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: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Acidtastic
reply to post by fmcanarney
 


yes,we all get called names,but some of those people who start out calling other kids names,20 years later,end up going on to then batter them sensless in a dark alley,because of this inbuilt hate they have for gay people/anyone with a different skin colour/religious belief. Surely it's better to at least try and stop these future prejudiced based attacks,then to just say "oh don't worry about being called a poofter/paki/retard everyone gets called names" That's the lazy,don't give a s# option. And it doesn't actually address anything.

I've been physically attacked,for leaving a gay pub,I had to defend myself (and luckily I can,due to a life time of getting grief) I hate violence,and these scum dragged me down to their level. If this scheme can prevent just one more person from getting a good kicking for NO GOOD REASON then who the hell are you to be "morally outraged" Sure,this moral outrage may well stem from all this political correctness gorn maaaaad society we all live in,but at the end of the day,we all should have the right to live without fear. And it starts in the classroom,so that's where it should be stopped aswell.


If you think that by getting kindergarten children to sign this pledge it is somehow going to prevent an adult later on in life from being a violent moron, then you're not thinking about it clearly.

Do you honestly think that the sort of people who would attack you leaving a gay bar, are the sort of people who would give a stuff about what they were told to sign in kindergarten?

More the case they are just obnoxious imbeciles and no amount of education as a child about the subject would change the way they behave today. They is largely a result of how they are raised at home.

It does NOT start in the classroom. It starts in the Home.

When I was in primary school, the big thing was to say someone had aids. It had no meaning unless we gave it meaning. By signing these cards, you're effectively giving credibility to the offensiveness of the slurs.

If anything, I see this as causing more problems than it seeks to curtail. Children are rather good at being mean, and if they think they have something that has power over someone else, they will by all means use it.




posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney
First of all, I believe that fat people choose to eat too much food. Their current excuse is they were born that way.

What is worse, being a fat person or being a fat head?


Second, I believe that nature decided your sex, by way of plumbing, as either male or femals. That you were born that way.

I need advice here. A person has both male and female plumbing. This person has XXY chromosomes and the secondary sexual characteristics of both sexes.
Is this person a girl or a boy?


Third, only a male + female can have sexual intercourse, which ensures procreation and furtherence of the species.

Okay. Should the person I mentioned have sex with males or females, or should they have sex with both at once?
Also, is it ok for gays, if what they are doing cannot be termed sexual intercourse, to call it the physical expression of love instead?


Fourth, Choosing an alternative to the plumbing you were born with is not "natural".

Why do wild animals engage in unnatural behavours?
Is it still okay to trim your hair and beard?
Is injecting babies with antibodies to dangerous diseases natural?
Is it natural for people to avoid sex until they are married?
Is it natural to use menstrual hygiene products, or should women just squat in the gutter now and then?
Is heterosexuality natural in an overcrowded world in which 1,000s of people are dying of starvation each day?


Fifth, the GLBTH, also claim they were born that way. Genes or Heredity.

Yes, they "also" claim that.
Other things they claim are that the Earth rotates around the Sun and that pi = 3.14159265.
I can understand you not believing any of that.


Sixth, being born black, or red, or white, is a product of genes. GLBTH is not, as it is a choice, birthed from curiosity, in response to pleasure, or the avoidance of pain.

Do you believe you would find gay sex enjoyable if you tried it?
In what way does being gay help a person avoid pain?
Do you subscribe to the logical fallacy that absence of proof is proof of absence?


Seventh, having k-garten sign cards is in fact stimulating their curosity.

Oh my goodness, you're right. Kindergarten age children could become curious.
They could start following their mothers around asking "why" all day long.
How unnatural! Never before in history have kindergarten-age children asked questions.


Eight, that is recruitment.

What are these children being recruited into exactly?
The "Dont call People Gay Fags" movement?
Do you think some children are getting recruited into the "Hate Homos" movement before they are old enough to think for themselves?
If recruiting is that easy, why don't you become an army recruitment officer?
That way you even get a bonus for each recruitment.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


I agree that there is a double standard. Same thing with blacks calling each other the n word. But it still doesn't make it right for me to say something like that out of hate, or anger.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat

And if the teacher had explained those terms to the children? So you didn't have to say "sometimes two men live together like your mommy and I do"?

I don't think it is the teacher's place to explain this type of thing; it is the parent's. And that is for a very good reason: so children this young don't get the whole sexuality thing thrown at them before they are mentally able to handle it. Most children even a few years older than this can get grossed out by Mommy and Daddy kissing, so why should they be taught about the even more 'yucky' things that come afterward?


"Ally" seems like a pretty good word for a kindergartener to learn, actually.

'Ally' is a very good word to learn. I would prioritize a few in front of it, however. Words like 'the', 'dog', 'cat, 'run'... remember we are talking about kindergarten, where most children do not even know how to read yet. A lot of them don't know the alphabet.


But I don't think the people who are offended by this would be equally offended if it had been an oath card to not judge or make fun of others based on their religious affiliation.

You are probably right, as sexual teaching in schools has always been a bone of contention between those with differing personal beliefs. But in my case, my children bring home a 'Parent/Teacher/Student compact' every year on the first day of school. It is a contract that is supposed to list and bind each party to assist with the teaching of the child. I have never signed it, nor have I let my children sign it. One year, they were threatened with disciplinary action if I did not sign the thing, so I wrote the following note (paraphrased from memory):

"To whom it may concern:

The Parent/Teacher/Student compact I have been requested to sign is illegal for the following reasons:
  1. A child under the age of 19 is not allowed to enter into a binding contract
  2. The section for the teacher to sign is unsigned
  3. A contract cannot legally be required to be signed by a party which does not wish to sign it. Requiring a signature in order to be able to carry out legal obligations is in itself illegal.
If you persist in requiring that this document is signed, I will be happy to arrange for my attorney to meet all involved parties at the school for a simultaneous signing, at which time he will be instructed to file suit against any party which knowingly attempts to violate Federal or Alabama contract law.

If you wish to drop this matter, I hereby request you forward this letter of denial to the liberal egghead who thought up this silly thing in the first place."


But the hatred towards gays is already being taught, and the children are already using words that refer to gays as generalized insults. That they don't understand sexuality is beside the point.


And the weeds are already in the ground. You just can't kill them until they sprout. Well, maybe that's not quite true, but if you do manage to kill them early (maybe by burning the field?), you kill the crops as well.

It's better to time certain things.


No flames, just thoughts



TheRedneck


[edit on 2-11-2008 by TheRedneck]



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Educating kids from an early age to not use derogatory and abusive language concerning various groups is not recruiting. Its actually the right thing to do. These types of programs exist to try and reduce or stamp out bullying too. The effects of this kind of abuse in the school system has had horrendous results and tragedies occurring. Trying out various methods to end this and educate children in meaningful ways is a plus.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 



I'm sorry, but I don't agree with your post

A child of four or five. Do you remember what your children were like at that age ? Do you remember their astonishing innocence ?

Children of that age are completely ignorant of adult sexuality, if they've been raised appropriately. They are one step beyond babyhood. And their childlike innocence and joy of life are to be cherished and protected, imo.

I would have sued any teacher who had imposed her agenda re: sex upon my children when they were that age.

As for coercing what were basically little more than babes to sign that card, when the teacher would have been fully aware of young children's need to conform with their new peers, despite that they could not possibly understand what they were signing or why .. it was low and underhanded. The woman needs her head read.

The parents of those children would have had to try to 'undo' the damage done. First, they would have had to impress upon their very young children that ' We do not sign documents we do not understand '. This would have caused the children to feel anxious and even guilty for doing something their parents clearly did not approve of and were obviously concerned about.

The children might have attempted to explain by telling their parents, ' But all the other kids signed it too. I thought I'd get into trouble from the teacher if I didn't '.

So then the parents would have felt the need (for the child's own good) to explain the old parable about ' If Johnny jumped off the bridge, would you jump off too ? '

Then the parents would have had to explain what it was the children had been asked to sign, namely an overview of what homosexuals are.

All this, when all the parents wanted was for their children to make new friends and enjoy kindergarten and then come home to a warm bath, the evening meal, some play time and a story before bed and lights out.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Dock6
 


I think alot of people on here are forgetting the innocence of a child at that age.

They don't know about sex, and they don't need to know at that age, and shame on anyone for filling a 5 and 6yr olds head with questions about sexuality. Its just not morally right by any standard. To have a child asking what a transgender is, or bisexual, is just absolutely ridiculous. A parent should'nt be faced with such a question from their six year old, just because a teacher feels the need to raise those questions in a their childs head.


[edit on 2-11-2008 by schism85]



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I don't think it is the teacher's place to explain this type of thing; it is the parent's. And that is for a very good reason: so children this young don't get the whole sexuality thing thrown at them before they are mentally able to handle it. Most children even a few years older than this can get grossed out by Mommy and Daddy kissing, so why should they be taught about the even more 'yucky' things that come afterward?


Yet again, why would we be talking about the "even more 'yucky' things that come after?" It is easy to teach children that gays exist without going into the joys of anal sex (or cunnilingus, fellatio, etcetera). If a child asked a teacher "why do men and women get married?" they wouldn't answer with a description of hetero sex.

I guess I just don't divide up the world into "things that teachers can address" and "things that teachers can't address." No matter what, if a child asks a question of a teacher, I think the teacher should try to answer it. And I think that a large part of the kindergarten curriculum does, and should, have to do with social issues – how to share, how to treat other people, how to express feelings.

[edit on 11/2/08 by americandingbat]



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   
America is all about the cash. Gotta' have it! Gotta' get it! We don't care what color, religion, ethnicity, or sexual acts you do or don't do. It's all about da' money. I would think gays/lesbians chase the American dream the same as heteros... Right? America can't afford to lose one mammonite. Let the gays be free to be exactly what and who they are. As long as you ain't no commie, socialist, pinko tryin' to steal any of what I have or hope to accrue in this great "free market economy", you can and should do anything you choose with your sex organs. Let's get America out of the closet! Out the USA... NOW! Let's ALL make some money both hetero and gay... in the USA. USA! USA! USA.....!



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by schism85
 



I keep agreeing with you


But yes, I've just remembered something

My children are twins. They're grown now. But when they were around five years of age, I remember calling them in from their play because we had to go to Miami (Australia) for an hour or so. We'd been there a few times in previous weeks.

When they were bathed and I was locking up the house, etc. prior to leaving, my daughter asked, ' Are we going to your ami, mummy ? '

I didn't quite grasp what she'd said, so asked, 'What did you say darling ? '

And she repeated, ' Are we going to your ami again ? '

Miami

' my ami '

' mummy's ami '

' your ami '


During the weeks we'd been going to Miami, the twins had believed I'd been referring to the place as 'my ami '.

They were bright little kids, but that's how they'd interpreted 'Miami'. And seen from their perspective, it makes sense.

Now, why would anyone .. particularly a trained teacher .. impose upon such childlike minds concepts such as homosexuality ?



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Okay, I want to ask two questions of everyone in this thread...

Were you ever 5?

If you answered yes did you actually have a childhood?

Because I know at 5 years old in school I used to play kiss chase, and I knew that if a girl was 'it' you ran an awful lot slower than if a boy was 'it'. Why? Because i only ever saw straight couples...

Now, you want to tell me that this card could turn children gay, well are you not doing the exact same thing as straight people? If at 5 a child knows that he should like girls, then why should he know that some boys also like boys. (the opposites for girls of course)

Oh, and if you answered that you were never 5.....
....umm, good luck with that.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Dock6
 


My ami, that is cute.
That is exactly what Iam talking about, why ruin that, and force our children to grow up faster, by filling their heads with such questions? I completely agree.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by StevenDye
 


I'm of the belief the 'card' was age-inappropriate

Yes, I had a childhood. We kissed our best friends, regardless of gender. Two little friends and I (one a boy, one a girl) were going to 'all get married' when we grew up.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by StevenDye
Okay, I want to ask two questions of everyone in this thread...

Were you ever 5?

If you answered yes did you actually have a childhood?

Because I know at 5 years old in school I used to play kiss chase, and I knew that if a girl was 'it' you ran an awful lot slower than if a boy was 'it'. Why? Because i only ever saw straight couples...

Now, you want to tell me that this card could turn children gay, well are you not doing the exact same thing as straight people? If at 5 a child knows that he should like girls, then why should he know that some boys also like boys. (the opposites for girls of course)

Oh, and if you answered that you were never 5.....
....umm, good luck with that.


Because at five, from what I know, a kid can't be gay or straight. They don't think in terms of gay and straight.

[edit on 2-11-2008 by schism85]



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Don't let words have power over you. It is pretty simple. Look at my name...do you think i mind the word "fat"? Nope, and i have usurped any chance of power it may have over me by freely using it.

There are times when I just can't get the words to come out exactly as I want them to. It is wonderful, in one of those times, to hear someone else manage to say what I cannot.

I did the same thing with 'redneck', many years ago. So did Jeff Foxworthy. So should we all. Words are impotent without intentions, and intentions are fleeting.

A star, yes, but that's not enough. I just added you to my friends list.


TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Well when I was 5 I certainly knew that you married a girl and not a boy. As did everyone else in my year. (Which was only about 40 or so children)

Though I'm from England so I suppose different cultures and all that...



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by StevenDye
 


I guess we only come to that conclusion when we are little because that is all we see. And it would be perfectly appropriate to explain to a child that two men or women, can be together, just like mommy and daddy. I don't see a problem with that and frankly, may eliminate alot of confusion in a childs head when they happen to see a same sex couple in public. But a child doesn't even need to know the term transgender, or bisexual let alone know what it actually means imo.

As Dock6 said, I think the card was age inappropriate.



[edit on 2-11-2008 by schism85]



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Dock6
 





A child of four or five. Do you remember what your children were like at that age ? Do you remember their astonishing innocence


My child IS 5 . . . he signed (or scribbled) his name on the pledge last year. The week before this papers were sent home outlining a week of "tolerance" and a copy of this pledge. There was nothing being taught or presented that diminished his "innocence". Moreover, as a parent, I had the choice to withdraw my son from this "lesson". However, why would I tell my son that he can't have the same activities as the other kids because . . . I'm against tolerance of others?

You seemed to be fine with the notion that kids are "too young" to hear about tolerance, but then say they should be held to adult standards of signing a document. This is kindergarten. This isn't a "binding" contract or even something most kids will remember signing (or be held accountable for) by this time next year. It's symbolic. Are you equally up in arms that most schools have kids "sign" their name on class rule sheets or behavioral guidlines because they are under 18? Your problem is with the content . . . it shows in your posts.




I would have sued any teacher who had imposed her agenda re: sex upon my children when they were that age.


Yes . . . you're concerned for the "babes" being coerced to sign any document . . . so how was this teacher pushing "their" sexual agenda. Seems your fear is showing.

If there are parents up in arms about this . . . it shows me, as an educator and parent, that they have not taken a proactive roll in their child's development. It shows me that they are blaming the school for their responsiblities . . . or because they now have to actually talk to their kids about issues they'd rather sweep under the rug.

While it would be nice to wax nostaligic about the innocence of childhood, you seem too far removed from what is actually going on today in the lives of 5 yr olds. Kids are beseached from every angle (friends, media, society) with sexuality, profanity, devisiveness, et. al. I'm certainly not saying that is right, but it's not the "world"'s responsiblity to filter the things being thrown at children these days, it's the parents. The reason why kids are exposed to much more today is because of your attitude. Kid's are innocent and just want to play . . . the government and the media (same thing really) know parents think this way and don't actively participate in their education. If you old-timer parents weren't so oblivious to what kids were actually exposed to . . . they wouldn't be bombarded with crap today . . . it would have been halted long ago by upset parents.

As you strongly state, kids are truly innocent. I don't disagree with you there. But, that innocence is being challenged daily, even at 5. And while you disagree with the "pledge", 5 year olds would not give this thing a second thought, if their parents didn't make it out to be a big deal. No kid was going to sit around contemplating Transexuals . . . but, now that it's a big devisive deal . . . these kids will give thought to this and what all of it means. Now they'll want to know why mommy and daddy are so mad . . . why was it wrong to be nice to the different people . . . why are they bad?



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by StevenDye
 



I'm from England too, originally. But I wasn't bound by gender specific behaviour at five. Nor even at seven. Friends were friends. If they went away on holiday for a few days, it seemed like an eternity. When we moved, I missed my friends deeply for a long time. As a kid, you don't think in terms of gender, really. You like both boys and girls equally. And dislike some as well, regardless of whether they're a boy or a girl. I had best-friends of either sex, as did most kids I knew. We got around in a mixed group. Sure, we knew we were either girl or boy, but it didn't make any difference .. we just accepted each other, liked each other's personalities -- gender didn't come into it. It was great. I don't think you can return to that type of total acceptance and friendship until you get old.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat

Yet again, why would we be talking about the "even more 'yucky' things that come after?" It is easy to teach children that gays exist without going into the joys of anal sex (or cunnilingus, fellatio, etcetera). If a child asked a teacher "why do men and women get married?" they wouldn't answer with a description of hetero sex.

True enough, but let's look again at the wording used:

"Daddy, what's 'gay'?" "That's when men like to be around other men instead of women." "Are you gay when you and Uncle Eric go hunting?" "No, son, that's different." "How?"


"Daddy, what's 'lesbian'?" "That's when a woman likes to be with other women instead of men." "Is mommy lesbian when she goes to the church socials with the other ladies?" "No, son, that's different." "How?"


"Daddy, what's 'bisexual'?" "That's when someone likes men and women." "Oh, so I'm bisexual?"


"Daddy, what's 'train-general'?" (I'm not even going to try and finish this one.
If you can't see where that's a conversation going south, you're beyond hope.)

I think you can see my point. When adult agendas on sex are taught to very young children, or even when they are openly discussed toward around very young children, the children do not understand and will often get the wrong idea, or at best will wind up forcing some exposure to the 'yucky' stuff we adults enjoy. It's simple curiosity, not sexual curiosity, but it is one of the causes children talk about sex at an age well before they understand it; we talk about it around them.

So shouldn't we at least limit that talk as best we can until they are old enough to understand some of it? As opposed to, say, teaching about it at age 5?

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join