In another thread I complained of groups like PP imposing their agenda on our children without regard to parental values. Don't worry about it I was told, who's saying the parents can't be the parents? Here we go...

Is it the public school's place to instill their values in our children in spite of parental objections - or at all? Or does the public 'benefit' outweigh parental rights?

For all of you who think government should get out of the marriage business, should they get out of the parenting business such as this example, too?

h_leann_b

isn't a poor republican kind of an oxy-moron?

I'm sorry. But do you not let your children watch TV either? Do you not let your Children play with other children? They talk about thigs like this, and yes I think they should be educated. No point in letting more people in this country become ignorant. They should be taught tolerance in school, of everything; like I stated before.

speechlesstx

Do you really believe all Republicans are rich? What was that you said about ignorance? This isn't about Republicans and Democrats. 7 out of 10 blacks voted for Prop 8 to ban gay marriage in California, how many of those do you suppose were Republicans?

Tolerance of everything? Surely you have exceptions.

tomder55

as much as a rich Democrat I suppose and we all know there are plenty of them.

excon

Hello again, tom:

At least we don't support tax cuts for 'em. I STILL don't know what your love affair with the rich is all about.

excon

tomder55

Ex I never worked for a poor dude.

NeedKarma

Well I guess you don't volunteer much or at all.

tomder55

quibbling again ? I don't consider my volunteer time as work .

ETWolverine

A couple of points.

1) Why do we need to be accepting of everyone. I know that this is the "accepted wisdom", but is it true? Do we need to be accepting of those who would have sex with children? After all, if you ask NAMBLA, having sex with kids is just another lifestyle choice. According to your statement, all such lifestyle choices are equal, and should all be accepted? So I question this bit of "accepted wisdom". Do we really need to be accepting of "everyone"? Because I most certainly do not accept everyone equally. I don't accept everyone and everything. I freely admit that I descriminate... not based on skin color or race, but based on right and wrong, good and evil, success and failure. I do not accept everyone and everything equally. And neither should you.

2) Not being a Christian, I can't really answer for them. However, I AM a religious Orthodox Jew, and I can tell you that there is good reason to judge some people. For instance, Osama bin Laden... is he "just the same" as everyone else? Should we not judge his actions and come to the conclusion that he is wrong and evil? How about Sadam Hussein? He murdered millions of his own people and millions of Iranians with poison gas. Is he "just the same as everyone else"?

On the other side of the fence... Was Mother Teresa the same as everyone else, or was she an extraordinarily loving, charitable, self-sacrificing person who should be viewed as something over and above the norm? How about Mahatma Ghandi? Was a man who was willing to sacrifice his life for peace at all costs "just the same as everyone else"?

We need to have value judgements... based on our moral values. Not everyone is the same, and not everyone should be judged the same.

3) "And parent should tell their children there are non-traditional families."

YES... A PARENT. Not some school teacher or administrator with a political agenda. It is MY decision what to tell my children about "alternative familites", not the school system's decision. And if I wish to tell my children that I do not accept "alternative families" (read: gay couples) as the same as traditional families, THAT IS MY CHOICE AND MY RIGHT, and that right is guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Constitution. It is NOT within the government's authority to override my personal teachings to my children with their own.

4) I am against sex education within the school system. I am against it because it is an abrogation of my rights and responsibilities as a parent. I am all for PARENTS teaching their kids about sex. That is part of the job of a parent. I am against it being taught by the school system, especially when what the schools are teaching is contrary to what I am teaching my children.

So in answer to your question, I'm not against sex ed. I'm against sex ed being taught by the school system. It should be taught by me to my children and by you to your children.

ETWolverine

As a currently unemployed conservative going through a divorce, with virtually no money in the bank, I find that to be a very insulting comment.

There are quite a few conservatives suffering from Obama's economic policies through the loss of assets, jobs and income sources, and I'm one of them. In fact, I would venture to argue that most of the GM bondholders who got screwed out of their life savings yesterday are conservative financial investors.

Actually, no, my kids don't watch TV. They are 8 and 7, and they have discovered these things called BOOKS that are much more entertaining than TV. And they spend time outdoors. In fact, most of the children in my kids' schools don't watch TV... they go to very religious Yeshiva schools where it is common for there to be no TVs in the homes of the children. And you know what? The kids get along just fine without TV.


Differently cultures do things differently. My kids play with other Orthodox Jewish kids, and somehow, issues involving sex just don't seem to have come up in their conversations with their peers.

So do I. At the proper time. With the parents being the educators, not the schools.

The only ignorance I see is the idea that "everyone is equal". That is about as ignorant an idea as has ever been put forward by anyone.

Here's a clue... gay people cannot have children on their own without the help of a third party. Therefore, they are NOT equal in the biological sense. I'm not talking about morality, just biology. They are DIFFERENT in that they cannot reproduce. This is a quantifiable difference between gay couples and straight couples, and it is a difference that cannot be denied. The idea that they are the same is an attempt to ignore a basic fact of biology.

Not everything is tolerable or should be tolerated.

Should we tolerate terrorism?

Should we tolerate criminal behavior?

Should we tolerate breaking the law?

There are those who would argue that terrorists are just people who have a different cultural viewpoint than us, that criminals have just been given a bad break in life.

I do not tolerate criminal activity, and I believe that anyone who does is a fool. So why are you preaching blind "tolerance" or anything and everything? Don't you have eyes to tell you what these people are doing, and a heart that says that some things are wrong and must be eliminated?

In fact you do feel that. You believe that our "intolerance" is wrong, and you want it eliminated. THat is a moral value judgement... and a sign that there are certain things that YOU will not tolerate, like intolerance.

That's the paradox, isn't it. If you are against those who, like me, are considered intolerant, you are not being very tolerant of another viewpoint. If you accept our viewpoint, you are tolerating intolerance, which makes you a supporter of intolerance. It's a catch .22 brought on by a position that is logically untennable.

Best instead to admit that you are making a value judgement and based on that value judgement you are intolerant of those who are intolerant... which makes you no different from us conservatives. The only difference is in what you are willing to be intollerant about.

Elliot

ETWolverine

Are you aware of the fact that there are 60% more millionaires who identify as Democrats and Liberals than Republicans or Conservatives? That's from a poll taken in 2006 and published by Quinipiac, I think (I'm sure about the year, not so sure about the polling agency).

I think you should check your facts before you post comments like that.