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.

 

Gay Curriculum Proposal Riles Elementary School Parents

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Do you really think that the rednecked, knuckle dragging neanderthals in any society are capable of educating their offspring about lesbianism, homosexulaity or any other sex/gender/relationship issues in a way that is not biased or bordering on hatred?

In Australian schools (and I suspect just like in schools all over the world) our teachers have to pick up the slack because some parents just have no clue about the basics of sex education, nutrition, cleanliness, stranger danger, manners, acceptance and recognition of the differences between individuals, bullying etc.

I do believe that as children grow, some find their own way, become captive to their own ideas, morals and beliefs. Others just become like their parents, chips of the old block, made in the same mould, engendered behaviour.




posted on May, 22 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 




I don't think this one will be any more difficult if the adult is competent.


It doesn't make a difference if the adult is competent to deal with the subject or not.

It is not the school's place to decide when children should learn about these things. Parents should be the only ones that decide when their child is ready to hear about certain things.

What they are trying to do is to force parents to have certain disscusions with their children when the school feels it's appropriate and that is not their decision to make.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by chise61
 



It is not the school's place to decide when children should learn about these things.


Which is why I agreed with this statement back on the first page of this thread.


That's not what me and the other poster were discussing. We were discussing an "agenda", which there is no evidence of.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


Yes i am well aware of the fact that you were discussing whether or not it was an agenda.

However Chesire cat said.....



If LGBT is mentioned in school, it's not going to stop there. It'll be that someone pointed out that they are different, and that they have to be accepted/tolerated. So, as most parents know, that subject is now brought home. Why are they different? What do they do? Why do they do that? etc.
So, in other words, the lifestyles are going to have to be explained one way or another, in the parent's choice of words or what the school has chosen to explain. I, for one, am not ready to have that conversation yet.



And then you said.....



I don't think this one will be any more difficult if the adult is competent.


And that's what i was addressing.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Kids are coming out of classes unable to read, add, or write...and our school system feels that it needs this undertaking? They could at the VERY least make it optional, kids learn about this stuff from their peers and the media, it has NO place in the classroom. Arguably outside of human anatomy sex has no role in school, that's up to the parents.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by chise61
 



And that's what i was addressing.


But your entire reply to me was based on something that had nothing to do with that discussion, we were not discussing if it was right or wrong to do so, I merely stated that it could be done with competency, and you stated that it was wrong either way, which had nothing to do with my statement. It's called a "straw man" argument
But keep digging.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by yellowcard
 



Arguably outside of human anatomy sex has no role in school, that's up to the parents.


Where does the article mention sex?



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


Ok let's try this again. Chesire cat said that he/she doesn't want the school making the decision about when his/her child is exposed to this subject, to allow the parents do decide when the appropriate time is for their children to be exposed to it.


By you saying...



I don't think this one will be any more difficult if the adult is competent.


You are in essence saying that the school has a right to make this decision as long as it is a competent person that addresses the subject.

This is what my reply was based on and yes it does have something to with the discussion as this was Chesire cat's main point ( a parent's right to parent their child) perhaps you're unclear as to what exactly was being discussed.

You may want to reread my reply as i did not state that it was wrong either way ( and if you belive i did you will have to point out those words to me) i stated that it is not their place to make that decision, which it is not.

I used no "strawman" arguement. And really can you stop with the eye rolling, it's innappropriate for this disscussion, as well as being childish.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by chise61
 



You are in essence saying that the school has a right to make this decision as long as it is a competent person that addresses the subject.

Nope. "In essence" does not fly. That IS NOT my statement and I do not agree with that statement. My statement was made in the context of another discussion, in which I never said that it was RIGHT or WRONG. Straw man, straw man, and uh, still a straw man, kindly move on.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


Then please be so kind as to divulge the true meaning of your statement.

Oh and.....



Straw man, straw man, and uh, still a straw man,


Same thing applies as with the eye rolling.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by chise61
 




Then please be so kind as to divulge the true meaning of your statement.


The other poster said this:

So, in other words, the lifestyles are going to have to be explained one way or another

Stating that they believed a certain subject would come up and that a teacher would not be able to control that subject.
I said this:

My teachers had a handle on all sorts of issues, including religion, because they had to. I don't think this one will be any more difficult if the adult is competent.


I was pointing out that an adult could keep control of such a situation, I never stated that such a thing should happen in classrooms, I was merely defending a teacher's capabilities. I made clear my opinion of this issue on the first page.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Where do we draw the line with all of the special interest groups? This is as ridiculous as the 'hate crime' legislation.

Why not just teach your children to respect other people, just because they are.......people? That is, until the individual gives you a reason to not respect them. The problem is not about any group. It is about individuals and should be addressed on an individual basis. This is another result of labeling each other.

[edit on 23-5-2009 by WTFover]



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


Yes but before he said that he said this...



If LGBT is mentioned in school, it's not going to stop there. It'll be that someone pointed out that they are different, and that they have to be accepted/tolerated. So, as most parents know, that subject is now brought home. Why are they different? What do they do? Why do they do that? etc.

(the bolding is my doing)

And then they said this...



So, in other words, the lifestyles are going to have to be explained one way or another, in the parent's choice of words or what the school has chosen to explain. I, for one, am not ready to have that conversation yet.

(again the bolding is my doing)

They were not stating that a teacher would not be able to control that subject, but that it would lead to a multitude of questions by the child, which parents know all to well, and that either the teacher or the parent or maybe even both would have to answer all those questions.

I do understand better though what you were getting at now, thank you for clearing that up.

However i have to say that i don't believe that a teacher is capable of correctly explaining something like that to someone else's small child. Parents know what their child is ready to handle and what they're not which is one of the reasons that this should be handled by the parents, not teachers.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by chise61
 



Yes but before he said that he said this...

And then they said this...

Don't care what they said, clearly my reply indicated what I thought they said and you've tried to change it and take it out of context to state a point of your own, derived from a straw man argument, instead of just stating your opinion without bringing my unrelated post into it. You clearly didn't bother correctly reading it and you turned this into my fault and dragged this debate out.


I do understand better though what you were getting at now, thank you for clearing that up.

I cleared it up post ago, next time pay attention to the context of the statement, and don't stubbornly accuse me of misrepresenting my own words.


However i have to say that i don't believe that a teacher is capable of correctly explaining something like that to someone else's small child.


A teacher has the capability to deal with these issues, they are trained to deal with a host of issues and to have control over them. Now, no teacher can ever "correctly" or "incorrectly" deal with this issue in general just based on one person's opinion, because clearly everyone wants to be able to tell their children about the issue in the way that they perceive to be correct. Capability has nothing to do with it, which you've made very clear by your "someone else's small child" comment.


[edit on 23-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghaleon12

Like I already mentioned, no one calls someone a jew, christian, muslim as an insult.


No that's because they aren't allowed to ACT like Christians or jews or muslims in School because so help them if one of them says a prayer in school or walks in with a tee shirt of Jesus and the gays call the ACLU and the kid gets suspended because the gay kid got his tender sensitivities offended and crys church and state.




Really though, education also needs to take place on GLBT topics, not just bullying in general. It's like saying "Yes, black people are stupid and lesser humans, but be sure not to say anything out loud and me sure not to say that to their face". In this example, wouldn't we want kids to understand that black people aren't bad people? Or do we just want them to be silent, but still hold on to those ideas. I doubt you can have them not namecall and still hold on to those ideas, the ideas are in part why they bully.


No they do NOT have to be taught about what other people do and sexual orientation or who and what kind of sex they have or are into is NONE of our kids business and no one can tell who is gay unless they got it tattooed on ther foreheads or guys come in wearing a dress which is asking for trouble when you are talking about kids and being accepted.

You cannot compare what people ARE as you do race with what people do!

we are not to be defined as a people by our damn sexual fetish's so I totally disagree with this crap. This got so out of hand in the state of Mass you have no idea. Everyone who is straight there is now regretting the added "legitimacy" gays getting married there has created and now they have competley made schools gay incubation and masturbation camps

I'd show you the pamphlets they have given out but I am afraind they are so graphic they violate the T&C's



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 02:12 AM
link   
Children should be taught that there are all types of different people, and that they are all equal until proved otherwise.

It is certainly inappropriate to bring anything to do with sex into a 5 year old's spectrum. I think that the earliest this should start is 10.

Unfortunately, a lot of what parents should be teaching falls upon the school's shoulders, because there are too many incompetent parents out there. There should be a test before you are allowed the privilege of becoming a parent, and it definitely is a privilege, as well as a duty to your offspring.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   
From the O.Ps link....


“Our schools are a reflection of our community and world,” said Marianne Bartholomew-Couts. “From a very early age, children should see what exists in the world.”


Sorry but it's not YOUR call what my kids see and what they don't.
It's mine.
Violence, Wars and a whole pile of things exist in the world, doesn't mean I would want my 5 year old to know about it.


“Instead of having to police the schoolyard for bullying,” said Schwartz, “this curriculum is designed to prevent it from the beginning.”


Yeah because all the hundreds of anti-bullying programmes over the last 20 years have worked so well.

This will just be another total fail because kids tease. End of.
It's always happened and always will.
They soon mature and most grow out of it.

We all know that these programmes are just trojan horses to get our kids used to homosexuality at a young age. It's a form of subtle grooming.
And these people aren't fooling me one little bit.

You can guarantee most of those 5 years olds will come home and ask mummy and daddy what a Gay, transexual, or Lesbian is.
When most wouldn't even know what a Hetrosexual is at that point as their parents don't think it's necessary for a child that young to be aware of these adult concepts.
It's to get them used to the concept young, whereas, if left alone they find out at a later age in life.




[edit on 23-5-2009 by Flighty]



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Flighty
 



We all know that these programmes are just trojan horses to get our kids used to homosexuality at a young age. It's a form of subtle grooming.
And these people aren't fooling me one little bit.

No, they want to get kids use to others being different and respecting those people despite their differences. People need to stop reading into this, the GLBT thing is only one issue that they want to tackle, and there is ZERO evidence of any such agenda that you mention.

Really, deny ignorance, you can disagree with something without overblown assumptions.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 02:44 AM
link   
The issue at hand is when are we going to draw a line in the sand and tell the bureaucrats and teachers, "this is a parents job, and these are the duties of a teacher!?"

Whether or not it is a competent educator or not is not the issue at hand. The real issue is the role of a parent in the lives of their children. Morals and values are not the place of the government to instill in the minds of America's young no matter ho competent a teacher may be.

Now you may have some prudish parents that would rather another person deal with their child than they. As you have with allot of society these days, yet it doesn't change the fact that this sort of thing is the responsibility of the parents. Laziness is the biggest contributor to a government that runs roughshod on peoples rights.

As the previous poster said "PARENTS" ought to teach their children to respect people as individuals. Not as lesbian individuals, gay individuals, Black, Hispanic, etc.

The worst thing that we ever did in this county was allow for the government to begin indoctrinating the children. When I was in grade school there was no sex ed or homosexual desensitization. We got sex ed in high school (Freshman Year) and it was centered around STD's and the use of contraceptives (i.e. Condoms). We were brought up in a society (for the most part at that point still) where our parents thought us to respect people because we were supposed to respect everyone and treat people how we wanted to be treated. Some kids listen to what their parents teach them and some didn't. That's how it will be in this case accept for the fact that the gov. will be at the helm of your child's moral development.

I think that the government whether local or federal has no role in the morals, religion, or values that a child develops during the course of their education. Those things lay solely with the parents for good or for bad. There are some morals that a parent shouldn't place upon a young mind, yet who are we or the government to impose our moral values of right and wrong (so long as physical harm doesn't come to anyone) upon the child of another. We did not create them, carry them, feed them, shelter them, nurture them in sickness, etc.

Moral values are the prerogative of the parent to instill in their own flesh and blood and to allow government to impose upon that is nothing less than Soviet!



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


Personally I think that the people you seem so bend on defending is not the benign entity you believe them to be. The government is not as stupid as people would be led to believe. They have hundreds of psychologists working for them and they understand full well how the developmental stages of childhood work. This is why you see programs like the episode of the Annimaniacs entitled "UN Me" (You and Me). More recently there are shows such as Back at the barnyard where there is a cow, complete with utters that is a male figure (a conditioned acceptance tactic). This is known as conditioned learning and it is broadly practiced in our society. It is in fact the new propaganda. Conditioning children in the developmental stages is seen in school, on tv and in the home, it is nothing new and the concept has been well understood for many years.

I do not intend to be the target of your next attack on a member here for having a differing perspective than you have; however, I will say this:

A rolling stone gathers no moss

A closed mind gathers no knowledge

There are many perspectives by many people. I respect that you feel that the government is innocent and benign, I personally do not share that view; however, I respect that it is yours.

If you plan on responding to me just to start another argument, don't waste your energy, I will not respond. If you would like to engage me in an adult like debate, I welcome that. I am a psychologist and we can sit here and debate the implementation of psychological manipulation by our government til the cows come home if you wish. I only ask that you provide some credible citations because I certainly will.




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join