[cozyk]

Actually, as a parent there are PLENTY of things that you HAVE to, MAKE SURE, SHOULD, and BE WILLING to do, by law:

1. Feed your child.
2. Make sure your child gets an education, whether that's through public schools, private schools, or home schools.
3. Provide adequate shelter for your child.
4. Provide medical assistance as needed---as in vaccinations, getting broken bones set, having an appendix taken out when it is inflamed, etc.

Kids have been lost to the state because parents felt that they did not HAVE TO or BE WILLING to do things for their children---for the child's well-being.

So...as a parent there are PLENTY of things you HAVE TO do. It's just where exactly the line is on what you do and do not HAVE to do that's being debated here. I mean, do you HAVE TO make your child wear a seat belt? By LAW, yes you do. Do all parents do this? Nope. So...where is the line drawn as far as who determines what is best for the child? I agree that most of the time it should be the parent, but laws fill in the gaps, in the best interest of children, for those parents that SUCK at parenting.

Totally, absolutely, 100% agree.

[cozyk]

[QUOTE]

doesn't matter that the US has more... there are still not that many. If those are all the incidents world wide then the US is averaging a little over 3 per year.

Three too many

[speechlesstx]

Hair splitting again. Gets tiresome. Individuals in and of the US, is that better?

Cozy, NK loves to criticize and demean my country at every opportunity. You're darn right I expect him to make the distinction.

[NeedKarma]

Cozy, NK loves to criticize and demean my country at every opportunity. You're darn right I expect him to make the distinction.

a) you criticize your country daily. Here are the threads you start: Ask Me Help Desk - Search Results Pot calling the kettle black I see.

b) I did not criticize your country, I responded to Tom's post.
I have no idea why you think that was directed at you.

[speechlesstx]

Actually, as a parent there are PLENTY of things that you HAVE to, MAKE SURE, SHOULD, and BE WILLING to do, by law:

Um, can we take those items as a given? I'm not an idiot.

It's just where exactly the line is on what you do and do not HAVE to do that's being debated here.

Exactly, and you laid out a list of things you think we should do and pledged to enforce it. That's what I'm talking about, it's none of your business how I as a responsible parent raise my kids otherwise - and it's not the school's business either. Get out of my parenting business.

[speechlesstx]

a) you criticize your country daily. Here are the threads you start: Ask Me Help Desk - Search Results Pot calling the kettle black I see.

Wrong, I don't bash my country, I voice opinions on issues IN my country.

b) I did not criticize your country, I responded to Tom's post.
I have no idea why you think that was directed at you.

Simple, it was a public post and I responded with proper clarification.

[Synnen]

I think that what I said was that going back to "traditional" family values is about as possible as going back to when women didn't work outside the home. And I wished you luck if you really wanted that.

I ALSO said that the parents should have been consulted on the assembly, if for no other reason than to be able to pull their kids out.

My "however" on that was that the school would be enforcing rules regarding using homosexual slang, preventing bullying based on homosexual stereotypes, and generally preventing students from using a minority group as the butt of every joke. I mean, how offended would you be if you found out the new joke at school was to call everyone a "Jew" for not sharing money or some such? It's the same thing!

My however was this: Whether students attended the assembly, they would be held to the SAME rules and standards of not using homosexual slang and not promoting homosexual stereotypes. If the parents who yanked their kids from the assembly don't talk to their children about the new rules, then they have NO reason to complain when their child is punished for not adhering to those rules.

[cozyk]

[QUOTE=speechlesstx;1788509]Wrong, I don't bash my country, I voice opinions on issues IN my country.



Hair split:D

[speechlesstx]

I think that what I said was that going back to "traditional" family values is about as possible as going back to when women didn't work outside the home. And I wished you luck if you really wanted that.

Maybe someone else did but I don't recall asking to return to when women didn't work outside the home. That's great that you agree parents should have been told, but this isn't about 'rules,' it's about teaching values the school has no business teaching, especially without parental consent or the option to opt out.

[Synnen]

What values?

I guess that's not what I'm getting.

Nigel Utton, the headmaster, said the assembly was about bullying in general and only contained a section about homophobia.

He said it was part of a county-wide initiative encouraged by Kent County Council, and many parents had congratulated the school in tackling the issue in such a sensitive way.

In a statement sent out to schools by the council education officer Lynne Miller said: "Young children are exposed at a very early age to homophobic language. Pupils may call each other 'gay' without really understanding what it means, but learn that it means something negative, useless, and not positive.

"If such usage is not challenged it makes it much more difficult to address homophobic bullying in secondary schools.


So schools shouldn't teach kids that BULLYING is wrong? That should be ONLY the province of parents? Is that what you're saying?

[cozyk]

I'm not getting the values thing either Synnen.

Speech, why don't you explain to us exactly what "value" you feel is being squashed by imparting age appropriate facts of life and encouraging respectful behavior toward others.

[speechlesstx]

I'm not getting the values thing either Synnen.

Speech, why don't you explain to us exactly what "value" you feel is being squashed by imparting age appropriate facts of life and encouraging respectful behavior toward others.

We've been down that road several times already.

Elementary school teachers in Alameda, Calif. will introduce lesson plans to their educational curriculum beginning next year that address gay and lesbian issues, KCBS News in San Francisco reports.

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

Teaching tolerance & inclusiveness on gay and lesbian issues is teaching values. The left teaching tolerance & inclusiveness alone is a joke as they are NOT tolerant of my views. That you don't tolerate my view of this is a perfect example.

[Synnen]

If kids were making fun of any other minority group, would you feel the same way?

So allowing kids to pick on other kids and call them nigger or jew or cracker or slut or prude because of their moral (religious) beliefs is okay?

Why is this ONE GROUP not okay, but the others are protected?

I'm not tolerant of your views because your views are based on intolerance in and of themselves. If you plan on NOT teaching your children ANYTHING about homosexuality, GREAT! But you'll have to shut off TV, forbid movies, and select their reading material to keep them from being exposed to it at all.

I agree that parents should have been given notice of the assembly, and given the option to take their kids out. I'm all for parents choosing what their kids should and should not learn, as far as morals go. HOWEVER---I believe that those kids pulled from the assembly should have to have a conversation with their PARENTS about the subject matter, if it has anything to do with school rules.

Teaching intolerance of ANYTHING is wrong, in my opinion. I don't agree with your morals, but I defend your right to have them. However, kids need to NOT disparage other kids using ANY kind of slur.

Maybe if ALL parents taught their kids to respect other people, then there wouldn't be a situation where SCHOOLS have to teach kids to respect other people.

[speechlesstx]

If kids were making fun of any other minority group, would you feel the same way?

So allowing kids to pick on other kids and call them nigger or jew or cracker or slut or prude because of their moral (religious) beliefs is okay?

As long as it just about "making fun of others" to you we're not going to get anywhere. That can be a rule (as was previously touched on), plain and simple. Don't make fun of others. One doesn't need to teach tolerance, inclusiveness, have GLBT curriculum of any sort to make and enforce that rule.

I'm not tolerant of your views because your views are based on intolerance in and of themselves.

That's total BS. The only real view I've espoused in this thread is schools do not have the right to undermine parental values. Make all the rules you want along that line, post it in the halls, pass out flyers, put it in the student handbook - "bullying or any form of verbal or physical harassment or abuse toward anyone will not be tolerated" - it's pretty darn simple.

Apparently that isn't good enough for you and this school board, you want to go beyond making rules and into teaching acceptance of lifestyles and behaviors that go against parental values without allowing parents to opt out. I don't care how you put it, it's WRONG.

But you'll have to shut off TV, forbid movies, and select their reading material to keep them from being exposed to it at all.

Been there, discussed that, irrelevant.

I agree that parents should have been given notice of the assembly, and given the option to take their kids out. I'm all for parents choosing what their kids should and should not learn, as far as morals go. HOWEVER---I believe that those kids pulled from the assembly should have to have a conversation with their PARENTS about the subject matter, if it has anything to do with school rules.

So now you're back to rules, perfect. Parents and kids should have conversations, but it's nobody's business if they don't have the one that pleases you.

Teaching intolerance of ANYTHING is wrong, in my opinion. I don't agree with your morals, but I defend your right to have them. However, kids need to NOT disparage other kids using ANY kind of slur.

Teaching intolerance is wrong, but being intolerant is apparently OK. You just said you are not tolerant of my views - fourth paragraph, first line.

[Synnen]

The thing I'm not sure you're understanding about my argument here is that teaching kids not to bully is teaching a value.

If only parents have the right to teach values, then school rules are worthless, because they ARE teaching values: the values that are needed to get along with one another.

The assembly was about bullying, according to the article. A small PORTION of that assembly was about not bullying people regarding their sexual orientation---in other words, "I've heard you kids calling each other 'gay', so now we're going to teach you what the words you've been saying actually mean".

I've stated that parents should have had the opportunity to pull their kids from the assembly. But I also agree that if you have rules regarding bullying based on ANYTHING--race, creed, sexual orientation, height, I don't care--then you're teaching children values. RULES are a way of teaching children values.

If you don't agree that parents should have to discuss the rules with their children, then how are the kids supposed to understand WHY they can't call that show they don't like "gay" on the playground, or why they can't call their teacher a "dyke"? Seriously--I'm not understanding what EXACTLY it is you're objecting to--and I think it's because we're focusing on different points of the article. Yes, parents should choose to teach values. Yes, they should have been given the option of pulling their kids from the assembly. No, their kids are not exempt from the rules of the school--one of which is "No bullying", which is teaching the value of treating other people with respect.

[speechlesstx]

The thing I'm not sure you're understanding about my argument here is that teaching kids not to bully is teaching a value.

Like I said, I'm OK with that as rule, it should be and probably is so we should both be OK there. Why do we need to go any further? I don't actually disagree that schools teach certain values, I am specifically referring to undermining parental rights. I've said that from the beginning. If you're OK with that fine, I'm not.

[Skell]

So do you recognise / agree that teaching kids not to call another kid a homo, fag, slut, jew, nigger etc. is not undermining your parental rights and values?

[speechlesstx]

So do you recognise / agree that teaching kids not to call another kid a homo, fag, slut, jew, nigger etc. is not undermining your parental rights and values?

Skell if that's all it is then fine, that would be included in what I said. But I know these people and that ain't all it is. They don't need a 'curriculum' to teach this, they just need to enforce the rules.

[inthebox]

Yes it is - look at the chart again, count how many incidents are in the US versus other countries.

Shock Over Chicago Student Gun Deaths - CBS News

That's 58 deaths over what amounts to a 17-month period. And that makes an average of one child getting murdered every eight days.

In a city where handguns are already banned

Your timeline doesn't have Chicago on the list.


What conclusions can be drawn from this?

Who is from Chicago? Was a senator there during this? Can I say there is a direct causal relationship or just a correlation.



1] The fact that your reference misses Chicago calls into question the validity of the statistics posed.

2] It gives a list but no reference, such as percent of population innvolved or the total sample selected.

The US has a population of about 300 million, if 300 people die from "Y" a year, and
If in country "x" of 30 million people, 60 people die a year, which country is has a higher percentage of people dying from "y?"







G&P

[cozyk]

I'm just curious speech.

Your main beef is that the mandatory teaching of the existence of this alternative lifestyle is wrong on every level. You believe that they are going to over ride your teachings,and say that this lifestyle is okay when you have conveyed to your kids that it is not.
I understand your anger over that. I disagree, but I understand.

I think about the greater good and the worse case scenario.

You appear to be a responsible parent. I can imagine you teaching what you believe to be right and wrong, and I can imagine that you'd teach that being cruel and hurtful to others is wrong. Name calling, violence, ANY kind of hate crime,
etc. I am not worried about your kids.

Now, having said that, if this gay sex ed stuff is taught, your kids have already been armed. Because you have told them that it exist, other people may believe it's acceptable and fine, but in our family we do not believe that it is.

The worst case scenario is that your children will hear it twice. You are their parent though and the beliefs you instill on the subject will prevail. At least until they are old enough to make their own judgments.

Now, consider the worst case scenario of kids that don't have parents that step up to the plate with their responsibilities. If these kids aren't taught the facts of life, not taught that hatefulness and harassment/bullying are unacceptable to any group of people including gays. Then you can have results like the Matthew Shepard case, or the two different kids that have committed suicide here in Ga. Over the last few months. One child was accused of being gay and was bullied so badly that he hung himself. The other, just bullied in general because he was different. He couldn't take it any longer.

The above is the worst case scenario of NOT being taught from a responsible adult. What method is for the greater good of society? Some kids hear it twice, or some kids are not taught at all?

Back to your beefs.
#1 That it's taught at all in the schools.
#2 That gay lifestyle is something that just rubs you so much the wrong way, that you favor no teaching over possible double dose of teaching. Even when lives can be so monumentally ruined vs. you reinstating your values to your children.