Schools Should Not Mandate Pro-Gay Teaching
By: Candi Cushman, Education Analyst, Focus on the FamilyStories about a handful of New England states legalizing same-sex marriage have grabbed headlines as of late. But there’s another corresponding trend that’s flying largely under the nation’s media radar: Public schools are getting bolder about introducing pro-gay curriculum to elementary kids— whether their parents like it or not.
Take, for instance, what’s happening to parents in Alameda, Calif. Despite the fact that the state’s highest court upheld Prop. 8 — a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman — the school board brazenly mandated a curriculum promoting homosexuality and same-sex unions to first- through fifth-graders.
The curriculum redefines the meaning of “family” as “a group of people living together and functioning as a single household” – sounds like the description of a college dorm, doesn’t it? First-graders are introduced to this concept through a storybook called "Who’s in a Family?" featuring images of same-sex couples interspersed with pictures of animals, including an all-male elephant herd depicted as another type of family. Kids in the fourth and fifth grade will learn a new vocabulary word: LGBT—lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender.
Parents who have expressed discomfort with such lessons are being told they can’t opt their kids out of them.
This is problematic for several reasons:
First of all, we should think carefully about the social costs of teaching the next generation that there is nothing distinctive or particularly beneficial about having a mother and a father—and that a human family is no more unique than a herd of elephants in the jungle.
Second, this trend violates the basic and historically cherished right of parents to “direct the upbringing of their children,” a constitutional principle backed by federal courts. Focus on the Family respects the fact that parents have the most intimate knowledge of their children, and therefore, should have the power to decide when, if and how their kids are introduced to controversial, sexual topics. Many parents—even those who aren’t necessarily religious—have expressed concern that their 6-, 7- or 8-year-olds simply aren’t psychologically or emotionally ready to handle these topics.
It’s also undemocratic. An action like that of the Alameda school board—mandating a curriculum for first-graders that conflicts with a law supported by the majority of state voters— represents an arrogant disregard of the will of the people, especially when you consider that 30 states, including California, have constitutional amendments defining marriage as a man and a woman. A recent Gallup poll also revealed that nearly 60 percent of Americans remain opposed to government-sanctioned same-sex marriage.
Gay activists want to act like this is a settled debate, and therefore should be mandated as a permanent part of school curriculum for the youngest grade levels. But that’s just not the case. And let’s not forget that schools across the land are struggling just to get kids to graduate high school and read at basic levels, so it’s irresponsible to allocate valuable resources and classroom time to divisive, adult-driven agendas.
Furthermore, mandating homosexuality promotion in public classrooms infringes on another historically cherished constitutional right—free exercise of religion. Jewish, Muslim and Christian parents are being told they can’t exempt their kids from controversial teaching even if it conflicts with their most deeply held religious convictions. If they can’t afford a private school, that leaves them with nowhere to go. What’s more, many students of faith are finding themselves in situations where their beliefs are censored, even ridiculed, when homosexuality is promoted in their school. (For more information on this, visit www.truetolerance.org)
And if you assume this is just a problem in California, think again. The nation’s largest homosexual-advocacy group, the Human Rights Campaign, has announced that it is piloting a pro-gay curriculum, “Welcoming Schools,” in several elementary classrooms across the land. It also radically redefines the meaning of marriage and family.
So if we care about maintaining local control of our community schools, protecting parental rights and guarding religious freedoms, then we should be deeply concerned about this trend.












Schools Should Not Mandate Pro-Gay Teaching
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Schools and mandating pro-gay teaching
Your opinion is heavily laden with deceptions, lies, and religious zealotry. For this harm intended act, I will support all pro-gay, pro-straight, pro-bisexual, pro-traditional family, pro-nontraditional family, sex education for children . You've demonstrated that your brand of exclusive religious mandate is hate inciting, violent, and absolutely bad curriculum. It should never be taught to children!
- FlexSF
June 8, 2009 6:22PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Um...
Just exactly WHERE are the deception and lies and religious zealotry...other than you just claiming that they are there? Also, I read absolutely NOTHING that incites hate and much less violence. Just because your feelings are hurt doesn't make anything you said true. It's exactly people like you who absolutely cannot stand for someone to oppose you who will stop at nothing to silence us. Bad news...it's not gonna happen. WE are the majority...deal with it!
- Leigh Healy
June 8, 2009 10:36PM
Reply to this Recommend
(5)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Schools and mandating pro-gay teaching.
I don't like to argue with drunks, and you're drunk on religion . It's more worse for you than a bottle of gin!
"[P]eople like you." Spoken like a true hate filled zealot!
"W[e] are the majority...deal with it!" Are you attempting to persuade me, or are you beating your fists on your chest like an ape?
The right hand of god christianist Klan is proving to be horrible role models for children ! You would poison their minds with homophobia in an attempt to insult us, but it isn't us that you are harming!
- FlexSF
June 9, 2009 12:01AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Rediculous
You are a typical liberal. Any opinion that doesn't agree with yours is branded hate speech . Anyone with a religious belief is branded a wacko and extreme. Yes, there are some religous wackos, but the vast majority of Americans identify themselves as Christian.
We have the right to teach our kids right from wrong. It is becoming increasingly difficult with mandated leftist agendas being forced into our kids' heads against our wishes. Schools should not be in the business of teaching social issues, because there are too many opposing views. Shools should teach things that have no moral opinions injected into them...period.
- kong99
June 10, 2009 1:42PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This is the reason
...that in one generation christian values will be halved in the US. As in - the new generation will abandon these values, or change them to suit their understanding of the world.
You can throw tantrums about it all you want - premarital sex, drug use , masturbation, buddism, anal sex, outer space, evolution , neurological reductionism, gravity, job outsourcing, nanoreplication, relativity, evokution, quarks - and yes, functional evolved homosexual behavior - these all exist and will not go away no matter how you whine about them.
But what is more irksome about murcans whining and bleating about values, is the dichotomy (whine-fest) cultivated back and forth. The "left" is largely in apathy, the "right" keeps on moaning and griping about issues that have been settled a generation ago. If you don't like it - the US constitution allows states to secede. So go ahead, form your own lttle "new iran " paradise before you thrust that mess you call a country in a civil war.
Or else stop whining your values onto the society you are part of.
- Khannea Suntzu
June 12, 2009 1:47AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What?
What the hell are you talking about? I'm not bitching about gays, drug use , masturbation, or anything else you claim I am. I said we have the right to teach our kids the morals we hope to see them have as they get older, and that the public school sytem should not be in the business of undermining our efforts to push their own moral agendas (or lack of).
I am not religious, and I am not for pushing prayer on all students. I am against the schools pushing any moral propaganda that contradicts what parents may be teaching their kids.
To give you a better idea, would you like it if the schools started mandating classes that teach that being gay is abnormnal and disgusting? No, I don't think you would, and you would have every right not to want that to happen. Then why is it that the inverse is perfectly ok with you because it fits your beliefs?
I'm not bashing gays, and I'm not saying they should be banned or anything like that. I'm just saying keep the agenda out of the schools. Schools should not be trying to replace parenthood or to override parents.
Finally, you make it sound like the people who thing homosexuality is immoral are in the extreme minority and that we are in the dark ages. I've got news for you, polls have shown that the majority of people nationwide believe it's immmoral. So you can take your progressive "I'm better than you" attitude and shove it.
- kong99
June 12, 2009 4:47AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What constitutes a society?
You may have a superficial sense of empowerment, but you need to acknowledge that the society you are in is drifting towards a civil war. I am not exaggerating - we know this concept very well, and we know what it means if an offensive outside entity comes to impose their values. I live in europe.
So, go ahead, impose your values. Enforce them. Dictate what you want and do not want. Paint yourself so far into a noncompromizing corner that the other side will say screw you until hell freezes over. You state - I cannot ever compromize on these issues. The other side will be compelled to do the same and neither side will be capable of any shred of respect. \
So the end result will be either
1- society becoming fractioned in excludist experience bubbles - private schools, seperatist transport, closed off compounds. You will be able to isolate yourself completely from "that other scum".
2- secession. Create your own state, laws and system and enforce those values on others.
3- Civil War.
I do not see how the last is avoidable in the US within one generation.
Bear in mind that you will end up before a judge over here in the netherlands saying the things you say.
- Khannea Suntzu
June 12, 2009 1:05PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Majority? Step aside...
Sooner or later you will have to join the 21st century. Equal rights WILL happen, whether you agree with them or not.
- aveteran
June 9, 2009 1:59AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I don't see it
Sorry but I don't see any Religious Zealotry here at all. In fact you seem to be afflicted with anti religious zealotry. Extreme views and hatred on both sides of the issue do much harm. However I don't see where, as the article states, "The curriculum redefines the meaning of “family” as “a group of people living together and functioning as a single household” in any way promotes a Gay lifestyle I agree that a family goes beyond a married heterosexual couple and children . Certainly a Gay couple raising children is a family in every way.
- tbcass
June 11, 2009 8:02AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Kudo's to Candi
Well said Candi Cushman!!
I have been trying to inform others of our school district intentions.
http://judiwheeldon.blogspot.com/2009/05/council-bluffs-school-district-making.html
- Judi Wheeldon
June 8, 2009 7:27PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Well Done
Great piece. The fight for our rights as parents is on!!!
- Leigh Healy
June 8, 2009 10:37PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Get over it
It's a public school. Public schools can't be anti-gay just because one common religion says gays are low lifes. It's the same reason prayer was taken out of public schools. This isn't a nation of one religion, one sect, one spirituality. If it was we would be in the dark ages, ruled by the rule of superstition, burning witches and gays alive. That's not the kind of school I want my kid growing up in, where bigotry runs rampant.
- Starlon
June 9, 2009 3:15AM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Get real
How can you actually say this? Are you insane? So on one hand, it's perfectly okay to force the idea that being gay is a great thing, but on the other, prayer is evil. Is that what you're saying??
Either there's freedom for both sides -- and that means teaching about gay AND straight lifestyles as well as allowing prayer for those who wish to engage in it -- or there's not freedom for anyone. You can't be so selective to say that all children MUST embrace gay culture but none can embrace religious culture. That is just as bigoted. Seriously.
As a parent, I don't want the school teaching my child ANY values. That's my job. The teacher's or school system's biases have no place in the classroom.
- ktietje85
June 10, 2009 1:18PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'm real. You're just blind.
I didn't say there was anything wrong with prayer in school. It's not ok to force all kids to participate in prayer. I attended a Southern Baptist university for 5 years. I'm agoraphobic, but somehow I always found myself doing something while I attended that school. The atmosphere was peaceful. The music was splendid. I enjoyed it. I am not going to force everyone to go through the same place however.
You're going to have to get over the fact that there are gays in the world. I grew up under an abusive and pedophile father. Kids at school always called me gay or suggested I was a girl because I had a high, whispery voice. Public school is hard enough without the mob against you. It is not ok to treat another person that way, gay or not. Being gay is not a choice. You're just attracted to what you are attracted to. I agree what's happening to Christians in some places of America is just as stupid as the bigotry towards gays. It does not however make the original bigotry right. This nonsense has led to the death or injury of peaceful homosexuals all around the world. Continuing to force those scriptures on everyone else is treacherous at best.
- Starlon
June 10, 2009 3:25PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
read again
I didn't say to "force" prayer . Just to allow those who wish to have it, do it. i.e. students can leave the room and say a prayer before starting school -- if they wish. But this is prohibited too and should be.
Teach about gay lifestyles -- but teach about straight lifestyles, too. You can't say that gay culture is everything and all children must embrace it because honestly, MOST children will be straight. Children with traditional values shouldn't be made to feel "weird" or "wrong" anymore than children who are gay or come from gay families.
It must be freedom for ALL, or freedom for NONE. Not freedom just for certain people.
- ktietje85
June 10, 2009 3:34PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ok
I agree entirely. But we've been heading this way for a while now. It seems every minority gets their place under the political umbrella these days. I don't feel that's balancing what it's intended to balance however. Good evidence is the way Christians are starting to be treated broadly. I think there are unintended consequences when trying to use the rule of law to balance an imbalance in society . It's a road toward the thought police and forced atheism.
- Starlon
June 10, 2009 4:06PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
So this is it
The future of the US is no longer about societal harmony and co-existence - it is about how much I can hold the rest of society in apathy or contempt - and how much I can consciously censor what the other side does from my life.
In a few years there will be ways for individual americans to censor anything they don't like - talk about men who engage in butt sex - talk about dinosaurs - talk about christmas - talk about the holocaust - cigarettes - abortion - fatty foods - advertising. The other side will bitch and moan - and some will resort to blowing up the features the other side maintains, such as abortion clinics, or jesus camps - but the end result will be delerium of collective contempt back and forth.
The american dream is slowly evolving the american blind spot. The great american firewall.
Good thing I don't live in that mess they call a country.
- Khannea Suntzu
June 12, 2009 1:54AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You only half explained.
I agree with you that it's not right to make all kids pray in school. So, then explain to me how you come to the conclusion that it's right to force the gay agenda on kids in school. If a child believes that homosexuality is immoral (in the same sense that a child believes God doesn't exist), shouldn't that child not be subjected to someone else's opinion...forcing a different belief in his/her head (in the same sense that forcing someone to pray is against their belief)?
The difference is that the liberal views take priority and those are the ones being forced into our kids' heads. If it's a conservative view, it's banned.
- kong99
June 11, 2009 3:32AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Exaggerated
I partially agree with you. I don't want the schools to be in the business of promoting religion , either. But your claim that we want schools to be anti-gay is more than a little far fetched. Teaching our kids that homosexuality is immoral and wrong is not teaching them to hate gays. I'm not asking the schools to teach that homosexuality is wrong, and I definitely don't want them teaching that it's "normal" and should be excepted. Leftist's can't win moral or factual arguments, so they have to resort to brainwashing our kids in the school system. If you want to teach your kids that being gay is normal...fine, go ahead. Just don't teach mine your leftist nonsense.
- kong99
June 10, 2009 1:54PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
One person OHare got prayer removed from public school
How long will it take before Christian parents walk into a school and sue it because of homosexual indoctrination? HOW LONG FOLK? If one lady can have prayer removed what can hundreds of Christians accomplish? HOW LONG ARE YOU GOING TO LET YOUR KIDS SUFFER?
- Hope7
June 10, 2009 3:13PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Never
It will never happen. Christians don't have any leverage in the courts. Muslims could do it, but not Christians. Which reminds me, judges have banned any Christian involvement in schools, but the Muslims have been given the green light. The left and the courts will not do anything favorable for Christians until they are about extinct...which will also be never. The way of the courts forces the ideology of the minority religions on us, but won't do a darn thing for Christians.
- kong99
June 11, 2009 3:38AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Then their religion is weak
My faith has power because I trust in God. If Christianity is that weak and powerless then they have stopped trusting in God.
Never is wrong. I think you might have to eat those words in the future.
Lets not forget that, although the Christian men have dissappointed us in the past, they appear to be realizing that much of our situation is because they have been silent victims of an increasingly liberal society .
- Hope7
June 11, 2009 3:01PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
hold up....back up a sec
I think you misunderstood my intent. I wasn't doubting anyone's faith in God or trying to say that people are losing faith. I was commenting on the downright injustice done to Christians by the acts of liberals and our courts.
You asked when Christians are going to sue because of this injustice and pondered on how much can be accomplished since it only took one lady to get prayer removed. My comment arises from the fact that our courts do not care about the plight of the Christians. An example is that Christians are not allowed to bring items to school depicting the nativity scene, but Muslims are allowed to bring items that reflect their religion . It's a terrible double standard, but that's our courts for you.
I say Christians will never be able to sue until they are virtually extinct because our courts close their eyes to anyone except minorites....like the Muslims who get whatever the hell they want. I say that Christians will never be virtually extinct because the U.S. is a Christian nation (70% say they are Christian). Hence, "never" means that the way things are set up, Christians will not be treated equally in the eyes of the law .....unfortunately.
Did I make that better to understand? I didn't mean to come across as insulting by any means.
- kong99
June 12, 2009 5:07AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ok forgiven
I still think you hit the nail on the head, in part,anyway. We have this imbalance or injustice because of our Christian leaders who have gotten involved in secret societies and clubs that admonish any outward political movment or political stand by the church or Christians and now we essentially are reaping what our leaders have buried in the sand for years. So when I say their religion or faith is weak it is only as weak as they are and unfortunatly, not that a good spiritual work out program couldnt remedy it, they have become altogether weaker than woman...no insult intended to woman.
What a shame, not only have they let down God and their families but the country as a whole is now having to work overtime to remedy thier spiritual laziness. just my two cents.
- Hope7
June 13, 2009 9:34AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Kick 'em
Well, you better kick 'em and wake them up. I'm agnostic, but Christianity is a good religion that truly stands for good things (unlike the Muslims who are actually members of a death cult).
I'm sure you know what's happening in Britain. The Muslims are using the courts against them (taking advantage of the minority sympathy card). This is going to destroy the country one day, because the Muslims will eventually take everything over and Sharia law will rule the land.
Well, that's starting to happen here in the United States. There are lawsuits being brought on by Muslims to reshape our society , and I don't like it. For example, in many places public rest areas have to install feet washes for the Muslims because of lawsuits. At the same time, our courts are forcing the removal of anything Christian in public. Christmas trees, prayer , "Merry Christmas", and etc. The ACLU even threatened to sue the government because they saw a picture depicting soldiers praying just before they were shipped out to Iraq. They say that the soldiers are on "our" time, not theirs, and that's mixing religion and state. I hate the ACLU. Why does the ACLU fight to remove anything Christian but to allow the installation of Muslim values in public?
I'm with the you and the Christians. Christian leaders need to speak up and fight back, and our courts need to stop destroying Christianity in public.
- kong99
June 13, 2009 1:04PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It Should Be A Parental Choice
As in abortion , gun control and homosexuality there are differing opinions that involves tolerance on both sides. Personally, as a parent, I should be the authority on what my children are taught and be raised in an environment of my choosing. That may include education on some alternate lifestyles, but I would not wish this to happen during the elementary school curriculum. Perhaps in Junior High when my child will also have a hand in that decision. At that time, I would also want it taught that an all male or single-sex herd of elephants is not normal to the laws of nature, and would quickly fall to extinction without normal biological propagation. Oh please, don't call me a "drunk" or homophobic because I may differ from your views and I prefer to not have a homosexual child. It is behavior like that which pushes me over the fence that I straddle on this issue.
- VonS
June 9, 2009 9:40AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
So you tolerate homosexuality
But not in your own family?
- quantummechanik
June 9, 2009 1:32PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yup..
....it's my choice.
- VonS
June 9, 2009 2:42PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Then how tolerant are you?
I'm not saying it's not your choice, but saying "I'm fine with something as long as it's far away" isn't really a tolerant position.
- quantummechanik
June 9, 2009 2:53PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Pro-Gay vs. Pro-Straight
Pretty much forever, schools and everything else has been teaching that families are made up of a man and a woman. Would someone consider that lesson Pro-Straight, and if so, why is that better?
- quantummechanik
June 9, 2009 5:44PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Is LGBT a Religion?
The doctrine of the separation of church and state , though not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, is commonly invoked in the public schools. The doctrine has its’ roots in the First Amendment, and has been a central issue of numerous court decisions in the last 60 years. Though most would agree on the general principle, it has long been a contentious issue in the public schools. In public schools, the discovery of culture is exceedingly more welcomed than the exploration of religion . But, how is that line drawn? To answer that question, I find it helpful to consider the question, “What is Religion?” Wanting a general and secular definition, I turned to Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, “Religion, Definitions of Religion”
“Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. For example, in Lindbeck’s /Nature of Doctrine,/ religion does not refer to belief in “God” or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, “a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.”
According to this definition, religion refers to one’s primary worldview and how this dictates one’s thoughts and actions. Considering this definition, is LGBT a religion?
Religions include rites of passage. A few examples are Bar Mitzvah, Baptism, Pilgrimage, Confirmation, being Born-Again. Is Coming-Out as GLBT a rite of passage? These rites are celebrated events; encouraged by the faithful that have passed these milestones before us. They establish a date to be remembered; an anniversary to be celebrated.
Religion is a powerful and influential force in forming relationships, choosing a mate, and parenting . There is an underlying bond from knowing that only insiders know what it truly means to be a part of this religion. Is this true of LGBT?
Religious communities come together to raise funds, volunteer to support a cause, appeal to school boards, socialize in picnics and potlucks. Does that describe LGBT?
What of the alphabet soup of GLBT, GLBTQ, LGBT, LGBTQ, GLBTA? Are these different denominations of the religion, each emphasizing different elements of the faith?
Is it right for one group’s moral teachings to be offered in the public school, at the expense of many other groups? Is this religion right for the classroom?
Choosing a set of moral values, and teaching them in the elementary classrooms is not good for any group, including the LGBT. It is divisive, and it creates an environment where a group or religion can force its’ belief system into classroom curriculum. It invites a backlash response, which will lead to hostility in relationships in the school and the community.
One religious group advancing at the expense of others sets a dangerous precedent. Some day, if the LGBT community finds that their children and their families have been thrown under the school bus, will they remember that they drove that bus through the schoolhouse door?
- uncommonsense
June 10, 2009 4:51AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Wonderfully said!!!
What an awesome way to look at the entire issue!!!
Would love to put this comment on my blog!!!!
http://judiwheeldon.blogspot.com/2009/05/lgbt-education.html
- Judi Wheeldon
June 10, 2009 11:32AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Your blog
Judi:
I just made a second post, and I may continue to participate in this discussion. You have my permission to add anything I have written to your blog.
uncommonsense
- uncommonsense
June 10, 2009 2:14PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You haven't answered my question
But, to answer yours, no. LGTB is not a religion .
It does not have an abstract set of ideals, values, and framework. Like heterosexuality, it's made up of millions of different viewpoints, ideas, judgments.
Sexual orientation does not become anyone's main focus in life.
Coming out is not comparable to anyone's rite of passage.Coming out involves a significant change in ones life---Bar Mitzvah signifies your entrance into manhood, for example. Coming out is a process by which a person of non-heterosexual orientation informs others of that orientation. It isn't an event, it's a process. Many people never finish it. You do not become "more gay" if you don't come out.
Certainly, there are fundraisers. I live next to a scottish community centre, who puts on fundraising concerts on a monthly basis. I think they're to pay for other concerts. Scottish is not a religion.
No, the alphabet soup doesn't equate to a different denomination. The letters simply signify things that fall under the umbrella term of "Queer". The order they do them in is a matter of personal preference. Out of curiosity, I checked with my school's Pride center. The acronym they use is "LGBTTTQA2PPBDSMK", but that can be expressed in whatever order you want.
Is it right to teach morality in the classroom? Probably things like basic ethics, certainly. Is it right to define a family in a classroom? Who knows. What I was saying earlier was that we've been doing it for years, and no one's complained about it. This isn't like we're STARTING to teach a moral view, it's that we've taught one for a very long time and now we're teaching another.
- quantummechanik
June 10, 2009 11:51AM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I know a really good place to that can help you
Jews for Jesus is an excellent place to start. Miracles happen to people who visit their sites and who reach out for help to them. I know, I was one of them. God bless you.
You are wrong about homosexuality and if you ask God to show you the truth He will.
- Hope7
June 10, 2009 2:59PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Are you allergic
to answering questions?
No, I'm not going to join your group. If you're just here to try and convert people, then I think you're missing the point of the site. I'm not going to try and get you into MY religion , don't try and get me into yours.
- quantummechanik
June 10, 2009 4:05PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thats funny...no Im not allergic
Im not even contagious at the moment. I am running for Miss Congeniality in heaven...will you vote for me? thats a joke!
To share a site that has helped me and to have your comment based on the fact that its a religious site suddenly makes me someone trying to convert....your not well, thats ok. I once was not well too.
You can keep what ever faith or nonfaith you have I just thought you might like this site. I really like it.
- Hope7
June 11, 2009 3:24PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Linking someone
to "Jews For Jesus" saying "This will help you" is an attempt at conversion.
- quantummechanik
June 11, 2009 3:26PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
They lost and they know it.
Its the last temper tantrums of a dying belief system.
- Khannea Suntzu
June 12, 2009 2:07AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I don't agree
"Sexual orientation does not become anyone's main focus in life."
Here's where your wrong. For some, on both sides of the issue, it becomes all encompassing and the primary focus of their existence. An extreme political view is another example where the belief becomes so fervent that it is, IMO, the same as a Religion. I disagree that a belief in a God and ceremonies are necessary. I do agree that morality has been taught in the classroom for years but they are moralities that are agreed upon by the vast majority of the populous for a very long time and as such transcend religion . When the moralities are Religion specific it becomes a problem.
All that said I don't see where acknowledging the existence of a Gay life style and Gay families without implicating a moral value to it in any way promotes same.
- tbcass
June 11, 2009 8:21AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Name me a religion
That has nothing supernatural in it.
- quantummechanik
June 11, 2009 10:13AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Off topic
Do you admit that you were wrong to say sexual orientation does not become ones main focus in life? This was, after all, the comment you made that I objected to, not anything about religion . You like to change the subject don't you.
When I said some peoples political (or secular) beliefs are so fervent that they become the same as religion I said it was my opinion (IMO). I didn't mean to imply Religion in the official organizational sense but to mean for all intent and purposes the same as (or in essence) a religion because the belief is held so strongly that all differing opinions are rejected off hand. That's why they say never argue politics or religion.
BTW, isn't Scientology a Religion without a belief in the supernatural, (depending on what you mean by supernatural)? They certainly don't believe in a supreme being. I said "I disagree that a belief in a God and ceremonies are necessary". This does not preclude belief in anything supernatural.
- tbcass
June 11, 2009 11:48AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Anything
can become one's main focus in life. Baseball could be one's main focus in life. This doesn't make Baseball a religion . This doesn't mean that a baseball fan is following their religion. Saying LGTB people all have that aspect of their life as their focus is incredibly, incredibly wrong. That was what Uncommonsense said.
As I said before. Anything can become one's main focus in life. Sure, I'll admit that someone's sex life could become their focus in life. This is not true of all GBLT people. This is not true of the MAJORITY of GBLT people. This can be true of straight people. So saying it's a GBLT thing, as uncommonsense did, is wrong.
Scientology, as a fairly big tenet of it's belief structure, holds that the souls or ghosts of aliens were grafted onto cavemen, and that causes problems. So yes, that has a supernatural element to it. Plenty of religions don't have God, in that there's an all powerful, omniscient, benevolent creator, but all religions have some aspect of the supernatural to them. If they don't, they become philosophies.
- quantummechanik
June 11, 2009 12:48PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Answer to guy with bad hat
Atheisim
- Hope7
June 11, 2009 3:26PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Atheism isn't a religion
And you're insulting my clothes? Really?
- quantummechanik
June 11, 2009 3:27PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
is not a religion
Atheism is not a religion . It has no rituals, no central holy texts, no churches, no priests... It is the absence of belief in a deity.
- MrBook
June 11, 2009 10:26PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Confucianism.
It has nothing supernatural about it, but is widely regarded as a religion .
- richardsonkr
June 17, 2009 3:19PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Regarded by whom?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Confucianism
It's a philosophy.
- quantummechanik
June 17, 2009 3:25PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What Pro Straight Lessons?
Perhaps, I've been out of school too long, but I don't recall any pro-straight lessons.
Schools were once primarily concerned with core academic fundamentals; the three R's. Social issues, which we clearly cannot all agree upon, were left to the parents, especially for elementary school age children . The lines that once clearly marked the division between parenting and public education have been erased. Some schools are assuming the role of surrogate parents, and some of us take exception to that.
A curriculum cannot possibly call out every possible family form. Instead, let's spend a minute or two communicating that every child is deserving of respect and fair treatment, regardless of their family form, race, national origin, personal beliefs. Bullying is not tolerated, and policies in place will be enforced. Move on to mastery of the multiplication table.
uncommonsense
P.S.: I see that you answered "no" to several of my points regarding the LGBT religion , but I don't find your supporting statements to be convincing.
- uncommonsense
June 11, 2009 1:12PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I was taught a lot of things in school
About racism , sexism, all sorts of social issues. The concept of equal rights was something I found in both school, and at home. If you don't want your child to learn about equal rights, that's really your issue, but that leads to more problems than just this one.
"I don't find your supporting statements convincing". Okay. Which ones do you not find convincing? I'm fine going over them one by one.
- quantummechanik
June 11, 2009 1:28PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
OK,
but I only have time for a couple.
"Sexual orientation does not become anyone's main focus in life." I see that some else has already addressed that one. If you feel the need to fly a rainbow flag on your house, it might be your religion . Does the trunk lid of your car carry a fish symbol, rainbow symbol, or a Star of David?
"Coming out is a process by which a person of non-heterosexual orientation informs others of that orientation. It isn't an event, it's a process. Many people never finish it." This sounds very parallel to a Christian "working out" their faith. Faith is not an achievement, it is a journey.
True believers don't marry outside the faith.
- uncommonsense
June 11, 2009 2:46PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes, it does
Having a rainbow flag is more akin to having a country's flag. It's an aspect of your personality that you choose to represent by a flag form. There are lots of things like that in my room. Some, sure, are my menorah. I also have a Canucks poster. One is based on my religion . The other is not. One's an aspect of faith, the other is a bumper sticker. Just because it EXISTS doesn't mean it has the same sort of connotations.
As for coming out, there are once again a lot of processes. It would be more akin, if there was such a process, to a Christian going around telling people they were now Christian. I do not believe that this is a codified, recognized ceremony.
- quantummechanik
June 11, 2009 3:12PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I think you've confused
Religion and Culture. Religion is a PART of culture, but both exist outside of each other. Religion involves a supernatural belief of some sort. Sexual orientation does not involve that.
- quantummechanik
June 11, 2009 4:15PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I find Eze. chapter 33 convincing
So you condon sin? Then you have committed the same sin in that you will receive the same judgement.
The only way to not receive the same is to inform them they are sinning then whatever they do after that is no longer your problem.
PS Homosexuality is a sin. So are alot of other things too. Thats why Jesus is our righteousness for us. TLOR The Lord Our Righteousness
- Hope7
June 16, 2009 9:15AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes, I condone sin
I condone all sorts of sins. I'm Jewish--All the time I pass by a church , a mosque, a buddhist temple, whatever, and I don't wreck the joint--that's me allowing sin to occur. I encourage it, I encourage spirituality in others.
- quantummechanik
June 16, 2009 2:23PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
keep up
Your blessed.keep up the fight!
- countryboy
June 16, 2009 5:33PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
quoting from the OT
That's from Ezekiel correct?
Is it really a good idea to quote from the OT? That is the same book that not only permits slavery but specifically details selling ones own daughter into sexual slavery.
- MrBook
June 18, 2009 7:06AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
your argument
Quoting out of a book to people that don't believe is a non-starter. Yes, you believe the words to be divine. Many of us don't. Aguing about who is right is another debate entirely.
What needs to be debated is the constitionality of the teaching of sex preference equality in the school system. We are left here to trust the teachers on their methods. Slippery slope indeed. Some will be quite zealous in either direction. However, I can find no fault in teaching sex preference equality alongside of racial equality, anti- bullying , and sexual equality. If none are taught or all are taught is the question.
But please please please leave your Bible out of discussions over the legality of the issue.
- tek June 20, 2009 4:10PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
plently of straight positive lessons
"Perhaps, I've been out of school too long, but I don't recall any pro-straight lessons."
There are many lessons that show that straight people are normal. All the books / stories that I remember reading that had couples had heterosexual couples... many that featured families featured heterosexual couples and their children . History lessons talked about historical figures and their husbands / wives... never mentioning the homosexuality of historical figures.
Complaining that there is no pro-straight lessons in school is like complaining that there is no pro-white TV shows.
'pro-gay' teaching has never been "you should go have gay sex" but rather that homosexuals are people just like everyone else... they are part of the history of our society and have made many great contributions... and most importantly that if one is gay that that is ok.
- MrBook
June 12, 2009 6:40AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What defines some of "those people"
What you prefer is a society where you can pick and choose - which would be great! I prefer a society where every member has a giant "spamblock" button about anything they do not want.
I would apply it 'liberally' to ban most religious statements from my existence. Most forms of advertising.
In such a society apathy wins. People will be quick to ban whatever they do not want to hear from their sensorium. In such a society religion is guaranteed to lose and become a small fringe phenomenon - something of amish proportions. We have seen it Europe - it is my staunch conviction that if people have decent incomes, free time and they feel safe - they gradually become less religious.
I would characterize this style of dealing with society "ostrichian". As soon as someone comes up that originates from "those people", wham, lock out. It is precisely how you turn a rift in society into a yawning abyss in a single generation.
- Khannea Suntzu
June 12, 2009 2:06AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's not only religions....
....that are against this promotion of homosexuality . Many non-religious individuals are as well.
- Opposite
June 10, 2009 11:53AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
exactly
I am not religious, although I'm not an athiest. I believe I'm what they call agnostic. In any case, I am dead set in my belief that homosexuality is disgusting and immoral. The left is shoving it down our throats.
- kong99
June 12, 2009 2:40PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How is
a sexual orientation immoral? And a lot of things are disgusting--doesn't mean they're not moral, and it doesn't mean they shouldn't be legally protected.
- quantummechanik
June 18, 2009 2:42PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hmmm
When people like this talk about "pro-gay teaching," they mean either not specifically ANTI-gay teaching or teaching that doesn't completely ignore the existence of homosexuals like when I was in high school, not mentioning the homosexuality of Walt Whitman). Schools should teach the truth, and the truth is that there are untraditional families. More and more, schoolchildren are sitting next to schoolchildren who COME from such families, and more and more, such families have marriage certificates and legal joint child custody. That these are families within the meaning of the law is a fact. Telling children otherwise is a lie, and ignoring the fact is educational malpractice. We should not be in a conspiracy to deceive schoolchildren, and the schools are not factories for the indoctrination of schoolchildren into disapproval of homosexuality. Families do that just fine. And it would be nice if the children of same-sex couples could go to school without constantly being reminded that the dominant society doesn't value their home life, and if gay children could go to school and not be in fear.
- ducdebrabant
June 10, 2009 11:56AM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"ignoring facts" & "educational malpractice"
The goal of the LGBT curricula claim to be safe schools, but they fail (“ignoring facts”) to inform children of the health risks of a male homosexual lifestyle. Each time I donate a unit a blood, I am asked if I have had sex with a man, even once, since 1977. Were I to answer yes, my blood would be disqualified from the blood supply. The medical community understands the risk of male homosexual behavior. Would we not be derelict in our responsibility ("educational malpractice") to our children, as parents and educators, if we did not warn children of this risk?
This is not a judgment; it is a medical fact.
- uncommonsense
June 10, 2009 2:12PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hardly
The rule you cite about blood donation is indeed a fact, but not a medical one. The policy you speak of was put in place long ago by HHS and never changed, despite the fact that a test has since been developed for the presence of the HIV virus. A heterosexual who has had unprotected sex, oral or anal, with a thousand partners in the past year can give blood, but a homosexual who has had sex even once, with a condom, twenty years ago, and tested negative every week of his life since then, can NEVER give blood under this nonsensical regulation. This is pure politics , and it might interest you to know that the American Red Cross has denounced it and asked the government to permit them to abandon it. It denies them access to blood, often in rare blood types, that is perfectly safe, and can be proven so. Homosexuality was associated with homosexuality in its early days, but the greatest increase in AIDS cases since then has been among heterosexuals. It's ravaging parts of Africa. Interestingly, a South African male heterosexual would presumably have no trouble giving blood in the United States -- or even selling it. I do think children should be taught about AIDS transmission, but they shouldn't be taught that it's a "gay disease," that homosexuals are doomed to die of it, that gay people are to be avoided on account of it, or -- and this is most important of all -- THAT HETEROSEXUALS ARE SOMEHOW PRIVILEGED IN THEIR ABILITY TO AVOID IT. I cannot imagine anything it would more disserve heterosexual children to hear.
- ducdebrabant
June 10, 2009 3:01PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
From the American Red Cross website
From the American Red Cross website, regarding discrimination against gay men: "It's important to understand that blood safety is a public health issue, not a social policy issue." Safety before political correctness.
The blood supply is screened for many things. Even so, potential donors are pre-screened. The screening questions are about where have you been and what have you done. The behavior questions are mainly concerned with IV drug use and male homosexual sex. I have traveled to places that have caused me to be deferred from donating for one year. In my case, the concern was Malaria. Donated blood is tested for Malaria, but they still cull out people that have visited malarious regions of the world.
71% of imported Malaria cases come from Africa. Depending where your South African man had traveled in the past year, he may be deferred from donating. He certainly could not sell whole blood in the US. Whole blood in the US is supplied by unpaid volunteers.
uncommonsense
P.S.: Please explain "It denies them access to blood, often in rare blood types". How can one often be denied something rare?
- uncommonsense
June 11, 2009 8:18AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
For your consideration
The American Red Cross and other blood centers often are caught in the middle of disputes over the policy on gay men, said Darren Irby, a spokesman for the organization. The American Red Cross, the American Association of Blood Banks and America's Blood Centers have encouraged the FDA to modify it's policy, he said.
"We're disappointed that the changes haven't been made," Irby said. "We'll continue to work with (other groups) to really press for the donor deferral policies to be fair and consistent based on scientific evidence. Everyone's ultimate goal is to protect the blood supply from harm."
http://www.wsbt.com/health/17486954.html
- ducdebrabant
June 11, 2009 10:21PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The American Red Cross
The American Red Cross is a very politically astute organization. I have not found a lot of common ground with them, and I no longer donate blood through them, preferring to work with a local blood bank.
Following 911, the Red Cross did not manage well the public's willingness to give blood, and attempted to cover up the fact that too much of it was taken to use before it spoiled.
Deferrals are based on safety, and that won't change. Donated blood is tested for Malaria. Even so, I was deferred because I visited a malarious region. I was not bitten by a mosquito, nor did I see a mosquito. It doesn't matter; I was there.
- uncommonsense
June 12, 2009 10:19AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Happy Transfusions
Interesting. But of course it does nothing to bolster your case that homosexuals are all a bunch of Typhoid Marys who should be called"unclean, unclean" in every classroom .... if their dreaded name must be spoken at all.
- ducdebrabant
June 12, 2009 3:15PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
There's a simple fix for this problem
There's a perfectly "democratic" way to deal with the problem. If the people of the towns and cities where this is happening object to it, they should vote the school board members out of office in favor of ones that better represent their views.
If, however, the majority of voters do not object to this sort of thing, then folks who do should either learn to live with it or take their kids out of the school systems.
As for the comment about it being "...irresponsible to allocate valuable resources and classroom time to divisive, adult-driven agendas." I assume that you would also agree that there should be no place in school curricula for the teaching of intelligent design or creationism - two other "..very divisive, adult-driven agendas".
- mr average
June 10, 2009 11:57AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not just a religious issue
A lot of people seem to think this is just a religious issue. The role of parenthood in the development of children affects society as a whole. There is nothing wrong with teaching children that having a mother and a father is ideal. If a single parent fosters gender identity issues that impact healthy child development, than how much would a same sex couple cause the same problems. The basic family structure has been persistent throughout history for a reason.
Public education has waged a long standing war against the male identity for decades now and look what it has to show for it. Now it wants to disrupt the balance in parenthood? Try again.
- inbox485
June 10, 2009 12:51PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No more in your face crap!
I used to tolerate gays in a live and let live kind of truce. My wife works with many of them as she is a flight attendant. When gays began to push their agendas and lifestyle into my face and the faces of all other American citizens, I reached my point of intolerance for them. Gays are digging a hole for themselves that most likely will end in a huge backlash against them by the real majority. If the real majority knew about all of the deprevity and disease transfers that occur in the gay community, they would have almost no support left at all. Your sick gay parades are going a long way to educate them about you. If you are going to educate everyone, make sure you tell the whole truth.
You say that we can't have religion in schools and then turn around and want to teach young children about the homosexual lifestyle. That is as two faced as anyone can get! The Devil is most definately being given free run on the face of the earth as Jesus Christ stated he would until the end finally comes.
- MudEngineeer
June 10, 2009 2:10PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
MUCH more
I'm amused by the notion that gaining more visibility, organizing more, demanding change more loudly, is going to doom gay people in America. When I was born, people could be jailed for sending a gay magazine (not pornographic but political) through the mails, any gay bar popular with a gay clientele was raided and closed, films shown in schools portrayed all homosexuals as dangerous pedophiles, gays in movies were Leopold or Loeb, gays in novels got the novels removed from library shelves, gays in the military got dishonorable discharges.
Only when gay people started coming out of the closet and all this "in your face crap" started did we get any rights at all. We've tried it your way -- fearful, furtive, reclusive, exclusive, and silent. We're not going back to that -- and you're not going back to it either, buddy. If you think it's hell on earth when gays come out of the closet, you don't know what you're talking about. Ask an older gay person -- he REMEMBERS hell on earth.
- ducdebrabant
June 10, 2009 3:40PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Seriously?
Seriously? You think "a group of people living together and functioning as a single household" is 'curriculum promoting homosexuality and same-sex unions .' That sounds more like description for a multi-generation family.
I know this is an opinion piece, but where's your proof? Have you even seen these books personally? The negative hype over "Who’s in a Family?" was debunked after the hateful "Storm is Coming" video NOM did. This is not introducing children to "controversial, sexual topics." This is introducing children to the FACT that not every "family" is just like their family. You fail to point out that the book illustrates example of mixed race couples, single parents, and grandparents in the parental role.
The real shame here is that schools are feeling the need to step in because parents haven't taken the time to sit down and explain a few things to their kids . Or parents have instilled bigotry and hatred in their children.
Furthermore, freely exercising your religion does NOT entitle you the right to bigotry.
- Johnny
June 10, 2009 6:30PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
To each his own
You live in a society that is ripped in two. On the one hand are people with what they term "liberal" values, on the other hand those with "religious" values. Both sides feel vindicated in not compromising and not talking. This has become an unresolvable issue that will result in an effective demographic apartheid in the US within this generation.
Which means - regions which are legally neutral - and regions which are legally either liberal (you can marry there even in clutters of six men, or 65 year old mormons with several 13 year old girls) or staunchly conservative.
Me I don't care. The only thing I care about is not ever having to deal with minority dictates over my life, especially religious ones. I do not want the US to implicitly export its value system about anything (legalized prostitution, legal cannabis sale, ending prohibition, abortion , euthanasia , guns being illegal, universal health care , humane welfare) I regard as cherished. For all I care, the US will go through a "civil war" like transition quite soon, possible as soon as the coming decade.
As for who has my sympathies - clearly I am far to the left of any demographic in the US. I am in favor of abolishing a state-run concept called marriage - its a personal thing. The state can implement "cohabitation" laws if it so likes, but I want the word marriage stricken from the state dictionary.
To me your defense of the concept of marriage, as a religious rite, is ludicrous and insufferable. You are what we call whining. You want to have your cake, deny it to everyone else, and eat it, in a kosher manner. You are what I call - zero sum people. It is not enough you win - everyone else must lose.
There is absolutely nothing christian about you. If a 1st century christian and a first christian roman would look at these 'murcana' sentiments they would both classify you as a vague derivative conservative roman, with a Jupiter-worship morality.
You are trying to talk straight what is truly crooked and twisted.
- Khannea Suntzu
June 12, 2009 1:40AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Really?
Let's again state clearly that this discussion is about curriculum for five to ten year olds.
The schools in this country used to have a focused mission of teaching core academic fundamentals, including reading, writing, and math. They formerly did a good job of it; formerly. I am not interested in teaching anything else to your five year old. If you want to teach other things to a five year old, get your own. That's called parenting . If you already have a five year old, get busy parenting, and concern yourself not with my five year old.
- uncommonsense
June 12, 2009 10:09AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Public schools
If you get right to it the public schools are ran by goverment.
Why would any one trust the goverment or a stranger to teach there childen
Close the doors to the public schools and give us a choice where to send our childen to school.
- countryboy
June 12, 2009 6:27PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
the choice already exists
Parents can already remove their children from public schools and place them in private ones (if they can afford it) or even home school (if they have the time / economic freedom to do so).
Public schools were created to give education to everyone... including those whose parents could not afford private schools (which are very expensive) or had the time to home school.
- MrBook
June 13, 2009 9:10AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Schools
Your right but there should be a bigger choice.look at the inter city schools smart kids drop out because there afraid to go to inter city school for fear of there life. And most intercity parents can not afford private school.The childs only meal they get are free from the schools.
Iam only saying there most be a better choice!
If not close them up!
- countryboy
June 13, 2009 9:46AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
options
Schools do need to be reformed... however closing down public schools without putting another system in place would be a far worse situation..
- MrBook
June 13, 2009 10:16AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
teaching values
In the 60’s in the South I wonder what percentage of voters were in favor of integration? At what age were parents comfortable to have the children taught about racial equality? When are you to young to learn tolerance, social respect, and love for your fellow human beings?
In a society with rampant divorce, what “family” are the voices of intolerance defending?
If you want to teach values, start with love and acceptance of diversity, not fear and ignorance.
- RichNau
June 13, 2009 11:40AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
My Curriculum
I hope that you all had a good weekend. I’ve been away from the library for a couple days, where I use a public computer to write. This time of year, I spend a lot of time in the park due to the fine weather. During winter months in Minnesota, I spend a lot of time with my sons in the library, due to the cold and snowy weather. You see, we don’t have a permanent home.
I am what most people would call a slacker, and often I hear that term used as a negative label. I love living the life of a slacker; like the birds of the field, I don’t store up more food than I need for the present day. My boys seem to like their lives, in the park, at the library, and on the street. They are smart and do well in school. They are different than most of their peers; they dress different and don’t bathe as often. Most kids treat them well most of the time.
In my spare time, I am writing an elementary school curriculum about living the life of a slack. I have a wealth of stories and amusing anecdotes of our life on the street, in shelters, and about a shelter we built together, and that we defend.
I spent some time reviewing my curriculum last night, and making some edits. I email it to myself using gmail, so I can access it wherever I go. As a whole, it strikes me as a very positive portrayal of our lives. Of course, life on the street has its’ potholes and perils, including, hazards and health risks, not to mention violence at times. But, I don’t want to scare anyone or discourage children from the path that I have chosen. It is undeniably a life of adventure; each day unfolds like a new chapter before us.
One of my friends at the library told me that I had elevated the life of slack to the level of being a religion . That was a nice complement; the principles of slack certainly serve to guild my life day by day.
I believe my curriculum is nearly ready for the classroom. Would you be my ally, supporting my effort to have my curriculum required by the K-5 schools of your district?
My hour of computer time is nearly over. The library is closed on Sunday, so I will connect with you again on Monday, hopefully.
- uncommonsense
June 13, 2009 10:57PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Diversity
I am not in a position to help you. I only teach graduate business classes and physics at Bay Area colleges as a hobby when they need me. But you are an excellent example of needed diversity. You may offer a path for some that would otherwise be turned off completely or opportunities to produce creativity and insight that might not otherwise be accessed. Speed doesn’t always get there first; focus on hard work doesn’t always get to Nirvana; financial success doesn’t always improve personal success…
A diverse society has a greater chance of solving the modern world’s complex problems. A laid back view need not be a lazy path. I personally describe myself as laid back hyper. Never nervous but always looking and exploring for new insight or solutions.
Good luck
- RichNau
June 14, 2009 9:21AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Such hypocrisy
Half of you are so angry that the schools are no longer teaching your values. The other half are angry that the school is teaching any values at all.
- quantummechanik
June 15, 2009 4:02PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hypocrisy?
Explain your charge of hypocrisy.
To which half do you belong, or is there a third half?
- uncommonsense
June 15, 2009 8:00PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'm the third option
I'm in favor of schools teaching tolerance, acceptance and equality of people different than themselves. That's the values I want to instill in my kids , and that's the values that have same-sex and opposite-sex couples to be viewed as equal.
- quantummechanik
June 15, 2009 9:05PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Equality
quantummechanik:
Here is a partial quote of a response that I made to you on June 11th. It seems to be in harmony with your third half. Are you plagiarizing me?
"A curriculum cannot possibly call out every possible family form. Instead, let's spend a minute or two communicating that every child is deserving of respect and fair treatment, regardless of their family form, race, national origin, personal beliefs. Bullying is not tolerated, and policies in place will be enforced. Move on to mastery of the multiplication table."
Remember, equal rights, not special rights.
uncommonsense
P.S.: Who came up with the notion that bullying is caused by a lack of information?
- uncommonsense
June 16, 2009 10:49AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Can you teach history
without teaching heteronormacy? Can you teach any sort of social science without teaching kids that a man and a woman constitutes a normal, natural family? The acknowledgement, the communication that there are other family forms out there is all that's being done. NOT doing that would be unfair.
- quantummechanik
June 16, 2009 2:25PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
“all that is being done”
Have you viewed he movie “That’s a Family”, which has been in play in our school district for several years. Its portrayal of the African American family perpetuates an old stereotype. In stark contrast stands the portrayal of the boy with two fathers, which seems to hope to lay the groundwork of a bold new stereotype.
Certainly, you have already viewed this film, as you are aware of “all that is being done”.
- uncommonsense
June 16, 2009 3:39PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No, I haven't seen that movie
I'm not a student in your school district.
- quantummechanik
June 16, 2009 3:48PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
i wonder if this happened with racisim?
Think about it, when people were teaching equality in schools during the time of the civil rights movements, i wonder how many mommies and daddies were not happy with their children 's teachers were teaching them about the fact that we are all equal.
This is my opinion, but i dont think that teaching children about tolernace and acceptance is such a bad thing... but then that is me
- zman676
June 17, 2009 12:34AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Oh yeah
Integration was a huge issue back then. Most of the rhetoric sounds pretty similar. It makes you wonder what, exactly, parents have a problem with, and feel that they need protected.
- quantummechanik
June 18, 2009 2:45PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How long before we stop this?
I wanted to know what exactly the homosexual organizations were teaching in sex-ed. and with my tax dollars....what I found out was that I didnt want to know this information but its necessary inorder to STOP THEM!How many more boys will be raped at school with a hockey stick before we stop it!
Quote:
Students as young as 12 given graphic instruction in bizarre homosexual sex acts by state employees
Check out site for video and audio....SHOCKING!
NOTE: Kevin Jennings, the founder of GLSEN has just been appointed by the Obama administration to run the Office of Safe & Drug Free Schools in the US Department of Education! Jennings was running GLSEN at the time of this conference and defended it..
"Fisting [forcing one's entire hand into another person's rectum or vagina] often gets a bad rap....[It's] an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with...[and] to put you into an exploratory mode."
....
We have the actual audio recordings of what went on at one such event in March of 2000. Children as young as 12 were instructed by adults (state employees!) how to perform a range of dangerous and perverted homosexual sex acts.
These included: homosexual oral sex techniques, inserting one’s entire hand in someone else’s rectum, sado-masochism techniques, girls using “dildos” and rubbing their sex organs together for pleasure, and much more.
When we revealed this to the world a few months later it made national news. It was reported in all the Boston media – radio, TV and newspapers – and several national networks. FOX News came to Boston from New York to report on it. We made sure that each member of the Massachusetts Legislature was given a copy of the tape.
GLSEN (and Kevin Jennings) did not dispute that the recordings were genuine or that the events did not take place as we described them. Instead, they tried to get a court to ban the tape and sue us. In fact, Jennings defended the event.
But the Massachusetts Legislature wasn’t fazed. They caved in to the powerful homosexual movement. They have continued to fund GLSEN with taxpayer money . And in 2006 the Legislature wrote GLSEN into the general laws as a mandated member of the tax-supported Massachusetts Commission for GLBT Youth. This is the low opinion that our legislators have of your children .
On April 18, 2000, Scott Whiteman, who attended the GLSEN conference and made the recordings, hand-delivered an affadavit describing the event to the office of Middlesex County District Attorney Martha Coakley. He received no response from Coakley, nor did she take any action whatsoever other than to acknowledge that she received the affadafit. (Martha Coakley is now the Massachusetts Attorney General and has recently raised money for homosexual activist causes.)
A few weeks after the incident Scott Whiteman, who was Executive Director Parents Rights Coalition (now known as MassResistance), collaborated with Brian Camenker, president of Parents Rights Coalition, and wrote an article about it that was published in the May edition of Massachusetts News, a newspaper distributed across the state. The incident was dubbed "Fistgate" by Massachusetts News publisher Ed Pawlick. A week later the tapes were played on WTKK radio in Boston by evening talk show host Jeanine Graf. That sparked a media firestorm in Boston as excerpts from the tapes were played on radio and television news shows.
Soon afterwards, the three state employees were fired by the Department of Education.
The homosexual movement responded by persuading a Superior Court judge to ban the playing of the tapes, and then initiating a lawsuit against Camenker, Whiteman, and Parents Rights Coalition, claiming that they had violated an obscure and antiquated Massachusetts wiretapping law and seeking monetary damages. The "Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders" (GLAD) -- the same state-funded group that won the Goodridge same-sex "marriage" case -- went right into action.
A few months later, Margot Abels, one of the fired instructors, managed to get an arbitrator in the Mass. Dept. of Education to reinstate her job. She didn't take her job back, but instead initiated her own lawsuit against Camenker, Whiteman and Parents Rights Coalition to collect damages. She was completely unrepentent of her actions with the kids in the conference.
“I don’t know that we would have done anything differently,” Abels arrogantly told the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows. “We didn’t feel like we had to hide our work. We didn’t feel like we had done anything wrong.”
More to this article can be seen at:
[url] http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/fistgate/index.html [/url]
If your not concerned then your not alive. So to answer the question about how five boys could get involved with a rape at a school....HERES THE ANSWER FOLKS! This is how they destroy children.
- Hope7
June 18, 2009 10:06AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Is it wrong?
Is it wrong to not want children to learn about sexuality at such a young age?
I have to say I think the idea of teaching children that young about something as politically, socially, and (if it is your preference) religiously sensitive is not a wise idea. We (voters) have the power to make laws and such to fit what we believe and if their decision goes against that then I think it should be stopped immediately. Laws are present for a reason and no school has the right to overrule that.
Also I believe that any sexual topics that pertain to a child's well being should be taught by the parents. I don't think society should teach children. Parents are more individually in-tune with their children.
Finally I think that if this type of education needs to take place it should take place in Jr. High or less ideally High School. This age would allow for a better understanding of the concepts of homosexuality and what gay rights truly mean.
We need to spread love to others and gay people are NO exception!! Therefore make the effort but not with kids too young to truly grasp the entirety of the situation
- chezdude1
June 20, 2009 9:44AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
she's 10
My daughter and I had "the talk" last night. I bring this up because I was, like you, thinking that elementary may be entirely too early. I have been forced to completely reverse that opinion.
Not to cover the entire discussion with my daughter, but only to highlight, she knew so much more than I would have thought. She has been taught in school about menstruation because girls as early as 10 (exceptions of course) get periods. I can say that her anatomical understanding of the woman's reproductive organs made our conversation far more intelligent. This of course went on and on.
She already knows about "boys and girls", where babies came from, etc. Given this bed of knowledge and understanding, it only can be said that the idea of boys liking boys would not come as some major suprise to her. Perhaps it is with a sense of nostalgia or longing for the innocence of youth that we wish to shield our children . I think we know that's not possible, and elementary school in my opinion is the right age to discuss these issues.
- tek June 21, 2009 2:49PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Elementary is the correct age,
but what some children are ready for at six, is advanced for nother children at ten. Hence, a class of children are not all simultaneously ready to hear this message. Thankfully, they have parents to judge and decide when they are ready. This is why this education belongs in the home, not in the school.
- uncommonsense
June 21, 2009 4:45PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
10 and 6 are different.
In the article above there is talk about giving this type of class to children as young as 1st grade. I am against that because I believe that is too young for the children to comprehend (most not all).
Like your daughter I received "the talk" at 10 and was able to grasp it easily because I was a smart kid and was able to put 2 and 2 together. My sister however knew little at all by the time she was 10 and it made her "talk" much harder and different. Just within my own family we saw the differences in maturity and understanding at a simple age of 10. Once again I think it is better for the parents to handle it so they can more correctly handle the individual child's differences and therefore prevent the child from getting lost in the crowd. Elementary school is the right time to talk about this but 1st Grade is not.
- chezdude1
June 22, 2009 5:22PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
you still don't get it
"So if we care about maintaining local control of our community schools, ........ and guarding religious freedoms, " (I took the parental rights part out for emphasis)
Don't you see how this is a direct contradiction? It is your willful intent that the rest of us lose our freedom for your religious "local control".
- tek June 21, 2009 11:14PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Doesn't sound pro anything
They're just teaching children that these lifestyles exist. Just because they're a minority, doesn't mean they should be invisible.
- Detailsarevulgar
July 15, 2009 5:36PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Since when did teaching reality become "promoting an agenda"?
Regardless of how you feel about homosexuality , the fact of the matter is that gay couples exist and often raise children together. If a student inquires about this fact in a public school classroom, should the teacher ignore it or acknowledge it? What if the student in question is a child of same-sex parents?
Opponents of this type of curriculum seem to forget that children of same-sex parents go to public school too.
- phoenixmd
August 11, 2009 3:50PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Shouldnt schools just teach?
Let me start by explaining where I am coming from. I am married , but I have no children , so I am not a parent. Many of my relatives and friends are school teachers, both public and private.
It seems to me that to teach the Gay lifestyle in public school is just about as appropriate as teaching religion ...neither would be appropriate. For example, during a history session, if a particular person being studied is gay , then I see no problem with mentioning that fact. I do, however, see a problem with any further involvement. Similarly, if a person being studied is of a particular religion, I have no problem with the teacher mentioning that fact. I would not, however, expect the teacher to teach the class about that religion.
As should be done in any school, kids should be taught not to bully other kids, regardless of whether it be due to color, sexual preference, or just because the kid is poor. That does not merit teaching about the gay/lesbian lifestyle.
What I hear from my friends that are teachers is that kids are confused. Some adult topics are being thrown at them that they have no idea about, other than the gay/lesbian lifestyle. I would say that the proper place for such teaching is the family , but I am all too aware that families can be the wrong place for that. In such cases, one would think that a counsellor would be appropriate, but certainly an entire part of the curriculum would be inappropriate.
Now, if the parents dont want any teaching about the gay/lesbian lifestyle, then let them find a good private school. If they cannot afford one, then the parents will have to have a good talk with their children, which should include a strong dose of reality stating that everybody is not alike and that just because somebody is not like you doesnt make it ok to think less of them much less bully them.
- TB3
February 8, 2010 3:44PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.