Yup, I did pull it from a UK newspaper, although it wasn't a Red headed paper, rather from a respectable one.

Also googling for "Terri Leo ban books" will bring up many pages about this ban
www.washingtontimes.com...
being one of them



Erm yes couple could be used in a homosexual way, so could partner.
But at the same time I could be a "couple" with my girlfriend. or a "Business partner" with someone else, or "My partner is that girl over there"


In fact, many words could mean homosexual, For example "I am a "happy" chap" could mean that I am a gay man. hell even handsome could be considered gay nowadays.

Also aren't schools supposed to offer an impartial view on things and allow the children to grow into whatever they want to be, without forcing any particular viewpoints onto them? If not then your has bad has Germany was back in 1930's

This sorta stuff DOES NOT belong in the education system.


[edit on 7-11-2004 by cheesegoduk]

I would like to see the data that supports the claim that 'homosexuals, lesbians, and bisexuals are more prone to self-destructive behaviour like depression, illegal drug use, and suicide'.

Huh...you can't because it doesn't exist...we made it up.

Surf

Even if it is true that gay people are more likely to do thing like drugs etc. I would like to point out that would not repressed homosexuals be ever more likely because of the mental damage repression can cause. Also I think this might be a good time to point out what gay stands for GOOD AS YOU.

ps i am not gay

Hahahaha!!!!!! Who cares if I get sodomized by my man and like it! hehehehehe
fiew...I don't live in Texas

Ameliaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The whole issue of what is taught in school is not as simply as this thread implies.

Here is an article from the beginning of Bush's first administration in 2000--

2000_UNESCO_REDEFINE_FAMILY.--UNESCO's, "World Core Curriculum"

UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, was established in 1945 to disseminate educational, cultural and scientific materials deemed essential for establishing toleration and peace. During the Reagan administration, the U.S. pulled out of UNESCO, charging the agency with rampant waste and fraud, and a hard-left pro-Soviet slant. Sharing many of these concerns, Great Britain also withdrew from UNESCO at about the same time.

Prior to his decision to rejoin UNESCO, President Bush reached out to social conservatives, and was warned that many groups were increasingly concerned with UNESCO's ongoing support of the UN's radical social agenda. UNESCO collaborates with the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) and its main Non Government Organization (NGO) partner, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). In line with these groups, UNESCO now advocates for reproductive health services for children. In UN parlance, reproductive health services includes abortion. For instance, one UNESCO document praises Thailand's provision of abortion-causing "emergency contraceptives" to children as an "innovative strategy."

UNESCO is also a proponent of the International Guidelines on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights, a document written by UNAIDS and the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights. The document calls on governments to ensure a right to safe and legal abortion, to legalize same-sex marriages, to legalize prostitution, and to provide graphic sexual and homosexual education to children. The document also seeks the establishment of "criminal penalties" for people engaged in speech construed to be a "vilification" of homosexuality.

In the name of AIDS-reduction, UNESCO has fully embraced reproductive and sex education. In concert with UNAIDS and UNFPA, UNESCO has created curricula that many social conservatives would believe undermine parental authority, show disdain for traditional cultures and religious worldviews, and introduce dishonesty into education. A great deal of UNESCO's other educational materials fall squarely in the camp of political correctness, endorsing liberal stances on such issues as gender and environmentalism.

In 1982, the UN (UNESCO) adopted Robert Muller's World Core Curriculum as a model for all nations to follow. Robert Muller, former United Nations Assistant Secretary General, wrote the "World Core Curriculum." Broadly speaking, the World Core Curriculum is a tetrahedron based on 4 primary components:

Our Planetary Home and Our Place in the Universe,
Our Place in Time,
The Family of Humanity, and
The Miracle of Individual Life.

Muller, adopted ideas for his Curriculum from questionable philosophies espoused by the founders of the Theosophical society in pre-revolutionary Russia. The objective of Muller's Curriculum is to produce an egalitarian society, working cooperatively, in harmony, without competition or strife, and without individual thought or opinion.

More significantly, the Curriculum advocates taking away the student's early childhood and family influence--replace it with a "global family." He suggests that education of a child should start at birth and be oriented to the "macrocosm" and that early family influences somehow promote "an egocentric mind set" and will result in a negative or undesirable outcome. In other words, the influence of the traditional family must be abolished for the good of society. Our modern Outcome Based Education curriculums and the U.S. Goals 2000 closely resemble the guidelines of the World Core Curriculum.

Recognizing the fact that under "Treaty (or Convention) Law" America's participation in UNESCO brings with it the "treaty requirement" that America adopt and implement UNESCO's World Core Curriculum.

Recognizing the well documented and undeniable fact that such involvement in UNESCO spells instant death to American "academic" education upon which our great country was founded and which has made it the greatest country in the world, U.S. Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tx) has introduced in the U.S. Congress the following Concurrent Resolution. ... ETC. blah blah blah [snip]

**********************

...Bush has RESTORED the US/UNESCO connection, and with it, the push toward a unified world curriculum that discourages BREEDING and "Family."
The Bush Administration ITSELF has taken the stand that the UN's push to REPLACE FAMILY LIFE with HOMOSEXUAL LIFE [so that the birth rates in the most populous nations will GET CUT DOWN] is LEGITIMATE.

...The UN wants to reduce planetary population. They consider "alternative lifestyles" to be the way to do that. They are TOP-DOWN ruling and establishing and promoting and developing curricula that FAVOR homosexual unions and divergent sex practices--just to keep the birthrate down.

...As a result of this movement toward lower birth rates, children in KINDERGARTEN are now being taught about families with two mommies and families with two daddies, as being the norm. Honest. I kid you not!

...What do you want to do about this? I dunno. But it seems to me that attacking the very fabric of human family life is not going to produce the kind of outcomes that we want in our nation--the natural outcome of such policies is to produce a nation of ANTS!! whose ONLY loyalty is the State!!



[edit on 10-11-2004 by Emily_Cragg]

[edit on 10-11-2004 by Emily_Cragg]

In reply to the above post, I could take a number of the quotes and apply them differently.....

The objective of Muller's Curriculum is to produce an egalitarian society, working cooperatively, in harmony, without competition or strife, and without individual thought or opinion.

I could argue that the brainwashing of kids by the christian right pretty much leads to the same thing, No individual thought or opinion on how to live there lives (:O! You question gods will?? You will suffer)

such policies is to produce a nation of ANTS!! whose ONLY loyalty is the State!!

Again, I view the brainwashing of school children to religion pretty much the same,It only creates a nation of sheep who's only loyalty is to "god"

Like I posted in another thread on this issue religion should be a choice, that the child slowly devolpes over time, not something that is forced on them from birth because its "gods" will. Hense why Education and reilgion/reilgious views should be seperated(and yes that goes for EVERY reilgion, not just christian) If when the child reaches the age where they can make there own choices and decides the reilgious path, then by all means more power to them, at least THEY decided and not there parents/school.

Delta,

www.apa.org...




This many help a bit, or, well, with the reason 'why' many homosexuals may have a dispositions towards such mindsets. I highly doubt it's true though, nothing but propanda.

This is just pathetic; first, they tout 'creation science' in schools, and now they are banning the use of 'words' in schools ? I thought America was a secular and pluralist society ?

This country is going down the hill...

Deep

well people you always have the choice to teach your children at home and to fill the gaps that our "political correct" society wants to force into your children views.

I did my job with mine, whenever school failled their education banning issues from them because the "religious views" I made sure that my children knew all the sides of the story and I feel proud that when they were in coversations and certain issues will come out they were well informed on them.

Parents still control what children learn at home.

Deny ignorance and teach tolerance to our children.

I guess what they say is true:

ITS NOT A SIN TO COME FROM TEXAS, ITS JUST A SIN TO GO BACK THERE.

Lousy gays there steeling all our words like partner, queer, couple, YMCA, bunnies, rainbows, handsome, chap, cologn, interior decorator, cowboy and collectible ceramics.

I don't know what the answer is. I was brought up in San Francisco where the Gay community is probably the largest in the world.

But when I was going to school, there was no politically correct curriculum; and going to church was a choice I had to make against a great deal of family opposition. My family were devout atheists.

I understand what you're saying about the elements in the Church that want to cram Christianity down everybody's throat; and I respect your feelings. I feel pretty much that way myself.

In the cases of my own children [two born in the 60s, one born in the 70s and two born in the 80s], they are all straight and four are sympathetic to the Gay community. The youngest is readying himself for West Point so I'm not so sure he's on the same page with the others. And I have an adopted son who's Gay and "came out" twenty years ago. And he's a very private person.

But as far as socializing more children, my youngest went to private schools because their father could afford to send them there. If I had more children at this point, I would home school them so that neither the Church nor the State would mess up their ability to reason; to sense what is actually true; to reckon a safe place for themselves in society. That's what I would do if I had it to do over.

See y'all. I hafta work on my website today: Lots of new files.

: ) Em

Ok, let's just say this is true.. hmm I wonder why. What could drive a homosexual to depression and drug use? Could it be a nation of evengelical Americans and homophobes crucifing and terrorizing them in EVERY way possible. Be it beat downs physically or psycologically, America is terrorizing a group of people who are born with what many feel is a 'choice.'

Just my thoughts.. I am curious of other peoples views on the subject of wether being gay is a choice people make. I should make another thread on this so as not to highjack this one.

Another reason to hate republicans and the religious right...

Hatred merely eats up the container in which it is kept.

Let the religious right shoot themselves in the foot. Evil is always self-defeating.

In the meantime, all I think we can do about this problem is notice that a true marriage results in a "series or line of DNA-specific offspring" whereas a same-sex partnership CANNOT do that, by definition.

So, it seems to me, one ought to be called marriage and the other ought to be called something else, even if the parties expect to have survivorship rights and live as family.

But, that's just my opinion which, with a buck and a half, will buy me a cup of coffee somewhere.

Hmmm, don't judge, unless they gay, I don't remember that in the bible. I swear, christians and republicans, they make it so easy to make fun of them. I mean, these people believe in all mighty powerful invisable people, they believe that women should be slaves, blacks should be slaves, poor people should be slaves, children are slaves, only ones who have the right to live are white rich republican christians. Can't we send them to an island so they can kill each other for one is to short, and you have to be this tall to go to heaven, or this skinny to be a good christian?

This is gonna sound so simplistic but if the majority, or a significant portion of them, object to gay people using the word marriage why not just tinker with the wording a little and call it......'GAY MARRIAGE', distinct from 'Marriage' but near as damn it to keep everyone happy.

Hmmm. Not a bad idea.

But, doesn't that make the "marriage mates" in a Gay Marriage feel discriminated against because they have been singled OUT as DIFFERENT from "ordinary" marriage mates?

They may not LIKE that. But I don't mind. I just think it's important to realize the distinction between "couples" who can establish a physical hereditary dynasty and "couples" who can't do this.

[shrug]

But that is not the defontion of marrage. By your resoning a person incapable of having children from some genetic problem should not be able to marry.

The problem is, who is it that knows whether they can parent a child UNTIL they marry?

Miracles happen.

When the intention to create a "family" is there, God provides the WAY.

Maybe that is what the Gay Community is trying to tell us. They'll create families of dislocated and abandoned souls if God will make them whole.

I dunno know. Everything seems to happen for a reason, doesn't it?




[edit on 12-11-2004 by Emily_Cragg]