Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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.

Quote:

---

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? Just in case?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by h_leann_b

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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

---

LOL, very funny Elliot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spitvenom

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!!

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

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

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

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

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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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=Synnen;1781743]

Quote:

---

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

---

Nor do you if vouchers are a reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cozyk

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

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

---

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:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.;)

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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

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.