Political Crossfire Forums

[Innoova]

curisz wrote: Innoova wrote: curisz wrote: Innoova wrote: Geneviève wrote: Quote: Just because she tells Timmy she has 2 moms, doesn't means she trying to force him into toleration.


I'm sorry, but tolerance is required of schoolchildren.
Blatant intolerance of one another's families is considered bullying and harrassment, and is not allowed, as it is demeaning to the child being harrassed.
I do not allow children to demean their classmates or their classmates' families, and I don't know of any educator who does.
If you wish to indoctrinate your child in intolerance, then I suggest you home-school.




LMAO, now saying that the school shouldn't teach morals, Is Intolerance?


I am an Agnostic Right Winger.

I have Dealt with s**t from Teachers about God, Repeatedly, And Openly against the School Rules, Politics, Homosexuality, Murder, Serial killers, Racism, Gang Activity, Shootings, Stabbings, And Had Many teachers attept the Thrust their morals onto me.

I've had Teachers that had the General Idea that Soldiers are scum. And taught this way, And brought this up in Discussion.

I've had a Teacher that made an analogy to Iraq during his HEALTH class.


And you're going to say That this is RIGHT?


Again, LMAO.


School is for Education. Not Social Engineering.

Education involves thinking about things and learning to form ideas and opinions and express them, and back them up. Social engineering? What isn't social engineering. Isn't only exposing kids to certain prescribed norms a form of social engineering, just as much if not more so than exposing them to a variety of possibilities and letting them start to think for themself? How is the stuff taught in English classes in schools for the last 200 years NOT social engineering? How is saying the pledge NOT social engineering? You can't teach English without context or meaning, you just can't. There are hidden messages implicit in everything you read. If its a message you approve of indoctrinating your kids with, then its just reading. If not then its "social engineering".

If this guy can throw a fit because one book includes a child with two moms (and don't bring biology into this, biology does not define the social reality of the family), then lets have gay families staging a scene everytime their lil darlins have to read a book which DOESN"T have any gay characters, or Blacks protest reading Romeo and Juliet because everyone in it is Caucasian. Or Christians freaking out everytime the word Sunday is mentioned without saying something about going to church. There are all kinds of people in the world. How is letting a kid know that any more indoctrination than giving them the false belief that there is only one?


There is a difference between Making People accept Homosexuality at an age before they are even able to understand what it is, And Teaching people how to speak English.

And No, Everything is NOT social Engineering. Forcing someone to accept a certain Culture, would be Social Engineering. Right now, you are not required to Say the pledge. You are required to stand. Out of Respect, but you are not required to say it. English Classes, I'm not quite sure about yours, But I know my Teacher LOVED debates. Especially stemming from what we were doing. So they're not social Engineering there Either. For once vital Reason.

We understand what we are being Taught. And we have enough real life experiences to be able to seperate what we agree with and what we don't.

We know Enough to see that Romeo and Juliets Suicide is Wrong. And We know enough to see That Ceasar was a power Hungry Tyrant.


But if you showed Romeo and Juliet to 5 year olds. There would be a string of Toddler suicides Because they would think thats how you "Prove your love".


We have the Age and Experience to form our own Decisions, and Our own opinions on things. 5 year olds are still building Cardboard Rocketships to the Moon.


Hell, at that point, Girls still have cooties. Each gender would rather stay with their own. The "Boys club" and "Girls Club" Phase. Now After the kids see Mr. and Mr. Smith kiss. Whats to say that Monkey-see Monkey-doo won't follow? We already know Children learn from Mocking. How do you get your child to say "Mama" or "Dada"? By annoying the piss out of them saying it to them until they mock you.


So, you are going to be Teaching these Children that its "Ok" to be homosexual, While they are still in a phase where They'd rather be around their own Gender, and before the understand what sexuality IS much less find their own.


All this will do is Create a generation of Gender-confused Children. And increase, Not Lower, the The bullying, when this Gender confused Group Starts having to have social interactions with others who weren't gender confused as a child.

You know, I really doubt that that book says one word about homosexuality, or sexuality period. Only that some kid is being raised by two women who love him very much and they are a family. Most kindergardners have no idea what sex even is, and would be freaked out if they knew what Mommy and Daddy do. To them, all relationships are platonic, everybody is just friends and loves each other. Its not telling little kids that they should bugger each other on the playground fer cryin out loud.

When I was a little kid I had a sesame street book about a family of monsters. Had absolutely no mention of monster sexuality whatsoever.


But was there a Mommy Monster and a Daddy monster?

Which you associated to it being a Family. You accepted it was a family because there was a mommy monster and a daddy monster. And you understood thats what a Family Was. That was "normal". Mentally Perverting the Children into believing that two Mommy's is a "Family" or Two Daddy's is a "Family" Should not be allowed.

And Yes It is perversion. Because it is taking the family unit and Twisting it to fit an agenda.


Ingraining It that young that Same Gender being a family is horrible. Especially without telling the parents. And OBVIOUSLY against some Parents consent.


Giving Children Activist ideas that young, before the age of reason.. (7) Isn't "creating Tolerance". The only word for it is Social Engineering because they don't have anything to combat it with. That opinion becomes gospel.

[curisz]

Innoova wrote: curisz wrote: Innoova wrote: curisz wrote: Innoova wrote: Geneviève wrote: Quote: Just because she tells Timmy she has 2 moms, doesn't means she trying to force him into toleration.


I'm sorry, but tolerance is required of schoolchildren.
Blatant intolerance of one another's families is considered bullying and harrassment, and is not allowed, as it is demeaning to the child being harrassed.
I do not allow children to demean their classmates or their classmates' families, and I don't know of any educator who does.
If you wish to indoctrinate your child in intolerance, then I suggest you home-school.




LMAO, now saying that the school shouldn't teach morals, Is Intolerance?


I am an Agnostic Right Winger.

I have Dealt with s**t from Teachers about God, Repeatedly, And Openly against the School Rules, Politics, Homosexuality, Murder, Serial killers, Racism, Gang Activity, Shootings, Stabbings, And Had Many teachers attept the Thrust their morals onto me.

I've had Teachers that had the General Idea that Soldiers are scum. And taught this way, And brought this up in Discussion.

I've had a Teacher that made an analogy to Iraq during his HEALTH class.


And you're going to say That this is RIGHT?


Again, LMAO.


School is for Education. Not Social Engineering.

Education involves thinking about things and learning to form ideas and opinions and express them, and back them up. Social engineering? What isn't social engineering. Isn't only exposing kids to certain prescribed norms a form of social engineering, just as much if not more so than exposing them to a variety of possibilities and letting them start to think for themself? How is the stuff taught in English classes in schools for the last 200 years NOT social engineering? How is saying the pledge NOT social engineering? You can't teach English without context or meaning, you just can't. There are hidden messages implicit in everything you read. If its a message you approve of indoctrinating your kids with, then its just reading. If not then its "social engineering".

If this guy can throw a fit because one book includes a child with two moms (and don't bring biology into this, biology does not define the social reality of the family), then lets have gay families staging a scene everytime their lil darlins have to read a book which DOESN"T have any gay characters, or Blacks protest reading Romeo and Juliet because everyone in it is Caucasian. Or Christians freaking out everytime the word Sunday is mentioned without saying something about going to church. There are all kinds of people in the world. How is letting a kid know that any more indoctrination than giving them the false belief that there is only one?


There is a difference between Making People accept Homosexuality at an age before they are even able to understand what it is, And Teaching people how to speak English.

And No, Everything is NOT social Engineering. Forcing someone to accept a certain Culture, would be Social Engineering. Right now, you are not required to Say the pledge. You are required to stand. Out of Respect, but you are not required to say it. English Classes, I'm not quite sure about yours, But I know my Teacher LOVED debates. Especially stemming from what we were doing. So they're not social Engineering there Either. For once vital Reason.

We understand what we are being Taught. And we have enough real life experiences to be able to seperate what we agree with and what we don't.

We know Enough to see that Romeo and Juliets Suicide is Wrong. And We know enough to see That Ceasar was a power Hungry Tyrant.


But if you showed Romeo and Juliet to 5 year olds. There would be a string of Toddler suicides Because they would think thats how you "Prove your love".


We have the Age and Experience to form our own Decisions, and Our own opinions on things. 5 year olds are still building Cardboard Rocketships to the Moon.


Hell, at that point, Girls still have cooties. Each gender would rather stay with their own. The "Boys club" and "Girls Club" Phase. Now After the kids see Mr. and Mr. Smith kiss. Whats to say that Monkey-see Monkey-doo won't follow? We already know Children learn from Mocking. How do you get your child to say "Mama" or "Dada"? By annoying the piss out of them saying it to them until they mock you.


So, you are going to be Teaching these Children that its "Ok" to be homosexual, While they are still in a phase where They'd rather be around their own Gender, and before the understand what sexuality IS much less find their own.


All this will do is Create a generation of Gender-confused Children. And increase, Not Lower, the The bullying, when this Gender confused Group Starts having to have social interactions with others who weren't gender confused as a child.

You know, I really doubt that that book says one word about homosexuality, or sexuality period. Only that some kid is being raised by two women who love him very much and they are a family. Most kindergardners have no idea what sex even is, and would be freaked out if they knew what Mommy and Daddy do. To them, all relationships are platonic, everybody is just friends and loves each other. Its not telling little kids that they should bugger each other on the playground fer cryin out loud.

When I was a little kid I had a sesame street book about a family of monsters. Had absolutely no mention of monster sexuality whatsoever.


But was there a Mommy Monster and a Daddy monster?

Which you associated to it being a Family. You accepted it was a family because there was a mommy monster and a daddy monster. And you understood thats what a Family Was. That was "normal". Mentally Perverting the Children into believing that two Mommy's is a "Family" or Two Daddy's is a "Family" Should not be allowed.

And Yes It is perversion. Because it is taking the family unit and Twisting it to fit an agenda.


Ingraining It that young that Same Gender being a family is horrible. Especially without telling the parents. And OBVIOUSLY against some Parents consent.


Giving Children Activist ideas that young, before the age of reason.. (7) Isn't "creating Tolerance". The only word for it is Social Engineering because they don't have anything to combat it with. That opinion becomes gospel.

You see, now the truth comes out. Even if you take sexuality out of the equation, it is wrong for two people of the same gender to be considered a family because it doesn't fit your definition EVEN THOUGH SUCH FAMILIES EXIST Who is the one social engineering? You are the one who wants to social engineer other people out of existence.

NO you are saying, there is only one kind of family, no matter what happens in the real world, and that one family is what I say it is.

Activist ideas? Activist ideas like "Not all families are the same"? OOOOOH radical. I'm sorry, but your argument boils down to "I am a controlling bigot and I don't want children to know the world is not exactly as I wish it to be."

If it was really about sexuality, I might have sympathy. I can understand not wanting kids exposed to anything sexual at an early age. But that is not what you are about.

[artk]

Another example of the schools trying to take over the parents job.
Morality and lifestyle choices should be exclusively the domain of parents, and church, if you are religious. Schools are to teach children to read and write. I have had confrontations at my children's schools over morality issues before. And my family's values will always trump the schools.

[Ben_Huh]

Quote: Activist ideas? Activist ideas like "Not all families are the same"? OOOOOH radical. I'm sorry, but your argument boils down to "I am a controlling bigot and I don't want children to know the world is not exactly as I wish it to be."

He's still entitled to his own opinion. You can't force someone to tolerate others, even if your a parent, it is something that one must achieve through experience. It's not the job of public schools to be "morality police" to make sure that everyone is tolerate of one another. Find your utopia somewhere else.

[Innoova]

curisz wrote: Innoova wrote: curisz wrote: Innoova wrote: curisz wrote: Innoova wrote: Geneviève wrote: Quote: Just because she tells Timmy she has 2 moms, doesn't means she trying to force him into toleration.


I'm sorry, but tolerance is required of schoolchildren.
Blatant intolerance of one another's families is considered bullying and harrassment, and is not allowed, as it is demeaning to the child being harrassed.
I do not allow children to demean their classmates or their classmates' families, and I don't know of any educator who does.
If you wish to indoctrinate your child in intolerance, then I suggest you home-school.




LMAO, now saying that the school shouldn't teach morals, Is Intolerance?


I am an Agnostic Right Winger.

I have Dealt with s**t from Teachers about God, Repeatedly, And Openly against the School Rules, Politics, Homosexuality, Murder, Serial killers, Racism, Gang Activity, Shootings, Stabbings, And Had Many teachers attept the Thrust their morals onto me.

I've had Teachers that had the General Idea that Soldiers are scum. And taught this way, And brought this up in Discussion.

I've had a Teacher that made an analogy to Iraq during his HEALTH class.


And you're going to say That this is RIGHT?


Again, LMAO.


School is for Education. Not Social Engineering.

Education involves thinking about things and learning to form ideas and opinions and express them, and back them up. Social engineering? What isn't social engineering. Isn't only exposing kids to certain prescribed norms a form of social engineering, just as much if not more so than exposing them to a variety of possibilities and letting them start to think for themself? How is the stuff taught in English classes in schools for the last 200 years NOT social engineering? How is saying the pledge NOT social engineering? You can't teach English without context or meaning, you just can't. There are hidden messages implicit in everything you read. If its a message you approve of indoctrinating your kids with, then its just reading. If not then its "social engineering".

If this guy can throw a fit because one book includes a child with two moms (and don't bring biology into this, biology does not define the social reality of the family), then lets have gay families staging a scene everytime their lil darlins have to read a book which DOESN"T have any gay characters, or Blacks protest reading Romeo and Juliet because everyone in it is Caucasian. Or Christians freaking out everytime the word Sunday is mentioned without saying something about going to church. There are all kinds of people in the world. How is letting a kid know that any more indoctrination than giving them the false belief that there is only one?


There is a difference between Making People accept Homosexuality at an age before they are even able to understand what it is, And Teaching people how to speak English.

And No, Everything is NOT social Engineering. Forcing someone to accept a certain Culture, would be Social Engineering. Right now, you are not required to Say the pledge. You are required to stand. Out of Respect, but you are not required to say it. English Classes, I'm not quite sure about yours, But I know my Teacher LOVED debates. Especially stemming from what we were doing. So they're not social Engineering there Either. For once vital Reason.

We understand what we are being Taught. And we have enough real life experiences to be able to seperate what we agree with and what we don't.

We know Enough to see that Romeo and Juliets Suicide is Wrong. And We know enough to see That Ceasar was a power Hungry Tyrant.


But if you showed Romeo and Juliet to 5 year olds. There would be a string of Toddler suicides Because they would think thats how you "Prove your love".


We have the Age and Experience to form our own Decisions, and Our own opinions on things. 5 year olds are still building Cardboard Rocketships to the Moon.


Hell, at that point, Girls still have cooties. Each gender would rather stay with their own. The "Boys club" and "Girls Club" Phase. Now After the kids see Mr. and Mr. Smith kiss. Whats to say that Monkey-see Monkey-doo won't follow? We already know Children learn from Mocking. How do you get your child to say "Mama" or "Dada"? By annoying the piss out of them saying it to them until they mock you.


So, you are going to be Teaching these Children that its "Ok" to be homosexual, While they are still in a phase where They'd rather be around their own Gender, and before the understand what sexuality IS much less find their own.


All this will do is Create a generation of Gender-confused Children. And increase, Not Lower, the The bullying, when this Gender confused Group Starts having to have social interactions with others who weren't gender confused as a child.

You know, I really doubt that that book says one word about homosexuality, or sexuality period. Only that some kid is being raised by two women who love him very much and they are a family. Most kindergardners have no idea what sex even is, and would be freaked out if they knew what Mommy and Daddy do. To them, all relationships are platonic, everybody is just friends and loves each other. Its not telling little kids that they should bugger each other on the playground fer cryin out loud.

When I was a little kid I had a sesame street book about a family of monsters. Had absolutely no mention of monster sexuality whatsoever.


But was there a Mommy Monster and a Daddy monster?

Which you associated to it being a Family. You accepted it was a family because there was a mommy monster and a daddy monster. And you understood thats what a Family Was. That was "normal". Mentally Perverting the Children into believing that two Mommy's is a "Family" or Two Daddy's is a "Family" Should not be allowed.

And Yes It is perversion. Because it is taking the family unit and Twisting it to fit an agenda.


Ingraining It that young that Same Gender being a family is horrible. Especially without telling the parents. And OBVIOUSLY against some Parents consent.


Giving Children Activist ideas that young, before the age of reason.. (7) Isn't "creating Tolerance". The only word for it is Social Engineering because they don't have anything to combat it with. That opinion becomes gospel.

You see, now the truth comes out. Even if you take sexuality out of the equation, it is wrong for two people of the same gender to be considered a family because it doesn't fit your definition EVEN THOUGH SUCH FAMILIES EXIST Who is the one social engineering? You are the one who wants to social engineer other people out of existence.

NO you are saying, there is only one kind of family, no matter what happens in the real world, and that one family is what I say it is.

Activist ideas? Activist ideas like "Not all families are the same"? OOOOOH radical. I'm sorry, but your argument boils down to "I am a controlling bigot and I don't want children to know the world is not exactly as I wish it to be."

If it was really about sexuality, I might have sympathy. I can understand not wanting kids exposed to anything sexual at an early age. But that is not what you are about.


-=rolls eyes=-

Right, Not what I am about.

You are correct. I do not want my kids with those Ideas. But that is not the reason I oppose this. I gave my reasoning for opposing this Before.

It brings sexuality into children too young.

And Imposes idea's they do not understand.

Call it my Bigotry. Whatever you so Choose.


The Fact remains, It is merely going to confuse the children. As my previous posts have Highlighted.

Would you give a 5 year old Romeo and Juliet? Or Ceasar?

Probably Not, Because they wouldn't understand it.

And It would hurt them.

So will this.

[curisz]

Ben_Huh wrote: Quote: Activist ideas? Activist ideas like "Not all families are the same"? OOOOOH radical. I'm sorry, but your argument boils down to "I am a controlling bigot and I don't want children to know the world is not exactly as I wish it to be."

He's still entitled to his own opinion. You can't force someone to tolerate others, even if your a parent, it is something that one must achieve through experience. It's not the job of public schools to be "morality police" to make sure that everyone is tolerate of one another. Find your utopia somewhere else.

Fine. But then don't teach any values. Don't have any books with any families in them at all. Don't have any stories with any kind of theme of life lessons at all. Have stories about, umm, I dunno......

The thing is, you cannot say anything or teach anything without some sort of value being implicit in it. You see, you guys ultimately have no problem with values being taught in the public schools. Every book that can be taught implies some value or other, be it sharing, or obedience, or being nice to animals. Its only when the values arent exactly like yours that there is a problem. Most people value tolerance. You don't. Tough.

Is every story about a fluffy bunny playing into the hands of PETA? If instead of petting the bunny the daddy goes and hunts it for food, is that playing into the hands of the NRA? If they raise cows instead is that propaganda for the Dairy Board and the Cattle industry? But if they are only shown eating salad its pushing vegetarianism! If a book is about someone in Mexico and he is happy and loves his life there, is that a slap at those who move to the the US? If he wants to move to America because his family is very poor, is that a screed for open borders?

If in the book in question, the main character had gone up to the offending family and said "You aren't a family, real families don't have two mommies!" would that be ok with you? Or would it be better if it only showed traditional families so all the kids (including the ones not from traditional families) know exactly what a REAL family is.

You can't not teach values. They are everywhere, and implicit in almost everything we read, do or say. If you are a parent and want your children to grow up with specific values, then teach those values. If the school teaches material you feel promotes a value you don't share, then either switch schools, or sit down with your kid and tell them what you believe is right, and why you think what was in the story was wrong.

[Ben_Huh]

Quote: Most people value tolerance. You don't. Tough.

Obviously neither do you if you have to stoop to calling someone with a different opinion a bigot. I thought you were supposed to be tolerate of intolerance? Bigotry is intolerance, so if you can't tolerate his opinion you are a bigot as well.

Quote: If the school teaches material you feel promotes a value you don't share, then either switch schools, or sit down with your kid and tell them what you believe is right, and why you think what was in the story was wrong.

That's basically what I've been saying all along, it's just that some people in this thread seem to think that the Public Schools morals supercedes the parents.

[curisz]

Innoova wrote:

-=rolls eyes=-

Right, Not what I am about.

You are correct. I do not want my kids with those Ideas. But that is not the reason I oppose this. I gave my reasoning for opposing this Before.

It brings sexuality into children too young.

And Imposes idea's they do not understand.

Call it my Bigotry. Whatever you so Choose.


The Fact remains, It is merely going to confuse the children. As my previous posts have Highlighted.

Would you give a 5 year old Romeo and Juliet? Or Ceasar?

Probably Not, Because they wouldn't understand it.

And It would hurt them.

So will this.

It's not about sexuality. It's not about murder or suicide or ghosts. Its not about anything very complicated at all. Its about families. Do you think little kids don't talk to each other about their families? And if your kid meets a little boy who has two daddies at home, and loves them both, is he being "indoctrinated"? Is that better than a book which simply shows that there are all kinds of families and they all love their kids?

[Innoova]

curisz wrote: Innoova wrote:

-=rolls eyes=-

Right, Not what I am about.

You are correct. I do not want my kids with those Ideas. But that is not the reason I oppose this. I gave my reasoning for opposing this Before.

It brings sexuality into children too young.

And Imposes idea's they do not understand.

Call it my Bigotry. Whatever you so Choose.


The Fact remains, It is merely going to confuse the children. As my previous posts have Highlighted.

Would you give a 5 year old Romeo and Juliet? Or Ceasar?

Probably Not, Because they wouldn't understand it.

And It would hurt them.

So will this.

It's not about sexuality. It's not about murder or suicide or ghosts. Its not about anything very complicated at all. Its about families. Do you think little kids don't talk to each other about their families? And if your kid meets a little boy who has two daddies at home, and loves them both, is he being "indoctrinated"? Is that better than a book which simply shows that there are all kinds of families and they all love their kids?


Its also about creating Gender confusion.


When Little Suzie begins to believe that 2 Mommies is right, And mommy and Daddy is wrong.

[Ben_Huh]

Quote: It's not about sexuality.

Yes it is, maybe not directly but it is. In order to have 2 dads or 2 moms your parents must be of a certain sexuality.

Quote: And if your kid meets a little boy who has two daddies at home, and loves them both, is he being "indoctrinated"? Is that better than a book which simply shows that there are all kinds of families and they all love their kids?

Yes it's better, because it's an actual experience and not some teacher in a school teaching morals to children. The goverment teaching my kids about "perpetual harmony" is not cool.

[curisz]

Ben_Huh wrote: Quote: Most people value tolerance. You don't. Tough.

Obviously neither do you if you have to stoop to calling someone with a different opinion a bigot. I thought you were supposed to be tolerate of intolerance? Bigotry is intolerance, so if you can't tolerate his opinion you are a bigot as well.

Quote: If the school teaches material you feel promotes a value you don't share, then either switch schools, or sit down with your kid and tell them what you believe is right, and why you think what was in the story was wrong.

That's basically what I've been saying all along, it's just that some people in this thread seem to think that the Public Schools morals supercedes the parents.

I can tolerate bigots just fine. He has a right to his opinion, at home, with his kids. In the newspaper. Whatever. He has a right to make his opinion known to the school board. The guy in the article has a right to stage a one man sit in, and get dragged to jail just like all the people in sitins before him have.

I am merely exposing the fact that his motives are not what he claims they are. He is not against values being taught, as long as they are his values, because values have always and always will be taught. The idea that the book is too difficult for kids to understand is a red herring, pure and simple. Romeo and Juliet it is not. He should just come out and say "It should not be in the school because I loathe gays and oppose anything which validates their existence, no matter how innocuously"

If you wanna be a bigot, thats fine, I can tolerate that. Just don't be a weasel about it.

[Innoova]

curisz wrote: Ben_Huh wrote: Quote: Most people value tolerance. You don't. Tough.

Obviously neither do you if you have to stoop to calling someone with a different opinion a bigot. I thought you were supposed to be tolerate of intolerance? Bigotry is intolerance, so if you can't tolerate his opinion you are a bigot as well.

Quote: If the school teaches material you feel promotes a value you don't share, then either switch schools, or sit down with your kid and tell them what you believe is right, and why you think what was in the story was wrong.

That's basically what I've been saying all along, it's just that some people in this thread seem to think that the Public Schools morals supercedes the parents.

I can tolerate bigots just fine. He has a right to his opinion, at home, with his kids. In the newspaper. Whatever. He has a right to make his opinion known to the school board. The guy in the article has a right to stage a one man sit in, and get dragged to jail just like all the people in sitins before him have.

I am merely exposing the fact that his motives are not what he claims they are. He is not against values being taught, as long as they are his values, because values have always and always will be taught. The idea that the book is too difficult for kids to understand is a red herring, pure and simple. Romeo and Juliet it is not. He should just come out and say "It should not be in the school because I loathe gays and oppose anything which validates their existence, no matter how innocuously"

If you wanna be a bigot, thats fine, I can tolerate that. Just don't be a weasel about it.


I'm hardley Weasling. Every opinion i've given thus far has been true. I dislike Homosexuality, True. I believe its a perversion. True. But it is also confusing the kids.

No, I was not trying to say its too difficult. I was trying to show an analogy that you obviously missed.

If 5 year olds were able to understand romeo and Juliet, and were told to read it, they would do a mass string of suicides to "Show their love".

You apparently didn't read any of one of my posts. It actually stated that rather clearly.. Red herring it was not. Your own inability to read perhaps?


Although i do appreciate you attempted to put words in my mouth.


And Now to make you feel ENTIRELY stupid.

My brother is Gay. I don't Loath Gays.

Let them live their Lifestyle, and keep it out of my sight. Please and thanks.

Btw, I also appreciate your attempted personal flames. :)


Anyways. Since you've now failed to debate anything i've said. Merely calling me a bigot instead of answering ANY of my points. I suppose I'll leave this thread alone until you can debate. Other than trying to flame me.

[curisz]

Innoova wrote: curisz wrote: Innoova wrote:

-=rolls eyes=-

Right, Not what I am about.

You are correct. I do not want my kids with those Ideas. But that is not the reason I oppose this. I gave my reasoning for opposing this Before.

It brings sexuality into children too young.

And Imposes idea's they do not understand.

Call it my Bigotry. Whatever you so Choose.


The Fact remains, It is merely going to confuse the children. As my previous posts have Highlighted.

Would you give a 5 year old Romeo and Juliet? Or Ceasar?

Probably Not, Because they wouldn't understand it.

And It would hurt them.

So will this.

It's not about sexuality. It's not about murder or suicide or ghosts. Its not about anything very complicated at all. Its about families. Do you think little kids don't talk to each other about their families? And if your kid meets a little boy who has two daddies at home, and loves them both, is he being "indoctrinated"? Is that better than a book which simply shows that there are all kinds of families and they all love their kids?


Its also about creating Gender confusion.


When Little Suzie begins to believe that 2 Mommies is right, And mommy and Daddy is wrong.

Well, gee, Einstein, maybe thats why the book is about "all kinds of families", and doesn't prejudice one over the other. Yeah, if everytime your kid turned around they were reading something about homosexuality, I could see your point. If the book was called "Two mommies is better than one" I could see your point. Buts its not like there is this big dearth of heterosexual rolemodels in childrens literature, even that read in public schools.

[Ben_Huh]

Quote: I am merely exposing the fact that his motives are not what he claims they are. He is not against values being taught, as long as they are his values, because values have always and always will be taught. The idea that the book is too difficult for kids to understand is a red herring, pure and simple. Romeo and Juliet it is not. He should just come out and say "It should not be in the school because I loathe gays and oppose anything which validates their existence, no matter how innocuously"

I personally don't think it should be removed from the shelves, but I do think parents should have more control and be made more aware of what their child's school offers in their library. He may feel that the book might be promoting the homosexual lifestyle, a lifestyle that he, as a parent, has tried to teach to his kids as wrong. There's a lot of confliction between what the parents teach at home and what kids learn in school. I resent the fact that some in this thread think that the schools morality supercedes that of the parents.

[Innoova]

curisz wrote: Innoova wrote: curisz wrote: Innoova wrote:

-=rolls eyes=-

Right, Not what I am about.

You are correct. I do not want my kids with those Ideas. But that is not the reason I oppose this. I gave my reasoning for opposing this Before.

It brings sexuality into children too young.

And Imposes idea's they do not understand.

Call it my Bigotry. Whatever you so Choose.


The Fact remains, It is merely going to confuse the children. As my previous posts have Highlighted.

Would you give a 5 year old Romeo and Juliet? Or Ceasar?

Probably Not, Because they wouldn't understand it.

And It would hurt them.

So will this.

It's not about sexuality. It's not about murder or suicide or ghosts. Its not about anything very complicated at all. Its about families. Do you think little kids don't talk to each other about their families? And if your kid meets a little boy who has two daddies at home, and loves them both, is he being "indoctrinated"? Is that better than a book which simply shows that there are all kinds of families and they all love their kids?


Its also about creating Gender confusion.


When Little Suzie begins to believe that 2 Mommies is right, And mommy and Daddy is wrong.

Well, gee, Einstein, maybe thats why the book is about "all kinds of families", and doesn't prejudice one over the other. Yeah, if everytime your kid turned around they were reading something about homosexuality, I could see your point. If the book was called "Two mommies is better than one" I could see your point. Buts its not like there is this big dearth of heterosexual rolemodels in childrens literature, even that read in public schools.

Correct. It doesn't Show any Favoritism. But Everyone Takes things Their own way. And if, God Forbid, its a homosexual teacher. Favoritism will be shown. Be it accidental or not. Bias is always shown.

And No, everyone won't be affected like that.

But someone will be. And Encourging this book, Is encouraging Gender confusion. And introducing Sexuality entirely too early.

[curisz]

Innoova wrote: curisz wrote: Ben_Huh wrote: Quote: Most people value tolerance. You don't. Tough.

Obviously neither do you if you have to stoop to calling someone with a different opinion a bigot. I thought you were supposed to be tolerate of intolerance? Bigotry is intolerance, so if you can't tolerate his opinion you are a bigot as well.

Quote: If the school teaches material you feel promotes a value you don't share, then either switch schools, or sit down with your kid and tell them what you believe is right, and why you think what was in the story was wrong.

That's basically what I've been saying all along, it's just that some people in this thread seem to think that the Public Schools morals supercedes the parents.

I can tolerate bigots just fine. He has a right to his opinion, at home, with his kids. In the newspaper. Whatever. He has a right to make his opinion known to the school board. The guy in the article has a right to stage a one man sit in, and get dragged to jail just like all the people in sitins before him have.

I am merely exposing the fact that his motives are not what he claims they are. He is not against values being taught, as long as they are his values, because values have always and always will be taught. The idea that the book is too difficult for kids to understand is a red herring, pure and simple. Romeo and Juliet it is not. He should just come out and say "It should not be in the school because I loathe gays and oppose anything which validates their existence, no matter how innocuously"

If you wanna be a bigot, thats fine, I can tolerate that. Just don't be a weasel about it.


I'm hardley Weasling. Every opinion i've given thus far has been true. I dislike Homosexuality, True. I believe its a perversion. True. But it is also confusing the kids.

No, I was not trying to say its too difficult. I was trying to show an analogy that you obviously missed.

If 5 year olds were able to understand romeo and Juliet, and were told to read it, they would do a mass string of suicides to "Show their love".

You apparently didn't read any of one of my posts. It actually stated that rather clearly.. Red herring it was not. Your own inability to read perhaps?


Although i do appreciate you attempted to put words in my mouth.


And Now to make you feel ENTIRELY stupid.

My brother is Gay. I don't Loath Gays.

Let them live their Lifestyle, and keep it out of my sight. Please and thanks.

Btw, I also appreciate your attempted personal flames. :)


Anyways. Since you've now failed to debate anything i've said. Merely calling me a bigot instead of answering ANY of my points. I suppose I'll leave this thread alone until you can debate. Other than trying to flame me.

Like you have responded to any of my posts? You keep jumping back to the sexuality thing, even after you agreed there is probably no sexuality involved in the book. I asked why you think showing different families who love their kids is confusing. No answer. I have stated that it is impossible to teach English without values being implicit in the story. No response. Give me an example of a story that doesn't push values and I'll show you the owners manual for a toaster. And even that might be a stretch. As far as your brother goes, whoopee, loving your brother but turning away from him every time his "lifestyle" comes up does not mean you don't loathe gays. Sorry that your field of vision is not a no fly zone.

I mean, the material was optional, fer cryin out loud. It was sent home with the kid with a note so the parent could review it. Can you imagine the logistical nightmare of keeping track of every value that might come up in a story that every parent disagrees with? Ok, we have to call jane's parents because green aggs and ham has meat in it, Gary's parents because there is a minister in a story, and Jenny's dad because the story involves foreigners. The guy was just asking way too much. Have whatever values you want, but don't expect every single sentence of every single story to endorse them.

[Innoova]

curisz wrote: Innoova wrote: curisz wrote: Ben_Huh wrote: Quote: Most people value tolerance. You don't. Tough.

Obviously neither do you if you have to stoop to calling someone with a different opinion a bigot. I thought you were supposed to be tolerate of intolerance? Bigotry is intolerance, so if you can't tolerate his opinion you are a bigot as well.

Quote: If the school teaches material you feel promotes a value you don't share, then either switch schools, or sit down with your kid and tell them what you believe is right, and why you think what was in the story was wrong.

That's basically what I've been saying all along, it's just that some people in this thread seem to think that the Public Schools morals supercedes the parents.

I can tolerate bigots just fine. He has a right to his opinion, at home, with his kids. In the newspaper. Whatever. He has a right to make his opinion known to the school board. The guy in the article has a right to stage a one man sit in, and get dragged to jail just like all the people in sitins before him have.

I am merely exposing the fact that his motives are not what he claims they are. He is not against values being taught, as long as they are his values, because values have always and always will be taught. The idea that the book is too difficult for kids to understand is a red herring, pure and simple. Romeo and Juliet it is not. He should just come out and say "It should not be in the school because I loathe gays and oppose anything which validates their existence, no matter how innocuously"

If you wanna be a bigot, thats fine, I can tolerate that. Just don't be a weasel about it.


I'm hardley Weasling. Every opinion i've given thus far has been true. I dislike Homosexuality, True. I believe its a perversion. True. But it is also confusing the kids.

No, I was not trying to say its too difficult. I was trying to show an analogy that you obviously missed.

If 5 year olds were able to understand romeo and Juliet, and were told to read it, they would do a mass string of suicides to "Show their love".

You apparently didn't read any of one of my posts. It actually stated that rather clearly.. Red herring it was not. Your own inability to read perhaps?


Although i do appreciate you attempted to put words in my mouth.


And Now to make you feel ENTIRELY stupid.

My brother is Gay. I don't Loath Gays.

Let them live their Lifestyle, and keep it out of my sight. Please and thanks.

Btw, I also appreciate your attempted personal flames. :)


Anyways. Since you've now failed to debate anything i've said. Merely calling me a bigot instead of answering ANY of my points. I suppose I'll leave this thread alone until you can debate. Other than trying to flame me.

Like you have responded to any of my posts? You keep jumping back to the sexuality thing, even after you agreed there is probably no sexuality involved in the book. I asked why you think showing different families who love their kids is confusing. No answer. I have stated that it is impossible to teach English without values being implicit in the story. No response. Give me an example of a story that doesn't push values and I'll show you the owners manual for a toaster. And even that might be a stretch. As far as your brother goes, whoopee, loving your brother but turning away from him every time his "lifestyle" comes up does not mean you don't loathe gays. Sorry that your field of vision is not a no fly zone.

I mean, the material was optional, fer cryin out loud. It was sent home with the kid with a note so the parent could review it. Can you imagine the logistical nightmare of keeping track of every value that might come up in a story that every parent disagrees with? Ok, we have to call jane's parents because green aggs and ham has meat in it, Gary's parents because there is a minister in a story, and Jenny's dad because the story involves foreigners. The guy was just asking way too much. Have whatever values you want, but don't expect every single sentence of every single story to endorse them.



"I have stated that it is impossible to teach English without values being implicit in the story. No response. "


"There is a difference between Making People accept Homosexuality at an age before they are even able to understand what it is, And Teaching people how to speak English.

And No, Everything is NOT social Engineering. Forcing someone to accept a certain Culture, would be Social Engineering. Right now, you are not required to Say the pledge. You are required to stand. Out of Respect, but you are not required to say it. English Classes, I'm not quite sure about yours, But I know my Teacher LOVED debates. Especially stemming from what we were doing. So they're not social Engineering there Either. For once vital Reason."


From the post you didn't read or respond to. :owned:


" I asked why you think showing different families who love their kids is confusing. No answer."


Because at that Age, Families are generally Mommy and Daddy. Have Mommy and Mommy will be confusing. THATS why. I apologize if you are too dense to comprehend that.

Material was Optional?

So THATS why when he asked that his child be taken out of any discussions relating to homosexuality he was refused?

Thats DEFINITELY optional.

[curisz]

Innoova wrote: curisz wrote: Innoova wrote: curisz wrote: Ben_Huh wrote: Quote: Most people value tolerance. You don't. Tough.

Obviously neither do you if you have to stoop to calling someone with a different opinion a bigot. I thought you were supposed to be tolerate of intolerance? Bigotry is intolerance, so if you can't tolerate his opinion you are a bigot as well.

Quote: If the school teaches material you feel promotes a value you don't share, then either switch schools, or sit down with your kid and tell them what you believe is right, and why you think what was in the story was wrong.

That's basically what I've been saying all along, it's just that some people in this thread seem to think that the Public Schools morals supercedes the parents.

I can tolerate bigots just fine. He has a right to his opinion, at home, with his kids. In the newspaper. Whatever. He has a right to make his opinion known to the school board. The guy in the article has a right to stage a one man sit in, and get dragged to jail just like all the people in sitins before him have.

I am merely exposing the fact that his motives are not what he claims they are. He is not against values being taught, as long as they are his values, because values have always and always will be taught. The idea that the book is too difficult for kids to understand is a red herring, pure and simple. Romeo and Juliet it is not. He should just come out and say "It should not be in the school because I loathe gays and oppose anything which validates their existence, no matter how innocuously"

If you wanna be a bigot, thats fine, I can tolerate that. Just don't be a weasel about it.


I'm hardley Weasling. Every opinion i've given thus far has been true. I dislike Homosexuality, True. I believe its a perversion. True. But it is also confusing the kids.

No, I was not trying to say its too difficult. I was trying to show an analogy that you obviously missed.

If 5 year olds were able to understand romeo and Juliet, and were told to read it, they would do a mass string of suicides to "Show their love".

You apparently didn't read any of one of my posts. It actually stated that rather clearly.. Red herring it was not. Your own inability to read perhaps?


Although i do appreciate you attempted to put words in my mouth.


And Now to make you feel ENTIRELY stupid.

My brother is Gay. I don't Loath Gays.

Let them live their Lifestyle, and keep it out of my sight. Please and thanks.

Btw, I also appreciate your attempted personal flames. :)


Anyways. Since you've now failed to debate anything i've said. Merely calling me a bigot instead of answering ANY of my points. I suppose I'll leave this thread alone until you can debate. Other than trying to flame me.

Like you have responded to any of my posts? You keep jumping back to the sexuality thing, even after you agreed there is probably no sexuality involved in the book. I asked why you think showing different families who love their kids is confusing. No answer. I have stated that it is impossible to teach English without values being implicit in the story. No response. Give me an example of a story that doesn't push values and I'll show you the owners manual for a toaster. And even that might be a stretch. As far as your brother goes, whoopee, loving your brother but turning away from him every time his "lifestyle" comes up does not mean you don't loathe gays. Sorry that your field of vision is not a no fly zone.

I mean, the material was optional, fer cryin out loud. It was sent home with the kid with a note so the parent could review it. Can you imagine the logistical nightmare of keeping track of every value that might come up in a story that every parent disagrees with? Ok, we have to call jane's parents because green aggs and ham has meat in it, Gary's parents because there is a minister in a story, and Jenny's dad because the story involves foreigners. The guy was just asking way too much. Have whatever values you want, but don't expect every single sentence of every single story to endorse them.



"I have stated that it is impossible to teach English without values being implicit in the story. No response. "


"There is a difference between Making People accept Homosexuality at an age before they are even able to understand what it is, And Teaching people how to speak English.

And No, Everything is NOT social Engineering. Forcing someone to accept a certain Culture, would be Social Engineering. Right now, you are not required to Say the pledge. You are required to stand. Out of Respect, but you are not required to say it. English Classes, I'm not quite sure about yours, But I know my Teacher LOVED debates. Especially stemming from what we were doing. So they're not social Engineering there Either. For once vital Reason."


From the post you didn't read or respond to. :owned:


" I asked why you think showing different families who love their kids is confusing. No answer."


Because at that Age, Families are generally Mommy and Daddy. Have Mommy and Mommy will be confusing. THATS why. I apologize if you are too dense to comprehend that.

Material was Optional?

So THATS why when he asked that his child be taken out of any discussions relating to homosexuality he was refused?

Thats DEFINITELY optional.

The book was optional. The reason the school wopuld not agree to notify him or remove the kid from the class everytime that issue came up, is because if they do it for him, they have to do it for every parent with an agenda. That is simply not realistic.

You say forcing someone to accept a certain culture would be social engineering. How did the book do that? How is it any more social engineering than green eggs and ham is an ode to eating animal products? Or what I said about bunnies, PETA and the NRA?

If this issue is controversial enough to necessitate disrupting class over, then all issues are. Every parent that doesn't want their kid to read a story about gardening because they don't want them getting dirt on their clothes will have a leg to stand on. I challenge you to write a one paragraph childrens story that doesn't imply any values that someone might object to.

By the way, I read all your posts. I just felt that that one missed the point.

[Protostar]

I don't understand how you can't bring sexuality into this. Lets take the word itself.

HOMOSEXUALITY

That in itself brings sexuality into it. If the kids ask "why does s/he have two mommies?" what are you going to say? Because they are homosexuals. Or because the two women love each other. Well, then the question is "i though boys were supposed to love girls?". Now what are you going to say? You have no choice but to dive into the subject of homosexuality. Call them what you want, sexuality is going to come into play. The school should just stick to the essentials:english, math,science, and history. None of this pro-tolerance crap. If you can be tolerant of intolerance, then you're no different than any other bigot. Trying to impose "tolerance" on everyone does nothing. Kids are still going to tease gays and students with gay parents because it will be reinforced at home. I know when I was in grade school I didn't want to learn that garbage. Hell, I didn't even want to learn about the female body when they taught it in fifth grade. Why the hell did I care about how the female body worked, periods and such, I wasn't a female so why should it matter? Anyway, keep the pro-gay agenda out of schools. I'm for punishing those who actually physically attack gays (unless the gay touched the guy in an inappropriate manner, then it was justified), but punishing people for teasing others? Please, get over it. It's a part of school, learn to deal with it.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Protostar wrote: but punishing people for teasing others? Please, get over it. It's a part of school, learn to deal with it.

I agree with the rest of your post, but I don't agree with this part ... but what you are referring to there is another form of bullying and it should be stopped.