In another thread (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/coolest-president-ever-354234-11.html#post1764874) 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...


Calif. District Creates Primary School Gay Curriculum (http://www.newsmax.com/us/school_district_same_sex/2009/06/01/220249.html?s=al&promo_code=80BF-1)

Monday, June 1, 2009 3:24 PM

By: Rick Pedraza

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.

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.

Many parents are condemning the lesson plan as sex education in disguise and are angered that they will not be allowed to exempt their children from the lessons. Opponents decry the curriculum plan as an effort to advance the gay, lesbian and transgendered agenda.

Those opposed to sexual orientation lessons for children are so upset they are threatening to sue the school board, ABC News reports. Promoting gay, lesbian and sexual orientation should be a parents' rights issue, parents say, and is not an appropriate topic for school children.

The Alameda school district's legal counsel, however, recommended the plan because the curriculum does not deal with health or sex education, which are topics that do require opt-out provisions.

“It was the opinion of our legal counsel that this curriculum was not health or sex education curriculum,” school board president Mike McMahon told CNS New.

“If a student responds that one family in the book is made up of a mother, a father, and two children and a cat, you may acknowledge that some families look like this, but ask students for other examples of what a family can look like.”

School Board Member Trish Spencer, who voted against the plan, said she worries that its implementation could lead to the harassment of students who have religious objections to homosexuality. She cited that bullying due to religion is a bigger problem for the district than bullying based on homosexuality.

Also adamantly opposed to the plan is Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families.

“This will be done whether parents like it or not, and it shows the hostility against parental rights and traditional family values,” Thomasson, told CNS New.

Last month, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, the voter-approved initiative to make same-sex marriage illegal that passed in November.

The Alameda school board said it will review its decision to implement the curriculum at the end of next year’s school session.

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?

I think what needs to be taught is accepting everyone no matter what- skin color, religion, sexual preference. And YES I think this needs to be taught in schools because there are still far too many ignorant people who will not teach this to our children. That is why there are still hate crimes. I don't understand 'Christains' judging everyone. People should be treated the same. I think in the end the only thing this will be doing is lowering hate crime. And parent should tell their children there are non-traditional families.

If you go against this being taught to our children do you think Sex Education is also wrong? Isn't that a part of parenting?

What is a hate crime ? Criminalizing thoughts ? If someone does a violent crime or other criminal acts those are crimes in themselves regardless of the motivating thought behind it.

If I had to do it over I would take my daughter out of public government brainwashing schools .

I think what needs to be taught is accepting everyone no matter what- skin color, religion, sexual preference. And YES I think this needs to be taught in schools because there are still far too many ignorant people who will not teach this to our children. That is why there are still hate crimes. I don't understand 'Christains' judging everyone.

That sounds to me like you're judging Christians. So what's the difference?


People should be treated the same. I think in the end the only thing this will be doing is lowering hate crime.

That's not what one board member thinks.

"School Board Member Trish Spencer, who voted against the plan, said she worries that its implementation could lead to the harassment of students who have religious objections to homosexuality."

I think she may be right based on the reaction to California's Prop 8 (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/11/video-forces-of-tolerance-confront-proposition-8-supporter/) and Referendum 71 in Washington (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/01/gay-rights-advocates-to-out-those-who-support-referendum-opposing-domestic-partnerships/) by those seeking "tolerance." This isn't about anything but forcing an agenda on parents. For the moment this is still a free country.


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


Why? Are they your kids?


If you go against this being taught to our children do you think Sex Education is also wrong? Isn't that a part of parenting?

Follow the first link I gave and you should be able to discern my opinion of that.

The kids will leave elementary school not knowing how to read ,write ,or do math. But they will know about gay pengiuns

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_Tango_Makes_Three


http://thebsreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/penguins.jpg?w=450&h=350

The kids will leave elementary school not knowing how to read ,write ,or do math. But they will know about gay pengiuns

And Tango Makes Three - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_Tango_Makes_Three)

Sounds like this is all right in line with Obama's plan (http://www.globalscholar.com/community/blog/obama-s-plan-for-education/default.aspx) to focus on education so our students can compete in the global marketplace.

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?Hello Steve:

You're my friend, but you're not going to like what I have to say...

The other day, there was a kid who needed chemo therapy in order to live, whose mother took him away so that he COULDN'T get it... The government stopped her. You may not believe the government should have done that. I do. In my view, the government DOES have a legitimate concern over the welfare of children.

The question now becomes, to what degree.

You don't believe children should be indoctrinated by liberal values in school. I don't believe children should be indoctrinated by conservative values at home.

Are conservative values dangerous?? Yup! I just saw a documentary called Jesus Camp. I wanted to rush in and RESCUE those poor little kids.

Should the government rush in and save 'em?? Nahhh. But, they should keep a close eye on 'em.

excon

Hello Steve:

You're my friend, but you're not going to like what I have to say...

The other day, there was a kid who needed chemo therapy in order to live, whose mother took him away so that he COULDN'T get it... The government stopped her. You may not believe the government should have done that. I do. In my view, the government DOES have a legitimate concern over the welfare of children.

I absolutely believe the government has a legitimate concern over the welfare of children.


The question now becomes, to what degree.

You don't believe children should be indoctrinated by liberal values in school. I don't believe children should be indoctrinated by conservative values at home.

Who are you to say what I teach my kids as a responsible parent? Is that in the constitution somewhere? By what authority do schools have the right to undermine parental values?


Are conservative values dangerous?? Yup! I just saw a documentary called Jesus Camp. I wanted to rush in and RESCUE those poor little kids.

Naturally you choose an extreme example that has nothing to do with 99.9 percent of conservatives.


Should the government rush in and save 'em?? Nahhh. But, they should keep a close eye on 'em.

Were they doing something illegal? If not, you said freedom was messy didn't you?

Were they doing something illegal? If not, you said freedom was messy didn't you?Hello again, Steve:

I think the government should keep their eye on ALL fringe groups. And, I think they should do it lawfully.



Who are you to say what I teach my kids as a responsible parent? Who's going to decide who's being responsible?

excon

EC You are too funny for words!


Hello Steve:

You're my friend, but you're not gonna like what I have to say...

The other day, there was a kid who needed chemo therapy in order to live, whose mother took him away so that he COULDN'T get it... The government stopped her. You may not believe the government should have done that. I do. In my view, the government DOES have a legitimate concern over the welfare of children.
If and this is a big IF the objections are on religious grounds, then the Government should not have stepped in. Whether I think her religious beliefs are ridiculous or not or whether they are against the teachings of the Bible or not really has no bearing on that argument. It is her and her childs right to make an informed decision based on the best available information at the time.

The question now becomes, to what degree.

You don't believe children should be indoctrinated by liberal values in school. I don't believe children should be indoctrinated by conservative values at home. School is intended to teach children to read, write and to math. They are not there to teach what ever value that some idiot teacher has as a way of indoctrinating the children into their stupid belief system. That goes whether it is religion, homosexuality or politics!

Are conservative values dangerous???? Yup! I just saw a documentary called Jesus Camp. I wanted to rush in and RESCUE those poor little kids. Your opinion and I happen to disagree with that statement. I If this country still held to it's religious values, we would need as many police or prisons as we have today. people would understand right from wrong and make decisions based on those values. Sadly since liberalism has become main steam in this country you can see the results. Explosions in prison populations, and crime are rampant. I will not go down town any longer for fear for my life.

Should the government rush in and save 'em??? Nahhh. But, they should keep a close eye on 'em. Again, anytime you let the Government do anything it is so badly screwed up, not to mention the cost overruns it is not even funny any longer.

excon

If the parents don't like what the school is teaching them take them out of the school. If parents are that concerned maybe they should home school their children. Then they can teach their kids to hate the same things they hate. Problem solved.

Tom I agree with the entire "Hate Crime" aren't all violent crimes hate crimes.

Ex I saw that Jesus Camp. That was disturbing. Those counselors broke the kids down to tears. Such A Shame.

Who's gonna decide who's being responsible?

Who's going to decide they're not?

Who's going to decide they're not?Hello again, Steve:

Janet Napolitano.

excon

If the parents don't like what the school is teaching them take them out of the school. If parents are that concerned maybe they should home school their children. Then they can teach their kids to hate the same things they hate. Problem solved.

A lot of people can't just up and move their kids to another school or home school them.

A lot of people can't just up and move their kids to another school or home school them

Especially since the party of choice doesn't believe in educational choice.

Hello again, Steve:

Janet Napolitano.

She of the right-wing extremist papers? Why not just assign Bill Ayers or the good Rev. Wright as the parenting czar?

She of the right-wing extremist papers?Hello again, Steve:

No. She the head COP with all the power in the world (that you right wingers gave her, by the way). Yeah, if I was you, I'd be nervous.

excon

PS> This is the time I usually say to you, that if you don't look after the OTHER GUY'S rights, yours may be next.

especially since the party of choice doesn't believe in educational choice.

Catholic School or public school There is the choice Tom. If a parent was serious about this they would find away to afford to send their kid to catholic school my parents did and we were Broke.

Maybe you should look at the vote on that act... 90-9 in the Senate (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/107/senate/2/votes/249/) and 295-132 in the House (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/107/house/2/votes/367/).

There are more private school options than Catholic schools. There are private schools that the elites like the Obama's patron.

But his instinct was to stop the voucher program(in the omnibus spending bill for fiscal year 2009 ) for underprivilaged students to attend these elite schools in DC . He doesn't believe poor people should have educational choices. Nor do the Senate Democrats who voted 50 to 39 to squash an amendment to extend the voucher program.

My parents didn't get any vouchers and I know they paid a lot to send me to a catholic school (I had to take the payments to school and I checked them out) So it is possible.

But if your parents were not using the public school system that they were paying taxes for then why shouldn't they have been able to take some of that money to send you to a school of their choosing ?

Yes some parents can afford it ;but many can't . My sister in Jacksonville took her children out of their school district to home school because the system there sucks and it is dangerous for children. She can't afford private school but she is paying for the public school system regardless .

I actually agree with your point that if you send your kid to a private/catholic school you should not have to pay taxes for public school (or at least pay a little less).

I used that argument when 8th grade finished and my parents wanted to send me to a catholic high school. I told them you are paying for the public school now so just send me there and the money you save from not sending me to a catholic school you can get me a car. I never got that car.

Just as long as you have no problem with parents getting money to send their kids to Islamic schools tom?

I agree that school districts should be teaching the kids not to pick and make fun of people because of their sexual choices.
** although kids up till high school should not be sexual anythingg, and I could argue about the high school ones.

But they should also be teaching them not to make fun of Christians, not make fun of nerds, or girls or fat people, or people with funny accents and so on.

You're against teaching same sex relationships in school so you want it banned. What about the parents that are all for it?

You can't please everyone.

If you don't like what your child's school is teaching then find a school that teaches your values.

Problem solved.

Just as long as you have no problem with parents getting money to send their kids to Islamic schools tom?

If they pay their school taxes then no I have no problem with it . Where I live there is a large Orthodox Jewish community that pays taxes but besides bus services get no other benefit for their school taxes and do not get vouchers. Since they don't ;they are active in the school board and vote in block to vote down the budget . The system is unfair to both them and the rest of the people in the district.

But I argue this more on the grounds that the system now is inequitable. Wealthy parents can choose any school they want for their kids; middle class parents often move to suburbs where better public schools exist; the poor, however, may be left to fend for themselves and restricted to dysfunctional public schools without any choice.

I note again that the Obama's are sending their children to the finest private school in Washington. Michelle Obama went to Bouchet Academy and Whitney Young High School .Justice Sonya Sotomayor is the product of private Catholic School education. The narrative that is told of her families climb from poverty cannot be accurately told without an acknowledgement of the role private schooling played.

You're against teaching same sex relationships in school so you want it banned. What about the parents that are all for it?

Get this, PUBLIC schools. Taxpayer dollars. The same area where all those people throw a fit that any sort of religious (Christian that is) value might cross a student's path want to force feed our children GLBT values without allowing parents to opt out? What about all the parents that WANT prayer or bible courses in school?


If you don't like what your child's school is teaching then find a school that teaches your values.

Problem solved.

Problem solved? You say that as if it's just easy as pie. What about those who can't afford it, have to work two jobs to make ends meet, single parents and every other poor soul who can't get a voucher to do something different? Is that your idea of being sensitive to the needs of poor families who work their butts off to provide a meager existence and raise their children with their values - suck it up and accept our agenda or just go somewhere else? Is the agenda more important than a real education, more important than the family itself?

Is that your idea of being sensitive to the needs of poor families ...
If they are poor it's only because they aren't working hard enough. America is the land of freedom and opportunity. No handouts.

/republican mantra

If they are poor it's only because they aren't working hard enough. America is the land of freedom and opportunity. No handouts.

/republican mantra

Which of us has ever said "If they are poor it's only because they aren't working hard enough?" Which of us has ever said "no handouts?" Would you care to address the actual topic?

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.

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

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?


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.

Tolerance of everything? Surely you have exceptions.

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


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

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

Ex I never worked for a poor dude.

Ex I never worked for a poor dude.Well I guess you don't volunteer much or at all.

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

I think what needs to be taught is accepting everyone no matter what- skin color, religion, sexual preference. And YES I think this needs to be taught in schools because there are still far too many ignorant people who will not teach this to our children. That is why there are still hate crimes. I don't understand 'Christains' judging everyone. People should be treated the same. I think in the end the only thing this will be doing is lowering hate crime. And parent should tell their children there are non-traditional families.

If you go against this being taught to our children do you think Sex Education is also wrong? Isn't that a part of parenting?

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 Gandhi? 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.

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

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.


I'm sorry. But do you not let your children watch TV either?

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.



Do you not let your Children play with other children? They talk about thigs like this,

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.


and yes I think they should be educated.

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


No point in letting more people in this country become ignorant.

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.


They should be taught tolerance in school, of everything; like I stated before.

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

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


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.

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

Have you ever seen a poor person create a job, mass produce a product, buy an expensive luxury item that causes increased employment or production, or increase GNP?

Tom said it well... I've never worked for a poor person.

Elliot

As a currently unemployed conservative going through a divorce, with virtually no money in the bank, ...How are you enjoying the tax cuts to the rich?

Hope you get back on your feet soon.

How are you enjoying the tax cuts to the rich?

Hope you get back on your feet soon.

Thank you for your well-wishes, NK. I AM on my feet. My current 9-5 job is to find a job, but it IS a job, nonetheless.

Those tax cuts are the very thing that is going to get me back into the work force. Those tax cuts represent the money that will be used for my salary, rather than sucked up by the bottomless pit called government. Without those tax cuts, I would not have any hope of finding a job.

Like Tom and I said before, I've never worked for a poor person. RICH people create jobs, and the more money put back in the hands of the rich, the more jobs they create... either directly through their own businesses, or indirectly by buying the goods and services that will be built and provided by those who are not yet employed but will be when the demand for their goods and services increases. Without those tax cuts you criticize, the demand for goods and services won't increase, and I will remain unemployed.

I'm hoping against hope that Obama sees the light and makes MORE tax cuts. Otherwise I may not see employement against for a while.

Does that answer your question about how I see tax cuts for the "rich"?

Elliot

Does that answer your question about how I see tax cuts for the "rich"?

ElliotNope, you danced around the facts that the tax cuts happened before you lost your job, not just recently.

Nope, you danced around the facts that the tax cuts happened before you lost your job, not just recently.

Please read what I said again. Towit:

"I'm hoping against hope that Obama sees the light and makes MORE tax cuts. Otherwise I may not see employement again for a while."

In other words, I am HOPING FOR MORE TAX CUTS TO PEOPLE WHO CREATE JOBS SO THAT THEY CAN HOPEFULLY CREATE ONE FOR ME.

Is that clear enough now?

How do you expect them to work for you when they failed for you?

How do you expect them to work for you when they failed for you?

Why do you assume tax cuts are the reason he (or anyone else) lost his job?

Why do you assume tax cuts are the reason he (or anyone else) lost his job?The same reason he assumes it will be his saving grace I guess.

How do you expect them to work for you when they failed for you?


THEY didn't fail for me. THEY kept me employed for several years.

What failed was the government's actions vis-à-vis intervention in banks. The reason that I was laid off from the Bank I was working for is that BANKS are hurting because the government decided to force them to make bad loans that they (including me, as a credit analyst and credit officer) didn't want to make. If not for those bad loans, banks would be lending money right now. They never would have been hurt by those bad loans. They would still need people like ME to do their lending for them.

In other words, it's government intervention and government social engineering that caused this mess, not the tax cuts.


The tax cuts actually kept me employed for a period while the entire mess was unfolding, (since 2005 or so, when Bush and McCain first brough it up to Congress but were brushed off as overly alarmist). If not for the tax cuts, a whole bunch of bankers would have been laid off YEARS ago as banks dipped into capital to reserve against loan losses. The tax cuts gave the banks something else to tap into before the bank had to fire me in order to tap into my salary to set up adequate loan loss reserves. Because of the tax cuts, I got a break for several months if not years. MORE tax cuts would re-open the job market for me as they did after the 9/11 economic downturn, the S&L crisis, and all the other times that tax cuts have increased employment.

Elliot

I guess I'd rather live in a place where I didn't have to rely on the rich getting tax cuts to stay employed. To each his own.

The same reason he assumes it will be his saving grace I guess.

You guess wrong.

There are sound economic principles that explain how tax cuts prime an economic pump, increase employment rates and productivity, and keep jobs from being lost.

There are NO economic principles (sound or otherwise) that can explain how a tax cut results in the loss of jobs or increases in unemployment. Even Keynes didn't make that claim, and he was a government-interventionalist economist.

The only "reasonable" anti-tax-cut argument is that the government needs the money in order to run things. However, the Laffer Curve clearly demonstrates the fallacy of this argument... and proves that the more you cut taxes, the more the government actually takes in because of increased VOLUME in the economy. People pay lower tax RATES, but more in absolute dollars because the amount that they end up earning is larger in the aggregate and more people are employed and paying taxes.

In any case, nobody argues that tax cuts cause more unemployment. MOST people (including those who are anti-tax-cut) understand that lower taxes increase employment and spending.

Elliot

Get this, PUBLIC schools. Taxpayer dollars. The same area where all those people throw a fit that any sort of religious (Christian that is) value might cross a student's path want to force feed our children GLBT values without allowing parents to opt out? What about all the parents that WANT prayer or bible courses in school?



Problem solved? You say that as if it's just easy as pie. What about those who can't afford it, have to work two jobs to make ends meet, single parents and every other poor soul who can't get a voucher to do something different? Is that your idea of being sensitive to the needs of poor families who work their butts off to provide a meager existence and raise their children with their values - suck it up and accept our agenda or just go somewhere else? Is the agenda more important than a real education, more important than the family itself?

Would you be this angry and upset if you got your way? No. You'd be telling the people that do want this curriculum to suck it up and accept it.

The fact is that you can't please everyone. Someone is going to be angry. So, what do you do? You either accept the schools decision or you find another school.

It may not be easy, although here in Canada it really is a no brainer, Catholic schools are funded by taxpayers, we all pay, doesn't matter if you're Catholic or not, at least in my Province. That's why my parents sent me to Catholic school.

Public school yes, we pay fees, but if you can't afford $160/year for your child to attend then maybe you shouldn't have children.

I realize that people are suffering through hard times, but what does that have to do with your original post? The question is, do you have to accept their agenda? The answer is no, find someplace that does teach what you want taught, or home school. If you can't afford to do that then yes, accept it.

Prop 8 caused a lot of stir. There are a lot of people that think that gay marriage should be allowed, I'm one of them. Will I get my way? No. Would it stop me if I was gay? No. I'd go somewhere where gay marriage was accepted.

You can't expect everyone to conform to your wishes, to go by your standards and morals.

I guess I'd rather live in a place where I didn't have to rely on the rich getting tax cuts to stay employed. To each his own.

Well, if you can find such a place, let me know.

And FYI, Canada isn't it. Canada's economy works on the same principles as the American economy. If they cut taxes, unemployment goes down, same as ours.

Elliot

Would you be this angry and upset if you got your way? No. You'd be telling the people that do want this curriculum to suck it up and accept it.

What is it with you people calling me angry? Just what exactly in that post was angry, WANT in capital letters? It's called emphasis, and I'm concerned, not angry.


The fact is that you can't please everyone. Someone is going to be angry. So, what do you do? You either accept the schools decision or you find another school.

It may not be easy, although here in Canada it really is a no brainer, Catholic schools are funded by taxpayers, we all pay, doesn't matter if you're Catholic or not, at least in my Province. That's why my parents sent me to Catholic school.

I'm not in Canada and neither is this school district. In most districts you can go to the taxpayer funded public school in your neighborhood, home school or pay through the nose for a private education. You don't get any other choices.


Public school yes, we pay fees, but if you can't afford $160/year for your child to attend then maybe you shouldn't have children.

Not counting all of the other taxes that fund schools, roughly 70 percent of our property taxes go to the local school district, and that's a lot more than $160 a year.


I realize that people are suffering through hard times, but what does that have to do with your original post? The question is, do you have to accept their agenda?

Why are you asking me? You're the one that suggested if we don't like it to change schools. I'm the one telling you that's not so simple in this country.


The answer is no, find someplace that does teach what you want taught, or home school. If you can't afford to do that then yes, accept it.

LOL, let's say this district is going to offer a required course in fundamental Baptist values, do you still feel the same way?


Prop 8 caused a lot of stir. There are a lot of people that think that gay marriage should be allowed, I'm one of them. Will I get my way? No. Would it stop me if I was gay? No. I'd go somewhere where gay marriage was accepted.

You can't expect everyone to conform to your wishes, to go by your standards and morals.

Exactly, I'm not expecting that and never have. Schools should abide by that principle even more so.

Would you be this angry and upset if you got your way? No. You'd be telling the people that do want this curriculum to suck it up and accept it.

The fact is that you can't please everyone. Someone is going to be angry.

Well, then, let's be sure not to anger anyone by giving in on principles, right?

Sorry, Altenweg, but that isn't a very good argument. The fact that me "getting my way" is going to make someone else angry is NOT a reason for me to stop trying to do what I think is right. Giving in doesn't make things better, it just gives you tire treads on your chest where you get run over by those on the other side of the issue.


So, what do you do? You either accept the schools decision or you find another school.

Or you work to change the policy. For some reason that option seems to escape people.


It may not be easy, although here in Canada it really is a no brainer, Catholic schools are funded by taxpayers, we all pay, doesn't matter if you're Catholic or not, at least in my Province. That's why my parents sent me to Catholic school.

Interesting. Here in the USA, you pay local real estate taxes to support the local public school system, whether you are in that system or not, but G-d forbid the public school system that we are paying for should ever mention "god", "creation", or "bible" in its curriculum, even though the majority of taxpayers paying for the school system are religious and want creation taught in the schools... and sex ed NOT to be taught. Whereas in your system, the RELIGIOUS schools, with religious curricula, are supported by your tax dollars and nobody would argue that creationalism shouldn't be taught in a christian school. I think there's something wrong with OUR system, not yours, at least in this area.


Public school yes, we pay fees, but if you can't afford $160/year for your child to attend then maybe you shouldn't have children.

In the USA, a comment like that could get you flamed on a public board like this one. Even though you are 100% right. After all, such a comment could be seen as racist, because it's only people of certain races that fall into such a category of people having children they can't afford. Of course the reality is that the comment isn't racist, but an accusation of "racism" is much easier to do than to argue the merits of your point.


I realize that people are suffering through hard times, but what does that have to do with your original post? The question is, do you have to accept their agenda? The answer is no, find someplace that does teach what you want taught, or home school. If you can't afford to do that then yes, accept it.

Or work within the system to change the policy. That too is a viable option.


Prop 8 caused a lot of stir. There are a lot of people that think that gay marriage should be allowed, I'm one of them. Will I get my way? No. Would it stop me if I was gay? No. I'd go somewhere where gay marriage was accepted.

Ahhh... but the vast majority of gay-rights advocates do not want to just accept it. They instead file lawsuits that are put before activist judges who legislate from the bench, despite the fact that the law is CLEARLY not what the judges have ruled, and despite the fact that the majority doesn't want it. They hijack the system when it becomes to inconvenient to work within the system.

The more reasonable advocates, the ones who understand and respect the law simply try to work within the legal system to change the minds of the people and the legislators. I can respect that even if I disagree with the position. They are working to change the system. They are not HIJACKING the system.


You can't expect everyone to conform to your wishes, to go by your standards and morals.

No. But you can work to change their minds from within the system. And that is what I and the other conservatives on this board are advocating. And part of that is to point out where the current status quo is failing the students, the parents and the nation as a whole. THAT is what we are doing here... pointing out the failures and explaining why the status quo must change. I think that's a perfectly legitimate response to an institutionalized issue that we do not agree with.

Elliot

Homosexuals can have a family. And the school is teaching kids about the different kinds of family. They are teaching fact. They aren't telling all the little boys to kiss each other. The are interested in teaching facts; which I agree with. I agree that children should be tolerant of their peers. And yes, the parent should teach them this.. But they aren't doing their job. I think that someone needs to step in.

I just look back at some of my great grandparents who were racist and intolerant, and feel bad for them. And honestly that is how your grandchildren are going to look back at you. Times are changing.

Homosexuals can have a family. And the school is teaching kids about the different kinds of family. They are teaching fact. They aren't telling all the little boys to kiss each other. The are interested in teaching facts; which I agree with. I agree that children should be tolerant of their peers.



And yes, the parent should teach them this.. But they aren't doing their job. I think that someone needs to step in.

Why is it that every time the issue of homosexuality, abortion or sex education comes up we get this claim? Are they doing their job or are they just not doing it to your liking? I think it's mostly the latter.


I just look back at some of my great grandparents who were racist and intolerant, and feel bad for them. And honestly that is how your grandchildren are going to look back at you. Times are changing.

My only grandchild was the victim of an abortion, he/she won't be looking back at me at all.

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.


If YOU are teaching your children about sex ed, that's great. Unfortunately for varied reasons we can't count on all parents to do that. Should society reap the fall out of that? Or is school an opportunity to learn more than just "reading, writing, and rithmatic"? I think school should prepare children to live in our society. To shelter kids is a disservice to them and society. What is the problem with your child getting a 2nd round of sex ed, if you are also teaching them at home? The facts are the facts, right? What would they teach that is contrary to what you teach them? Or do you leave out parts that you don't want them to know? Believe me, they WILL be exposed to everything somewhere along the way. Wouldn't you rather it be accurate?


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.


I think the key word here is SHOULD. Well SHOULD doesn't cut it. We can't count on SHOULD. It is not reliable.

Homosexuals can have a family.

I didn't say that they couldn't have a family. I said that they cannot have children on their own without 3rd party intervention of some sort.


And the school is teaching kids about the different kinds of family. They are teaching fact. They aren't telling all the little boys to kiss each other.

Aren't they? If they are saying that gay families are "just like everyone else", isn't that the same as saying that "kissing other boys is okay" because it's no different than "kissing girls"? And if they are teaching this to MY child and I don't think that it is okay, isn't that a usurpation of my parental rights?


The are interested in teaching facts; which I agree with.

No they are not. They are teaching an opinion... that a gay family is "just the same" as a traditional family. That is NOT a factual statement because from a biological perspective the two are NOT the same. Ergo, it is NOT a fact, it is an opinion.


I agree that children should be tolerant of their peers. And yes, the parent should teach them this.. But they aren't doing their job. I think that someone needs to step in.

Who are YOU to make that decision? Who makes the decision of whether parents are failing at their job because they teach an opinion or beliefe that is different from YOURS? I don't want someone to "step in" and teach tolerance for something that I do not believe should be tolerated.


I just look back at some of my great grandparents who were racist and intolerant, and feel bad for them. And honestly that is how your grandchildren are going to look back at you. Times are changing.

Perhaps my children and grandchildren will see me that way. BUT IT IS NOT YOUR JOB TO CHANGE THAT. It is THEIR decision how to view me, not yours. Nor is it your job to try to "counteract" what I want my kids to learn and live by.

You are trying to use the power of government (in this case the public school system) to push YOUR beliefs on my kids, and I resent it. You do not have the right to brainwash my kids into thinking that homosexuality is "all right" when I don't believe that it is. The government doesn't have that right.

How about instead of trying to teach kids about the environment and tolerance of homosexuality and stuff that doesn't belong in the school system, we instead try to teach kids reading, writing and arithmatic... subjects that we are lagging behind in as compared to every other developed country in the world, because we're too busy teaching kids about the environment and acceptance of gay sexuality. Perhaps if we taught kids to read and write, our employees will end up being competitive with their foreign counterparts. OUR SCHOOLS ARE FAILING and the last thing we need are more excuses to waste time on stuff that doesn't help our kids get a friggin job.

Elliot

Aren't they? If they are saying that gay families are "just like everyone else", isn't that the same as saying that "kissing other boys is okay" because it's no different than "kissing girls"? Hello again, El:

Here's where you guys go wrong. You apparently think homosexuality is a learned behavior. That's why you have to steer clear of 'em, cause learning what they do MIGHT cause some little kid to turn homo...

It's the same stuff you think about sex education. You think sex is learned too, and if you just don't teach 'em about it, they won't do it...

It's the same stuff about condoms... You think that if you don't teach kids about condoms, and you tell them not to, they won't have sex...

You're dreamin...

Like the kid who got cheated out life saving chemo by his mother, the kids of rightwingers need to be UNprogrammed at school, by the WRONGHEADED and backwards notions about sex harbored by the right wing.

excon

Ex is right being gay is not learned. My uncle is gay he watched me all the time as a kid guess what I'm not gay. Here is a little light read for you describing how a gay man's brain looks a lot like a woman's brain.

A Gay Man's Brain Looks a Lot Like a Straight Woman's Brain | 80beats | Discover Magazine (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/)

All right, this is getting out of hand. For some reason, as soon as someone says that "being gay isn't learned", somehow everyone believes it.

Sorry, but there is no strong evidence to prove that fact.

There is a guy by the name of Dr. Patrick Carnes, a PhD (psychology) who specializes in sexual addictions and abnormalities. He has written many books on the subject of sexual addictions, and his seminal work is called "Out of the Shadows", and describes sexual addition.

Within his writings he speaks about the "arrousal template" of his patients, and how, in most cases, he can trace a person's arrousal template to specific incidents from the patients' pasts. That is, how a person is sexually arroused today is affected by what they have experienced in the past.

A person who is arroused by S&M or bondage might have experienced being tied up as a child, or even just seen pictures or read stories of someone else being tied up. It doesn't even have to be in a sexual context. However, within their minds the act of being tied up or tying up others became sexually arousing.

A woman who tends to find herself in multiple abusive relationships may have had abusive parents who treated her the same way her significant other does now. Or her teachers might have told her she was a bad girl who needs to be punished, and she believed it. Or she may have had an experience that linked abuse with acceptance... a close "friend" who had emotional power over her by treating her like crap. In any case, past experience leads to current behaviors.

A homosexual might have seen someone of the same sex who for some reason was sexually arousing. Again, the context may not have been sexual, but the link between same-sex and sexual arousal was built on that "template".

The evidence of this is annecdotal at this point. There is, to my best knowledge, no solid evidence of the "arrousal template" concept based on hard numbers. It's hard to get hard numbers on this stuff because the topic is so touchy. But it is a hypothesis that most therapists of patients in abusive relationships accept as valid. They use that information to understand their patients better. And at least in the cases put forth by Carnes, the hypothesis seems to hold true for the vast majority of patients.

What this means is that homosexuality is NOT necessarily a "natural", unlearned behavior, but most likely also has an experiential component.

Spit, if you like stuff about brainscans, I suggest that you check out the works of Dr. Daniel Amen. What he has found using live SPECT scans is that sex addicts, drug addicts, food addicts, bulemics, anorexics, and people suffering from body dysmorphia all have similar brain scans. Interesting stuff, and important too, because what it means is that there is a similarity between sexual "abnormality" and other forms of mental illness and addiction. There is a similar split between the frontal lobe and the cortex. Which means there is a split between the part of the brain that makes decisions and the part that has memories and critical thinking processes. If we can cure one, we might be able to find cures for the others. And if we find the CAUSE of one, we might be able to find the causes of the others. Wild stuff.

Elliot

Thanks ET I am going to look it up.

I don't care if homosexuality is learned or not, public schools have NO business undermining parental rights. Freedom is messy, remember? If you don't like that I teach my kids traditional values then I have 3 words for you. Get over it.

I didn't say that they couldn't have a family. I said that they cannot have children on their own without 3rd party intervention of some sort.

Do you also say that hetero couples that can't have their own bio children aren't a real family.


Aren't they? If they are saying that gay families are "just like everyone else", isn't that the same as saying that "kissing other boys is okay" because it's no different than "kissing girls"? And if they are teaching this to MY child and I don't think that it is okay, isn't that a usurpation of my parental rights?

"Kissing other boys" is not something a son would do or not do based on what they were taught. If a son is gay, he is likely to eventually kiss another boy. If he is not gay, he will not be kissing another boy. What sex you are attracted to is not taught. It is felt and nothing you do or don't do is going to sway their sexual preference. A FULL education about sex can only be beneficial to everyone. Keeping STDs at bay, unwanted pregnancies at bay, and abortions down. Looks like you would be all over that.



No they are not. They are teaching an opinion... that a gay family is "just the same" as a traditional family. That is NOT a factual statement because from a biological perspective the two are NOT the same. Ergo, it is NOT a fact, it is an opinion.

I agree with you. They are NOT the same. BUT, they are just as valid. Love and commitment can be the same as any hetero couple. The ability to raise happy healthy children can be the same



Perhaps my children and grandchildren will see me that way. BUT IT IS NOT YOUR JOB TO CHANGE THAT. It is THEIR decision how to view me, not yours. Nor is it your job to try to "counteract" what I want my kids to learn and live by.

Once again, no matter what they "learn". They will be what they are. Be it straight or gay. You have no control over that.


You are trying to use the power of government (in this case the public school system) to push YOUR beliefs on my kids, and I resent it. You do not have the right to brainwash my kids into thinking that homosexuality is "all right" when I don't believe that it is. The government doesn't have that right.

I hope and pray that you don't have a child or other family member that is gay. I have a feeling that you would be singing a different tune. Kind of like Chaney.


How about instead of trying to teach kids about the environment and tolerance of homosexuality and stuff that doesn't belong in the school system, we instead try to teach kids reading, writing and arithmatic... subjects that we are lagging behind in as compared to every other developed country in the world, because we're too busy teaching kids about the environment and acceptance of gay sexuality.

Or how about giving our children all the benefit of a well rounded education. I agree that to improve on reading writing and arithmatic is very important . Just as important is how to get along in this world with all kinds of people. They will be living in a world occupied with lots of different people with different beliefs. Do you think they can somehow escape this reality?



Perhaps if we taught kids to read and write, our employees will end up being competitive with their foreign counterparts. OUR SCHOOLS ARE FAILING and the last thing we need are more excuses to waste time on stuff that doesn't help our kids get a friggin job.

There is getting a "friggin job," and then there is keeping a job. Pickens are going to be slim if you continue to shun people that are different from you and being so intollerant is only going to hurt your children.

Elliot[/QUOTE]

I hope and pray that you don't have a child or other family member that is gay. I have a feeling that you would be singing a different tune. Kind of like Chaney.

That's mighty condescending and presumptuous.


Or how about giving our children all the benefit of a well rounded education. I agree that to improve on reading writing and arithmatic is very important . Just as important is how to get along in this world with all kinds of people. They will be living in a world occupied with lots of different people with different beliefs. Do you think they can somehow escape this reality?

They'll also be in a world filled with people pushing their values on them. My home is supposed to be a refuge where we can shield them from values and behaviors we find detrimental to their well-being - where we can guide them as a loving parent should. That is not the school's job. Period.


There is getting a "friggin job," and then there is keeping a job. Pickens are going to be slim if you continue to shun people that are different from you and being so intollerant is only going to hurt your children.

I can't wait to see Elliot's response to this, but I wonder why you're so intolerant of our values. That tolerance things cuts both ways.

I can't wait to see Elliot's response to this, but I wonder why you're so intolerant of our values. That tolerance things cuts both ways.
[/QUOTE]

I'm not intolerant of your values. I'm intolerant of your intolerance of what seems like everything coming and going. You are intolerant of Democrats, Obama, Planned Parenthood, Schools teaching sex ed, abortion, gays, gay marriage, gay rights, and CNN.

It wouldn't surprise me if I could add gun control, evolution, and non- christians to that list. Am I correct?

It seems you will only tolerate what you think is right. Anything else should be prohibited.

I'm not intolerant of your values.

Your comments obviously suggest otherwise. You seem to think my values aren't good enough, they must be corrected in the public schools. What's funny here is I don't expect my values to be taught to your kids. Raise them how you want, let us do the same.


I'm intolerant of your intolerance of what seems like everything coming and going. You are intolerant of Democrats, Obama, Planned Parenthood, Schools teaching sex ed, abortion, gays, gay marriage, gay rights, and CNN.

I'm intolerant of PP for sure, but I get along fine with the libs around me. I've had many gay friends and even some relatives. What I am intolerant of is people forcing an agenda down my throat. I think you are, too.


It wouldn't surprise me if I could add gun control, evolution, and non- christians to that list. Am I correct?

It seems you will only tolerate what you think is right. Anything else should be prohibited.

Now you're just being an a$$.

Now you're just being an a$$.[/QUOTE]

And you are avoiding the question.

And you are avoiding the question.[/QUOTE]

The difference between you and I is I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, I don't judge you for things not in evidence. I deserve the same courtesy.

But what I don't get is that you cry murder about abortions. Genocide in fact. The numbers are startling you say. SO obviously the parents in your country aren't teaching what you say they should be. Something is wrong. Sure, you guys do it, but obviously some people aren't. So, someone's got to do something haven't they? Why not do it a controlled environment like school? Then maybe you won't have to put up with the genocide for much longer.

You guys always want it both ways. Ooops sorry, I'm not implying your bi-sexual. Just confusing!

How is teaching someone about life pushing values? I know its been a long time since you guys went to school but gee, I can tell you school and what you learn from your time in school is a helluva lot more the 3 R's.

The difference between you and I is I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, I don't judge you for things not in evidence. I deserve the same courtesy.[/QUOTE]


I believe you have given me my answer by refusing to answer it.
That's just what I thought.
You are against just about everything .

What benefit of a doubt are you giving me? I don't know what you are talking about.

I believe you have given me my answer by refusing to answer it.
That's just what I thought.
You are against just about everything .

I'll put it this way, you are so wrong about me it's pathetic. Seriously.



What benefit of a doubt are you giving me? I don't know what you are talking about.

Then you didn't read my post. I said "I don't judge you for things not in evidence."

I'll put it this way, you are so wrong about me it's pathetic. Seriously.




Then you didn't read my post. I said "I don't judge you for things not in evidence."

I don't think so. Why so mysterious? You know what? Forget it, your posts say it all.

I'll put it this way, you are so wrong about me it's pathetic. Seriously. No she's not. One only has to look at the threads you've started and the posts you make. It's not rocket science to do so.

But what I don't get is that you cry murder about abortions. Genocide in fact. The numbers are startling you say.

Are you talking to me, Skell? I have called it murder and genocide but that's far from my usual arguments.


SO obviously the parents in your country aren't teaching what you say they should be. Something is wrong. Sure, you guys do it, but obviously some people aren't. So, someone's got to do something haven't they? Why not do it a controlled environment like school? Then maybe you won't have to put up with the genocide for much longer.

You guys always want it both ways. Ooops sorry, I'm not implying your bi-sexual. Just confusing!

Skell, doesn't anyone ever stop to consider that the mindset that Planned Parenthood, NARAL, Hollywood and the mainstream media have cultivated in the last 20 years or so IS the problem? It's not that parents haven't taught their kids, but when they spend 8 hours a day in a school environment that promotes that mindset and when sex is thrown in their faces at every turn, parents face an uphill battle. Add peer pressure and you have a powerful mix working against you as a parent. And you and I both know we can't just shield them from life.

The majority of public school teachers and school administrators are anything but conservative. The teachers unions are decidedly liberal. Planned Parenthood works closely with districts on sex ed curriculum. Planned Parenthood strongly advocates "empowering" children in their sexuality and not only crusades for the right of minors to have abortions and birth control without parental consent, they've been know to act on that in violation of the law. That is the "controlled environment" our public school students "learn" in so as a conservative I am justified in objecting to leaving such things to the schools.


How is teaching someone about life pushing values? I know its been a long time since you guys went to school but gee, I can tell you school and what you learn from your time in school is a helluva lot more the 3 R's.

Trust me Skell, these people have no intention of "teaching someone about life," they want to mold young minds to their satisfaction and don't give a rip about what the parents want. The evidence to that effect is clear, they know it is a controversial issue, it has nothing to do with providing a useful education and they have no intention of allowing parents to opt out.

I don't think so. Why so mysterious? You know what? Forget it, your posts say it all.

^This. You are right.

I don't think so. Why so mysterious? You know what? Forget it, your posts say it all.

Really? I personally think that like NK, you just like to goad conservatives rather than engage in or continue a meaningful discussion and you only see what you want to see. Then you have the audacity to tell me what I believe in such a negative, intolerant, insensitive way, again based on facts not in evidence. So what do your posts say about you?

I'll say it again very clearly, you are so wrong about me it's pathetic. Seriously. There's nothing mysterious about that and I feel no need to justify myself to you any further. Think what you like cozyk, your posts say plenty about you.

No she's not. One only has to look at the threads you've started and the posts you make. It's not rocket science to do so.

It must be rocket science, it sure seems to be above your pay grade.

Maybe genocide is a bit inaccurate . Infanticide is a more accurate term.

Trust me Skell, these people have no intention of "teaching someone about life," they want to mold young minds to their satisfaction and don't give a rip about what the parents want. The evidence to that effect is clear, they know it is a controversial issue, it has nothing to do with providing a useful education and they have no intention of allowing parents to opt out.


Oh, so you have spoken to them personally and know what their intensions are. And none of those people having children of their own. So it is best to shelter your kids as much as possible. Then when they hit middle school all the sudden they are learning things from other kids that may not be factual. And if you are not giving your children the facts,and you don't let the school give your child the facts; they are just going to have what their peers tell them. I remember never hearing 'swear words' in my household. But I was still hearing them in third grade (By the way I lived in a VERY Conservitive/Religious State, in a nice neighborhood). In middle school kids were talking about '69' --I didn't know what that was but it ended up being an interesting conversation between me and my mom :o
In high school my friend was having sex with her boyfriend--not using condoms. She told me they didn't have money to buy them. We went to PP to get free ones-- Which I'm sure prevented an abortion. Oh-- her family REFUSED to put her on the pill because she was so young. (Sex Ed in my state=Abstinence(sp?) only. Didn't learn about condoms, or any kind of BC--we have one of the highest teen birth rates in the country). Kids are going to do things we don't want them to. That's just a fact of life. You can keep living under a rock and trying to shield your children, but in the end you are just doing them a disservice. You can still teach them YOUR values. But you should teach them your values with the facts of life.

It must be rocket science, it sure seems to be above your pay grade.


You are not condescening AT ALL

^This. You are right.

What is this, insult the conservative day? It's not rocket science to tell someone they're so wrong (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wrong%5B2%5D) (see definition no. 3) about me it's pathetic (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pathetic) (see definition no. 4). Seriously (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/seriously) (see definition no 2).

But that's OK if you don't get it, I understand why you guys turn to insults.

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?[/QUOTE]

Actually we want gov in the marriage business. We want them to legally validate the marriage of any two consenting adults. That is just something else you are against. There seems to be so much negativity, seething, and angst in your life. You want to fight against so much. If you would loosen up, live and let live, I bet you would be a more peaceful person.

but if your parents were not using the public school system that they were paying taxes for then why shouldn't they have been able to take some of that money to send you to a school of their choosing ?

Yes some parents can afford it ;but many can't . My sister in Jacksonville took her children out of their school district to home school because the system there sucks and it is dangerous for children. She can't afford private school but she is paying for the public school system regardless .

If I don't HAVE kids, should I not then be able to take my taxes and decide where to use them BESIDES education? I also don't have a drug addiction, so let's pull any money going towards THAT. I ALSO never needed Welfare--not even the medical side of it. I don't want my money going toward that, EITHER. And frankly, I shouldn't have to pay for other people's kids, when the tax dollars won't go towards IVF for me to get pregnant.

I ALSO do not go to baseball games, yet there's a tax here paying for the new stadium.

For a very long time, I didn't drive. I shouldn't have had to pay for ROADS, either, then.

Don't be too absurd about tax dollars going towards public education being refundable to parents who feel like their kids need a "special" education other than what the average kid gets. If you don't like public schools, then either pull your kids out and pay the expense for private schooling, or be more active in elections for your school board and local and state politicians.

[QUOTE]Oh, so you have spoken to them personally and know what their intensions are.

Um, yes I do. It's hard to miss decades of evidence.


You can keep living under a rock

Factually, the rocks are on all 4 sides of my home, the roof is wooden.

You are not condecening AT ALL

Was it that obvious? :D

Factually, the rocks are on all 4 sides of my home, the roof is wooden.


No matter how much I disagree with you, this made me laugh lol

Trust me Skell, these people have no intention of "teaching someone about life," they want to mold young minds to their satisfaction and don't give a rip about what the parents want. The evidence to that effect is clear, they know it is a controversial issue, it has nothing to do with providing a useful education and they have no intention of allowing parents to opt out.
[/QUOTE]

Why are you so suspicious and paranoid? Why do you believe the worst of people. Like no one but you can have a good intention. Why can't "these people" just want to provide a useful education? It is beneficial to society as a whole. Tell me what the benefit to "these people" is to pull this sneaky scheme on you.

Synn there are other reasons for funding education even if you don't have kids . For one thing these are the future workers who will change your Depends in your old age.

What I was proposing was choice . Why is that a bad thing ? The example I gave related largely to poor and disadvantaged people who's children are often warehoused in these institutions we call schools. I gave the example of Justice Sotomayor . I suggest that without her private education she may not have achieved what she is about to achieve. I say the Obama children and Michelle herself also benefitted from the private education choice they deny others .
I also gave an example of a community that does get politically active ;packs the school board ;votes down the budget simply because their children do not go to the schools. This creates tremendous funding problems for the district that negatively affects the rest of the population that send their children through the public system. Dollar for dollar it would make more sense for the district to give vouchers to that group and still have their budget passed and districts properly funded.

Dollar for dollar it would make more sense for the district to give vouchers to that group and still have their budget passed and districts properly funded.Hello tom:

Nahhh. From a dollars and cents point of view, it would make more sense to fix the problems with the public schools.

If you're wealthy enough to opt out, that's one of the reasons you'd want to become wealthy. But, to have the taxpayers pay for TWO school systems is pretty stupid.

excon

maybe genocide is a bit inaccurate . infanticide is a more accurate term.

This is what puzzles me. There are gazillions of people (babies, children, adults) in this world that need to be saved or rescued. What effort do you put forth to help people already walking on this planet? Pro-lifers put so much energy into protecting people that haven't even fully formed or been born. With a name like "pro-life" looks like you would put equal energy into the life of people that are already here. So, why aren't you having a hissey fit over these people?

Why are you so suspicious and paranoid? Why do you believe the worst of people. Like no one but you can have a good intention. Why can't "these people" just want to provide a useful education? It is beneficial to society as a whole. Tell me what the benefit to "these people" is to pull this sneaky scheme on you.

Why do insist on labeling me and making the most asinine of assumptions? You should spend more time reading what I say and less time reading between the lines and psychoanalyzing me. Geez, girl, I told you that I give you the benefit of the doubt which directly contradicts the idea that I "believe the worst of people."

So let me be clear again, I have no doubt this school board has good intentions. I believe liberals, progressives, Democrats, most average every day pro-choice people - are extremely sincere in what they believe. But years of observation and interaction with them reveal to me a strong pattern of behavior that contradicts their beliefs. Tolerance is the perfect example, they preach it but they darn sure aren't tolerant of my beliefs. That, coupled with the fact that I believe many of their beliefs are wrong and dangerous means I don't want our students subjected to their agenda, especially without equal time or the right of parents to opt out. Telling one side of the story in taxpayer funded institutions is WRONG, does NOT benefit society and violates parental rights.

It wouldn't surprise me if I could add gun control, evolution, and non- christians to that list. Am I correct?


THIS is the part of my post you refuse to acknowledge. And no, you certainly don't have to justify anything to me. I just thought there was a major chance you were also against these things. And when you failed to answer, but just kept throwing up the "I don't judge you for things not in evidence" reply, I knew I was on to something. I did not ask you to justify anything, why do you think I did? I just ask if you were against it. It made it sound like you were ashamed to admit it or something.

This is what puzzles me. There are gazillions of people (babies, children, adults) in this world that need to be saved or rescued. What effort do you put forth to help people already walking on this planet? Pro-lifers put so much energy into protecting people that haven't even fully formed or been born. With a name like "pro-life" looks like you would put equal energy into the life of people that are already here. So, why aren't you having a hissey fit over these people?

Come on cozyk, again with this line? How much time and money do Christians, through the church and otherwise put into this problem? Do you have even an inkling of a clue? One Christian relief organization alone, World Vision (http://www.worldvision.org/content.nsf/about/ar-financials), spent $979 million ($629 million more than Bush's AIDS initiative in Africa I believe) on kids and families in the US and around the world last year. Thousands of volunteers around the country represent their mission in churches, at concerts, in places of business and other avenues every year. We sponsor 2 children of our own and no telling how many other people have changed lives through the rest of our charitable activities so we DO contribute to the solution.

Christian adoption agencies, feeding centers and shelters around the world do their part and that's only possible through the generosity of others. Perhaps we're not having hissy fits about it because we're actually out doing something without the need or desire for recognition instead of just whining about it.

Oh, so you have spoken to them personally and know what their intensions are. And none of those people having children of their own. So it is best to shelter your kids as much as possible. Then when they hit middle school all the sudden they are learning things from other kids that may not be factual. And if you are not giving your children the facts,and you don't let the school give your child the facts; they are just going to have what their peers tell them. I remember never hearing 'swear words' in my household. But I was still hearing them in third grade (By the way I lived in a VERY Conservitive/Religious State, in a nice neighborhood). In middle school kids were talking about '69' --I didn't know what that was but it ended up being an interesting conversation between me and my mom :o
In high school my friend was having sex with her boyfriend--not using condoms. She told me they didn't have money to buy them. We went to PP to get free ones-- Which i'm sure prevented an abortion. Oh-- her family REFUSED to put her on the pill because she was so young. (Sex Ed in my state=Abstinence(sp?) only. Didn't learn about condoms, or any kind of BC--we have one of the highest teen birth rates in the country). Kids are going to do things we don't want them to. That's just a fact of life. You can keep living under a rock and trying to sheild your children, but in the end you are just doing them a disservice. You can still teach them YOUR values. But you should teach them your values with the facts of life.

AMEN sister!!

This is what puzzles me. There are gazillions of people (babies, children, adults) in this world that need to be saved or rescued. What effort do you put forth to help people already walking on this planet? Pro-lifers put so much energy into protecting people that haven't even fully formed or been born. With a name like "pro-life" looks like you would put equal energy into the life of people that are already here. So, why aren't you having a hissey fit over these people?

I am not hissy fitting at all. I am just redefining what your term "choice "means and putting it in context. What I do for others is not relevant to this discussion,and you by asking it are making assumptions about me that are not true. I will not engage in a personal defense like Steve has been drawn into because it distracts from the clear undeniable point that what happens in abortion is KILLING .

... the clear undeniable point that what happens in abortion is KILLING .
It certainly is not a "clear undeniable point". Your talking points and opinion are not our facts.

THIS is the part of my post you refuse to acknowledge. And no, you certainly don't have to justify anything to me. I just thought there was a major chance you were also against these things. And when you failed to answer, but just kept throwing up the "I don't judge you for things not in evidence" reply, I knew I was on to something. I did not ask you to justify anything, why do you think I did?

I try to think of you as intelligent enough to figure it out, could I be wrong? I addressed the first part of that particular post before considering the last two lines. So let me try one last time to make it very clear, it's the last line that's especially offensive, "It seems you will only tolerate what you think is right. Anything else should be prohibited."

I've made it very clear you're wrong about me. You seem to think there's enough evidence in my posts to support your opinion, there's more than enough to say otherwise. Perhaps you should with an open mind discover that for yourself and leave the psychoanalysis to someone else.

It certainly is not a "clear undeniable point". Your talking points and opinion are not our facts.

So there's no life in the fetus, zygote, embryo?

I try to think of you as intelligent enough to figure it out, could I be wrong? I addressed the first part of that particular post before considering the last two lines. So let me try one last time to make it very clear, it's the last line that's especially offensive, "It seems you will only tolerate what you think is right. Anything else should be prohibited."

I've made it very clear you're wrong about me. You seem to think there's enough evidence in my posts to support your opinion, there's more than enough to say otherwise. Perhaps you should with an open mind discover that for yourself and leave the psychoanalysis to someone else.Now here you've totally changed the text that offends you.
In this post Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Parental rights (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/1778652-post73.html)
That's where you tell her she's wrong about you, but text that bothered you (where you made it clear she is wrong about you) there is different. Why are messing with the people's words that way?

So there's no life in the fetus, zygote, embryo?No.

I am not hissy fitting at all. I am just redefining what your term "choice "means and putting it in context. What I do for others is not relevent to this discussion,and you by asking it are making assumptions about me that are not true. I will not engage in a personal defense like Steve has been drawn into because it distracts from the clear undeniable point that what happens in abortion is KILLING .

The "choice" involved is choosing between her OWN life and someone ELSE'S life.

Given the choice between your own life and someone else's, someone you don't even KNOW---wouldn't you choose your own?

Abortion can ALSO be defined as ridding the body of a parasite. In the LEGAL window of abortion, the fetus (not child, FETUS) is not viable outside of the womb. Any creature that is dependent on its host for life and sustanence is a parasite.

Let's not get into a definition war over abortion--it's off-topic, for one. You have your beliefs, which you are welcome to teach YOUR children. I have my beliefs which I will teach MY children.

However--the point made earlier back to me (sorry, didn't read back to see WHO had the rebuttal) that investing in public schools is a public service even if I don't have kids is right. That was EXACTLY my point.

I'll be DAMNED if I'm going to let some people get out of their "public service" taxes for schools just because they don't want THEIR precious children to go to public schools. You are paying for EVERYONE to go to public school, not just YOUR kids, when you are a parent paying taxes.

If you want your kids to go to a private school, then you'd better come up with a way to pay for it that doesn't involve ANY tax dollars.

You know what the OTHER option is here? How about BEING a parent? When your kids are learning something in school that you don't agree with, how about TALKING to your kids about it? How about starting earlier than when your kids are in school to teach your kids your personal morals?

Now here you've totally changed the text that offends you.
In this post Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Parental rights (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/1778652-post73.html)
that's where you tell her she's wrong about you, but text that bothered you (where you made it clear she is wrong about you) there is different. Why are messing with the people's words that way?

Does copy and paste work different in Canada? Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Parental rights (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/parental-rights-360542-7.html#post1777451)

Now, can we get back to the subject?

Do you also say that hetero couples that can't have their own bio children aren't a real family.

That's a specious argument, and you know it. The vast majority of hetero couples can have children. Those that can't have children via normals means can usually have them with some form of medical help like IVF. But NO HOMOSEXUAL COUPLE can have children on their own, ever. The biology simply doesn't allow it. You cannot argue that homosexual couples are the same as heterosexual couples, even if the hetero family in question can't have children.


"Kissing other boys" is not something a son would do or not do based on what they were taught.

Bull$h!t. Kids do things that they shouldn't be doing all the time, most often due to peer pressure. That's the most common reason kids smoke, do drugs, drink and have sex before marriage. They are TAUGHT that it is the right thing to doby their peers. Now you want to take away the counter-pressure that has traditionally been there from elders, by having those elders tell them that such decisions are all morally OK. THat's what we're talking about here.


If a son is gay, he is likely to eventually kiss another boy. If he is not gay, he will not be kissing another boy.

What I'm about to say is going to be in the realm of "locker room talk". Be warned.

Have you never heard about a bunch of guys having a "circle jerk"... they may not be gay, but they are exploring their sexuality. Have you never heard of teens "experimenting" with their sexuality in a same sex encounter? It happens in high schools and colleges all across the USA. Most of the time the people "experimenting" aren't gay... but they are exploring their sexuality. Straight boys "get together" all the time in sexual encounters. The idea that only gay boys will kiss other boys is simply NOT TRUE.


What sex you are attracted to is not taught. It is felt and nothing you do or don't do is going to sway their sexual preference.

You haven't read a word I wrote, have you. Because your statement is demonstrably WRONG in sexual therapy literature.


A FULL education about sex can only be beneficial to everyone. Keeping STDs at bay, unwanted pregnancies at bay, and abortions down. Looks like you would be all over that.

The only way to truly keep STDs, unwanted pregnancy and abortions down are through abstinence. It is the only 100% effective method of preventing these problems. All other methods still leave a risk, whether it is with the use of condoms, "safe sex" etc. A recent study showed that 1 in 4 Americans have an STD... despite sex ed being part of the public school curriculum for decades. Sex ed isn't doing the job. MORE kids are having sex, not fewer. More kids are getting pregnant, not fewer. More kids are getting STDs, not fewer. And kids are being told by their teachers that having sex is fine, whether with the same sex or the opposite sex, as long as they use a condom, instead of being told NOT to have sex as was the traditional response by teachers. The system is FAILING, and your response is more of the same.



I agree with you. They are NOT the same. BUT, they are just as valid. Love and commitment can be the same as any hetero couple. The ability to raise happy healthy children can be the same

Define "valid". Their ability to raise happy healthy children cannot be the same if they can't even have those children.


Once again, no matter what they "learn". They will be what they are. Be it straight or gay. You have no control over that.

Again, you have not read what I wrote elsewhere. What is learned or experienced in childhood has a HUGE impact on sexuality and social connection in adulthood.



I hope and pray that you don't have a child or other family member that is gay. I have a feeling that you would be singing a different tune. Kind of like Chaney.

WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!! I happen to have a brother who is gay, and who I love deeply. But who's lifestyle I do not agree with, and he knows it quite well. My opinions are NOT based on who I know, but rather on what I see as right and wrong. You do not know me well, Cozyk, or you would not have made that comment. I base my positions on FACTS, statistical evidence, analysis, and logic, NOT based on what those around me think. That is what I do for a profession (I'm a financial analyst who looks at the data, not the personalities or personal feelings), and I bring that ability into the political arena as well. THAT is why I can hold a political position that is unpopular without blinking an eye. I can even hold a position that I know my brother STRONGLY disagrees with, and not flinch from it, because I come at it from a purely LOGICAL point of view and leave my emotions out of it.



Or how about giving our children all the benefit of a well rounded education. I agree that to improve on reading writing and arithmatic is very important . Just as important is how to get along in this world with all kinds of people.

My dad is an immigrant, a child of Holocaust survivors. He went from being one of the poorest people in the USA to being one of the most successful practitioners of securities law and eventually securities brokerage in the entire USA. His education was just fine without any sex ed or environmental studies. His education was WELL ROUNDED because it focused on reading, writing and arithmatic. He went to school and learned the skills necessary for getting and keeping a job and became very successful at those jobs. THAT is a well-rounded education.

Take a look at the Japanese school system... probably the most successful education system in the entire world. They spend NO TIME whatsoever dealing with sex ed and environmentalism. They spend regular school hours learning basic reading and math, history and science. Then they spend most of their after-school hours in advanced education programs to study reading, math, science and history. Then they go home and do homework in reading, math science and history. IF they have time after that, they tutor others in reading, math, science and history for extra cash. They are the most educated people in the world and they have one of the most successful economies in the world, even after their "lost decade".

Ireland, which has the fastest growing economy in Europe has an education system that concentrates on reading, math, and history/poly sci. Environmental studies and the like are relegated to voluntary subjects, and are not included in their certificate requirements for graduation. They concentrate on the essentials of reading, writing, arithmatic and history.

Environmental studies and sex ed are not part of a "well rounded education". They are distractions and they waste money that would be better spent giving a REAL rounded education of reading, writing, math, and history.


They will be living in a world occupied with lots of different people with different beliefs. Do you think they can somehow escape this reality?

That is the very reason that they need to be strongly educated in their own cultures and beliefs. How else will they be able to deal with influences that are not healthy for them, but that are a part of someone else's "beliefs".

The reason that Muslim religious leaders are so successful at recruiting young muslims to terrorism is because those young Muslims are uneducated. They don't know their own Qoran well enough to stand up to these evil influences, and they don't know enough math, reading and history to do anything else with their lives.

The very outside influences you speak of are the reasons that our students need a strong education and a strong background in what their culture sees as right and wrong, good and evil. Having people of other backgrounds influence those beliefe systems weaknes their ability to stand up against those bad influences, the same way that young Muslims are unable to stand up against their terrorist recruiters.


There is getting a "friggin job," and then there is keeping a job. Pickens are going to be slim if you continue to shun people that are different from you and being so intollerant is only going to hurt your children.

What you call intolerance is nothing of the sort. However, what you are proposing is intolerant... intolerant of MY views, because you wish to use the school system to indoctrinate my children to a differing viewpoint against my consent. Which of us is the intolerant one, Cosyk? Which of us is trying to suborn someone else's cultural beliefs?

Elliot

Come on cozyk, again with this line? How much time and money do Christians, through the church and otherwise put into this problem? Do you have even an inkling of a clue? One Christian relief organization alone, World Vision (http://www.worldvision.org/content.nsf/about/ar-financials), spent $979 million ($629 million more than Bush's AIDS initiative in Africa I believe) on kids and families in the US and around the world last year. Thousands of volunteers around the country represent their mission in churches, at concerts, in places of business and other avenues every year. We sponsor 2 children of our own and no telling how many other people have changed lives through the rest of our charitable activities so we DO contribute to the solution.

Christian adoption agencies, feeding centers and shelters around the world do their part and that's only possible through the generosity of others. Perhaps we're not having hissy fits about it because we're actually out doing something without the need or desire for recognition instead of just whining about it.

I'm really glad to hear all of this. Makes me feel better. Especially that you sponsor children of your own. Something weird happened at a home I was decorating one time. My client showed me framed pictures of a little girl she was sponsoring. She would get updates and more recent pictures as time went on. I noticed that something did not look right. Upon closer inspection I realized this was not the same girl in every picture. They were sending info on one person but sending pictures of someone else. What's THAT all about?:confused: My client didn't have a clue that her sponsored little girl was not the same little girl they were sending photos of. Just weird. Anything like that ever happen to you?

No.

So it's already dead?

Does copy and paste work different in Canada? Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Parental rights (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/parental-rights-360542-7.html#post1777451)

Now, can we get back to the subject?No, copy/paste does not have regional differences, it's dependent on the application API and the functionality has become standardized throughout the software development industry.
Your link explains nothing.

So it's already dead?No. <hehe, it's almost like you think I'm too stupid to see where you are leading this:), an opposing lawyer would set you straight in a hurry if you did this in court>

That's a specious argument, and you know it. The vast majority of hetero couples can have children. Those that can't have children via normals means can usually have them with some form of medical help like IVF. But NO HOMOSEXUAL COUPLE can have children on their own, ever. The biology simply doesn't allow it. You cannot argue that homosexual couples are the same as heterosexual couples, even if the hetero family in question can't have children.
Elliot

As one half of a heterosexual infertile couple, I'm incredibly offended by this argument OVER AND OVER.

If it's a valid way for ME to become a parent, why is it not a valid way for other couples to become a parent? If a sperm donor is necessary because my husband has no fertile sperm, or a surrogate mother is needed because I have no womb---how is that a less valid way to become a parent?

Yet more and more gay/lesbian couples are doing THE Same THING. They are using their own egg/sperm and a donor for the other half of the needed human biology--just like an infertile heterosexual couple.

Your argument that they cannot be good parents because they cannot biologically reproduce on their own is flawed. Either NO person who cannot biologically reproduce without medical intervention could be a good parent, which would offend thousands of infertile couples---or ANYONE could be a good parent, biological ability to reproduce not withstanding.

You can't have it both ways.

I'm really glad to hear all of this. Makes me feel better. Especially that you sponsor children of your own. Something weird happened at a home I was decorating one time. My client showed me framed pictures of a little girl she was sponsoring. She would get updates and more recent pictures as time went on. I noticed that something did not look right. Upon closer inspection I realized this was not the same girl in every picture. They were sending info on one person but sending pictures of someone else. What's THAT all about?:confused: My client didn't have a clue that her sponsored little girl was not the same little girl they were sending photos of. Just weird. Anything like that ever happen to you?

What people in my world do to help others they do so out of love and without the need for recognition, that's why we're uncomfortable when pressed. We know it's not about us. I have no idea what may have happened with your client, we're clearly receiving updates on the right girls.

Baby at 7 weeks

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/fig20baby7.jpg




Baby at 8 weeks

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/fig16baby8.jpg





Baby at 5 months

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/fig17baby5mos.jpg




Baby at 6 months

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/fig07face6mos.jpg




I don't know, NK. These babies look pretty much alive to me.

Elliot

I dunno, NK. These babies look pretty much alive to me.

Not at the blastula stage. That's what he asked about:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/news-centre/en/soc/images/01-12soc03.jpg

As one half of a heterosexual infertile couple, I'm incredibly offended by this argument OVER AND OVER.

Sorry that you are offended, but it doesn't change biological reality. NO homosexual couple can ever become pregnant on their own. The vast majority of heterosexual couples can become pregnant on their own. The majority of heterosexual couples that cannot can go for medical treatments like IVF.

Just out of curiosity, in a gay male coupleship, which of the two is going to carry the IVF baby to term?


If it's a valid way for ME to become a parent, why is it not a valid way for other couples to become a parent? If a sperm donor is necessary because my husband has no fertile sperm, or a surrogate mother is needed because I have no womb---how is that a less valid way to become a parent?

I didn't say that they couldn't become a parent... though again, I point you to my question above in this post. What I said is that the biology of homosexual couples is different from the biology of heterosexual couples. That fact cannot be disputed. Therefore, anyone who says they are "the same" is simply wrong based on the facts. They are NOT the same.


Yet more and more gay/lesbian couples are doing THE Same THING. They are using their own egg/sperm and a donor for the other half of the needed human biology--just like an infertile heterosexual couple.

Very nice. But it doesn't change my point... that there is a basic difference between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples.


Your argument that they cannot be good parents because they cannot biologically reproduce on their own is flawed. Either NO person who cannot biologically reproduce without medical intervention could be a good parent, which would offend thousands of infertile couples---or ANYONE could be a good parent, biological ability to reproduce not withstanding.

Please go back through this entire post and tell me where I said that a gay couple couldn't be good parents. That is YOUR stuff, not mine. Again, my point is simply that there is a biological difference between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples. This point cannot be denied.


You can't have it both ways.

I'm not trying to. You are arguing against an argument or statement I never made. I never said that gay couples couldn't be good parents. I simply said that they are biologically different than heterosexual couples.

Elliot

No, copy/paste does not have regional differences, it's dependant on the application API and the functionality has become standardized throughout the software development industry.
Your link explains nothing.

NK, why is it you insist on swerving from the subject? The only reason my link explains nothing to you is your claim is erroneous. My link takes you to the source, yours skips ahead.

Synn nice spouting of NEA talking points. Of course they feel threatened that tax payers would have a choice about education because it would expose the fraud that their monopoly control of the system actually benefits the students.

The benefit about this "choice " is that it puts the public schools up to true accountability... it subjects them to competition.

It is not rich and poor... actually it is ;the poor get screwed under the current system because the rich have the choice they are denied under the current system.

In Milwaukee 20,000 students (almost all minorities) are in a voucher program with the option of attending public ,charter or private schools. They have made academic gains and boast higher graduation rates than their peers in public schools at less dollars spent per student . Taxpayers currently hand over $13,468 per student to Milwaukee Public Schools, compared to just $6,607 per student in the school-choice program... and those numbers should be even more distorted in favor of the choice system because school structures are mostly bonded so are not included in the costs.
Updated Study Finds Higher Graduation Rates For Milwaukee Choice Students : SchoolChoiceWI (http://www.schoolchoicewi.org/currdev/detail.cfm?id=271)

Milwaukee taxpayers get more for their education buck because of the voucher system.

Not at the blastula stage. That's what he asked about:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/news-centre/en/soc/images/01-12soc03.jpg


Really? I read Speechless' post:


So there's no life in the fetus, zygote, embryo?

And you responded
No

No mention of blastulae in his question, although the zygote might refer to the blastula as well. But you are ignoring any parts of the question that don't jive with what you believe... embryos, fetuses.

So I will ask Speechless's question again. Given the pictures I posted above, do you still believe that there is no life in the fetus, zygote or embryo?

Elliot

Not at the blastula stage. That's what he asked about:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/news-centre/en/soc/images/01-12soc03.jpg

Regardless of where you think I'm going, they are cells that grow and replicate - whether you consider it human life or not it is life. That IS undeniable.

There is life once the fetus can live on it's own outside the womb.

Regardless of where you think I'm going, they are cells that grow and replicate - whether or not you consider it human life or not it is life. That IS undeniable.There are cells that grow in labs all over the world - they are killed in the billions and billions! Are you on a mission to redress this awful genocide as well?

There is life once the fetus can live on it's own outside the womb.


That would be at about the age of 21 or so, when the "fetus" graduates from college and can hold down a job and not have to be supported by mommy and daddy. In some cases the fetus NEVER becomes self-sufficient.

No child can survive on it's own without assistance. That's what makes it a child rather than an adult. They need food, clothing, shelter, and basic human contact from a parent. A 5-year-old would starve to death without mommy or daddy to make dinner.

Now... based on your argument, is a baby born full term that is born needing an incubator to survive "alive"? How about a baby born full term with a hole in its heart or lungs? How about a baby born prematurely that needs medical intervention to survive? Are these babies alive?


The whole "survivability" argument is ridiculous, because no child is self-sufficient and can survive without intervention of some sort, and even full-term babies can have issues that lead to questions about whether they are really "alive" by that definition.

Elliot

NO homosexual couple can ever become pregnant on their own.Hello again, El:

And THIS has to do with getting married how?? It's like saying that a woman who lost her ring finger can't get married either...

Nobody is denying your premise either. Homosexual couples are NOT the same as hetrosexual ones are... So what?

As long as they're consenting adults, the reasons they want to get married are entirely their own, and is of NO concern of yours OR the government.

excon

PS> Aren't you the small government, leave the people alone righty?? I guess not.

That would be at about the age of 21 or so, when the "fetus" graduates from college and can hold down a job and not have to be supported by mommy and daddy.I don't have all the free time like you do so I'll just mention that I was referring to breathing on its own, not earning wages and paying mortgage like you refer to. Nice try though.

There are cells that grow in labs all over the world - they are killed in the billions and billions! Are you on a mission to redress this awful genocide as well?

What do you think that is in the womb, fruit flies? A virus? Bacteria? That's the problem NK, the pro-choice crowd has dumbed human life down to cells no different than those that that might be growing in labs all over the world. Too many of you refuse to do as that guy you called a right-winger did and sincerely ask themselves an honest question.


After a life of being pro-choice, I began to seriously ponder the question. I oppose the death penalty because there is a slim chance that an innocent person might be executed and I don't believe the state should have the authority to take a citizen's life. So don't I owe an nascent human life at least the same deference? (http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_12454493) Just in case?

It's not just any life, it's human life. You were a fetus once weren't you?

Hello again, El:

And THIS has to do with getting married how??? It's like saying that a woman who lost her ring finger can't get married either...

Nobody is denying your premise either. Homosexual couples are NOT the same as hetrosexual ones are.... So what?

As long as they're consenting adults, the reasons why they want to get married are entirely their own, and is of NO concern of yours OR the government.

excon

PS> Aren't you the small government, leave the people alone righty??? I guess not.

Excon,

As usual you bring in issues that are not part of the topic at hand. The issue at hand is sex ed in the school system, and the fact that sex ed in schools is teaching kids that homosexual couples are the same as heterosexual couples. My point has been to prove that basic concept WRONG, which is is. I have made no connection between sex ed in schools with gay marriage. That is your insertion to the topic, not mine.

Furthermore, being the small-government conservative that I am, I am advocating that the government get out of my kids' classrooms with their sex ed syllabus. What part of that is inconsistent with my conservatism?

As SailorMark said recently, game, set and match.

Elliot

So... since homosexual couples are biologically different than heterosexual couples---could that argument NOT be made for ANY couple? I got a different set of genes than you did--that makes us biologically DIFFERENT! And really, I'm more biologically different than my husband than I would be different from another woman.

It comes down to the fact that reproduction has NOTHING to do with marriage. If it did, you'd still be forcing people to get married when they accidentally reproduced at 13 and 14 because their parents refused to give them birth control.

As far as rich versus poor for public schools, I have to say this: Every single person that CAN vote has the same voice as every other person in this country that can vote. Yes, the wealthy have more options than the poor---how is that going to change if we allow the wealthy to get a voucher that gives them MORE money for their kids to go to school elsewhere? It will just become that the vouchers are not enough for the BEST private schools, where only the wealthy can afford to send their kids.

You want change in the school systems? Let teachers TEACH without red tape. Stop telling them what they can and cannot talk about. Stop telling them they have to teach to standardized tests. Pay them more than you pay football players. Hold them accountable for their actions, by all means, but stop treating the teaching profession like a bunch of underpaid babysitters, and I'll bet you get a HELL of a lot more results.

That's where private schools REALLY are different---they pay teachers more and don't dictate to them EXACTLY how they should teach.

What do you think that is in the womb, fruit flies? A virus? Bacteria? That's the problem NK, the pro-choice crowd has dumbed human life down to cells no different than those that that might be growing in labs all over the world. Too many of you refuse to do as that guy you called a right-winger did and sincerely ask themselves an honest question.



It's not just any life, it's human life. You were a fetus once weren't you?

And the Pro-life crowd forgets that the MOTHER is a life too, and that it's not exactly an EASY choice.

However---I would STILL choose my own life over that of a stranger.

Excon,

As usual you bring in issues that are not part of the topic at hand. The issue at hand is sex ed in the school system, and the fact that sex ed in schools is teaching kids that homosexual couples are the same as heterosexual couples. My point has been to prove that basic concept WRONG, which is is. I have made no connection between sex ed in schools with gay marriage. That is your insertion to the topic, not mine.

Elliot

That's the thing though, its not Sex Ed, right- wingers think it is, but like someone said they think the worst. There is no middle ground for them. It's either their way or no way.

Like I said before. Schools should teach FACTS. If you don't want your children to learn FACTS then find a way to send them to a school of your choosing or home school them. That's it. YOU DO HAVE A CHOICE AS A PARENT. This is freedom.

It's a FACT homosexual couple is a type of family. That's all I am saying.

And on the topic of abortion--If you are Pro Life---

You also should be Anti-War, Vegetarian, Anti-Fur.

Why abort when you can raise them until they are 18 when they can murder innocent people and end up being murdered?

So...since homosexual couples are biologically different than heterosexual couples---could that argument NOT be made for ANY couple? I got a different set of genes than you did--that makes us biologically DIFFERENT! And really, I'm more biologically different than my husband than I would be different from another woman.

It comes down to the fact that reproduction has NOTHING to do with marriage. If it did, you'd still be forcing people to get married when they accidentally reproduced at 13 and 14 because their parents refused to give them birth control.

As far as rich versus poor for public schools, I have to say this: Every single person that CAN vote has the same voice as every other person in this country that can vote. Yes, the wealthy have more options than the poor---how is that going to change if we allow the wealthy to get a voucher that gives them MORE money for their kids to go to school elsewhere? It will just become that the vouchers are not enough for the BEST private schools, where only the wealthy can afford to send their kids.

You want change in the school systems? Let teachers TEACH without red tape. Stop telling them what they can and cannot talk about. Stop telling them they have to teach to standardized tests. Pay them more than you pay football players. Hold them accountable for their actions, by all means, but stop treating the teaching profession like a bunch of underpaid babysitters, and I'll bet you get a HELL of a lot more results.

That's where private schools REALLY are different---they pay teachers more and don't dictate to them EXACTLY how they should teach.

Synnen, we're not talking about marriage. We're talking about sex education in the schools system. And biology is SUPPOSED to be a part of sex ed. Or so they say. Please try to keep up and stop trying to mix up the topics into one big mishmash. Our topic here is sex ed in schools. There is already another thread for gay marriage.

The basic premise of sex ed in the public school system is that all marriages are the same, whether homosexual or heterosexual. That basic premise is FAULTY because of the biology involved. Ergo, sex ed is teaching something that is OPINION, not fact. It differs from MY opinion and the values that I wish my children to learn vis-à-vis sex education. Therefore, I want it eliminated from the public school education program... same as those who want creationism eliminated from the public school curriculum. Only, I have a lot more science on my side to back up my argument than the anti-creationists do. (And let's not get into that argument in this thread eather. Let's stick to the topic of sex ed.)

Elliot

That's where private schools REALLY are different---they pay teachers more and don't dictate to them EXACTLY how they should teach.

Wrong again. Private schools, especially religious private schools have very precise curricula. They do NOT teach the same sex ed courses that public schools do. In fact, the yeshivas that I went to as a kid had NO sex ed whatsoever, in deference to the Orthodox Jewish values of the families who's kids they were teaching. My sister is currently an AP science teacher in a private school, and her curriculum sticks to FACTS not OPINIONS regarding biology and chemistry. You do not get to choose your own curriculum in a private school. You teach what you are told to teach, no more no less. And if you do other than that, you get you butt fired. There is no tenure in the private school system in elementary or high school like there is in the public school system. If you don't follow THEIR rules, you're OUT.

Yeah, the pay's a little better (though city benefits for PS teachers are nothing to sneeze at). But the rules are tighter in terms of what teachers can and can't do. The REAL benefit for private school teachers is that the kids who are there want to be there, are generally better behaved (less criminally inclined) than public school kids and have better achievement results. The teachers accomplish more because the kids want to learn more. THAT's the real advantage to teachers in a private school.

Elliot

And the Pro-life crowd forgets that the MOTHER is a life too, and that it's not exactly an EASY choice.

Synnen, if you've paid any attention at all to the debate over the years you have to know that's nonsense. We all know the mother has a life and we all know it's not an easy decision to make. I guarantee I bear that in mind every time the subject comes up and I'm sure most pro-lifers do as well. Both sides agree on that.

And on the topic of abortion--If you are Pro Life---

You also should be Anti-War, Vegetarian, Anti-Fur.

Why abort when you can raise them until they are 18 when they can murder innocent people and end up being murdered?

Being pro-life means being anti-fur and vegetarian? How so? What does consumption of animals have to do with protecting innocent humans?

(BTW, I have a friend who is a vegetarian. Not because he loves animals, but because he hates plants.)

What I am is pro-protection-of-the-innocent. That is why I am pro-life. It is also why I am pro-capital-punishment, pro-cop, and why I support the US military. As a point of fact, no organization in the world has provided more disaster relief, protection of the innocent and elimination of guilty parties than the US military. The US military has provided more emergency rations, water, blanket, shelters, medical aid and general clean-up services after natural disasters than any other organization on the planet, including the Red Cross and all it's affiliates combined. They also kill the badguys who cause "man made disasters" (as they are now being called in the Obama government).

What does any of this have to do with sex ed in public schools?

Elliot

I am so glad my wife and I decided not to have any kids. I would hate to be in person having this argument at a PTA meeting or where ever this stuff is decided.

(BTW, I have a friend who is a vegetarian. Not because he loves animals, but because he hates plants.)

LOL, very funny Elliot.

I am so glad my wife and I decided not to have any kids. I would hate to be in person having this argument at a PTA meeting or where ever this stuff is decided.

Around here it's decided at the school administration building. The parents don't really have a say.

Oh OK speech wasn't sure how that was decided. ET that was one of the funniest things I have read in awhile!!

The basic premise of sex ed in the public school system is that all marriages are the same, whether homosexual or heterosexual.


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.



That basic premise is FAULTY because of the biology involved. Ergo, sex ed is teaching something that is OPINION, not fact.

Only when you use the word "same" as you did to drive home your point.



It differs from MY opinion and the values that I wish my children to learn vis-à-vis sex education.


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.

(BTW, I have a friend who is a vegetarian. Not because he loves animals, but because he hates plants.)

HUH?:confused: He eats veggies because he hates plants? Is that the plants punishment? To be eaten by this person?

Yes, they teach what is in the curriculum. However, PRIVATE and PAROCHIAL schools do not teach to a specific test, the way so many public schools do.

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. Does that mean that Wisconsinites have a bigger advantage over Texans because they get a better education? Should Texans be able to get "vouchers" to go to a Wisconsin school, if their parents want them to get a good education?

Of course not!

Texans should find out how Wisconsin does things differently to achieve a higher standard of education, and take those ideas home and implement them.

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. EVERY couple has those options. Just because someone cannot conceive naturally with their partner does not make them "defective" sexually. It just means their options are more limited. Besides--sex is not solely about procreation, and I think it's important that teens realize that. It's not solely about "getting off", either. Yes, parents SHOULD be having this conversation with their kids. But those parents who cannot afford private school because they're too busy working 2-3 jobs to make ends meet are NOT going to have the time to have that conversation with their kids.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Nor do you if vouchers are a reality.

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.

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.

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

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.

[
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?

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.

Anger as school tells children aged five about gay issues to the sound of Elton John | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191097/Anger-school-tells-children-aged-gay-issues-sound-Elton-John.html)

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.

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.

I suppose THOSE parents had the right to decide which morals to impart to their kids, too? The parents of the killers, I mean.

Maybe if the school had been allowed to teach at least a FEW morals (like---not killing, or not bullying), then those school shootings wouldn't have happened.

I suppose THOSE parents had the right to decide which morals to impart to their kids, too? The parents of the killers, I mean.

Maybe if the school had been allowed to teach at least a FEW morals (like---not killing, or not bullying), then those school shootings wouldn't have happened.

I agree completely. I think there is more to school than reading, writing and arithmetic.

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.

Who's worked up over Elton John? He was always one of my favorite artists. He wasn't the focus of the anger, it was parents "they were not consulted over the content of the assembly" aimed at 5 year olds. Come on Skell, 5year olds! Why do they need to discuss homosexuality at school? Seriously.

I suppose THOSE parents had the right to decide which morals to impart to their kids, too? The parents of the killers, I mean.

Maybe if the school had been allowed to teach at least a FEW morals (like---not killing, or not bullying), then those school shootings wouldn't have happened.

We have really digressed if we're now blaming the parents of a few crazed individuals to justify teaching morals at school. Perhaps if schools weren't so worried about teaching kids about queers they might notice something dreadfully wrong with a disturbed or extremist kid.

Who's worked up over Elton John? He was always one of my favorite artists. He wasn't the focus of the anger, it was parents "they were not consulted over the content of the assembly" aimed at 5 year olds. Come on Skell, 5year olds! Why do they need to discuss homosexuality at school? Seriously.

Yes I agree. 5 is too young.

[
Refer to my post on common sense.





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?







Just because hetero marriage is not always perfect does not indicate that an alternative is better, or equal, or the same or as valid as.

As ET mentioned what you state is hard to quantify in any marriage or relationship. Heck most dogs are more faithful, loyal, devoted than spouses :p


The bigger question is:

Civilizations have always been based on hetero marriage, imperfect as that may be. Show me a civiliztion in which the primary / majority family unit is homo parents with children. :confused::confused:

It can be argued with historical facts that polygamous marriage is certainly more legitimite than homo marriage. Can you imagine the uproar if teachers taught children that polygamy is "the same" as monygamous marriage?:rolleyes:




G&P

If this country still held to it's religious values, we would need(????) as many police or prisons as we have today. people would understand right from wrong and make decisions based on those values.
I lived back then. There was crime and incest and theft and robbery and murder, but there were fewer people, communication was very slow, and people pulled down the shades.

Yes I agree. 5 is too young.

I knew you were a good man.

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


Indeed it is a whole other issue . But I can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time so I do have concerns about the two unrelated issues . This linkage is a strawman because it presumes a false premise .

In fact it would not concern me that our children learn from the teacher that it is wrong for them to gun down their fellow students. I don't know anyone who would object. But , there are many of us who object to values we don't subscribe to being force fed to our children.

In fact it would not concern me that our children learn from the teacher that it is wrong for them to gun down their fellow students. Do you think that would change the number of children gunning down children?

Perhaps not .There are not that many incidents to begin with .

Not sure about that: Time Line of Worldwide School Shootings &mdash; Infoplease.com (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html)
US is the worst offender by far.

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.

Again ;do I think it is OK for teachers to teach children it is not OK to gun down fellow students ? Yes . Perhaps it would lower the incidents but I doubt it .
I still maintain it is an irrelevant comparison to the issue of teaching values that many if not most of the parents oppose.

US is the worst offender by far.

The U.S. is not the "worst offender." The U.S. is not going around gunning down our students.

The U.S. is not the "worst offender." Yes it is - look at the chart again, count how many incidents are in the US versus other countries.

If you want to go back to "traditional family values", I'm going to call you a hypocrite every time you're against teaching kids that homosexuality happens, but don't stand up and fight against divorce and teenagers becoming single parents.

If you want to go back to the way things were in the 50s, you're going to have to make people either get married (for LIFE! No Divorce!) when they get "in trouble" and going to have to ostracize the single parent from polite society when they do NOT get married, so that the child is given up for adoption and raised by TWO married parents.

Good luck with that.

I agree that parents should have been told about the content, and that the way that kids were told about this--especially the 5 year olds--was wrong. However, I don't agree that schools cannot teach that bullying and name calling is bad--regardless their age. If parents didn't want their kids to be told about homosexual issues, they should make sure that they and their friends are never running around calling someone "gay", or calling something they don't like "gay"---and yes, I've heard it out of a 5 year old's mouth.

The parents should have been talked to FIRST, though, and given the option to NOT have their child involved in the assembly. Those kids would still be held to the same rules, though---so those parents better be willing to talk about how calling someone "gay" is not an option at school.

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

No, you don't get it. Individuals are the offenders - the "U.S." is not the "worst offender."

If you want to go back to "traditional family values", I'm going to...

If you want to go back to the way things were in the 50s, you're going to have to...

going to have to...

they should make sure that they and their friends are never...

those parents better be willing...

is not an option at school.

Thanks for demonstrating my point Synnen. As a parent I don't HAVE to, MAKE SURE, SHOULD or BE WILLING to do anything you say regardless of what you're GOING TO do, and that is not an option.

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.

No, you don't get it. Individuals are the offenders - the "U.S." is not the "worst offender."

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

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.

[QUOTE=tomder55;1788141]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

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.

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 (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/search.php?do=finduser&u=85505&starteronly=1) Pot calling the kettle black I see.

b) I did not criticize your country, I responded to Tom's post. (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/1788086-post171.html)
I have no idea why you think that was directed at you.

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.

a) you criticize your country daily. Here are the threads you start: Ask Me Help Desk - Search Results (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/search.php?do=finduser&u=85505&starteronly=1) 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. (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/1788086-post171.html)
I have no idea why you think that was directed at you.

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

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.

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



Hair split:D

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/22/eveningnews/main4036098.shtml)





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

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.

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.

cozyk, I've plainly stated numerous times what my "main beef" is, undermining parental rights." And you have once again taking to posting offensive assumptions about me with this pathetic, wrong, idiotic, unjustified bullsh*t claim that my "main beef is that the mandatory teaching of the existence of this alternative lifestyle is wrong on every level."

What's even more pathetic is I don't believe you even get how insulting and offensive that statement is, and on top of that you have the chutzpah to chastise us on insulting each other. Pathetic. No more diversions from the subject or your responses will be treated accordingly.

cozyk, I've plainly stated numerous times what my "main beef" is, undermining parental rights."


Yes, I believe that is what I alluded to.



And you have once again taking to posting offensive assumptions about me with this pathetic, wrong, idiotic, unjustified bullsh*t claim that my "main beef is that the mandatory teaching of the existence of this alternative lifestyle is wrong on every level."

Woo, touchy aren't you? :eek: What exactly was my offensive assumption?
Am I wrong to conclude that you think teaching it is wrong because it "underminds "your parental rights, that's one level. You feel they are trying to instill values and that's not their place. That's level two. You're okay with anti-bullying teaching in general, just don't go as far as to insinuate that the gay lifestyle is acceptable, that would be level three, and correct me if I'm wrong here (like I need to tell you that) but you do not personally accept gay couples as being just as valid as hetero couples. That would be level number four. Like I said, on many levels.


[QUOTE]What's even more pathetic is I don't believe you even get how insulting and offensive that statement is, and on top of that you have the chutzpah to chastise us on insulting each other.


Wow, did you ever read me wrong. I was not insulting you. I was trying to understand you, giving you credit for being an involved parent, and trying to appeal to your sense of reason. I was offering a different perspective for you to mull over . I was not insulting you in any way then. But now, I do have an insult or two for you. Your defensiveness is clouding your ability to reason. Your temper is getting the best of you.



. No more diversions from the subject or your responses will be treated accordingly.

I don't even know what that means.:confused:

Shock Over Chicago Student Gun Deaths - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/22/eveningnews/main4036098.shtml)

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

Murders with firearms (per capita) by country. Definition, graph and map. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita)

You're number 8 on the list. Not real good.
Even worse on this list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Number 8 in total crime per capita too.
Total crimes (per capita) by country. Definition, graph and map. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita)

Anyway that is a different debate.

Yes, I believe that is what I alluded to.

Do you even remember what you say? You didn't 'allude' to anything, you made an outright offensive, wrong and wrongheaded allegation:

[QUOTE]Your main beef is that the mandatory teaching of the existence of this alternative lifestyle is wrong on every level.



I don't even know what that means.:confused:

Now that's what I 'alluded' to.

[QUOTE]
Do you even remember what you say? You didn't 'allude' to anything, you made an outright offensive, wrong and wrongheaded allegation:





Now that's what I 'alluded' to.


In the words of the "Lost in Space" robot, That does not compute.

I'm tired of trying to communicate with you. Seems like you just keep going around in circles and resisting any view other than your own, no matter what other perspectives are introduced to you. You can't see the forest for the trees. Then you make assertions and statements that don't make any sense. When I say I don't know what you mean, you just come back with a smart a$$ remark. Way to move the ball forward Speech.

So, good luck with all that hostility towards... well everything. I'm bowing out.

[QUOTE=speechlesstx;1790028]In the words of the "Lost in Space" robot, That does not compute.[QUOTE]

One last time...

[QUOTE]Your main beef is that the mandatory teaching of the existence of this alternative lifestyle is wrong on every level.

When you frame it as me believing that teaching the "existence" of homosexuality is "wrong on every level" you've painted me a bigot, a homophone, in serious denial and diverted entirely away from the subject which is and has always been schools undermining parental rights.


I'm tired of trying to communicate with you. Seems like you just keep going around in circles and resisting any view other than your own, no matter what other perspectives are introduced to you. You can't see the forest for the trees.

You can't seem to refrain from insulting me or at the least, containing your condescension toward me. I am not some old, white haired, white guy neanderthal yearning for the days when women, blacks and gays knew their place. You act as if you think I've never known a homosexual, a minority or a pregnant woman and have no clue as to the world they live in or the issues they face. Let me tell you, I've seen much, much more than you obviously imagine.


Then you make assertions and statements that don't make any sense. When I say I don't know what you mean, you just come back with a smart a$$ remark. Way to move the ball forward Speech.

You act as if you're a smart lady, if you can't figure out how offensive, distracting and utterly useless your statement was then perhaps you could use a little sensitivity training yourself.


So, good luck with all that hostility towards... well everything.

Let me be clear - that was another wrong assumption, another insult, another diversion.


I'm bowing out.

Now that's moving the ball forward. If you want to discuss parental rights then continue on, but no more diversions and personal digs.

Murders with firearms (per capita) by country. Definition, graph and map. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita)

You're number 8 on the list. Not real good.
Even worse on this list.

List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate)

Number 8 in total crime per capita too.
Total crimes (per capita) by country. Definition, graph and map. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita)

Anyway that is a different debate.


Props to you for referencing data.

Ashame that Chicago has all the homicide despite gun control laws? Again a debate for another threaf.




G&P