Gay Curriculum Proposal Riles Elementary School Parents

Originally posted by detachedindividual
reply to post by TheAmused

They're quite happy to leave it to schools and the state to educate in every respect, until it's something they feel is "not appropriate".

Agreed. For some parents. But we can not allow the few to dictate the policies of the many. I wouldn't allow my kid's curriculum to be altered based upon the laziness of a few parents. Nor would I allow it based upon the majority of parents. I'll teach my child the way that I see fit and what I see fit.

The fact is, gay lifestyles and community are a part of modern existence, kids need to be taught how to treat other people and respect the rights of others.

Agreed. But, kids need to be taught "by their parents" (at the time chosen by their parents) that there are people who may be different than them and it doesn't give them the right to bully or tease them.

Kids need to be taught that they must respect others simply because they are people with feelings and not because they are one sort of person or another. Whether or not the parent agrees with a gay or lesbian life style is of no consequence. A good parent teaches this regardless. A person has the right to teach their children what ever they wish.

If a parent chooses to teach their kids that it is immoral to lead a gay or lesbian lifestyle that is not the governments right to intercede, so long as they are also taught to respect people regardless of their sexual orientation (which I know is what your getting at).

This is just another example of knee-jerk reaction by conservative nut jobs with a chip on their shoulder about gay rights and equality. And yes, some of those kids will grow up to be gay, but not because the school told them to be.

Just another example of limousine liberal closet bigotry and prejudice. "If your a conservative you must be a nut job!" Make sure to go and tell DHS all about my post here on ATS.

Now if the "Liberals" are done LABELING people (i.e. African American, Hispanic American, etc. etc. etc.) like they are good for than we can proceed. Maybe we can all just be Americans and people??? Sometimes people who differ in opinion, that seems to work just fine for me but I guess it doesn't work for the "LIBERALS."

I don't really see this as a knee jerk reaction. This is the reaction of those who are responsible enough to know how to deal with their own children or flat out feel that it is inappropriate for young children. It matters not what you think. It's their children, they created them and they provide and care for them. This is a decision that they (as parents) are not only entitled to make but are the beneficiaries thereof! Americans never defaulted our children to state indoctrination, nor did we say that we would allow for them to make up our minds for us.

We still have the right to decide when our kids learn what, by whom, and in what manner. I doubt that opponents of this think that it will make their kids gay, in as much as they feel that it is indoctrination and that the government is usurping a power not ceded to them by the people.

If they have a problem with it, they should take their kids out of school and educate them themselves at home. Save the community some money and allow decent parents to get their kids into forward thinking schools that can adequately keep up with an ever changing world.

Oh, I see. So only your fellow "LIBERAL" (I have to make sure to use your labels so that you can understand me) minded people are deserving of having their children in the public schools. And all that oppose the governments indoctrination rather than teaching their own children (according to their beliefs and at a time of their choosing) must be backwards, correct?

Extremely intellectual and multicultural on your part, way to allow for multiculturalism and tolerance! Those are the marching orders correct? Or is that only when it suites you and is convenient? But hey parents that don't think like you "aren't decent!"

Those kids educated there will go a lot further in life and contribute more to society than those with a strange phobia of equality.

Since the "outsiders" aren't going to contribute that much to society according to you we may as well let them fall through the cracks due to a difference of opinion? Correct?? Boy, you "LIBERALS" (LABELS EVERYONE) sure aren't very inclusive when someone disagrees with your viewpoints or policies.

Just when I thought we were all going to be one big happy family again!

[edit on 23-5-2009 by lazy1981]

News Flash 1: Fox News Lies.

News Flash 2: Too Many ATS posters swallow inflammatory misinformation lock stock and barrel, and post angrily about it, without ever trying to ascertain the truthfulness of a story.


Kindergarten kids are not going to be taught about the dreaded Gays.
That is scheduled to start at grade 5, with 1 x 45 minute class per year.



There are 2 people in my extended family who didn't conform to the heterosexual stereotype. Both knew they were different long before puberty, and needed support to help them cope with the loneliness and low self esteem caused by being different.

One was lucky enough to be attending a public school where the teachers felt free to talk about gender issues, and became able to feel accepted as she was.

The other was at a religious school where she had to hide her feelings, and was judged harshly by staff when she said she couldn't turn straight.

Guess which one is now happy and productive and which suffers from depression . . .

Children need to get some sort of understanding of the issues with which they are living.

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

Don't care what they said,

That is unfortunately quite clear.

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.

No i'm afraid that to a person that comprehended what Chesire cat was truely saying it was not clear that you did not comprehend what he/she said. The only reason that what you said was taken out of context was the fact that you yourself put it out of context by replying to that which you did not understand.

So you see you are the one with the straw man arguement, not me. You may want to gain a better understanding of a strawman arguement.

en.wikipedia.org...

I stated my opinion using your related post as your failure to comprehend Chesire cat's post made your post relevant.

You clearly didn't bother correctly reading it and you turned this into my fault and dragged this debate out.

I'm sorry but it would seem as though you are the clearly the one guilty of of not bothering to read someone's post correctly (as you have already admitted) and therefore it is you that has turned it into your own fault and dragged this debate out.

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

You see when i said this, i was more than happy to accept the fact that you had not comprehended the post and put an end to the debate, i even thanked you for clearing up the misunderstanding, it is you that insists upon arrogantly and immaturely carrying this debate further than it need go.

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.

That would be easy to do if you would make sure that you do not reply to something that you do not comprehend, and if you refrained from misrepresenting someone else's words.

We will just have to agree to disagree on what teachers are capable of dealing with.


I am done with this "debate" as i do not deal well with arrogant hostility, nor do i deal well with immaturity and i do not come to this forum to be exposed to either. I also refuse to further derail this thread with a debate that has turned into nothing more than petty bickering, Good day.

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
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.

Whether it flys or NOT rapinbat, the POINT the poster is making that what YOU think is IRRELEVANT that under know circumstances, competent or incompetent do they have the audacity to teach this. So what difference would it make whether one is "competent" or not, save for your intention to suggest it be taught regardless of what anyone thought. Why even add the disclaimer to assuage competence on an issue that isn't going to happen in the other persons opinion unless your intention was to offer it as a consolation prize that at least no one has to worry as long as someone does it right who is qualified to do it.

Now Ill accept your re-explanation but understand that to some, it is not hard to understand why interpreting what you said can be taken the way you say it couldn't, and very easily too I might add

[edit on 23-5-2009 by Con Science]

Look, regardless of whether the school has a right to teach this stuff or not to students, the parents of these children have MORE than a right to decide what their child is being exposed to.

I have kids, who know the difference quite well. Granted they have two fathers and no mother, so it was a little obvious to them how things worked in our house, but needless to say we still needed to confront our child's emotions on the matter and explain things thoroughly.

And I am sorry but there is no way an educator can explain sensitive subjects such as this better than I can. Parents know they're children and know what is best for their children.

I commend the school on trying to educated children on not bullying and having equality on the playground, but this simply isn't the way to go about it.

I mean come on a 9 year old doesn't care about gays, they really don't. I know, I have one. And she's more likely to care why they are cutting the trees accross the street to make room for a parking lot than if two boys are kissing each other.

It should be left to the parents. I don't mind the school teaching it, but make it elective, inform the parents and let them decide if their children are to attend such classes.

~Keeper

i am sorry folk's but my 4 and 5 year old's have no reason to know about gayness.

i am not part of any religious faith what so ever.

But common sense will tell ya...
sex between same sex..= death...

Not because of aid's..but because life isn't MEANT to be that way.

no matter how much they want to think it is it is NOT..

have your partner have your baby...with your gene's. your seed.
you can't.

thus it's wrong folk's and nothing more than a perversion to me.

If all gay people went to a island and started there own country...in 40 year's there would be 2 option's for it's outcome.

A
they would die off from not being able to reproduce.
B
There implanted eggs with other gay guy gene's lol..would choose not to be gay and move of the island for greener pasture's.

either way the island would be empty in 40 years..





[edit on 23-5-2009 by TheAmused]

reply to post by TheAmused


I don't see how your post makes any sense, it's not a very valid argument.

Simply because the "nature" of things is not followed does not mean that the love these two people experience is any less valid than the love you have with your partner.

The fact is, it's not going away. People have a right to live their lives the way they want to.

I do agree, as I said that the school is not a place to be teaching this kind of stuff, but regardless of how much you or anybody else doesn't like it, we have should have the right to do whatever it is you can do.

We aren't breaking the law, we aren't "ruining the moral fabric" of America as some would like to claim. We simply lead different lives.

~Keeper

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage

Why does everyone assume that? These are fifth graders they're discussing, not the five year olds. They probably already know what gay means in general. Really, do we think our teachers are so dumb that they can not explain that sometimes boys like boys or girls like girls the way girls and boys like each other, and that those people should be respected and not picked on? And that if you like a friend that doesn't mean you are gay and you probably won't know for sure until you're older, and if you have any other questions you'll have to discuss it with your parents. Is that really so difficult?

We assume it because we have all BEEN THERE and yes kids DO know when you are evading the questions that are none of a teachers business to be talking about anyway. Is this about SEX? Or is this about biology and reproduction teaching girls about their periods and what to expect etc.

No what Gays want to do and especially gay teachers IS TEACH TOLERANCE for a people who have legally defined themselves as a minority based on (get this) what kind of sex they have!

and any teacher who can't understand the words "Underr NO circumstances will you teach my kid ANYTHING about how to tolerate anyone or anything!) You may think that is stoneage stuff and ya know what I don't give a rats butt because I have seen what has happened in states like Mass and I have seen the pamphelets our tax dollars pay for suggesting circle jerks are cool and how to prepare your rectum pror to anal sex and Oh yeah they have all the necessary info about condoms and aids but that is NOT the point! What they are really doing is why gay marriage is so much an issue and I have warned about this long ago they had an agenda and sure enough it was a political agenda to get to kids in schools to increase their numbers so they woould have more political clout. Seems that when teachers say gay is ok it is natural and monkeys do it that they are more inclined to TRY IT and see it as a legitimate alternative to heterosexual relations.

Sex ed used to be about reproduction and now it is about this

If you are having anal sex with a steady partner, a regular sex buddy or a number of individuals, chances are you've been faced with the decision of whether to bareback (or have anal sex without a condom) or practice safer sex. I am more am seeing these kind of questions get more curious answeres when I was teaching and it had nothing to do with STD's but more on "is it gay to try gays sex then not like it or what if I like it am I gay?" Those are questions NO ONE should even go near and they are asked a lot more than you might think . It is not up to a teacher to offer opinions like that and it is where they end up getting but my gay colleagues?? Oh they went too far and most could have gotten fired if they were found to be talking so candid. I quit teaching because I felt what they teach or are required to, does not sit right with me

Originally posted by NickT916

 

 

yea ok, my opinion saying that gay should be a private thing, behind closed doors, no need to force it on anyone, just as the gay thing we are forcing straight on them, and my post gets deleted, how is that not gay?

reply to post by one_man24


Oh forgoodness sake, leave your archaic holy book out of this, please. There are a dozen holy books in all with many religions and countless dogmas attached to each. To assume that yours is perfect and absolutely correct without considering the possibility that you are wrong is the hight of narcissism. Especially when it comes to PERSECUTION, which leads to teen suicides!

Imagine that you had a child that turned out to be gay. Would you not still love that child regardless of whom they fell in love with? You should therefore teach your children not to scorn others for similar reasons.

Why not be humble? Why not be less presumptuous and judgemental?

Even as a Christian I couldn't get why god would denounce homosexuality. The majority of non-heterosexuals were that way from birth. Consider the sissy, a gender-nonconforming boy who is almost fated to turn out gay. Before this child even has a slight clue as to what sex is, his brain is formed in such a way as to make him gay in later life. If god made us all, these people are the way they are from birth, meaning that their orientation his directly his doing. God seemed to think his creation was good, so it makes no sense that his creation would be wrong or bad at the same time.

Now getting back to the OP.... Children need to understand what it is like to be bullied and why people who are different are not less than their peers and as such don't deserve bullying. But 5 years old is too young to be taught anything about sexuality, just the concept of 'different /= bad' and general equality.

Originally posted by TheAmused

If all gay people went to a island and started there own country...in 40 year's there would be 2 option's for it's outcome.

A
they would die off from not being able to reproduce.

Actually you've got the seed of a great idea here. But not gays, they'd just live and die harmlessly and not do anything interesting but produce culture and ideas, and how uncool would that be?

A much better idea would be to put all the bigots on an island and film it for live TV.

We could lay bets on which aspect of someone's appearance, heritage or behaviour they would pick on next, and anxiously watch our favourites to see it they exterminate or get exterminated.

When there is only one guy left standing we could fly in the population for the next series, making sure they all dislike something about the winner of the last series. The first episode would be hilarious, watching what they do to him.

Whenever the series looks like degenerating into boredom we could fly in a missionary or two with an armful of sacred texts, teaching that yet another group must be targeted.


When that's broadcast, I'll be in my armchair munching popcorn.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by TheAmused

 

I don't see how your post makes any sense, it's not a very valid argument.

Simply because the "nature" of things is not followed does not mean that the love these two people experience is any less valid than the love you have with your partner.

The fact is, it's not going away. People have a right to live their lives the way they want to.

I do agree, as I said that the school is not a place to be teaching this kind of stuff, but regardless of how much you or anybody else doesn't like it, we have should have the right to do whatever it is you can do.

We aren't breaking the law, we aren't "ruining the moral fabric" of America as some would like to claim. We simply lead different lives.

~Keeper

people can love there animal's too man..its called bestiality
and its a perversion .

and thus WRONG..
So why is it harder to understand same sex is no different.

so yes its a valid argument.

reply to post by Kailassa

A much better idea would be to put all the bigots on an island and film it for live TV.

Except for the fact that we would need a VERY large island.

See we all have our own prejudices and areas where we are bigoted to greater or lesser degrees. Even though we may not think so. They are built into us from childhood by various mechanism whether they be family, friends, experience, or society in general. Not always intentional and usually the most subtle forms are unintentional and go unnoticed. Such as the childhood pastime of pointing and laughing at the kid that looks, acts, or talks different from the rest. It is a societal norm and human action aimed to protect the group from what is considered outside influence. It happens all the time and carries into adult life in most cases. This is but the most common and appropriate of examples i can give.

So we can either sit around and point fingers at people calling them bigots because they feel a certain way about homosexuality (which is what your post is in response to at the core of it) or we can be honest with ourselves and see that not one of us are perfect. We need not look farther than a mirror to see prejudice and bigotry.

Whenever the series looks like degenerating into boredom we could fly in a missionary or two with an armful of sacred texts, teaching that yet another group must be targeted.

For example, prejudice and bigotry in another form (religious intolerance). This is also a form of intolerance in case you didn't realize. Or are you only interested in weeding out intolerance that is repulsive in YOUR eyes?

[edit on 24-5-2009 by lazy1981]

reply to post by Kailassa

Oh please do grow up. The guy did have a point. If you put all homosexual people on an island by themselves then with a few decades the island would have been depopulated or the people would have turned to heterosexual intercourse. He is making a viable point that in nature homosexuality will lead to your removal from the gene pool.

And as for your comments on bigots I think that a very large hypocrite sign is needed for you. You have just shown how bigoted you are towards people with beliefs that differ from your own.

Originally posted by Kailassa
Whenever the series looks like degenerating into boredom we could fly in a missionary or two with an armful of sacred texts, teaching that yet another group must be targeted.

That is pretty much the best show of bigotry that could have been asked for. You say that because they are religious then they are definitely going to tell people to persecute a certain group. That reeks of ignorance and bigotry in itself. Not only that but you aren't making your definition of "open minded people" look very good by how you say that you would enjoy watching other people suffer and be destroyed by others. I think that if they were to air a show based on your ideas you would be one of the first candidates.

-Cauch1

[edit on 24/5/2009 by Cauch1]

Originally posted by lazy1981

Whenever the series looks like degenerating into boredom we could fly in a missionary or two with an armful of sacred texts, teaching that yet another group must be targeted.

For example, prejudice and bigotry in another form (religious intolerance). This is also a form of intolerance in case you didn't realize. Or are you only interested in weeding out intolerance that is repulsive in YOUR eyes?

Murder is not a good thing.
In fact, it's against the law.

Therefore, any book telling people to commit murder is not a good book.

A book that tells people to kill homosexuals, witches and disobedient children is sick, crazy and dangerous.

Anyone who believes a book teaching such hatred and bigotry is the word of god is inevitably ignorant, confused or a bigot.

Of course that is not to say they can't be all three.

Originally posted by Cauch1
reply to post by Kailassa

 

Oh please do grow up. The guy did have a point. If you put all homosexual people on an island by themselves then with a few decades the island would have been depopulated or the people would have turned to heterosexual intercourse. He is making a viable point that in nature homosexuality will lead to your removal from the gene pool.

I'm sorry, but you really need to learn some logic.
There is no logical connection between some people being gay and anyone being removed from the gene pool.

Yes, in your scenario the gays on the island will gradually die out, having harmed no-one in the process.
And, by the time they do, their numbers will be replaced.

You see, gays are generally born to straight parents. You can't get rid of gays by sending them away, pretending they don't exist or even by killing them, because new baby gays are being born every minute.


As gays breed less often than straights, if their existence was not beneficial to the community they would have been bred out of existence. So obviously gays have been good for the communities they are in. This could be because the extra manpower of men who were not breeders meant the tribe got more food, it may have been that they defended the tribe, it may be that they supplied wisdom.

Whatever the reason, their existence throughout human evolution, far from causing anyone's removal from the gene pool, may well be the reason the genes of yours and my ancestors survived to be passed on.

reply to post by Kailassa

Whenever the series looks like degenerating into boredom we could fly in a missionary or two with an armful of sacred texts, teaching that yet another group must be targeted.

It would seem as though anyone that would say this and believes that simply because one is religious it automatically implies that they believe in , condone, and teach the targeting of a particular group of people, is in fact themselves ignorant and bigoted.

reply to post by Kailassa

Please learn how to quote properly, the manner in which you have quoted implies that I have said something that I have not.

Murder is not a good thing.

How long did it take you to come to that conclusion? Bravo!

In fact, it's against the law.

Another gem. Man you are a regular wealth of knowledge.



See, I too can pull your post apart into little pieces and reply to you in a fashion that suites my response. Funny how you conveniently chose not to address the rest of my post.

Therefore, any book telling people to commit murder is not a good book.

That's why I do not follow that portion of The Book. I take the lessons and morals from it and leave the violence.

Anyone who believes a book teaching such hatred and bigotry is the word of god is inevitably ignorant, confused or a bigot.

And this statement makes you "less bigoted?" You seem to have many preconceived notions.

Not all religious people fit into this mold that you religion hating bashers have (i.e. Televangelist Bible Thumpers, Jewish Zealots, and Islamo Fascist). Now that places YOU into the slot of the prejudice and intolerant. But obviously you are the one standing there with the big foam finger pointing it at everyone else and never taking a look at yourself. You people are starting to sound an awful lot like the INQUISITORS that you rail about. Now that's scary.

Now I only responded to this because I felt the need to make the point very clear that this seems to be YOUR area of bigotry that you need to address.

You seem to prejudge people based upon their faith and I suppose that it's Christians due to the fact that they are the main group that send "missionaries." Just because you may have had a bad experience with one or a few people belonging to one group doesn't give you the right to pass judgement over all of them reguardless of creed, race, religion, or sex.

Point being regardless of what you view as true, you have chosen to be prejudice towards those of a certain religious faith.

Now I have no desire to further veer from the OP's post so lets not continue this unless we are going to speak about prejudice and bigotry in general as it pertains to the thread. We are supposed to be talking about an issue that centers around intolerance. The only reason why I deviated was to respond to your deviation and jab at religions.

Originally posted by chise61

It would seem as though anyone that would say this and believes that simply because one is religious it automatically implies that they believe in , condone, and teach the targeting of a particular group of people, is in fact themselves ignorant and bigoted.

Oh, goodness no.
I'm sorry about that misunderstanding. I know people of many religions who are not at all bigoted.

I'm just pointing out that certain religious texts, which some people regard as the word of god, state that people in the three groups I mentioned should be killed.

Of course if you believe the bible is wholly the word of god, and you are aware it makes those statements, either you will believe them and be a bigot, or you will be bound to be pretty confused about just what god is saying there.

But please don't think I'm targeting you. I'm making no assumptions that you know what the bible says or that you hold those beliefs.