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

reply to post by Badge01


Yes, there are no perfect parents, and yes I would have loved to have a pair. I agree children learn waaay to much from society (tv, radio ect.). And its the parents responsibility, to censor what their kids watch, and are exposed to.

Iam sorry for missing your point. Iam not that sharp. I didn't even get what the girl was doing in the cartoon.

[edit on 2-11-2008 by schism85]

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Oh, I know you were being facetious BFFT. But you gotta remember, some people will take that idea and write a different pledge card for each grade K-12.

So I felt the need to make sure those who got that idea had resistance from the start. It's a sad, sad world we live in...

TheRedneck

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
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]

You could make that argument. And then you find other things to support it, like breaking the levees in New Orleans on purpose, and not only blowing up the Twin Towers to start a war, but kill 3000+ people as well.

You can toss about anything in. It is a possibility, but I just don't find it that likely.

reply to post by Dock6


Those men, if even they can be called that, are abject morons. Their actions are opprobrious. If they were trying to convey some political message, they have undoubtedly failed in their attempt. All I can ascertain as to the results of their escapade in that mall is that people were either confused, humiliated, hysterical, or disgusted.

I agree that all people should be treated equally in any social situation, regardless of their beliefs, however I can not respect those that would take advantage of said social situation for the exploitation of of their own political agendas. Their vainglorious act can only be equated with the selfishness of disrupting the good nature of the public state.

I agree with the topic of this thread. Such a strategy of inspiring respect and openness in a public place (the school) is important for the well being and happiness of all its members. Children at that age are fully capable of understanding the implications of their actions, albeit to the simple extent that an emotional response would illicit, whether or not they are capable of truly making intimate their understanding of such a controversial issue.

To fully comprehend the issue, and all its cultural and political implications, by the way, is irrelevant to their own well being at such a happy and naive time in their lives. However, accounting for courtesy and respect in their immediate community is definitely an important aspect to maintaining the carefree happiness that should characterize a young life (we as adults are responsible for this). And to a lesser extent, fostering individuality and decision making regarding what they can only possibly know to be a complex issue, is of far-reaching consequence into their development as resolved and confident citizens.

[edit on 2-11-2008 by cognoscente]

reply to post by cognoscente

Those men, if even they can be called that, are abject morons.

I am quoting the above in order to say that I agree with it completely. The remainder of your post I cannot say the same for.

Children do not have the intellectual foresight to understand their world at such a tender age. They instead tend to mimic others to try and act appropriate. If a child of age 5 calls a classmate a 'fag', the chances are extremely good that he is simply calling his classmate a name, with no real knowledge or understanding of what a 'fag' is.

When my son was younger, I gave in and got my children a video game. He loved it, but would get angry whenever he wasn't able to win the game. Several times I caught him throwing the controller down and exclaiming "It's cheating!" I thought it was a bit humorous at first and tried to explain to him the the game couldn't cheat, because it was a machine. Yet, he kept saying it was 'cheating' for a couple of weeks.

Finally, in desperation, I asked him "Do you even know what cheating is?" He looked at me and quietly answered "No." He really thought that any time he lost it had to be because something or someone was cheating. He was confusing 'cheating' with 'winning'. My son had apparently seen his classmates say something or someone was cheating when they lost, so he had made the connection that 'cheating' must equate to 'beating me'. So it is with other words. A child who calls someone a 'fag' might not even know what that word means. It might be appropriate for a teacher to call him aside and explain to him that 'fag' is a hurtful word, and you shouldn't call someone that. But to make every 5 year old child sign their name (a concept they can't understand yet in itself) to pledge adherence to something they are not even aware of (despite the parroting of words that may occur) and in the process introduce them to the concept of sexual activity (which they have no way to understand) is simply ridiculous.

I have one question: do you have, or do you spent time with, children?

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


I guess the hope is that the simple act of signing their names on that pledge card will stick with them for years to come. It's quite an optimistic idea, however ineffective it may be.

I remember when I was just five years old, in kindergarten, having my entire confidence in my own existence thrown out from underneath me as my peer would proudly exclaim there was no God and I was a fool for believing in one. I think children have a greater social understanding than we might expect. But in the end it only strengthened my conviction, and helped me understand why he said what he did. Though when it comes to sexuality, I completely agree they are incapable of understanding the implications of any one personal choice regarding its conduct. I just think it's the principal that counts.

It's important for adults to provide a safe and productive learning environment, however, I do agree this example may be going over the top with principal, and forgetting the responsibility to pragmatism, to the construction of a solid and ordered community, which instills confidence and applauds conviction for each child and in their personal beliefs. This talk of sexuality might undermine a child's positive development; it may even lead to confusion, which could provide difficulties in ones learning in later grades of school.

I think it's a balancing of principal and pragmatism that's the real issue. Where does the extreme tolerance for all the differences in our society end and our responsibility to educating confident individuals begin? Do we become so tolerant that no one child can stand firm in their convictions, be left to conflicting personality, and lack of confidence for the rest of their lives?

[edit on 2-11-2008 by cognoscente]

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


[edit on 11/2/2008 by Badge01]

reply to post by schism85






















ɯooɹɥʇɐq ǝɥʇ oʇ oƃ ǝןdoǝd ǝɹǝɥʍ ǝɔɐןd ǝɥʇ oʇuı ʎpoq ɹǝɥ ɟo ʇɹɐd ʇsǝpɹɐɥ ǝɥʇ ƃuıʇʇnd

[edit on 11/2/2008 by Badge01]

reply to post by americandingbat


Bro, I hear you and why you think it's a good idea

But life is hard

The natural process is best

You see, Bullies of any kind will always exist

and the only way for kids to learn to handle them is to learn how to STAND UP TO THEM

A teacher interfering with that protects kids while in school

and then they go out in the real world expecting some "system" to protect them from life

Until that system fails and they are left with courage of an 8 yearold under attack

Never, ever having learned how to even verbally defend themselves

I don't care what any American kids sexuality turns out to be

But I don't want them to be cowards and sheltered

You know what all of this really does?

It teaches dependence on "The system"

The biggest bully of all

And Badge

If I jump out a window will your avatar save me?

Very much appreciating that Heterosexual moment of thought in the course of an extremely homosexual thread

Hey

If people are worried about kids turning gay from the Gay cards...

Could we just put super girl on the back of them?

Just a little reminder that hot chicks like guys that aren't mean to Gays?

That might actually work...

reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary
So how about you ask the Gays to sign a card that stipulates they won't force there lifestyle on straight people,you know stop the perverted parades and do some self control on sex as to slow up Aids.

To much to ask,ya I thought so.

The idea of asking children to sign a card they don't understand is sick and there is an agenda that has nothing to do with the card,there are laws that protects from Gay bashing,but thats not enough,you have to make children sign cards,whats the real reasoning behind this??!!

:flame

The cards are naive, at worst...

They also have a valid point, at best.

Kids should be encouraged not to use racial/religious/sexual slurs - encouraging kids not to use profanity is pretty milquetoast if that's what we really have to fear from the much-dreaded "gay agenda"

reply to post by cognoscente

I guess the hope is that the simple act of signing their names on that pledge card will stick with them for years to come. It's quite an optimistic idea, however ineffective it may be.

An optimistic idea, and an optimistic hope. But both are better than the pessimistic variety.

I remember when I was just five years old, in kindergarten, having my entire confidence in my own existence thrown out from underneath me as my peer would proudly exclaim there was no God and I was a fool for believing in one. I think children have a greater social understanding than we might expect. But in the end it only strengthened my conviction, and helped me understand why he said what he did. Though when it comes to sexuality, I completely agree they are incapable of understanding the implications of any one personal choice regarding its conduct. I just think it's the principal that counts.

Ah, and here you mention the thing that I believe public schools do well in the social arena: they toughen you.

Just as your faith was strengthened by the need to justify it, other children are strengthened as well. The weak and the different will always be treated as outcasts from society; that is not the exclusive realm of children. But to have the opportunity to deal with others of your own peer group at an early age gives one the ability to learn to defend themselves and their beliefs and lifestyle, in preparation for the greater bigotry that society always seems ready willing and able to serve up.

I am a redneck. I have always been a redneck at heart, not due to racism or bigotry, but due to the toughness I possess in will and character. That toughness was forged in the fiery heat of oppression throughout my youth, and it made me stronger, not weaker. I once was a 98-pound weakling with a nose that seemed to always find its way into a book. Now, as an adult in later life, I can look back at those early years when I was tormented and see how that same torment made me the man I am today. When it was time for my children to venture out into the world of knowledge, I made a conscious decision to send them to a public school, albeit the safest one I could find. I wanted them to find out that others would disagree with them, that some others would mock them, and that a few others would harm them if they allowed it. My plan appears to have worked. Both are people I would be proud to call 'friend', even if I couldn't call them 'my kids'. They survived the fire. I feel great pity for those who have never been given the opportunity to experience a little heat.

Yes, we should try to maintain our schools, as much as possible, free from oppression and slurs. But some will always get through, and it is those that will make us stronger and better than we were before.

Can anyone say the same thing about signing contracts?

TheRedneck

I have to agree, public schools do make kids tougher, and more ready for real life than alternative options do.

I know two kids, a girl that is about 15, and a boy that's about 10. They are home schooled and extremely sheltered. The boy cannot read, and the girl is always in 'left field' as some might say.

I remember hearing the girl talking about the newest King Kong movie, with Jack Black, saying that it was a terrible movie, and extremely inappropriate. Everyone else around, as well as myself, were just kind of like uhh...

I'm going to feel sorry for these kids when they get out into the real world. It's probably going to be unbearable for them.

reply to post by Dock6

Well I have to agree. people like that just want attention. they want someone to say somethin to them so they can go into how no one supports the gay community or whatever. i think its ridiculous. you dont see straight people parading around showing off their sexuality so why should gay people be any different. im not againts people being gay or anything but why should you have the right to flaunt it if PDA is looked down upon for straight couples..??

reply to post by wisefoolishness

I find that anecdote highly unusual. If one reads the statistics, it would appear that home-schooling produces just the opposite, at least academically. Of course, realizing the effectiveness of the MSM (or the lack thereof) today, I can't say I am shocked. I doubt anything would truly shock me anymore.

I can only hope those kids can somehow make their way without too much trouble when they become adults.

TheRedneck

In recorded history there has alway been about 1 in 10 people who are homosexual.

Yeah that's right...always has been always will be...so what should we do???

Hate and persecute??

Acknowledge and accept???

I vote for acknowledge and accept. Believe me it will not turn the remaining 90 percent of straights into gays. Ok fellas I promise you won't turn gay OK?

In California NO on HATE/8.

Arnold the Terminator says NO on HATE/8!

Steve Young the 49er says NO on HATE/8!

reply to post by Leo Strauss


But is it acceptable in your opinion to teach any form of sexuality to kindergartners? That's the problem I have with this.