Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44026

Seriously I don't see what the big deal is about.

If that kid is like me he'll doze off during school and wont even be paying attention.

Oh great!

Seriously though, it is this kind of ignorance that causes people to develop homophobia - its not like his kid is gonna catch ''homophobiatits''! Sheesh, the sheer ignorance and prejudice of some people.

Didn't you already make a thread like this a while ago?

OH NO!!!!!!!!

THEIR GONNA TURN MY KID GAY!!!!!fear

yeah, a book is going to make your son suddenly crave penises.

Originally posted by PVS
OH NO!!!!!!!!

THEIR GONNA TURN MY KID GAY!!!!!fear

yeah, a book is going to make your son suddenly crave penises.

Like father like son eh PVS?

Originally posted by KidRock
Like father like son eh PVS?

http://img222.echo.cx/img222/7442/notfunny3pj.gif

I don't agree with what the father did but I also think that they shouldn't be talking about sexuality and different lifestyles when they are that young.

home schooled kids are normally smarter and do better in college and later in life then the rest of us...

but so do private school kids -- and thats me.. Im a private school person

you get more attention

This is not about homophobia, this is about a parents right to have their child taught acedemics without having something forced down their throats that may not agree with the parent.
How would you people think if a teacher was reading a book about jesus inside of a public school and whn a parent would try to protest they would be arrested?? Would you be a Christaphobe to not like this? No you just realize that a public school is not about teaching what types of sexuality, religeon, or beliefs to accept rather you are there to learn
If you ask me that story is a outrage
I, too, will probably home teach my kids

Well, the father is a bit ignorant, because the article implies that he thinks his kid will turn gay if he learns about it now.

But on the other hand, the issue here is WHAT his son is being taught, but the fact that the school won't respect his wishes. Which is pretty shitty.

Perhaps some of you should re-read the article. The school did not teach anything about homosexuality. It was David Parker's own son who picked out the book, "Who Is a Family" and brought it home. The book "catalogues a variety of multicultural contemporary family units, including those with single parents, lesbian and gay parents, mixed-race couples, grandparents and divorced parents."

Hey, if they can't have Harry Potter or the Chronicles of Narnia on shelves, dump that book, too.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Hey, if they can't have Harry Potter or the Chronicles of Narnia on shelves, dump that book, too.

Incidentally, the people who object to Who Is a Family are the same people who object to the Harry Potter series of books.

So instead of banning books, perhaps we should follow the example of Superintendent Bill Hurley, and ban parents like David Parker from school committee meetings.

I don't really see a problem with a book like that, I mean, as a young kid, we are exposed to the understanding there are many different kinds of family, whats wrong if some of them are gay? Or defacto or foster or whatever? And I mean, really pulling his son from discussions about the subject "whether they are in planned lessons or arise spontaneously". I thought freedom of speech was important, I can't see how a teacher could be expected to grab little Jimmy and say "oops, can't have you talking to your friends about something like that young man".

It just seems like overreaction, and really, if there were more books like that, that showed diversity and individuality, the world would probably be a better place..

The problem doesn't lie in the book itself (though it is debatable whether or not children at that age should be reading about such a controversial topic, one that they surely don't understand) but in that the parent of the child had absolutely no say in whether or not what his child read while at school.

As a parent, it is completely his right to decide if he wants his child reading about a topic such as this, just like it's up to the parents whether or not a school teach their child about sex ed, and so on.

Originally posted by BackFire
The problem doesn't lie in the book itself (though it is debatable whether or not children at that age should be reading about such a controversial topic, one that they surely don't understand) but in that the parent of the child had absolutely no say in whether or not what his child read while at school.

As a parent, it is completely his right to decide if he wants his child reading about a topic such as this, just like it's up to the parents whether or not a school teach their child about sex ed, and so on.

That's the point, it was not being taught in school. The boy picked out the book at school and brought it home to read. That's how his father learned about it in the first place.

I know that, but the problem arises in that the parent has no say in whether or not his child take part in discussions about homosexuallity in class, which is entirely his right as a parent to request.

Originally posted by BackFire
I know that, but the problem arises in that the parent has no say in whether or not his child take part in discussions about homosexuallity in class, which is entirely his right as a parent to request.

There were no discussions about homosexuality taking place in the classroom. In fact, the book in question is not even solely about homosexual parents. The father's request was denied because it was unreasonable. He expects the teacher to remove his son from discussions of homosexuality even when they arise spontaneously. That is like a Jehovah's Witness expecting a teacher to remove his child from discussions of holidays even when they arise spontaneously. Teachers are not responsible for monitoring everything one students sees and hears.

When they're in that teachers classroom, that teacher is soley responsible for monitoring such things. Who else would be?

Kid's get removed from discussions all the time because of a parents request, homosexuality should be no different.

Plus, I have to question that classroom if a discussion about homosexuality occurs when the children are at that age, that definately shouldn't be the lesson plan, and I can't see a discussion breaking out about that subject at random.

Also, the article says this -



He wasn't just denied his request about the sponanious discussions (which would be SOMEWHAT reasonable to deny), but even planned discussions. His request wasn't even to have his child removed, according to the quote above, that he simply be NOTIFIED of a discussion. It's completely reasonable and not unlike requests other parents make that are agreed to by the school faculty.

Originally posted by BackFire
When they're in that teachers classroom, that teacher is soley responsible for monitoring such things. Who else would be?

Kid's get removed from discussions all the time because of a parents request, homosexuality should be no different.

Plus, I have to question that classroom if a discussion about homosexuality occurs when the children are at that age, that definately shouldn't be the lesson plan, and I can't see a discussion breaking out about that subject at random.

Also, the article says this -

He wasn't just denied his request about the sponanious discussions (which would be SOMEWHAT reasonable to deny), but even planned discussions. His request wasn't even to have his child removed, according to the quote above, that he simply be NOTIFIED of a discussion. It's completely reasonable and not unlike requests other parents make that are agreed to by the school faculty.

Yes, children are frequently removed from classroom discussions per the request of a parent... when the discussion is part of a planned lesson.

I suspect the reason the superintendent denied his request to be notified of planned discussions of homosexualy in the classroom is because there are no planned discussions of homosexuality in the classroom to be notified about.

In kindergarten, children begin to question who they are, where they come from, and how they fit into the world around them. As a part of this learning process, children inevitably compare themselves with each other.

Who is to say that one of the children in his classroom does not have gay parents? If such a spontaneous conversation were to arise, how is the teacher supposed to remove one student from the classroom before he hears something? And if he does hear another student speaking about his or her gay parents, is the teacher then obligated to send a note home?

What if it was not homosexuality but something else? Suppose a parent wanted to be notified if holidays were discussed in class. If a student mentions that it is her birthday, is the teacher then obligated to send a note home stating, "Suzy mentioned birthdays in class today,"? Or perhaps Suzy should be told that she is not allowed to talk about birthdays in class at all?

The whole thing is blown out of proportion.

Seriosuly why should the dad not be allowed to pull his kid out of class if he objects to something taught which is rather controversial. Now don't get me wrong I lov e homosexuals and all but at that age its the parents decision I think.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Seriosuly why should the dad not be allowed to pull his kid out of class if he objects to something taught which is rather controversial. Now don't get me wrong I lov e homosexuals and all but at that age its the parents decision I think.

Because it is not being taught in school! The boy in question picked out the book at school and brought it home to read. It was not part of a lesson plan, and it was not being taught.

hmm well then that is a whole different story thanks for clearing that.....then the dad is just a weirdo.

Then, the superintendent handled that pretty poorly, he should have made it clear to the man that discussions of this nature don't take place in the classroom in a planned manner, rather then just saying "No". He should have said something along the lines of "Well, discussions like this are not planned as part of the ciriculum of that classroom, but if one DOES get planned somehow, we will notify you". Woulda made things far easier. And both parties would have been happy.



We don't know the specifics of what he wanted done, merely that he did want to be informed IF their were going to be discussions about homosexuality and such. But, sending a little note home if the topic did come up spontaniously, as per a request from a parent, doesn't seem that unreasonable.

Also, there's a difference between a full blown sponatious discussion about a topic, and a fellow student of the boy's saying a few words about homosexuality. IF this does occur, and the teacher wishes to develop it into a full blown discussion, then the child should be sent outside untill the conversation is finished. Though, I would say an even better idea for the teacher is tell the student who brought up homosexuality that it should be discussed privately, after class, if the student wishes to discuss it with the teacher.



Well, the difference between the examples you gave, and homosexuality is that the examples you gave are far more common to be talked about in a 1st grade classroom then homosexuality is. It's always someones birthday, and there's always a holiday comming up, it's common place to hear someone talking about such things. However, a more accurate analogy would be if a parent wished that his child be removed if the class is actually going to celebrate a holiday, or birthday, then he should be removed as per the parents request.

If the class is going to celebrate a holiday, i don't see classes celebrating homosexuality

"Okay all boys and girls drop your pants stand by somebody of the same sex and have fun."

Maybe the school should have handled it better, but there is just no way that the school can stop discussions like that, and they probably didn't plan them either. If they did they are starting to early

homeschooled kids become distant and murderous. it is like caging a pit bull and stabbing it in the eye ball with electric prods. well i guess it actually isnt anything like that, but still it sucks. Or well not sucks, but somthing.

Its getting to the point were its telling the children that homosexuality is fine, and thats the point. If the parent would rather install different moral values with his child, or wait at a different time to discuss such topics thats his right.
The birthday example is quite rediculous because, like backfire said, it happens to everyone every year and no one has a problem with the kid not participating when they celebrate. I remember as a kid a fellow classmate wasn't able to participate and they went and did something else. It was no big deal. And we are talking about a birthday celebration, not telling a kid point blank wether someones sexuality is ok or not. WTF are they doing with those kinda discussions anyway?? Why don't they discuss wether alcohol is good or not and jimmy can say "yes my dad and mom drink, drinking is not so bad," These topics are not for young kids, that is rediculous. Or how bout ," Mommy kisses the pool man, whats wrong with being a swinger?" Why should children be encouraged to talk about these things with someone who is not their adult guradian, give me a break. Sounds like the schools want to much power over these young minds if you ask me, quit talking to their kids about sexualy orientated issues and you can start by teaching them how to read and add. Look how crappy this country is in acedemics, maybe there is a reason for this.

His requests are unreasonable because he doesn't only want his son to not be able to read that book, he wants it completely out of the library. And notifying him of discussions that weren't planned and all that shit is just stupid.. you can't control what your kids talk to their friends about in school and that's just the way it is. You can stop them from taking sex ed, but you can't make the PE teacher pull them out of the locker room if people start talking about sex.

When it comes to planned discussions on homosexuality.. they really shouldn't be having any at that age, but if they do he should be able to have his kid removed from the discussion. But overall I agree with the principal for telling him no. If every parent was able to shape their own kid's curriculum around what they believe it would be way too much work for the school.. and they can't be giving this guy any special treatment. If he gets to decide what his kid learns, everyone should be able to.

In the long run.. if you want that much control over what the school teaches your kid.. you should homeschool them. That's really the only reasonable way you can completely customize your kid's lesson plan.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
homeschooled kids become distant and murderous. it is like caging a pit bull and stabbing it in the eye ball with electric prods. well i guess it actually isnt anything like that, but still it sucks. Or well not sucks, but somthing.

I agree with milla is things like this that make the kids be "scared" of homosexuals as if they were some kind of freaks of nature... i think kids should be taught about homosexualism when they're kids...
and to think that if ure kid sees a drawing of a man married to another man would make him gay, u'd need a doze of reality check

"In the long run.. if you want that much control over what the school teaches your kid.. you should homeschool them. That's really the only reasonable way you can completely customize your kid's lesson plan."

Coudn't have said it better myself

Originally posted by IceWithin
I agree with milla is things like this that make the kids be "scared" of homosexuals as if they were some kind of freaks of nature... i think kids should be taught about homosexualism when they're kids...
and to think that if ure kid sees a drawing of a man married to another man would make him gay, u'd need a doze of reality check
It wouldn't make him gay. It would make him confused, and say "why are two men getting married?"

You couldn't just tell kids homosexuality is ok without further explaining what homosexuality is. In my opinion you should wait until the kids are old enough to understand what attraction and sexuality are about before you can tell them what homosexuality is about.

oh yes cause homosexuality is SO complex

some men simply feel attrackted to other men instead of women. period.

Originally posted by IceWithin
oh yes cause homosexuality is SO complex

some men simply feel attrackted to other men instead of women. period. And what does that mean to a 6 year old kid? Nothing. That's giving a half assed answer to the question, and is going to do nothing but create more questions. At that age, they aren't even fully aware of what attraction is.

Telling kids at that age about homosexuality is just telling them for the sake of telling them. If they don't have any questions on the subject or are even unaware that it exists, why answer a question they never asked?

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
It wouldn't make him gay. It would make him confused, and say "why are two men getting married?"

You couldn't just tell kids homosexuality is ok without further explaining what homosexuality is. In my opinion you should wait until the kids are old enough to understand what attraction and sexuality are about before you can tell them what homosexuality is about.

If a question such as, "Whay are two men getting married," were to arise, it could be explained very simply:

A family is a group of people who love each other and take care of each other, and families can look very different. Some families have a mom and a dad, some have only a mom or a dad, and some have two moms or two dads. Sometimes moms and dads don't live together. Sometimes kids have parents and step-parents. And sometimes kids live with their grandparents or another person who takes care of them. Other families include grownups who don't have kids. But they are all families, and they all love each other.

That's fine, if the kid asks the question. That doesn't mean you need to make a lesson plan to teach every 1st grader in public schools about homosexuality.

kids ask questions about EVERYTHING u never have the asnwers to them all
why is the sky blue??
cuz it refelcts in the water
and why is the water blue?

why do ppl die?

does god exist?

how are babies made?

etc. the list can go on forever... and most of the answers parents give dont explain shit

I never asked anyone what homosexuality was at 6 years old cause I was unaware that it existed. If a kid has a question, you give them a vague answer that's easy for them to understand. If they don't ask a question, then leave it at that.

but when they are "old enough" they've already heard about it, and not good things, before ure able to teach him that there is nothning wrong with homosexuality they will already know all about it... and they wont think its a good things... cuz most things u hear among ure friends are bad things... they call them "****" etc.

Even if they learn about it from a young age this will happen. As long as they hear older kids calling people "****" it doesn't matter what the teacher says about it, because the older kids are who they idolize for the most part.. the teacher is just an authority figure.

Originally posted by Cosmic_Beings
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44026

Sometimes it is needed to do that.But homeschooling kids do need to be iinvolved with other kids.Inleast I think so.JM

First of all i don't understand why Harry potter was banned. In our high school you can read harry potter or Hitlers book. The Bible or the Mormon Bible. Also note my high school has a majority of people who believe in other faiths. Even in our elementary school you could get harry potter and such. Then they are other type of books which would drive those Christian parents mad. For crying out loud, let all the books be in the library, and it would be up to the child to pick them. Just because you don't want your child to read those books, does not mean you others can't.

The gay topic should be talked about after grade 4. Even in Liberal Canada we don't teach kids about sex and stuff until grade 4.

state schools are invariably useless institutions, so on that ground, so would anyone who had their children's interests at heart.

i think that schools should not be teaching kids about sex issues that early. period. they are too young.
I dont disagree with it being taught however, but it needs to be at an older age. And the parents should be the ones who approve or disapprove of their children learning it in school, because it should be up to the parents to decide when and where they learn it.

The school needs to respect the wishes of the father. Whether or not they believe that his intentions are out of ignorance, it is HIS child, and HE is legally the one who is allowed to make these decisions, not the school. The school does not have the right to not remove the child from the discussion if the father has requested it.


But situations like this is no reason to homeschool a child. Important social skills can only be learned through interaction with other children, they cant be taught.

but why? I sincerely dont get it... why?
bcuz they'll ask questions?? kids ask questions about EVERY thing.. what's so special about homosexuality?

over controling Parents+School=****ed up kids, and school

I think that social interaction skill learning just resulted in mental and physical scars on my part.

Originally posted by IceWithin
but why? I sincerely dont get it... why?
bcuz they'll ask questions?? kids ask questions about EVERY thing.. what's so special about homosexuality?

Beacsue its a topic of cebate and not all parents are comfortable with making a government employee, a virtual stranger to the family, tell the child what is right and wrong with a highly controversial topic.
Maybe these teachers should be more concerned about teaching the children something like maybe ...oooohhhh reading and writing? Perhaps math?
This country's tests scores are in the virtual arm pit of the civilized world, whats wrong with teaching the kids to be smart in their acedemics rather than shoving social doctrine down their throats when the real responsibility for that rests on the shoulders of the parents.

First of all, I think homeschooling is a bad idea. I've known three people in my life that were taught at home. All three of these kids were in one way or another totally socially inept. Two of them were brothers in my old neighborhood and the third was a guy I used to hang out with socially when I was older. All three of them were either totally out of control and hyper active or totally timid and afraid to open up around people. So, I would advise against it. I think the school experience not only teaches you academics, but social development.

As for the book. I think the parent does have a right to say what his child should or shouldn't be taught. But, if he doesn't want his kid to learn what they're teaching, then he can take his kid out of school. Hell, send him to catholic school. That's about as sexually repressed as you can get.

And the dad says that he doesn't have a problem with homosexuality, but if he didn't clearly he would have raised this issue. He's just afraid he might acually have to answer a question about it. Since he doesn't understand it, he is outraged by it. God forbid the kid understand another way of life. God forbid he not be raised to think it's evil or abnormal.

I disagree with your statement that homeschooling is harmfull. I think it is a given they should still have contact with peers their age and have friends but being hometaught does not equal someone lacking socialy like you suggest.
My good friend was home taught and he is probably smarter more articulate and more thoughtfull than a good chunk of people his age, you can site that on whatever you want, but he came out ok and had plenty of friends outside of his home he could hang out with after his studies were done.
I think as well if you home teach your kids you can give them real standards in learning, not this wimpy type of schooling you get in public schools. If your kids are smart enough they should be able to move at their own speed and progress as fast as they can for their age. If i have a highly intelligent kid I do not expect them to fidgit in class bored because the rest of the class is playing catch up with the level he is at. That is one reason i was very unhappy at school, is because they seemed to go over the same material over and over without really progressing at the rate i needed.
If i have a boy/girl or several i want to make sure some stranger to me is not teaching them morals as THEY see fit without my consent, and even more so I want them to be able to thrive and grow at their own rate. Simple as that

Originally posted by moviejunkie23
I disagree with your statement that homeschooling is harmfull. I think it is a given they should still have contact with peers their age and have friends but being hometaught does not equal someone lacking socialy like you suggest.
My good friend was home taught and he is probably smarter more articulate and more thoughtfull than a good chunk of people his age, you can site that on whatever you want, but he came out ok and had plenty of friends outside of his home he could hang out with after his studies were done.
I think as well if you home teach your kids you can give them real standards in learning, not this wimpy type of schooling you get in public schools. If your kids are smart enough they should be able to move at their own speed and progress as fast as they can for their age. If i have a highly intelligent kid I do not expect them to fidgit in class bored because the rest of the class is playing catch up with the level he is at. That is one reason i was very unhappy at school, is because they seemed to go over the same material over and over without really progressing at the rate i needed.
If i have a boy/girl or several i want to make sure some stranger to me is not teaching them morals as THEY see fit without my consent, and even more so I want them to be able to thrive and grow at their own rate. Simple as that

That's cool. We've met different people in our lives. But, I never said they weren't intelligent, I said they were lacking social skills. The hyperactive kid was the kind of guy that would ask you if he could have the new toy your mother had just gotten you. You know the type. I'm sure the parents have a lot of influence on how the kid taught at home turns out. I don't really think it's harmful. Kids grow up and they will eventually learn the social skills they didn't have when they were younger. At least I hope they do.

As for school, yeah, it was boring at times. That's why I got in trouble when I was younger. Because I would start talking and playing around.

Yea i guess it depends on each situation, if your homw taught and have no peers for friends in the outside world you are going to appear awkward in the least when you get older, that is true.
Yea i think public school is an insult, thats just me i guess. It treats the kids as if they all learn at the same speed (wich is bogus) and they tend to instill their own ideas of right and wrong within the child wich we have discussed ealier and i don't agree with that either
This is not to say you can't tunr out ok i guess its just my personal preferance if i ever have children myself

I won't homeschool my kids, but that's just 'coz I don't want the little running around the house all day. Get to school! *kick*

but seriously, I don't think they should be getting taught about ANY sexuality at age 6!!

Originally posted by Klogz
I won't homeschool my kids, but that's just 'coz I don't want the little running around the house all day. Get to school! *kick*

but seriously, I don't think they should be getting taught about ANY sexuality at age 6!! I'm just curious.. why does it say "" where you cursed instead of ****?

its amazing how many times its been stated that the 'gay lesson' was nothing more than incidental characters (two of many) in a book which was not assigned to those kids. it was never 'taught' or 'forced' only available as people like to repeat over and over.

so i guess this is an attempt at enforced ignorance?

Originally posted by PVS
its amazing how many times its been stated that the 'gay lesson' was nothing more that incidental characters in a book which was not assigned to those kids. it was never 'taught' or 'forced' only available as people like to repeat over and over.

so i guess this is an attempt at enforced ignorance?

sure man this is to enforce ignorance, anyone who disagrees with how the teacher runs things should be hauled off and thrown into jail no questions asked and fined a thousand dollars if you don't like that they can have opened planned discussions on their view of a certain sexuality and teach if its good or bad as they see fit.. How else are we gonna have control in society and have the government determine what is acceptable in class and what is not? Afterall if you disagree with the government institution you should be repremanded imediatley.....right?

You are completely correct about public schools.

I'm homeschooled... but its because I live in China and I don't understand chinese schools

but I'm totally normal... as far as I know

Originally posted by moviejunkie23
sure man this is to enforce ignorance, anyone who disagrees with how the teacher runs things should be hauled off and thrown into jail no questions asked and fined a thousand dollars if you don't like that they can have opened planned discussions on their view of a certain sexuality and teach if its good or bad as they see fit.. How else are we gonna have control in society and have the government determine what is acceptable in class and what is not? Afterall if you disagree with the government institution you should be repremanded imediatley.....right?

How many times must this be explained?

This is not an issue of teachers having open, planned discussions of sexuality with kindergarteners; This did not happen and is not happening.

David Parker's son simply picked out the book, Who Is a Family, which "catalogues a variety of multicultural contemporary family units, including those with single parents, lesbian and gay parents, mixed-race couples, grandparents and divorced parents," and brought it home to read.

Some families have a mom and a dad, some have only a mom or a dad, and some have two moms or two dads. Sometimes moms and dads don't live together. Sometimes kids have parents and step-parents. And sometimes kids live with their grandparents or another person who takes care of them.

Surely, a teacher should not take a position on whether any of these relationships or arrangements are right or wrong.

Therefore, should the subject of homosexual relationships spontaneoulsy arise, i.e. in the case of a student mentioning that he or she has gay parents, a teacher has the responsibility to teach that such relationships are not right or wrong, but simply different.

but do u think kids shoud be taught about homosexuality at that age?

Sure, I heard they're teaching The Art of Witch Sacrifice in grammar school in Massachussetts, too, because at one time it was legal.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
How many times must this be explained?

This is not an issue of teachers having open, planned discussions of sexuality with kindergarteners; This did not happen and is not happening.

David Parker's son simply picked out the book, Who Is a Family, which "catalogues a variety of multicultural contemporary family units, including those with single parents, lesbian and gay parents, mixed-race couples, grandparents and divorced parents," and brought it home to read.

Some families have a mom and a dad, some have only a mom or a dad, and some have two moms or two dads. Sometimes moms and dads don't live together. Sometimes kids have parents and step-parents. And sometimes kids live with their grandparents or another person who takes care of them.

Surely, a teacher should not take a position on whether any of these relationships or arrangements are right or wrong.

Therefore, should the subject of homosexual relationships spontaneoulsy arise, i.e. in the case of a student mentioning that he or she has gay parents, a teacher has the responsibility to teach that such relationships are not right or wrong, but simply different.

Adam Poe i hear you, but your not seeing the bigger picture. This man was denoed that APLANNED.....let me say it one more time....A PLANNED meeting would not be denied and they would not notify him. But we are not just talking about this case. This is a microcasim of a much larger picture. When you can get arrested and fined a thousand dollars for insisting that teachers respect your wishes as a parent not to have....PLANNED....discussion on homosexuality there is something very wrong.
Its not just this case either. I have heard about teachers that had children recide muslim prayers to let the child be aware of islam and so they will be tolerant of it when they get older. How would you feel if a teacher made your child recite prayers to jesus christ? This is not just about this one case , this is about overall how the public school system is taking it upon themselves what to teach to the children is right and wrong, and that is not their job.
I will say it one more time, these kids need math and reading and writing skills allot more than they need to know somwhere out there a man and a man kiss like mommy and daddy do, and that their is a religeon where woman were masks over their faces and we should all be open and loving to them. Leave that for the parent to decide.
Otherwise open up your math books to page 1, its time to get serios about education.

Originally posted by botankus
Sure, I heard they're teaching The Art of Witch Sacrifice in grammar school in Massachussetts, too, because at one time it was legal.

omfg.. ppl surprise me here sometimes...
ure SERIOUSLY comaring Homosexuality to Witchcraft sacrifices

u have issues

Originally posted by IceWithin
omfg.. ppl surprise me here sometimes...
ure SERIOUSLY comaring Homosexuality to Witchcraft sacrifices

u have issues

Yes, I'm SERIOUSLY doing that, because I don't believe in posting sarcasm!

Now go back to your little Thirteen movie you're so hell-bent on in the Movie Discussion forum so you can figure out how to act when you reach that age.

well with all due respect mister botankus it wouldnt surprise me if u were saying that for real..

and maybe u shoud stop acting like an old man and realize urem 24

Originally posted by IceWithin
realize urem 24

With all due respect, what the **** does this translate to?

"ure an old person wanna be"

merriam webster

I don't get it. From the "ure" all the way to the smilie.
How old do you consider old? Fifty? Fifteen?

You don't have to answer, this really is PM stuff and shouldn't be in this thread.

from 40 + and u started it

Well, I'm 29.

Back on topic, I know a few people who were homeschooled and though they are good people, they seem kind of sheltered.

You shuld kill yourself and then let your kids play with your genitals

Originally posted by botankus
Well, I'm 29.

Back on topic, I know a few people who were homeschooled and though they are good people, they seem kind of sheltered.

I know, I checked ure profile and I meant that u act as if u were old

***
yes homeschooled kids turn out to be cool, I am homeschooled!
well kinda... I study with this school > www.trentschools.com
and I dont go to school casue I dont understand

Originally posted by moviejunkie23
sure man this is to enforce ignorance, anyone who disagrees with how the teacher runs things should be hauled off and thrown into jail no questions asked and fined a thousand dollars if you don't like that they can have opened planned discussions on their view of a certain sexuality and teach if its good or bad as they see fit.. How else are we gonna have control in society and have the government determine what is acceptable in class and what is not? Afterall if you disagree with the government institution you should be repremanded imediatley.....right?

that is for him to take up with the board of education, not make a homophobic spectacle of himself and disrupt that particular school.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
How many times must this be explained?

This is not an issue of teachers having open, planned discussions of sexuality with kindergarteners; This did not happen and is not happening.

David Parker's son simply picked out the book, Who Is a Family, which "catalogues a variety of multicultural contemporary family units, including those with single parents, lesbian and gay parents, mixed-race couples, grandparents and divorced parents," and brought it home to read.

Some families have a mom and a dad, some have only a mom or a dad, and some have two moms or two dads. Sometimes moms and dads don't live together. Sometimes kids have parents and step-parents. And sometimes kids live with their grandparents or another person who takes care of them.

Surely, a teacher should not take a position on whether any of these relationships or arrangements are right or wrong.

Therefore, should the subject of homosexual relationships spontaneoulsy arise, i.e. in the case of a student mentioning that he or she has gay parents, a teacher has the responsibility to teach that such relationships are not right or wrong, but simply different.

No offense..but should we really be talking with 3 year olds about sexuality? I mean damb..I really think some common sense should be used in these topics. The whole idea of "accepting all lifestyles" I think has been blown out of proportion in the US. I believe everyone should be more "tolerant" yes..but as far as "accepting" I don't know about that..

Anyway..the Public schools really shouldn't have to be involved in this kind of subject. Parents should be teaching their kids this stuff. I hate when government forcefully mandates these teachings...and then tries to pass themselves off as being neutral on the subject..If they really want to be neutral..just don't bring it up at all..and let Parents decide what's best for their children.

Originally posted by PVS
that is for him to take up with the board of education, not make a homophobic spectacle of himself and disrupt that particular school.

I do believe the guy took the situation a little bit out of proportion..but I can understand his frustration. What right does the government have to tell him that he can't teach his child what he wants to teach him? That's completely insane. He really shouldn't have to go as far as the board of education to make a simple request such as "When the topic of sexuality comes up, I want my child taken out of class.." I mean damb..how much do they even talk about stuff like that in Elementary School? I'm almost certain that they set up definitive times to talk about things like that. If they don't, then I really think someone needs to evaluate what's going on in that classroom...seriously.

its amazing. you can tattoo the truth on their forheads and they'll still post with an arguement based entirely on assumption and not fact.
god forbid we should all take the time to read the article and know what the topic is about.

I'm really thinking that very few people have bothered to actually READ the article.

The kid checked out a book from the school library that showed many different kinds of families. THAT WAS ALL. The school was not teaching that homosexuality is right or wrong or anything. A teacher didn't make the kid check out that book, he did by himself.

Originally posted by Lana
I'm really thinking that very few people have bothered to actually READ the article.

The kid checked out a book from the school library that showed many different kinds of families. THAT WAS ALL. The school was not teaching that homosexuality is right or wrong or anything. A teacher didn't make the kid check out that book, he did by himself.

dont waste your time lana. its been repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over........and to no avail.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
No offense..but should we really be talking with 3 year olds about sexuality? I mean damb..I really think some common sense should be used in these topics. The whole idea of "accepting all lifestyles" I think has been blown out of proportion in the US. I believe everyone should be more "tolerant" yes..but as far as "accepting" I don't know about that..

Anyway..the Public schools really shouldn't have to be involved in this kind of subject. Parents should be teaching their kids this stuff. I hate when government forcefully mandates these teachings...and then tries to pass themselves off as being neutral on the subject..If they really want to be neutral..just don't bring it up at all..and let Parents decide what's best for their children.

But, the point is that parents aren't teaching about these things at home. I know that this is a touchy subject in America today. But what about tomorrow? The people on this board who have a problem with homosexuality will think I'm insane for saying this, but if parents won't teach acceptance and equality, then maybe the public school system should. No, I don't think that students at the age of three should be taught anything about sexuality..homosexual, heterosexual, bi, etc. But, there comes a time when these things will be brought to their attention. And besides, do you think the parent that hates gays is going to refrain from using words like f*cking F*g! or queer mother f*cker in front of their kids, no matter what the childs age is? Maybe the influence of the forced acceptance in the public school system could act as a counter weight in the development of their personality and opinion towards homosexuality. I would say that the greatest hurddle that gays have to overcome is "normal" people understanding the aspect that we are part of normal life. I'm not going to debate the meaning of the word normal. But, it is a fact that gays exist. You could kill us all, but there will be more. We're never going to go away. As a result, that means we are part of the everyday world.

Actually, frankly, I totally disagree that parents should be able to veto what their children are taught. I think that's a terrible idea.

Education is a legal responsibility and it is broader than just literacy.

A major problem in this world is lack of tolerance, and it should be taught at an early age.

If parents don't want that- I don't think public services should care a tiny toss about their wishes. It is not their right to dictate mandatory state education. That is the whole point of education being divorced from the family.

I think schools teaching tolerance of homosexuality is fine, just not that early. Give em a few more years, till they can truly understand the situation.

I don't see the value of waiting. People learn the bases of these values at a very early age. It is hardly as if these are sophisticated, in-depth discussions about the nature of sexuality- it is simply the creation of an environment where tolerance is normal.

If the kids are too young to understand what homosexuality is, they can't really be tolerant of it no matter what.

But they can be tolerant of difference- seeing nothing inherently wrong about a family with two fathers, for example. The hows and whys of that situation, you can look at that later, but the NORMALITY of it, you can learn at very early age.

But if you tell them sometimes two dad's love eachother instead of a mom and a dad, of course they are going to be curious of the why's and how's. Little kids never just accept "because they just do" as an answer, that's why people make up lies about storks bringing babies and all that nonsense.

Sorry, but actually, kids DO respond to a tolerant environment- they will see it as normal.

If you have books for the kids of that age with heterosexual parents in, it is endemically prejudiced to exclude any with homosexual ones in. That is drawing a difference of validity which invites intolerance.

It's not different. They are both valid. There is no reason to quarantine kids from it. If they are given no reason to think it is different they won't question it.

Then you can get onto the matter of sexuality itself come sex ed time.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Sorry, but actually, kids DO respond to a tolerant environment- they will see it as normal.

If you have books for the kids of that age with heterosexual parents in, it is endemically prejudiced to exclude any with homosexual ones in. That is drawing a difference of validity which invites intolerance.

It's not different. They are both valid. There is no reason to quarantine kids from it. If they are given no reason to think it is different they won't question it.

Then you can get onto the matter of sexuality itself come sex ed time.

But, the problem comes when little Billy goes home and tells his dad that his teacher was talking about a little girl with two daddies. It isn't the kid that has to know more, it's the parents. The parents will ask what the teacher said, why the teacher said it and if little Billy knows WHY the little girl has two daddies. Little Billy is going to wonder why, but like so many things in life, kids just wonder. So, the school might not tell little Billy that the little girl has two daddies because there is such a thing as homosexuality and what that implies, but the parents know why the little girl has two daddies. That's where the shit storm starts. And few teachers are going to rick their job to teach tolerance. That is why I applaud the superintendant in this story. Even though there was no teacher responsible for the kid getting the book, but he still refused to side with the parent who wanted the child to be sheltered. Society as a whole is going to have to change. And if society isn't willing to change for the better, then why not force it to change?

As long as most kids have heterosexual parents and have been around mostly heterosexuals, homosexuality will appear different no matter how many books the kids read.

I see where you're going, maybe you could have books or whatever with two dads instead of a mom and a dad or whatever but even if you did I doubt the kid would even think about the fact that they are gay unless you directly told them so. What I mean is that if a kid sees two male parents in a book, they still aren't going to grasp the fact that they are supposed to be just like a mom and dad and will probably just assume they are good friends. Therefore, the kid really still wouldn't be any more prepared for tolerance of homosexuality because they still haven't grasped the fact that they are supposed to love each other like their moms and dads do.

I'm not saying it couldn't work, just that I think it would most likely just lead to confusion and more questions. I think a better age would be about 3rd-4th grade.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
As long as most kids have heterosexual parents and have been around mostly heterosexuals, homosexuality will appear different no matter how many books the kids read.

That's where the parents have to come into play. When they see two guys walking down the street holding hands, don't cover your kids eyes or move to the other side of the street. Let the kid see. The big problem here is that parents are afraid to be parents. They don't want to answer questions.

It reminds me of this parenting helpline thats out there now. If you can't raise kids, then you shouldn't be a parent. It seems to me that parents in this day and age have just as much growing up to do as the kids their failing at raising.

Yeah I agree society needs to stop considering it to be "taboo." I think it'll happen in time. I mean 50 years ago you couldn't say pregnant on TV, now look at us..

............
Do you see now what the 60's has done?

Originally posted by PVS
its amazing. you can tattoo the truth on their forheads and they'll still post with an arguement based entirely on assumption and not fact.
god forbid we should all take the time to read the article and know what the topic is about.


Maybe you should take a little bit of your own advice..check out an excerpt from the article...



Perhaps you should "re-read" before you "assume" I'm arguing something that's not mentioned. The man clearly asked for his child to be "pulled" from discussions involving the sexual topics. Now answer my question...why is that an unreasable request? And how the hell would or could a topic such as human "sexuality" come up in a normal/"spontaneous" discussions during "Elementary School"?

As far as the man's demand to pull the book from the school..I thought about it for a while..and believe that he really wasn't being all that unreasonable. After all..he is a "taxpayer" and his money..like the rest of us "hardworking" American's money goes to fund the public eduction system.

I believe another postee stated that the Goverment should have the right to mandate/teach various lifestyles so that children learn to "accept them". If that's the case, then the Government should also have a unit teaching various religious doctrines as well right?

God forbid you answer that question..the minute any one even see's something reminiscent of any "Religious" doctrine in the schools now a days...some nutcase will go in as this man did..with the same drive and passion..and demand that the government pull the book from the school..hell if I do recall...I believe this has already happened...it goes both ways my friend. My point is that the Government should not be "mandating/determining" which lifestyles are acceptable...and which one's are not. This is a free nation..and we should all be allowed to teach or children what "we want" to teach them..as long as we're not breaking any laws or infringing upon any one else's personal rights in the process.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Maybe you should take a little bit of your own advice..check out an excerpt from the article...



Perhaps you should "re-read" before you "assume" I'm arguing something that's not mentioned in the article. The man clearly asked for his child to be "pulled" from discussions involving the sexual topics. Now answer my question...why is that an unreasable request? And how the hell would or could a topic such as human "sexuality" come up in a normal/"spontaneous" discussions during "Elementary School"?

As far as the man's demand to pull the book from the school..I thought about it for a while..and believe that he really wasn't being all that unreasonable. After all..he is a "taxpayer" and his money..like the rest of us "hardworking" American's money goes to fund the public eduction system.

I believe another postee stated that the Goverment should have the right to mandate/teach various lifestyles so that children learn to "accept them". If that's the case, then the Government should also have a unit teaching various religious doctrines as well right?

God forbid you answer that question..the minute any one even see's something reminiscent of any "Religious" doctrine in the schools now a days...some nutcase will go in as this man did..with the same drive and passion..and demand that the government pull the book from the school..hell if I do recall...I believe this has already happened...it goes both ways my friend. My point is that the Government should not be "mandating/determining" which lifestyles are acceptable...and which one's are not. This is a free nation..and we should all be allowed to teach or children what "we want" to teach them..as long as we're not breaking any laws or infringing upon any one else's personal rights in the process.



I hope someone gives you an honest response and responds to what you have said instead of snaking around your points. That was articulated very well man
WHOB-

Originally posted by moviejunkie23


I hope someone gives you an honest response and responds to what you have said instead of snaking around your points. That was articulated very well man
WHOB-

Thanks..but you know the nature of these boards. No one ever comes up with a direct/honest reply..lol...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Thanks..but you know the nature of these boards. No one ever comes up with a direct/honest reply..lol...

Yea i have noticed that, though are allot of people on here as well that seem to make good points and meet you at yours as well. First thing that comes to mind is while i was chatting about one thing awile ago me and Afro Cheese had a differnce on a topic and Afro Cheese seemed to be actually listening to what i posted and had some good points of his own to bring to the table.

Anyway i shoudn;t divert this thread to get away from the subject at hand, I would like to hear a well thought out opposing view to that last point because i think you hit the bullzeye, at least for my point of view

Originally posted by whobdamandog
And how the hell would or could a topic such as human "sexuality" come up in a normal/"spontaneous" discussions during "Elementary School"? I agree. There need be no discussion of sex in any grade before the sixth, and even then it should really only involve the changes in life that are beginning to occur at that point.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
As far as the man's demand to pull the book from the school..I thought about it for a while..and believe that he really wasn't being all that unreasonable. After all..he is a "taxpayer" and his money..like the rest of us "hardworking" American's money goes to fund the public eduction system.

What about taxpayers who don't mind if their children know of alternative family structures? As for the taxpayer, all taxpayers money is funneled in some aspect to public education. The 80 year old widow, who doesn't have children pays for public education. My parents paid taxes for public education, despite the fact that I went to private school my whole life. So, my parents paid for two educations. One of which I didn't benefit from.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I believe another postee stated that the Goverment should have the right to mandate/teach various lifestyles so that children learn to "accept them". If that's the case, then the Government should also have a unit teaching various religious doctrines as well right?

First of all, I hate the term lifestyle. Second, there is a seperation of church and state. If you want your kids to learn about religion, then send them to private school, where they are allowed to teach anything they want.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
God forbid you answer that question..the minute any one even see's something reminiscent of any "Religious" doctrine in the schools now a days...some nutcase will go in as this man did..with the same drive and passion..and demand that the government pull the book from the school..hell if I do recall...I believe this has already happened...it goes both ways my friend. My point is that the Government should not be "mandating/determining" which lifestyles are acceptable...and which one's are not. This is a free nation..and we should all be allowed to teach or children what "we want" to teach them..as long as we're not breaking any laws or infringing upon any one else's personal rights in the process.

It does not go both ways. Yes, this is a free nation. I have no problem with people believing in god. In fact, I wouldn't have a problem with the aspects of different religions being taught in public schools. But, not at the expense of open mindedness. But, you can't just teach about christianity. If religion is going to be taught in school, it can't just be christianity.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Maybe you should take a little bit of your own advice..check out an excerpt from the article...



Perhaps you should "re-read" before you "assume" I'm arguing something that's not mentioned. The man clearly asked for his child to be "pulled" from discussions involving the sexual topics. Now answer my question...why is that an unreasable request? And how the hell would or could a topic such as human "sexuality" come up in a normal/"spontaneous" discussions during "Elementary School"?

a whole lotta backpeddling. you said that it was instructed in the kids class:


Originally posted by whobdamandog
No offense..but should we really be talking with 3 year olds about sexuality?....

...I hate when government forcefully mandates these teachings...and then tries to pass themselves off as being neutral on the subject..If they really want to be neutral..just don't bring it up at all...

you made a false assumption and thats that. so no need to get all defensive. im glad you finally read the article though

Yes he did read the article, and he also pointed out there was variables from it that were additional to the book. Something that allot of people in this thread are trying to ignore.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I agree. There need be no discussion of sex in any grade before the sixth, and even then it should really only involve the changes in life that are beginning to occur at that point.


lol..well its good to see that we agree on something..lets move on..




This is where it gets tricky..at least from a legal standpoint. I'm not a lawyer, but with many pertinent "social" issues there is usually some sort of vote based on "popular" opinion. One problem is that a lot of people who complain about these issues, were never present during the period in which these issues were initially presented.

But it's not completely the general public's fault for not keeping up to date with these important topics. The media adds to the confusion and misinformation process by not deeming these "social issues" as important...and only choosing to air topics they deem "newsworthy".



I agree..but when you "mandate" that an individual's child must learn about a topic that goes against their "religious" idealogy..then your essentially imposing upon that individuals "religious freedom"



Yes it does. I don't advocate the government teaching what they believe to be right and wrong..at least from a "moral perspective"
Kids should come to school to learn about academics...they don't need to get a lesson on "morality." That topic should be handled by their parents.

I understand that some children have really crappy parents, who obviously don't fufill their parental duties. But when the government takes a pro active stance as to which side they want to take in the "morality" debate..then they had better realize that they themselves are infringing upon the "individual" legal rights of the people that they are sworn to protect.

Originally posted by PVS
A whole lotta backpeddling. you said that it was instructed in the kids class:


And a whole lot of not being able to read..once again..read my quote carefully this time....



Show me where it specifically states that the Teacher "instructed" the classroom about the topic of sexuality..Oh whoops..your bad..it doesn't. Now let's try again..make sure you read the quote from the original article..carefully this time..as you can see my reply was directly in response to this statement..(hint: the statement is in bold..)



Why was the second request unreasonable? You still haven't answered the question. To take one from the fool's guidebook to debating..it's quite obvious that you made a...



As you can see..like yourself..I'm very good at playing with words..but unlike you..I'm also good at adressing the actual arguments..

Actually now that I think about it...it would have just made more sense for the father to pull his child from the school. Rather than to have him pulled from class each time the issue came up. (and it would have..kids that age ask all kinds of questions) I can definately see as to how it could lead to all types of problems for the kid from the teachers/students(teasing, bullying,etc,etc) each time he was pulled from the classroom during these subjects. Regardless of this, I still believe the father had the "right" to his request, the school however, did not have the "right" to deny it.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
This is where it gets tricky..at least from a legal standpoint. I'm not a lawyer, but with many pertinent "social" issues there is usually some sort of vote based on "popular" opinion. One problem is that a lot of people who complain about these issues, were never present during the period in which these issues were initially presented.

But it's not completely the general public's fault for not keeping up to date with these important topics. The media adds to the confusion and misinformation process by not deeming these "social issues" as important...and only choosing to air topics they deem "newsworthy". I am one to believe that if the public does not exercise it's power, they deserve what they get. If the last two elections have taught us anything, it's that inaction has a price. The same can be said of the parents of students in public school. If a school has 2000 students, that's potentially 4000 parents. If a parent isn't part of the PTA, never attends school meetings, doesn't meet with teachers about their student, and in general doesn't care to interact with the student on matters of their school life, then they should not suddenly become so interested when gay people, evolution or creationism are introduced into the picture



Originally posted by whobdamandog
I agree..but when you "mandate" that an individual's child must learn about a topic that goes against their "religious" idealogy..then your essentially imposing upon that individuals "religious freedom" Again, have your children educated elsewhere. Contributing adults pay taxes for schools in every part of this country. No one is saying that kids can't pray in school. I'm saying that not all the other students should be made to pray with them, or take a moment of silence. If such a practice does not benefit everyone involved, then in this country it shouldn't benefit any of them.



Originally posted by whobdamandog
Yes it does. I don't advocate the government teaching what they believe to be right and wrong..at least from a "moral perspective"
Kids should come to school to learn about academics...they don't need to get a lesson on "morality." That topic should be handled by their parents. But that is what is fast approaching, a country where everyone will either be "with us" or against us". It fast approaching a time where a side will have to be picked. And unfortunately there are only two sides at this point. It's too bad that religion is the banner that one of the two sides has made their own, and only theirs. Because when it comes right down to it, people will side with their god before their countrymen.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I understand that some children have really crappy parents, who obviously don't fufill their parental duties. But when the government takes a pro active stance as to which side they want to take in the "morality" debate..then they had better realize that they themselves are infringing upon the "individual" legal rights of the people that they are sworn to protect. No argument here.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I am one to believe that if the public does not exercise it's power, they deserve what they get. If the last two elections have taught us anything, it's that inaction has a price. The same can be said of the parents of students in public school. If a school has 2000 students, that's potentially 4000 parents. If a parent isn't part of the PTA, never attends school meetings, doesn't meet with teachers about their student, and in general doesn't care to interact with the student on matters of their school life, then they should not suddenly become so interested when gay people, evolution or creationism are introduced into the picture


It's good to see that we can represent our beliefs in a positive way, even though we have opposing "moral" views on the subject. Even though I don't agree with you from a "moral" perspective, I have to admit you hit the nail right on the head with your points. If people don't exercise their rights or get involved..then they only have themselves to blame in the end.




This is where I'm going to have to disagree with you once again..many religious doctrines are against various "lifestyle" choices taught in public schools. By a schools mandating that these "lifestyles" be taught to a child, and not allowing a parent to withdraw their child from these types of lessons which go against their "religious" beliefs..they are violating the parent and the child's "religious freedoms"...




And I have to admit your right once again..but at the same time..please realize that the current administration doesn't represent the true "Christian" doctrine..they are only accepting of people who are exactly like them. These people can be broken down into three different groups..those groups being..

1. The rich
2. The powerful
3. The white..

I am a Christian..and I know that My God is a God who is equally composed of Love, Righteousness, Truth, Acceptance, Forgiveness, and Mercy. I in no way condone homosexuality, abortion, or anything that goes against what my religion teaches, however, I do realize that I am no better than anyone else who is not of my religion, and that I'm in need of forgiveness, mercy, and acceptance just as the next guy.

This has been a fun debate Capt Fantastic..I've definitely enjoyed it..peace out my friend..

Originally posted by whobdamandog
This is where I'm going to have to disagree with you once again..many religious doctrines are against various "lifestyle" choices taught in public schools. By a schools mandating that these "lifestyles" be taught to a child, and not allowing a parent to withdraw their child from these types of lessons which go against their "religious" beliefs..they are violating the parent and the child's "religious freedoms"...

But it is also contrary to this country's principles if those who have no religious doctrine are not taken into consideration as well. Religious freedoms must not be enforced. Despite the founding fathers being religious men, I feel they also respected the rights of those not to have faith in any organized religion. I also feel that many people think the same way you do, in that there is this idea that homosexuality is being taught or encouraged. Were that the case, I would be just as outraged as I am that people seem to feel that it should be taught against. And be careful, 'choice' is a strong word in this situation.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
And I have to admit your right once again..but at the same time..please realize that the current administration doesn't represent the true "Christian" doctrine..they are only accepting of people who are exactly like them. These people can be broken down into three different groups..those groups being..

1. The rich
2. The powerful
3. The white..

I am a Christian..and I know that My God is a God who is equally composed of Love, Righteousness, Truth, Acceptance, Forgiveness, and Mercy. I in no way condone homosexuality, abortion, or anything that goes against what my religion teaches, however, I do realize that I am no better than anyone else who is not of my religion, and that I'm in need of forgiveness, mercy, and acceptance just as the next guy.

This has been a fun debate Capt Fantastic..I've definitely enjoyed it..peace out my friend..

You are right, as I have said many times myself, this administration is most insideous in it's use of the christian right. In fact, I don't think it's the administration using the conservative christian right so much as I feel it is the christian right using the administration to accomplish their goals. They are perfect bedfellows. You will not hear an argument from me in regards to this administration not being true christians. However, they have convinced a huge majority of christians to believe they are representing them and their values.

There is one group you missed on your list: christians. And in reality, all four are really the same group.

It's okay if you don't condone homosexuality. I don't need anyone to condone my existance, not even god. But, it is when the lack of simple respect for the existance of another person is left on the side lines that this country truely fails it's own citizens. Christians can hold all the views they believe to be the basis of their faith. However, it is when those beliefs become the forced doctrine of the rest of the nation and the basis for the denial of rights to fellow citizens that something must be done. Some relvelation must be reached by those who do not think this way; a revelation that will force them to stand up, not for those who are gay or black or poor or muslim or without social security or medicare. Not for the democratic party or the republican party. But to ensure that they, and those who come after them, will know they live in a country where the rights of those who are different from those in power are not arbitrary. Rights in this country are not gifts. They are guarenteed as citizens of this country.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Maybe you should take a little bit of your own advice..check out an excerpt from the article...

Let us examine your posts. The following is your response to my last post:

Originally posted by whobdamandog
No offense..but should we really be talking with 3 year olds about sexuality? I mean damb..I really think some common sense should be used in these topics. The whole idea of "accepting all lifestyles" I think has been blown out of proportion in the US. I believe everyone should be more "tolerant" yes..but as far as "accepting" I don't know about that..

Anyway..the Public schools really shouldn't have to be involved in this kind of subject. Parents should be teaching their kids this stuff. I hate when government forcefully mandates these teachings...and then tries to pass themselves off as being neutral on the subject. If they really want to be neutral..just don't bring it up at all..and let Parents decide what's best for their children.

Clearly, the implication of this post is that inappropriate discussions of sexuality are taking place in the classroom, despite the fact that there is no evidence of this in either of the articles posted in this thread.

Therefore, it would seem that PVS is correct in his response that your argument does not truly reflect the subject matter of the article, but rather, assumptions you have made from the article.




Originally posted by whobdamandog
Perhaps you should "re-read" before you "assume" I'm arguing something that's not mentioned. The man clearly asked for his child to be "pulled" from discussions involving the sexual topics. Now answer my question...why is that an unreasable request? And how the hell would or could a topic such as human "sexuality" come up in a normal/"spontaneous" discussions during "Elementary School"?

I suspect the reasons the superintendent denied Donald Parker's request to have his son removed from discussions of sexually in the classroom are:

There are no planned discussions of sexuality in the classroom.


If such a discussion were to occur, it would be spontaneous, i.e. a student mentioning that he or she has gay parents, and therefore, it would be impossible to remove the child from the classroom before something was overheard.




Originally posted by whobdamandog
As far as the man's demand to pull the book from the school..I thought about it for a while..and believe that he really wasn't being all that unreasonable. After all..he is a "taxpayer" and his money..like the rest of us "hardworking" American's money goes to fund the public eduction system.

Gay Americans are also "hard working tax payers".




Originally posted by whobdamandog
I believe another postee stated that the Goverment should have the right to mandate/teach various lifestyles so that children learn to "accept them". If that's the case, then the Government should also have a unit teaching various religious doctrines as well right?

God forbid you answer that question..the minute any one even see's something reminiscent of any "Religious" doctrine in the schools now a days...some nutcase will go in as this man did..with the same drive and passion..and demand that the government pull the book from the school..hell if I do recall...I believe this has already happened...it goes both ways my friend. My point is that the Government should not be "mandating/determining" which lifestyles are acceptable...and which one's are not. This is a free nation..and we should all be allowed to teach or children what "we want" to teach them..as long as we're not breaking any laws or infringing upon any one else's personal rights in the process.

There is a fundamental difference between "teaching religion" and "teaching about religion."

Moreover, a teacher explaining that homosexual relationships are simply different, does not take a position on whether these relationships are right or wrong. A parent would still be free to teach his child whatever he would like to about the morality of such relationships.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Sorry, but actually, kids DO respond to a tolerant environment- they will see it as normal.

If you have books for the kids of that age with heterosexual parents in, it is endemically prejudiced to exclude any with homosexual ones in. That is drawing a difference of validity which invites intolerance.

It's not different. They are both valid. There is no reason to quarantine kids from it. If they are given no reason to think it is different they won't question it.

Then you can get onto the matter of sexuality itself come sex ed time.

exactly, I agree 100%

I think the use of the holodeck would assist greatly in homeschooling.

Homeschooling kids isnt a bad idea. I used to want to do that too. I dont know now, I mean think of all the books and materials and shit you have to have. Not to mention it costs a shit load of money. Then again so does regular schooling..but still. :/

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

Therefore, it would seem that PVS is correct in his response that your argument does not truly reflect the subject matter of the article, but rather, assumptions you have made from the article.

well THANK YOU
i was beginning to think i was experiencing dimensia, and read something that was never there. i was about to call the neurologist and request a cat scan

its a slippery slope to allow people's prejudice to interfere and even negate teachings of tolerance. many of the same people who would be against teaching of tolerance (going beyond the topic of coarse) would also love for the civil rights movement to be relabled 'troubled times' as it were in my 'history' book when i was in grammar school. they would love for darwinism and any theories alluding to evolution be stricken as well. well you dont have to homeschool for that! just send them to catholic school!

how do you expect kids to think and make decisions if you make their decisions for them? if you hate gays so much, then what is more empowering than 'know thy enemy'. its a 'win-win' the way i see it :/ but to teach your kids that something doesnt exist when it in fact does, you promote and enforce their own ignorance. and that is far more hindering than anything the liberals can throw at your children.

as people here have pointed out, homosexuality isnt a trend, and whether its genetic or a product of one's phsyche, they have no choice but to be gay, and thats the heart of the issue. its not 'im against teaching kids about sexuality' its about 'i dont want my kid to know that these goddamn **** exist'. well, while your at it, why not just leave them ignorant of ANYTHING you consider to be 'evil', so that they can believe they live in utopia?

Originally posted by PVS
its a slippery slope to allow people's prejudice to interfere and even negate teachings of tolerance. many of the same people who would be against teaching of tolerance (going beyond the topic of coarse) would also love for the civil rights movement to be relabled 'troubled times' as it were in my 'history' book when i was in grammar school. they would love for darwinism and any theories alluding to evolution be stricken as well. well you dont have to homeschool for that! just send them to catholic school!

how do you expect kids to think and make decisions if you make their decisions for them? if you hate gays so much, then what is more empowering than 'know thy enemy'. its a 'win-win' the way i see it :/ but to teach your kids that something doesnt exist when it in fact does, you promote and enforce their own ignorance. and that is far more hindering than anything the liberals can throw at your children.

as people here have pointed out, homosexuality isnt a trend, and whether its genetic or a product of one's phsyche, they have no choice but to be gay, and thats the heart of the issue. its not 'im against teaching kids about sexuality' its about 'i dont want my kid to know that these goddamn **** exist'. well, while your at it, why not just leave them ignorant of ANYTHING you consider to be 'evil', so that they can believe they live in utopia?

exactly...

its stupid to say they're not old enough to learn abut homosexuality...
"they'll be confused, and they'll ask questions" its not a reasonable answer

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Let us examine your posts. The following is your response to my last post:


Okay..






In no way does it state in either post that the teacher had brought up any topic..in fact I'll go ahead and state right now that I don't believe that the teacher did. However, the fact that the book is easily accessible to any of the children in the school does make it possible for a "spontaneous" discussion to come up..which is what I believe the father was against his child being involved in.

Now that my point is clear..you/PV no longer have to play around with the wording of the post...and can now answer the question that you've continually dodged up to this point..that question being..

Why was this an unreasonbable/unlawful request?

What legal right did the Superintendent have to deny the father's request, regarding pulling his child from any "discussions" that took place in the future? Whether these topics came up spontaneously or not, The father was clearly not imposing upon anyone else's "legal" rights by doing this..

It's now post number 2 where the question in bold has been asked..however it still has yet to be answered..at least from a "legal" perspective...which is what we're supposed to be debating..anything other than that..is a morality/ethics argument.

Originally posted by PVS
its a slippery slope to allow people's prejudice to interfere and even negate teachings of tolerance...


Yes it is..especially when your violating an individual's "legal" rights..the Superintendent's beliefs should not take the place of the beliefs of a child's parents. This is exactly what happened in this situation.



Well this goes both ways..I agree with Captain Fantastic on this. Like it or not..we're facing a culture war. Your view represents the opposing side of mine. Like it or not, your forcing your beliefs/values on children just as much as the "other side."



You really like mis-quoting people, and putting words in peoples mouth that were never actually stated. Once again..it was clearly stated in my previous post that I don't condone "homosexuality". Never did I say that I "hated" anyone. As far as the genetic vs choice arguement goes, this is a seperate issue altogether..and should be used for the subject of another debate.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Why was this an unreasonbable/unlawful request?

it wasnt the request that got him arrested, it was becasue he disrupted the school. thats why he got arrested. thats the ONLY reason he was arrested.

btw, its really stupid to protest in front of the kids like that if you wish to keep them ignorant. it will lead to the question "mommy/daddy/teacher, why is that man out front holding that sign? and...what does 'gay' mean?"

Originally posted by PVS
It wasnt the request that got him arrested, it was becasue he disrupted the school. thats why he got arrested. thats the ONLY reason he was arrested.


Careful..your playing around with wording again. Never stated that he was arrested for his requesting his child to be removed. Good try though..



The father should not have been on school causing a disruption in the way that he did. Anyway he still had a "legal right" to make such a request, and the school had no "legal right" to deny it, seeing as how it did not violate any state/national laws. Anyway..it's post #6(maybe 7 I've lost count) and you still have yet to directly answer the question..

Why was this an unreasonbable/unlawful request?


Please let me know when you choose to do so....

Originally posted by whobdamandog
From a legal standpoint..the father should not have been on school causing a disruption in the way that he did. Anyway from a legal perpsective, he still had a right to make such a request, and the school had no "legal right" to deny it, seeing as how it did not violate state law. Anyway..it's post #6(maybe 7 I've lost count) and you still have yet to directly answer the question..

Why was this an unreasonbable/unlawful request?



it was never implied that it was unlawful for him to request such an action, but you BLATENTLY imply that it should be unlawful for the school to not break at a single parent's request. they said 'no', so tough shit. there is ABSOLUTELY NO LAW that states that the school has to abide by every demand of every parent.

"Anyway from a legal perpsective, he still had a right to make such a request, and the school had no "legal right" to deny it, seeing as how it did not violate state law"

here is your warp in logic. somehow you pull a big switch and turn the issue from the father's right to make a request, into an issue of his right to disrupt class. nice try

you can copy and paste your cute little loaded question all you like, but that doesnt change R-E-A-L-I-T-Y

Originally posted by PVS
it was never implied that it was unlawful for him to request such an action, but you BLATENTLY imply that it should be unlawful for the school to not break at a single parent's request. they said 'no', so tough shit. there is ABSOLUTELY NO LAW that states that the school has to abide by every demand of every parent.

Well according to the law..it is..ever heard of the Constitution..and the Bill of Rights..I believe freedom of religion is mentioned in it..lol..So yeah it was unlawful for them to deny his right to "pull" the child from the class, based on his religious beliefs..just like it would be unlawful for the school to not allow someone to be "pulled" from the class during a class prayer...or during the pledge of allegiance..etc..etc.. It works both ways my friend..I don't understand why you can't see this...




lol..it's obvious that either you can't read..or..you choose to be stubborn and not admit the fact that you've consistantly misrepresented what I've stated. You seem fairly intelligent..so I'm betting its the latter of the 2 "assumptions"

Your logic is warped my friend..my "value system" is just as valid as yours..and as long as I am not violating any laws..I have every right to teach my child the "value system" that I believe in..don't you agree? Don't tell me you don't, or else you'll be contradicting yourself.(which your also very good at by the way)

To take it from the fools guide to debating once again..you can contradict yourself all you like, but it...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So yeah it was unlawful for them to deny his right to "pull" the child from the class, based on his religious beliefs..


they never said he couldnt pull his kid from class. its his right to take his kid out and homechool him. way to switch topics to a giant false assumption.

now i will ignore your petty childish jabs and insults and only state this.
IT IS ILLEGAL TO DISRUPT A SCHOOL------- P-E-R-I-O-D-------

if i go to my local public school and stand outside with a big sign chanting "SAVE THE WHALES!!!!" or "SUPPORT THE WAR!!!" and refuse to leave....guess where i'm going? THATS RIGHT!!!! JAIL!!!!!

I'm going to re-post this "cute" little question once again..and hope that someone can give me a legal answer to it..


Why was this an unreasonbable/unlawful request?


And please respond with something other than the standard "moral" tripe..I thought only "Christians" were the one's who were labeled as "close minded" and "imposing their morality" on others..guess I was wrong..lol..

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I thought only "Christians" were the one's who were labeled as "close minded" and "imposing their morality" on others..guess I was wrong..lol..

Irony is a beautiful thing, isn't it?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Why was this an unreasonbable/unlawful request?


whether or not it was a 'reasonable request' is a matter of opinion.
whether or not it was an 'unlawful request' is in fact NO.

that was answered over and over, yet you choose to ignore, which is very rude and disruptive to the topic. if you ask a question, i would assume you hope for a response. unless thats just a rhetorical question you hope to 'win' your arguement with through the magic of 'copy and paste'.

and i will say yet again, the request was not the cause for his arrest. he disrupted class in a school. THAT is aginst the law. THAT is why he was arrested. why is this so difficult to understand?

whob: You question was answered:

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Why was this an unreasonbable/unlawful request?


Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I suspect the reasons the superintendent denied Donald Parker's request to have his son removed from discussions of sexually in the classroom are:

There are no planned discussions of sexuality in the classroom.


If such a discussion were to occur, it would be spontaneous, i.e. a student mentioning that he or she has gay parents, and therefore, it would be impossible to remove the child from the classroom before something was overheard.

These two factors make a huge impact on the question of legality. The father can't legally request to have his son removed from a classroom activity that is not taking place. Why would the law become involved? Simply to vindicate his anger? There's nothing for the law to become involved in. If a spontaneous discussion should arise, then the father can't be notified...at least not without further disruption to the class. To ask to be notified of a spontaneous discussion is to basically admit that he doesn't know the meaning of the word "spontaneous".

The law did become involved on the sid eof the school because the father was a disruption. He is clearly a rabid anti-homosexuality advocate. The guy is outraged over something his own son chose to expose himself to. Even if the kid didn't know what the book was about, at least that shows he's willing to be open minded and experience new things. Clearly not a value instilled in him by his father.

Christopher Curtis, PlanetOut Network Fri Apr 29, 7:40 PM ET

Police in the Boston suburb of Lexington arrested a father on Wednesday after he refused to leave his 6-year-old son's elementary school over a book that featured a gay family.

The book, "Who's In The Family?" shows children from different types of families, including a family with two fathers. It was included in Estabrook elementary school's bag of books promoting diversity.

David Parker started e-mailing school officials about the subject. The e-mails became so heated the superintendent of Lexington public schools warned him, ''If you are found on Lexington public schools' properties you will be subject to arrest by the Lexington police."

Parker met with Estabrook's principal and district director of instruction on Wednesday and refused to leave school grounds until they would promise that he would be notified when his son was exposed to discussions about same-sex households.

After Parker ignored repeated requests to leave over the course of more than two hours, school officials called the police.

Parker spent the night in jail and was freed after being ordered to stay off school property. He is due back in court June 1.

He spoke to reporters, claiming this was not about hatred, but being a good dad. "What I am saying is, because of the same-sex marriage law, people are treating it as a mandate to teach the youngest of children. It is not a mandate to teach the youngest of children, particularly if parents say, 'Hold on, I want to be the gatekeeper of the information. It is not that I don't want my child to ever learn it, it is I want to control the timing and manner,'" Parker said.

But gay parents who have kids attending the same school as Parker's son say the books are necessary, since no one will be able to control when students will talk about their own families.

"This was done to reflect the fact that our families are at these schools," Meg Soens told the PlanetOut Network. Soens and her spouse, Cecilia d'Olizeira, have four kids enrolled Estabrook Elementary School: two in second grade, two in fifth grade.

"These books are about inclusion and about welcoming all of our families," Soens added. "It's about families; it's not about sex."

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who opposes same-sex marriage, rushed to weigh in on the matter.

"We have in Massachusetts a parental notification statute specifically in matters related to human sexuality. If a parent wants to be informed of what is being taught in a classroom and wants to have their child withdrawn from the classroom for that portion of the class dealing with human sexuality, that parent has the right," Romney said.

However Rachel F. Cortez, co-president of the Estabrook Parent-Teacher Association and a member of the school's anti-bias committee, told the Boston Globe that parents receive notification about the materials in question.

''The kids don't have to take home," she said. ''Parents can either opt out entirely or use whatever materials they want."

Carisa Cunningham, the director of public affairs for the Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), told the PlanetOut Network she thought the books were a good idea.

"Lesbian and gay families are a reality," she said. "The children of lesbian and gay families go to school and they deserve to have their families affirmed just like anyone. And from my understanding this curriculum isn't about sex, it's about families."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/po/dadarrestedinprotestovergaybook

Originally posted by PVS
whether or not it was a 'reasonable request' is a matter of opinion.
whether or not it was an 'unlawful request' is in fact NO.



Good..progress...you finally answered the question directly..Now answer this question:

Was it "legal" for the Superintendent to "deny" the man's "religious request" if it did not violate state/national law?

Damn queers, they're ruining our way of life...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Good..progress...you finally answered the question directly..Now answer this question:

Was it "legal" for the Superintendent to "deny" the man's "religious request" if it did not violate state/national law?


good, more insulting patronising, yet you still only read what you wanted to read and ignored the rest. so i will do you the same honor.

thats right shot all them damn cigarettes..........I am not homophobe

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Good..progress...you finally answered the question directly..Now answer this question:

Was it "legal" for the Superintendent to "deny" the man's "religious request" if it did not violate state/national law?



I know you're not addressing this question to me, but I'm gonna toss my 2 cents into the hat. It's clear that the father isn't talking about religion and neither is the school system. So, religion is a non issue in the story. Religion is not where morals begin and end.

Originally posted by Bardock42
thats right shot all them damn cigarettes..........I am not homophobe


psst...those are called f*gs, not queers

oh ups you see that happens when you are a homosexual hating redneck like me

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
whob: You question was answered:


No it was not. No one has addressed the fact that the man was denied his right to "freely" teach his religious doctrine to his son. By mandating that the child "could not" be "pulled" from these types of discussions, they violated his "religious rights." Pure and simple.

Originally posted by PVS
good, more insulting patronising, yet you still only read what you wanted to read and ignored the rest. so i will do you the same honor.

I'll accept that as a "No."

Originally posted by Bardock42
oh ups you see that happens when you are a homosexual hating redneck like me

lol...do they have rednecks in germany?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
No it was not. No one has addressed the fact that the man was denied his right to "freely" teach his religious doctrine to his son. By mandating that the child "could not" be "pulled" from these types of discussions, they violated his "religious rights." Pure and simple.

This is not a matter of religion. No one on either side of the situation has brought religion into it.

why bother capt?
to scream at the wall would be time better spent.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
lol...do they have rednecks in germany?
Well theres me and my friend Cletus I don't know anymore...anyway of course this is not a debate aboot homosexuality or anything I still find it funny that the two coolest and most powerful roles in two of the recent movies were played by an over 60 year old homosexual.....anyways.

Originally posted by PVS
why bother capt?
to scream at the wall would be time better spent.

I'm not screaming, I just want him to understand that religion was never a part of teh original story. I know he and I discussed it, but that was when we were discussing a larger situation, not just this story. I mean no disrespect. I just want him to realize that this article has not mentioned religion as a basis for this guys actions.


Originally posted by Bardock42
Well theres me and my friend Cletus I don't know anymore...anyway of course this is not a debate aboot homosexuality or anything I still find it funny that the two coolest and most powerful roles in two of the recent movies were played by an over 60 year old homosexual.....anyways.

What homosexual is it? Ian McKellen?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I know you're not addressing this question to me, but I'm gonna toss my 2 cents into the hat. It's clear that the father isn't talking about religion and neither is the school system. So, religion is a non issue in the story. Religion is not where morals begin and end.

Actually I disagree. Without morality there really is no basis to religion or a basis to "law" itself. Check out the histories behind both terms, and you will see that. As far as your other argument goes, there is nothing in the article that directly states that the father isn't talking about his religious beliefs in relation to this issue. You can quote me on that...

Yes indeed Ian MCKellen just came to my mind because of your avi

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Actually I disagree. Without morality there really is no basis to religion or a basis to "law" itself. Check out the histories behind both terms, and you will see that. As far as your other argument goes, there is nothing in the article that directly states that the father isn't talking about his religious beliefs in relation to this issue. You can quote me on that...

But, that's like saying that atheists don't mind murdering people, raping the weaker and stealing from someone. That doesn't make any sense. Moarlity does not come from belief in a god. My morals come from a respect for those people I live with in the world. And you can't argue that religion is the basis of the fathers objections only when he says as much himself.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes indeed Ian MCKellen just came to my mind because of your avi

He is an excellent actor. I absolutely love him. He's been my favorite actor since Apt. Pupil. I didn't even know he was gay until he said as much in an interview for the first X-Men movie. It just made me like him even more.

Dude are you stupid or something...he said religion is not the base for morality....which is true...you just turned hios statement around.....plus there is neither evidence that he is talking aboot his religious belifs so why do you assume something that is nowhere stated in the text?

So now with that being stated..let's re-adress the question that was already asked..and try to answer it this time..


Was it "legal" for the Superintendent to "deny" the man's "religious request" if it did not violate state/national law?

Well of course it kind of is his right...but since it was no religious request what the hell.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So now with that being stated..let's re-adress the question that was already asked..and try to answer it this time..


Was it "legal" for the Superintendent to "deny" the man's "religious request" if it did not violate state/national law?


they denied no request. he could have opted out of the whole program or even selectively exclude literature containing anything remotely gay-related.
so your question is bullshit and thus there is no answer.

the only thing that school denied was his 'right' to harass them and bring the school to a screaching halt.

read the article pal:
----"However Rachel F. Cortez, co-president of the Estabrook Parent-Teacher Association and a member of the school's anti-bias committee, told the Boston Globe that parents receive notification about the materials in question.

''The kids don't have to take home," she said. ''Parents can either opt out entirely or use whatever materials they want."----

so all must suffer because mr. jesus freak cant check his mail?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So now with that being stated..let's re-adress the question that was already asked..and try to answer it this time..


Was it "legal" for the Superintendent to "deny" the man's "religious request" if it did not violate state/national law?


would it be legal for the superintendant to assume the man was basing his request on his religious beliefs, when no such indication had been stated?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
would it be legal for the superintendant to assume the man was basing his request on his religious beliefs, when no such indication had been stated?

Making an "assumption" is not illegal..however denying an individual the right to "teach" their child their own religion is..come on now you guys are making this way to easy...and you still haven't addressed the "fact" that it was never mentioned in the article that the man's request "wasn't" do to his religious doctrine.

Dude it wasn't mentioned either that he was abducted by aliens and had this idea because an evil monkey told him he should....should we assume that that happened too