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: 25
15
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by angel of lightangelo
 


Why would you even think that the 'line would be drawn' there? Parents have the right to teach their children what they want, but obviously doing what you said is out of the question.




posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   
angel of lightangelo:

I would like to answer your question. The right of a parent to raise their child as they wish is predicated on the fact that a parent loves their children and wants the best for them. The only time, IMO, that right can even be questioned is when there is direct evidence that the parents are either incapable mentally of exercising that right, or that they take such drastic action as to intentionally endanger their child.

Setting a time to talk to a child about sex is not an intentional endangerment of a child. Not wanting the child exposed certain politically correct agendas is not endangering the child. Discipline is not endangering a child (quite the opposite IMO). Therefore these things are well within the realm of parental authority.

Locking a child away in a closet for extended periods until her body is deformed is endangering a child. Beating an infant to death while tossing it in the garbage is endangerment. There should be no question as to whether or not they are. Both are also criminal and carry legal repercussions.

That is where I draw my line. I hope that's clear enough for you.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
angel of lightangelo:

I would like to answer your question. The right of a parent to raise their child as they wish is predicated on the fact that a parent loves their children and wants the best for them. The only time, IMO, that right can even be questioned is when there is direct evidence that the parents are either incapable mentally of exercising that right, or that they take such drastic action as to intentionally endanger their child....blah blah.


Wow, you did a great job of repeating a post I already responded to somewhere else. You are good. Let me say again....

The real question is who makes the decision about what that means? Who decides that stabbing my kid would be dangerous for them? Who decides that allowing them too much corn syrup in their diet is just as dangerous? Who get's to draw that line? Society as a group? Each individual? The government?

If you think I am kidding just look at the things CPC takes children away for and look at the abuses that go unchecked. Who is going to decide what is my right to decide if I want to raise my child in a cage and keep them fatally underweight and who will decide if I let them watch my "Beavis and Butthead" DVDs?

See, it is not so simple is it? And since we all live in a society together, we all need to agree on some things. Is it up to the parent, teacher, or gov who teaches the kids about sex, who teaches them to or not to be rascist, who poisens them for attention, who sexually abuses them to post on the internet.

You want to think it is pretty cut and dry but it is not. 50 years ago a photo of your baby with it's bare bottom showing was a cute commonplace little memory to share and giggle about. Now it is reason to have your children temporarily removed while you are investigated for sexual abuse of a child under the age of 5. 50 years ago mom had time to make a nice breakfast. Now, everything we can feed them quickly causes diabetes and is therefor neglectful.

Why are you all having so much trouble with this concept?




[edit on 15-11-2008 by angel of lightangelo]



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by angel of lightangelo

See, it is not so simple is it?

I never said it is (and please tell me you're not accusing me of plagiarizing you
).

What I recanted was the way I look at things, the way I say it should be. I would hope that most would agree with me, but I think we both know that is not a given for anything in this society.

I will say this in response to who should be making these decisions: it should not be a non-parent. I wish every person who worked at the DHR (Department of Human Resources) were required to have at least two children who had grown up to be citizens with stable employment and no criminal record. But that's not going to happen unfortunately.

That's why I say we should rely on the parents unless direct evidence is brought to light indicating a serious intentional problem. I know that we have those in society who harm children, but in the long run, I put my trust in the American public long before I do in the US government. And that statement is more of a
at the government than a
to the public.

If you have a better idea, I'm listening...

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I was not accusing you of stealing the post, just being repetetive. Other than that, I will concede that I see nothing here that I can honestly argue with. I agree. The problem here is with the people that are a little more extreme and made statements such as "What if I want to raise my kids to...." and listed some less than rational ideas. You were not one, so I do not think we had an argument to begin with but at least it is settled now.



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by angel of lightangelo

Repetitive, quite possibly.

I wasn't sure whether we had an argument or not, as the posts between you and the others in this thread had become pretty heated. There are a lot of beliefs I have in common with them. So, like any good, respectable motor-mouth, I threw my 2 cents in.


I'm glad we see eye to eye.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Recruitment?



SAN FRANCISCO—Spokespersons for the National Gay & Lesbian Recruitment Task Force announced Monday that more than 288,000 straights have been converted to homosexuality since Jan. 1, 1998, putting the group well on pace to reach its goal of 350,000 conversions by the end of the year.
"Thanks to the tireless efforts of our missionaries nationwide, in the first seven months of 1998, nearly 300,000 heterosexuals were ensnared in the Pink Triangle," said NGLRTF co-director Patricia Emmonds. "Clearly, the activist homosexual lobby is winning."

Emmonds credited much of the recruiting success to the gay lobby's infiltration of America's public schools, where programs promoting the homosexual lifestyle are regularly presented to children as young as 5.

"It's crucial that we reach these kids while they're still young," Emmonds said. "That's when they're most vulnerable to our message of sexual promiscuity and deviance."

In its May issue, the Massachusetts News featured an incredible story about a workshop held at Tufts University last March for high school students where state employees taught them the techniques of homosexual sex. This article showed how homosexuals are recruiting children in the public schools of Massachusetts. It exposed the fact that this is being promoted with public funds in the guise of a program to make schools safe for gay students. This shocking story was broken by Jeanine Graf on her radio talk show in Boston. She played tapes of what transpired at the workshop that had been secretly recorded by a member of an organization called the Parents Rights Coalition.


The conservative policy group Concerned Women for America is speaking out against a new project launched by a coalition of homosexual activist groups designed to recruit and vet openly homosexual professionals to serve in influential political positions in the next presidential administration.





The Gay and Lesbian Leadership Institute is teaming up with homosexual groups such as the Human Rights Campaign, the Stonewall Democrats, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force for an initiative called the "Presidential Appointments Project." It is being billed as a "talent bank" for openly homosexual professionals who want to "set or influence" policies of a potential Obama, McCain, or Clinton administration. The Institute is seeking resumes and says it will present approved applications to the transition team of the eventual presidential nominees.

Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Washington, DC-based Concerned Women for America, says the project puts to rest the notion that there is no "gay agenda." He says the homosexual lobby is committed to infiltrating the executive branch with people who define their identity based on changeable, sexually deviant behavior.

"The ultimate goal, of course, being to have people who engage in these aberrant sexual behaviors in a position of power to influence public policy in such a way that they gain more power," he explains.

Members of the homosexual lobby have done a masterful job of equating their chosen, changeable sexual behavior with immutable characteristics such as skin color, says Barber.

"They're comparing apples to oranges, of course, because they are not the same," he says of the homosexual lobby's attempt at comparison. "They have hijacked the language of the genuine civil rights movement and, as such, in corporations around the country and in various governmental entities are considered minorities worthy of special consideration and special rights in terms of hiring practices."

Barber says the idea that a declaration of immoral sexual behavior makes for a better resume and would be a key to landing a high-ranking government job is "frightening."




[edit on 17-11-2008 by fmcanarney]

[edit on 17-11-2008 by fmcanarney]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by fmcanarney
 


Going to have to ask for your source for the stuff you quoted.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   
"It's crucial that we reach these kids while they're still young," Emmonds said. "That's when they're most vulnerable to our message of sexual promiscuity and deviance."



I agree.

I can't wait until these corrupted kids get a little older.

It is going to be crazy orgy sex parties left and right...good times.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by fmcanarney

I have to put out a call for the source on this as well.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 06:38 AM
link   
www.theonion.com/content/node/28970



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I dont care what anyone says. even if they didnt do anyone of those bad things. I still dont want my child to go outside and see two gays kissing and thinks its ok. I mean come on our government is going to say this is ok. I hope not. I think gay should be able to marry. I think they should be able to be in public with each other. I dont think its ok that My kids might see them holding hands and kissing. If our government says this is ok our kids generation will be more gay.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by fmcanarney
 


Please tell me that when you quoted that article from the Onion you were joking. It's a site that prints satires. It's supposed to make you laugh and isn't supposed to be taken seriously. Nothing on that site is real.

I really hope you were kidding!


edit to add:

reply to post by slymattb
 


There isn't much difference between kids seeing to guys or two girls holding hands and kissing and seeing a guy and girl holding hands and kissing. I do agree that people, regardless of whether they are gay or straight, should not be making out in full view of children, but holding hands? That's a lot tamer than what I have seen a lot of straight couples doing in public. Personally I'd rather my kids see two adults holding hands, regardless of gender, than a couple of teenagers going at it in public.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by Jenna]



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I think their is a big difference in my child seeing gays and then thinking its ok and become one.

Ever heard the saying monkey see monkey do???

No matter what kids will see the things we dont want them to see. I saw it young so did you. But i think in a environment that says its ok for gays to be in public kissing and openly showing their gay, it will only show that being gay is ok. Which it is not. I dont hate them. I have gay friends. I just don't think that our young ones should be exposed to it.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by slymattb
 


Would you have just as big of a problem if it was a straight couple? Or is it only if it were a gay couple?

I really don't see the difference. Like I said, no one should be making out or going at it in public where children could see regardless of their sexual orientation. I saw many things growing up that a child probably shouldn't see, yet I'm not a monkey and didn't copy everything I saw. This would be one of those situations where if it happens and your child sees it, you take it as an opportunity to explain to them that no one should behave like that in public because it is not appropriate. If you turn it into a learning experience for your child, i.e. this is inappropriate behavior and here's why, instead of making a fuss about it your child won't really think much of it. That goes for pretty much anything a child may see that an adult thinks they shouldn't. Take the opportunity to teach your child something instead of trying to control other adults. Adults are the ones with the hang ups on sexuality not children.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I rather my kids see a straight couple then gay. At least they'll know whats right.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   
www.aim.org...

www.irazoo.com...

jacklewis.net...

www.conservapedia.com...


Out of 11.6 million crimes committed against persons and property in 2000, only 1,517 were hate crimes directed at homosexuals-and a third of these were undoubtedly name-calling. This should be good news to homosexual activists, but it undercuts one of their primary objectives: The passage of federal hate crime legislation that will add homosexual behavior as a protected class status under federal civil rights laws.

Homosexuals and their allies in Congress-notably Barney Frank in the House and Ted Kennedy in the Senate, have repeatedly claimed that our nation is experiencing an epidemic of hate crimes against homosexuals. They claim that states and local communities are incapable of dealing effectively with this wave of crime against homosexuals, so the federal government must step in to protect homosexuals from this assault. This, of course, is untrue.




posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by slymattb
I rather my kids see a straight couple then gay. At least they'll know whats right.



Oh wow...
Given your signature it seems that you believe in God. I don't. When I have kids I'd rather see that they see both and make their minds up for themselves based on personal experience.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by fmcanarney
 


I've never heard of AIM before, so I'll have to do some background checking on them before I just believe what they write. Your second link says it's a list of recruitment sites and I guess that's partly true if you count shopping sites and IT recruitment as homosexual recruitment. Your third link is not working for me, it just redirects to the yahoo homepage. Your last link is to a publicly edited encyclopedia that appears to be similar to wikipedia, except it's written with an obvious bias and the very first link, where they apparently got the information for the article, in their sources list for that article doesn't work. Not to mention it uses WND as a source and with all the complaining on this site about WND and the validity of their news reports I highly doubt many here will just take this "encyclopedia's" word for it that WND reported the truth there.

Give me a legitimate website that supports any of it please. One that is not surrounded with rumors of being unreliable. Then your theory will have some credibility.

And what ever happened to actually posting your thoughts or a description about the links you are posting?


WARNING to anyone who goes to the WND article linked through conservapedia, it contains graphic descriptions as does the link they use as a source. Since fmcarney didn't bother warning anyone, I suppose I will...



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by slymattb
I think their is a big difference in my child seeing gays and then thinking its ok and become one.

Ever heard the saying monkey see monkey do???



So, how much gay stuff did you do just because you saw it being done? I had gay relatives growing up. I saw them hold hands and kiss all the time as a kid. So far, urge to kiss or hold hands with another fellah = 0!!!!!!!!

I have never had a gay thought, idea, tendancy, draw, NOTHING! I saw it plenty. Where, in 2008, do people still believe you can become gay? And simply by seeing it? I have seen people eat liver and onions all my life too, never tried that, never wanted to. I guess I am just smarter than you and your offspring and you do need to be protected from your own ignorance.


God is alive and he had a Son Jesus Christ. God bless and Go with his spirit


I sure hope my kids never see a church or religios ceremony. I would be so dissappointed if they decided to devote their lives to an imaginary friend based on an old out of date, translated, edited, transformed book. Fortunately, I know that no one in my family is stupid enough to just do things they see. I should not have to worry about them ever falling for any of that sick religion crap. There is a good chance something gay will happen to them that they did not want in a church from what I read.

[edit on 19-11-2008 by angel of lightangelo]



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join