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: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Lol, they might as well explain to the kids just how a gay person has intercourse, lol. Then, try to explain how this is in anyway normal and they are not mentaly challenged.

-No offense, you do what you gotta do!




posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   
I've not gone through the entire thread, tl;dr.

But this is not even about sex, and those who try to make it that have a bad understanding of equality and Human rights.

This is about teaching kids that people are people and deserve equal respect, regardless of who they decide to love. No explanation of sex is needed, which is why it is perfectly fine to start from a very young age on this.
The only explanation any adult needs to give to kids is that sometimes people have relationships and fall in love in different ways and with different people. There, explanation supplied.

No one is saying that it is fine to begin sex education at such an early age, merely that the awareness of the rights of others to love who they wish should be instilled as soon as a child is expected to begin learning about social interaction.

Frankly (and this is my own opinion remember), if a lot more parents actually faced their responsibilities and acted like true parents, none of this would need to be done in schools. Unfortunately, too many parents think it's not their duty to teach their kids anything, much less social responsibility, mutual respect and equality. They think their TV time is more important, they wimp out when faced with something difficult, or they're so ignorant themselves they don't know what to tell their kids. They expect the schools to do it all for them, and then start complaining when their kid is taught something they object to, most of the time irrationally too.

And the reason these things are done separately (at least from my experience from working on a LGBT outreach program in the UK), like racial issues, general bullying and LGBT, instead of one rule of "respect people", is because the message is more focused and remembered. Plus, these things are funded in different ways and provided by different groups.

The way I see it, if people are so against schools teaching kids to respect others (even people the parents don't respect) they need to reconsider their place in society in general. People are people, and if you can't cope with diversity and do so gracefully and respectfully, consider home teaching.
You can't have it both ways, if you want society to educate your child for you, they'll be taught on society's terms.




posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


I don't think anyone is disagreeing that tolerance should be taught at a young age. Its just the wording that the card uses that upsets me and some others on this thread. Words like transgender, and bisexual shouldn't be in a childs vocabulary at that age.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by schism85
 


I don't think anything having to do with sexuality should be taught to kindergartners. Those types of conversations should be left for more appropriate age groups.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by wisefoolishness
 


I agree. Why bring that to their attention? You can discuss tolerance without using words that will only confuse a child of that age.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by schism85
 


Exactly. That's why I say if they wanted to sign something, they should have just signed a card against bullying altogether. That's about as harmless as you can make something like that. "I promise to be nice to everyone" sounds good doesn't it?



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by wisefoolishness
 


Sure does. That way, they would'nt have found themselves in the situation they are currently in. They have already admitted to being out of line.

I agree with the parents that are angry over this. The card was not age appropriate by any standards.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   
aye, and that wording is something the kid can relate to.

I have nothing against children being taught to respect one another.

But this has got nothing to do with respect, in many ways the problem they try to 'combat' is compounded by making the children face issues they are not ready to be facing.

If, for example, the teacher in my school had just taught us not to be mean to each other, whatever the reason, my friend would not have been made to suffer. Who knows, we might have been together untill we graduated to another school.

Having my best friend move to another school because of this was traumatic to him and to me. Every time I see a kid who plays with a doll I pity him, knowing there's one hell of a mean world out there ready to shatter his innocence, preferably from as young as they can get away with it. For him, it meant he had to act male or risk becoming a social pariah, thanks to these well-intended but delusional tools who think 'educating' means instilling the seeds of division, even if they claim to fight just against that phenomenon..

Children can be mean. But they will not pester each other with concepts which are meaningless to them. even if some kid has gotten 'home schooling' from his parents who are homophobic at an inappropriate age, the targetted kid would shrug it off because it doesn't mean anything to him/her at all.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   
How about pledge cards that cause the kids to pledge to respect their parents? To clean their room? To eat their veggies and do their homework?

Why not pledge them to do good deeds at a nursing home?

Gay acceptance is great. I have no issue with accepting people for what they are. None at all. But does it not seem that it is being promoted? Pushed as a favorable lifestyle choice?

Is it a "choice", or is it just what you are? See, here is my problem: if you are gay, then be gay. No harm done, and i will still love you. But if you have to be recruited to be gay (gay people call it "turning them out"), then you are making a choice, not just being who you are.

Now, regardless, if you wish to make that choice, again i am cool with it. But why does it seem that it is being pushed so hard? The same with the lifestyle choice of remaining childless? Is there a social engineering going on? Trying to impart some level of population control?

yeah, my tinhat is tingling...



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
How about pledge cards that cause the kids to pledge to respect their parents? To clean their room? To eat their veggies and do their homework?


Now those would be pledge cards for kindergartners. These pledge cards are for middle, and high schoolers.

From the horses mouth:


The district said the pledge cards were intended for middle school and high school students.


I don't see how anyone could still defend this. They handed out pledge cards for highschoolers, to kindergartners. Big mistake!!!

Starred furrytexan.


ETA: I don't know the motives of the teacher, or the organization that gave her the cards. But I have to wonder who said that the cards were okay to give to the children? Was it the organization, or the teacher?



[edit on 2-11-2008 by schism85]



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   
You have to hope that their motives are good, and not some part of a secret agenda like some people have stated, which is highly unlikely if you ask me.

But you do have to wonder what was going through the brain of the teacher as they pass out these cards to the kids.

If the school administration is now stating that it was a bad choice to pass out these cards in the first place, then my thought is that they were passed out without permission from higher ups.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by schism85
 
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

But, could this be the problem? We teach them IN-tolerance first by our own bad example then claim they need to be taught tolerance.

In the example, the kids giggle and titter, but then move on. They don't go out in the parking lot and set the flamboyant gays' truck on fire as some adults might, offended on the over-doing of the stereotypes.

Here's a funny example. A child's mental image, perhaps, after an adult has tried to use euphemism to depict gay sex:



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by wisefoolishness
 


Oh I agree, they probably weren't seen by higher ups. Appearently they have people who sort these things out, but the article fails to mention who actually gave the ok. And I have to wonder if the teacher was under the belief of what she was doing was okay. I just don't see how, for lack of a better term, the mix up happened.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 


Iam under the impression that good parents or guardians do not teach their kids intolerance. And that good parents are generally upset when the child comes home with absurd questions, or an inappropriate vocabulary addition.

If a kid hears a word, they will repeat it, not knowing what the word means. So they call their friend a fag, and all of a sudden, the kid is intolerant, and needs to be taught what a trangender is? I just fail to see the logic in the cards themselves, being handed out to kindergartners.

I understand that the source of such behavior could stem from the parent, but that doesn't make the cards any more appropriate.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by schism85
 


at a middle school/high school age, the pledge cards should be about not speaking hatefully. Examples of words may be provided, if needed. But it should include Jew, gay, black, fat, cross eyed, knock knee, overbite, short, big boobs, flat butt, whatever...being hateful and disrespectful.

The narrow definition on these cards smacks of an agenda.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

How about pledge cards that cause the kids to pledge to respect their parents? To clean their room? To eat their veggies and do their homework?

How about expecting that of them in the first place?

That was the problem I had with that school compact I wrote about. I don't need to get my kids to sign something saying they will do such-and-such. Instead, I expect it of them. If they have to sign something saying they agree, then that gives them the option to deny it, does it not? After all, what would be the use of this if they didn't have the option to disobey? Forcing them to sign the paper does not take away this option to disobey, it simply means they will now violate what they signed because "I didn't want to in the first place". And if they hadn't thought of disrespecting their parents or not doing their homework, you have just given them the idea.

This is opposed to expecting something as a matter of principle. With principle, you have the ability to teach the children that something is 'right' and something is 'wrong' regardless of whether or not they want to do it. In short, these pledge cards are doing nothing more than explicitly stating what other kids are doing, and asking, not telling, the signers to not do it.

Parents should be parents, not attorneys.

Teachers should be teachers, not attorneys.

Attorneys should be... we won't go there...


TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by schism85
 
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Right. By 'we' I meant 'society', though would it not be great to have or to be 'perfect' parents?


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


[edit on 11/2/2008 by Badge01]



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   
I am speaking facetiously.


Being from "redneck" country myself, i could not agree more with you. However, if it is presented as a lesson and not a contract....

regardless, it is silly and was put forth facetiously.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   
This was in California. Does anyone remember the thread about how the kids in California went on a field-trip to their lesbian teachers wedding?

One could pick out things and make a conspiracy out of it if he wanted, but then you have to ask what the purpose of the conspiracy is. Does George W want everyone to be gay or what?
Reminds me of the infamous "pile" from South Park, haha.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by wisefoolishness
This was in California. Does anyone remember the thread about how the kids in California went on a field-trip to their lesbian teachers wedding?

One could pick out things and make a conspiracy out of it if he wanted, but then you have to ask what the purpose of the conspiracy is. Does George W want everyone to be gay or what?
Reminds me of the infamous "pile" from South Park, haha.


How about the conspiracy of population reduction? Gay people are not known for having large families.

That is one take on it, anyway.

[edit on 2-11-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join