I'm going to homeschool my kids, if I ever have any

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..

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.

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".

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.

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"

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.

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....

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...

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..)

Parker, who is a member of the Article 8 Alliance, which supports the ouster of four judges on the state's Supreme Judicial Court who ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, demanded that the book be removed from the school library and that his son be pulled from discussions about homosexuality whether they are in planned lessons or arise spontaneously.

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...

...false assumption and thats that. so no need to get all defensive.

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".

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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:

[list=1][*]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.[/list]

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 fags 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 fags 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..

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.

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.

how do you expect kids to think and make decisions if you make their decisions for them?

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."

if you hate gays so much, then what is more empowering than 'know thy enemy'.

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
[b]Why was this an unreasonbable/unlawful request?[/B]

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..

btw, its really stupid to protest in front of the kids like that if you wish to keep them ignorant.

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..

[b]Why was this an unreasonbable/unlawful request?
[/B]

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...

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.

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...

doesn't change R-E-A-L-I-T-Y

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!!!!!