-11-2008 by Epinephrine]


What you say is "treating" homosexually is attempting to change someones sexual orientation (I don't even know if this is possible).

But what is trying to prevent prejudice, you claim is attempting to change someones sexual orientation.

And I agree, prepubescent children should not be exposed to homosexuality...or heterosexuality for that matter. This pledge card is neither.



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Even though I'm all for the end of bullying and name calling of any kind, I'm a bit taken back by this. There are no Gay, Lesbian or alternate gender children of that age. It is not possible to be Gay or Lesbian at age 5. Only children being sexually abused would even have knowledge of those issues. Were these Kindergärtner's all sexually active at 5?

Sounds like the Teacher has an agenda to recruit rather than educate. Perhaps a psych evaluation of that teacher is in order? What could the agenda be if not recruitment into the lifestyle? I think I'd pull my child out of that class just in case the teacher is into 5 year olds.



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

What you say is "treating" homosexually is attempting to change someones sexual orientation (I don't even know if this is possible).


It is not! He is a miracle and needs to cash in on it. Psychologists the world over will be beating down his door to study him. Money will come pouring in just to hear his story and study him.




And I agree, prepubescent children should not be exposed to homosexuality...or heterosexuality for that matter. This pledge card is neither.


Here here. The problem with this thread is that it has been all about homosexuality. It should be about the fact that children should be taught not to be judgemental or predjudiced and that is that. Sexuality of any kind should not be brought into it, especially not by the teacher.

-I am still for age appropriate sex ed since it is far more successful at stemming STDs and teen pregnancy than anything else so far. (Unless you read the same christian hate-sites epinephrine gets his 'facts' from.)

I do not see how this is recruitment but still, there is no reason children that age should be hearing about homo or hetero sexuality.

[edit on 12-11-2008 by angel of lightangelo]



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus

And I agree, prepubescent children should not be exposed to homosexuality...or heterosexuality for that matter. This pledge card is neither.

Again I insert the verbatim wording of the card, taken from the news photo:

"By signing this card, I ____________, am taking a stand for a safe and harassment-free school regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.

As an ally, I pledge to:

  1. Not use anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) language or slurs.
  2. Intervene, where I feel I can, in situations where others are using anti-LGBT language or harassing other students.
  3. Actively support safer schools efforts.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
Source: photo of pledge card on www.foxnews.com...

Now if this is not sexually explicit, exposing children to homosexual information, exactly what is? Where do you draw the line? Live exhibitions? A nice movie? Photos of the acts? A written description? Definitions of the words?

I agree with you that children this age should not be exposed to sexual information. But the pledge cards do indeed carry enough information to, at the very least, instill untimely curiosity about the subject in young minds.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Ok, fine. The card is is wrong. The idea is wrong. The execution of it is wrong. But...it is NOT recruiting. It is not explicit. The problem here is that when people read this and call it recruitment, you have shifted the focus entirely. So people can discuss whether or not this is appropriate or they can say it is recruitment so kids will choose to be gay. Guess which one takes the focus off of what is really important.



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by angel of lightangelo

The card is is wrong. The idea is wrong. The execution of it is wrong.

That's all that need be said. The cards are wrong under every standard I can think of too. As for recruitment, well, it appears the quoted text from you renders that a moot subject.

I really don't know if the underlying cause was recruitment, temporary insanity, a mix-up, or some evil plot by the devil to warp the next generation
I will say this: it can appear to be so to some. But as I said, if it's wrong, it's wrong. Period.


TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I am simply responding to the plethora of people that are trying to argue that this is wrong BECAUSE it is recruitment and that kids can decide to be gay. If you are not among the ones making that claim, then I do not expect you to care what I said after I agree with your point. Let them read it and respond then, thanks.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I am simply responding to the plethora of people that are trying to argue that this is wrong BECAUSE it is recruitment and that kids can decide to be gay. If you are not among the ones making that claim, then I do not expect you to care what I said after I agree with your point. Let them read it and respond then, thanks.



More information from the article:



School Clams Up on 'Gay' Pledge Cards Given to Kindergartners
Saturday, November 01, 2008

By Michelle Maskaly

A California school system refuses to say what action, if any, it will take after it received complaints about a kindergarten teacher who encouraged her students to sign "pledge cards" in support of gays.

During a celebration of National Ally Week, Tara Miller, a teacher at the Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science in Hayward, Calif., passed out cards produced by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network to her class of kindergartners.

The school has acknowledged that the exercise was not appropriate for kindergartners.

Parent Adela Voelker, who declined to be interviewed in depth for this report, said she was furious when she found her child's signature on one of the cards. She said she contacted a non-profit legal defense organization specializing in parents' rights.

Meanwhile, a school board member, Jeff Cook, says some type of action should be taken.

"We have a general rule that all instruction should be age appropriate, and this clearly was not," said Cook, who has served on the school board for five years.

Asked last week if the district planned to take action against Miller, Joyner said she would have to look into the incident. On Thursday she told FOXNews.com that she did not have an answer for the question and that she would no longer be doing any media interviews.

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, the group representing Voelker, said parents at the Faith Ringgold School weren't notified of what was going to take place in the classroom.

He said that teaching students as young as pre-school about gay, lesbian and transgender issues is common in California, but that there are "all kinds of material the average parent could find highly objectionable or potentially harmful" to their children.

When asked if the school district did anything wrong, he said, "possibly," but he declined to go into detail or say whether Voelker would sue the district.

Dacus would not comment specifically on whether children who signed the pledge could be held responsible if the school determined that they were not honoring it. He said they are minors and there are certain degrees of limited liability, but from a psychological and emotional perspective, it's a whole different ballgame.

"[There is] tremendous peer pressure put on children to accept a pro-homosexual philosophy and attitude," Dacus said.

"How do you teach a 5-year-old to sign a pledge card for lesbian, gay and transgender issues without explaining what transgender and bisexual is?" asked Sonja Eddings Brown, a spokeswoman for Protect Marriage California.




but from a psychological and emotional perspective, it's a whole different ballgame.

He said that teaching students as young as pre-school about gay, lesbian and transgender issues is common in California, but that there are "all kinds of material the average parent could find highly objectionable or potentially harmful" to their children.


"[There is] tremendous peer pressure put on children to accept a pro-homosexual philosophy and attitude," Dacus said.


There is tremendous pressure put on children to accept a pro-homosexual philosophy and attitude, and there are all kinds of material the average parent could find highly offensive and potentially harmful to their children.

This is similar to the tremendous pressure communicated passionately here in this thread from adults to other adults to accept a pro-homosexual philosophy and attitude. On the basis of equal civil rights. Civil rights are laws to equalize an inequality generated by an accident or birth, (disability, race, gender, intelligence).
A poster tells that he is ex gay, and that it is a choice, not a predetermined condition, a predetermined path of least resistence to the pleasures of the flesh.
In addictions the desire for pleasure is more powerful than the will to live.
Overdose, obesity, STD's, gambling into poverty.
Five major addictions in America are alcohol, drugs, sex, food and money.

The recruitment is similar to what was often spoken about pot to a non user "If you have not tried it do not knock it."
The GTHLB message: "If you are not sure, then you are probably bi, if not even gay." "If you are not sure then try it to see if that is what you are."

This opposes what parents teach regarding morals, that some behaviors, even though you will have thoughts about doing the behavior are morally wrong choices.

An ex-drug addict will have thoughts of the pleasures associated with drug use for years after stopping. That is normal, and does not indicate he should return to using, any more that if an ex GTHLB has thoughts of the pleasure of that chosen lifestyle, does not indicate they should return to that self destructive lifestyle.

Does recruitment occur from drug users to non drug users? Certainly.
Does recruitment occur from GTHLB to non GTHLB? Cretainly.
Then the question is what methods are being used to recruit?



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 06:52 AM
link   
From the glsen website:

Over the next several months you will find new documents on this web site including a discussion of parental notification legislation and the ways in which those bills will make it more difficult for gay straight alliances to be formed,


Parental notification bills will make it more difficult to push the GHLTB agenda, so GLSEN is of course opposed to notification of parents. Does that truth surprise anyone??

Usurping parental judgement and authority. Fairly blatant "we do not care what parents think."



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney
Usurping parental judgement and authority. Fairly blatant "we do not care what parents think."


Why should they?

Some parents probably think like you.

For all we know some parents might not want their kid in the same class room with a black kid...

I disagree with our public school system appealing to the stupidity and ignorance of prejudice.

[edit on 13-11-2008 by Jezus]



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by fmcanarney
 


You STILL have not proven any attempts at "recruitment." Make whatever other point you are almost making but just give up on recruitment. I agree kids that young should not learn about sex of any kind in school. Unfortunately, people like you make it that much worse by making it into something it is not. You cannot get it to stop by asking them to stop recruiting. They are NOT recruiting so they will give you what they think you want and keep going with what they want. The only thing that you have proven is that you are afraid that someone can make a kid decide to be gay. If that is the case, then you must have had some interesting childhoold experiences that still haunt your memory and make you wonder if you "made the right choice." I get it. This board is full of scared closeted homosexuals. They are afraid they their kids will enjoy the same things they did so they must blame everyone and anyone else for making their kid gay. It is a great tactic and a wonderful argument, up until you educate yourself.

I will say again, I think this card thing is wrong, I think the kids are too youg, and I do not think the school should be so specific about who you should not hate...BUT...it is still not recruitment so just let that go.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus

Why should they?

Some parents probably think like you.

Are you really advocating the removal or denial of parental rights based on the issue du jour? Exactly who should be the arbitrator of what a child is and is not exposed to? You?

Since the beginning of history, the parents have been assumed to have the right to raise their child as they see fit, admittedly within certain loose boundaries to protect the children from overt harm. We have not only survived under that guiding principle, the human race has thrived under it to the point that we are the dominant force on the planet. I would say at best it is ridiculous to suggest changing this solely because you don't agree with some parents.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Are you really advocating the removal or denial of parental rights based on the issue du jour? Exactly who should be the arbitrator of what a child is and is not exposed to? You?

Since the beginning of history, the parents have been assumed to have the right to raise their child as they see fit, admittedly within certain loose boundaries to protect the children from overt harm. We have not only survived under that guiding principle, the human race has thrived under it to the point that we are the dominant force on the planet. I would say at best it is ridiculous to suggest changing this solely because you don't agree with some parents.

TheRedneck


I'm just saying that the school should not be forced to bend to the will of specific parents.

I don't care how many parents don't believe in evolution, I still think it should be taught in school.


Honestly, if parents don't want their kids learning to accept other people's differences maybe they should home school them...



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus

I asked because that is one very slippery slope.

It's easy to say "well, every kid should be taught compassion", but things like this, which have their alleged roots in compassion, can directly go against the wishes of parents. This was, according to the school, a mistake, but the lack of outrage from the school itself and their rather casual attitude makes me wonder.

Bureaucrats have a bad habit of ignoring those whom they serve. I believe at the best, the administrators of the school were so busy with priorities other than their most precious charges, the children, that they simply let this slip loose (and this explains the cavalier attitude toward the error as well, so I believe it most probable). On the other end of the spectrum is the possibility, although not fact by any means, of recruitment or at least specific agenda-driven desires of the teacher.

In this case, we need the parents. Their foremost concern is for the kids, their own flesh and blood, whereas it is easy for someone charged with the proper education of these children to abuse or ignore that charge. It's not their kids...

Beware of that slippery slope...

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Most parents think like I do.
Most adults, whether they have children or not think like I do.
If you are not a democrat before you are eighteen, there is something wrong with your heart. If you are still a democrat when you are thirty there is something wrong with your head.
Most adults think that parents are the primary teachers of their children.
And this should be so. You cannot replace parents, unless you ssubscribe to Hilarys book "It Takes a Village to Raise a Child."
Which is subtitled, "It Takes a Village to Raise an Idiot."
Teachers do not have the position or the authority or the seat upon which to usurp parental position and authority.
I raise my children to think with their heads, not their hearts, or their emotions.
I had no distant relation with my father so I do not need to pretend and yearn for that intimacy in my adult life. So not have to create social vignettes to satisfy that need.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney
Most parents think like I do.


Care to back that up. See, you almost make a good point, then you ruin it by expressing your thoughts.



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney
Most parents think like I do.


Ya, maybe 30 years ago. Maybe.



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
A link to where parents think like I do.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join