[cozyk]

PS--the reason homosexual and heterosexual sex ed should BOTH be taught is that you need to teach the people in your audience about THEMSELVES. ALL parents have the options of obtaining a child in the same ways: natural conception (which, by the way, I am starting to believe ONLY happens to poor, stupid teenagers), adoption, IVF, egg/sperm donation, surrogacy, and foster care.

That would be so funny if it were not so true and sad.

[speechlesstx]

Look, I grew up in Wisconsin. I had a GREAT public education. I've also worked in academia in Texas. They have a really SUCKY public education, in comparison.

Um , I live in Texas and that depends on the district. It's a VERY large state, over 4 times the size of Wisconsin in area and population.

So! Those parents that are STUCK with the "poor education" in public schools because they cannot afford private are ALSO the parents who have limited time with their children. Don't you think THOSE parents WANT the schools to teach their kids sex ed---and everything else?

What does being poor and having less time have to do with what people want for their children?

[Synnen]

Um , I live in Texas and that depends on the district. It's a VERY large state, over 4 times the size of Wisconsin in area and population.



What does being poor and having less time have to do with what people want for their children?

If you want your kids to KNOW about ALL of the forms of birth control, so that they can make an informed decision on their own, yet cannot afford to spend time with your kid because you're working too many hours--don't you think you'd be HAPPY to have the school take that chore off your hand?

I absolutely REFUSE, as a taxpayer, to allow someone to send their kid to a private school on my tax dollars. I'd start a campaign against any idiot who was dumb enough to try to get that passed in my state. I already pay for education with my taxes. Fix THAT. If MY kids were going to a public school, I'd be SURE that I was involved with the school, making SURE that I voted in school board elections, and regardless how much or how little money I had, I'd be helping my kid with homework every night.

As far as Texas schools go--I worked in admissions at one of the UT schools. I SAW the test scores for kids in Texas. Due to raises and tenure in Texas public schools being based almost completely on the TASP and TAKS, teachers seem to teach ONLY to those tests, and standardized tests show that Texas deserves its 49th out of 50 place in education. Yes, some few districts are better than others, but for the most part, it didn't seem to matter what part of the state kids came from--their scores on the SAT and ACT were abysmal for being A/B students.

I cannot tell you how many kids I saw as valedictorians of their class---with an ACT score under 20 (out of 36) or an SAT score of under 900 (out of 1600). (I am aware, by the way, that those tests are no longer at those points. The writing portion of both ACT and SAT have jumped the number of points available, and therefore have raised scored. However--at the time I was working in TX, those are the numbers I was working with). How can you be a straight A student and NOT be able to score well on a standardized test? And don't give me the malarky that some kids don't test well. If a straight A student didn't test well, they probably would not be a straight A student.

So... now that I'm seeing your complaint about sex ed in schools coming from Texas---yeah, I don't blame you. They can't seem to teach the REST of the basics in Texas, and so shouldn't be concentrating on peripherals. Honestly though--if you want to fix the education system in Texas, get rid of TAKS and TASP instead of sex ed. Probably would work better.

[Synnen]

I've been thinking about this a bit, and isn't this whole thing about people getting up in arms that their *gasp* traditional family is being attacked by more liberal points of view?

I know those that hate the gay lifestyle hate this argument---but isn't this a bit like adding integration of RACE to schools? Some people in the 60s didn't like BLACKS in their schools, and omg--when integrated families (made up of parents of different races) came along, they just about had heart attacks about allowing material showing mixed families.

Really, though, I think it's more like divorce. Some people, due to religious upbringing and their traditional family values, do not believe in divorce. They believe that you made a vow before God, and no matter HOW bad it is, you should not leave your marriage. Yet... there is material in the schools, even as young as kindergarten, about divorced couples, or stepfamilies that have occurred due to divorce, or about single parents who never even BOTHERED to get married in the traditional family values way. Are you going to get up in arms about THAT material too?

The point is---they're not teaching sex. They're teaching that LGBT families exist. Some of those kids WILL have two daddies. Some of those kids WILL have only a mommy. Some of those kids will have TWO mommies---AND two daddies, since both of their parents remarried after a divorce. What's wrong with teaching that ALL kinds of families are okay? Why is that such a threat to "traditional" family values? Seriously--isn't divorce and single parenthood JUST as damning to those values, if not MORE damning?

[cozyk]

I've been thinking about this a bit, and isn't this whole thing about people getting up in arms that their *gasp* traditional family is being attacked by more liberal points of view?

I know those that hate the gay lifestyle hate this argument---but isn't this a bit like adding integration of RACE to schools? Some people in the 60s didn't like BLACKS in their schools, and omg--when integrated families (made up of parents of different races) came along, they just about had heart attacks about allowing material showing mixed families.

Really, though, I think it's more like divorce. Some people, due to religious upbringing and their traditional family values, do not believe in divorce. They believe that you made a vow before God, and no matter HOW bad it is, you should not leave your marriage. Yet....there is material in the schools, even as young as kindergarten, about divorced couples, or stepfamilies that have occurred due to divorce, or about single parents who never even BOTHERED to get married in the traditional family values way. Are you going to get up in arms about THAT material too?

The point is---they're not teaching sex. They're teaching that LGBT families exist. Some of those kids WILL have two daddies. Some of those kids WILL have only a mommy. Some of those kids will have TWO mommies---AND two daddies, since both of their parents remarried after a divorce. What's wrong with teaching that ALL kinds of families are okay? Why is that such a threat to "traditional" family values? Seriously--isn't divorce and single parenthood JUST as damning to those values, if not MORE damning?

VERY good points. The multi-racial think made me think of my mother in law. When the schools were integrated in SC in the late 60's I think she just got "the vapors" and fainted on her fainting couch. She jerked her kids out and put them in a private school, I'll tell you that. That woman kills me!

To the anti-sex-ed-in-the-schools folks. What are you going to say to your child when they tell you that little Billie is living with his two dads.
Or little Sally wants to go to her friends house that lives with her two mommies. You can run but you can't hide. You might as well arm yourself.

[speechlesstx]

I know those that hate the gay lifestyle hate this argument---but isn't this a bit like adding integration of RACE to schools? Some people in the 60s didn't like BLACKS in their schools, and omg--when integrated families (made up of parents of different races) came along, they just about had heart attacks about allowing material showing mixed families.

I didn't realize we were segregating gays. We certainly didn't when I was in school.

Really, though, I think it's more like divorce. Some people, due to religious upbringing and their traditional family values, do not believe in divorce. They believe that you made a vow before God, and no matter HOW bad it is, you should not leave your marriage. Yet... there is material in the schools, even as young as kindergarten, about divorced couples, or stepfamilies that have occurred due to divorce, or about single parents who never even BOTHERED to get married in the traditional family values way. Are you going to get up in arms about THAT material too?

The flaw in your thinking is that you're only referring to hard core people. Divorce is nothing new, it's been around at least since Moses.

The point is---they're not teaching sex. They're teaching that LGBT families exist.

They're ONLY teaching the obvious, that LGBT families exist? Duh, who DOESN'T know that already? They are planning to teach values without allowing parents to opt out and that is still WRONG no matter how you frame it.

Some of those kids WILL have two daddies. Some of those kids WILL have only a mommy. Some of those kids will have TWO mommies---AND two daddies, since both of their parents remarried after a divorce. What's wrong with teaching that ALL kinds of families are okay?

That is NOT the place of the public school any more than it would be to teach fundamental Baptist values. The school should remain NEUTRAL and let parents instill values.

[speechlesstx]

If you want your kids to KNOW about ALL of the forms of birth control, so that they can make an informed decision on their own, yet cannot afford to spend time with your kid because you're working too many hours--don't you think you'd be HAPPY to have the school take that chore off your hand?

I get your point, I got it the first time. My point is as a parent my financial status has nothing to do with the values I want to instill in my children. I don't care how poor I am, I'm not surrendering my responsibility to teach my kids values to someone else.

[speechlesstx]

I absolutely REFUSE, as a taxpayer, to allow someone to send their kid to a private school on my tax dollars.

One other thing, I don't want to spend my tax dollars on public schools that don't know their place. They need to leave the values to the parents.

And TAKS sucks too. But that's another thread.

[inthebox]

The point is---they're not teaching sex. They're teaching that LGBT families exist. Some of those kids WILL have two daddies. Some of those kids WILL have only a mommy. Some of those kids will have TWO mommies---AND two daddies, since both of their parents remarried after a divorce. What's wrong with teaching that ALL kinds of families are okay? Why is that such a threat to "traditional" family values? Seriously--isn't divorce and single parenthood JUST as damning to those values, if not MORE damning?

You know why they have sex ed in school?
Because most kids don't think their parents have sex :) It is too... to think about that.



G&p

[Synnen]

I get your point, I got it the first time. My point is as a parent my financial status has nothing to do with the values I want to instill in my children. I don't care how poor I am, I'm not surrendering my responsibility to teach my kids values to someone else.

I got your point, too. I'm saying you don't HAVE to surrender that responsibility. You have SEVERAL options regarding that responsibility--sending your kids to a private school (on your money, not the taxpayers), supplementing the education they get at school with the instillation of morals at home, taking your kids to church, and acting as an example to your children.

Your financial status does not have to mean that your children do not get the education you want them to get. It just means that your options are more limited on which of the options you are able to choose.

[Synnen]

One other thing, I don't want to spend my tax dollars on public schools that don't know their place. They need to leave the values to the parents.

So... vote. Get involved with the school board. Heck, RUN for school board.

You don't get the option of opting out of paying for public schools any more than I get the option of opting out of paying for stupid teenage girls to raise their kids with no money, no morals, very little family help, and no idea who the babydaddy is. I have to pay for Welfare with my tax dollars, and do not get to choose to ONLY pay for those people who have the same morals as I have. The only way I've found to change things is to get involved, and to vote.

I absolutely think the idea of allowing parents to get their "tax dollars" back that they put towards public education, simply because they choose not to USE public education, is a crock of bull. If I, with no children at all, must pay for public education of the masses, then those people who don't want to send their children to public schools STILL have to pay for public education of the masses. You already get a tax break for HAVING kids. You shouldn't get another just because you want to use a private school.

[speechlesstx]

[QUOTE=Synnen;1781743]

You don't get the option of opting out of paying for public schools

Nor do you if vouchers are a reality.

[ETWolverine]

You are taking a deliberate ridiculous definition of the word "same" here. YOU KNOW the word refers to "as valid as" and not identical to. Sure a hetero couple and the gay couple don't look the same. But they can have the same level of love and commitment as any other couple.

I only used your word "same". If you feel that there is a different word that should be used, then please use it.

h_leann_b has also said (post # 56) that the schools are teaching "fact". Problem is that once you start saying "as valid as" rather than "the same as" you putting forward an opinion, not a fact. You BELIEVE that such "marriages" are just as valid because they have the same level of love and commitment as any other couple. But how do you quantify levels of love and commitment? You cannot call it a "fact". It is opinion. And gay marriage hasn't been around long enough for there to be marriage and divorce stantics of any reliability to compare to the general population.

Why don't you say to your kids. "kids, as you know we have taught you OUR values concerning sex ed. We are not naive enough to think that you will not be getting additional info in an number of ways. There is a high probability that what you hear "on the street" is not accurate, so don't depend on it. At school, in sex ed class, you will hear every thing there is to know about sex. Some of the options and practices will not be in line with what we, as your parents have determined to be your values.

"Now my precious children, many kids don't have parents that teach them the important facts about sex. Because of that, it is for the greater good of our society that you get a double dose of knowledge of sex ed. Because other wise there would be many others going without ANY knowledge. There would be more teen pregnancies, abortions, STDs, heartache, or unwanted babies of teen parents. BUT, no matter what else you hear, you know how we feel about the different options and I want you to stay true to our/your values.

1) Because anything that Mommy and Daddy say in the two or three hours we see them before they go to bed at night will not be enough to counteract what their teachers and peers teach them over 12 hours of the day.
2) Because we teach our kids to respect their teachers. To then say that they should listen to their teachers on subject A (science) but not on subject B (sex) would be too confusing for a 7 & 8 year old to deal with. Little kids just don't make those distictions.

Instead of confusing kids with what Mommy and Daddy say vs. what teacher says on issues of sex (which will more than likely lead to sexual abnormalities in and of itself, why not just leave it to Mommy and Daddy. It's NOT an issue for teachers to be dealing with anyway.

[Synnen]

Maybe I read the article differently than others, but I got the distinct impression that what would be taught was about FAMILIES, and how some families are different because they have 2 daddies or 2 mommies. I didn't see anything talking about SEX--just that some people have a different family make-up than other people, and that teachers would be including THAT in the curriculum.

[ETWolverine]

Maybe I read the article differently than others, but I got the distinct impression that what would be taught was about FAMILIES, and how some families are different because they have 2 daddies or 2 mommies. I didn't see anything talking about SEX--just that some people have a different family make-up than other people, and that teachers would be including THAT in the curriculum.

That's not what I got from the article. What I got was that there is going to be a discussion of LIFESTYLES, including gay and lesbian lifestyles.

From the article:

"Kindergarten through grade 5 students throughout the county will be exposed to same-sex educational material aimed at promoting tolerance and inclusiveness."

"The curriculum –– which will include lessons to introduce students to “LGBT” (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual) issues –– will be designed to discourage bullying and teasing based on gay and lesbian stereotypes. The plan will be implemented despite objections by parents who complain children are too young to be exposed to the material."

Elliot

[Synnen]

I guess I would really need to see the material.

I don't see a LOT of difference, though, between teaching children not to bully or mock based on sexual orientation and teaching them not to bully or mock based on race. That, however, is my opinion.

[cozyk]

[

QUOTE=ETWolverine;1784353]I only used your word "same". If you feel that there is a different word that should be used, then please use it.

Refer to my post on common sense.

h_leann_b has also said (post # 56) that the schools are teaching "fact". Problem is that once you start saying "as valid as" rather than "the same as" you putting forward an opinion, not a fact. You BELIEVE that such "marriages" are just as valid because they have the same level of love and commitment as any other couple. But how do you quantify levels of love and commitment? You cannot call it a "fact".

What about this then. "These marriages can be as successful as, or as crummy as any hetero marriage because when it come down to it, it is the level of the maturity, rationale, earnestness, character, commitment, degree of love and selflessness of the two people involved. Do you argue that these traits only come into play with one sex or the other?

1) Because anything that Mommy and Daddy say in the two or three hours we see them before they go to bed at night will not be enough to counteract what their teachers and peers teach them over 12 hours of the day.

Don't know where you went to school but we were not there over 12 hours a day. And not only that but when we were there we certainly did not spend all that time on just one subject. Be careful when you exzagerate because I will call you on it.;)

2) Because we teach our kids to respect their teachers. To then say that they should listen to their teachers on subject A (science) but not on subject B (sex) would be too confusing for a 7 & 8 year old to deal with. Little kids just don't make those distictions.

One word... lame

Instead of confusing kids with what Mommy and Daddy say vs. what teacher says on issues of sex (which will more than likely lead to sexual abnormalities in and of itself, why not just leave it to Mommy and Daddy. It's NOT an issue for teachers to be dealing with anyway.

[/QUOTE]

Why would it more than likely lead to sexual abnormalities in and of itself?

[Skell]

1) Because anything that Mommy and Daddy say in the two or three hours we see them before they go to bed at night will not be enough to counteract what their teachers and peers teach them over 12 hours of the day.
2) Because we teach our kids to respect their teachers. To then say that they should listen to their teachers on subject A (science) but not on subject B (sex) would be too confusing for a 7 & 8 year old to deal with. Little kids just don't make those distictions.

Instead of confusing kids with what Mommy and Daddy say vs. what teacher says on issues of sex (which will more than likely lead to sexual abnormalities in and of itself, why not just leave it to Mommy and Daddy. It's NOT an issue for teachers to be dealing with anyway.

I disagree.

My teachers always taught me it was NEVER OK to hit another student.

My Dad however taught me it was NEVER OK to hit another student UNLESS he hit you first. You know what I did. I did what dad told me. The teachers didn't like it but I did what Dad had taught me was right. And ill do the same with my kids.

If you guys are as good a parents as you make out to be then your kids will listen to you too and follow your lead. And that gets to the heart of why teaching these issues is a good idea. Its to get through to the kids with the parents who's lead is bad. The parents who don't teach there kids about these issues. The parents who aren't as good a parents as you. You guy's cry genocide and murder on the abortion issues but in the same breath moan and groan about an attempt to try and prevent kids who aren't fit to be parents from falling pregnant. What the??

In fact you go as far to say that teaching them this stuff has the opposite effect. I just don't get it. But I gather Elliot you'll just say I'm unintelligent. Maybe I should have listened more to teacher and less to Dad.

[tomder55]

Anger as school tells children aged five about gay issues to the sound of Elton John | Mail Online

[Skell]

It strikes me as a little absurd that you guys get so worked up about a bit of Elton John, yet don't seem too worried about the scores of innocent kids that get gunned down dead at schools across your country each year. But that's a whole other issue I know.