timmyrotter
05-04-2006, 02:02 PM
When parents' values conflict with public schools
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | April 27, 2006

OF THE FIVE candidates running to succeed Mitt Romney as governor of Massachusetts, all but one have chosen to send their children to private schools. Nothing wrong with that -- millions of parents would move their kids out of public schools tomorrow if they thought they could afford something better. For millions more, government schooling isn't an option in the first place: They would no sooner let the state decide what their children should learn than they would let it to decide whom they should marry.

In an interview this month, Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, the only Republican in the race, explained why she and her husband picked a private school for their son and daughter. "I want my kids to be in an environment where they can talk about values," she said -- talk about values, that is, "in a way that you can't always do in a public school setting."

It's hard to see anything objectionable in Healey's words, but they triggered a broadside from Attorney General Thomas Reilly, a Democrat and the only gubernatorial candidate whose children all attended public schools.

Healey is "completely out of touch with the lives of regular people," he snapped. "Somehow the perception is that the kids in public schools are not learning the values that they should be learning. ..... Public schools reinforced the values of our home. ..... It was a wonderful experience." Those quotes appeared in The Boston Globe on April 17. Now consider a story that appeared three days later.

On April 20, in a story headlined "Parents rip school over gay storybook," the Globe reported on the latest controversy in Lexington, where school officials committed to normalizing same-sex marriage have clashed with residents who don't want homosexual themes introduced in class without advance parental notice. Last year, a Lexington father named David Parker complained to officials at the Joseph Estabrook Elementary School about the "diversity" curriculum in his son's kindergarten class, which included pictures of families headed by gay and lesbian couples. Parker was arrested on trespassing charges when he refused to leave the school grounds without a promise that he would be alerted before similar lessons were taught in the future.

The latest incident, also at the Estabrook School, was triggered when a second-grade teacher presented to her class a storybook celebration of homosexual romance and marriage.

There is nothing subtle about "King & King," the book that Heather Kramer read to her students. It tells the story of Prince Bertie, whose mother the queen nags him to get married ("When I was your age, I'd been married twice already," she says), and parades before him a bevy of princesses to choose from. But Bertie, who says he's "never cared much for princesses," rejects them all. Then "Princess Madeleine and her brother, Prince Lee," show up, and Bertie falls in love at first sight -- with the brother. Soon, the princes are married. "The wedding was very special," reads the text. "The queen even shed a tear or two." Bertie and Lee are elevated from princes to "King and King," and the last page shows them exchanging a passionate kiss.
OF THE FIVE candidates running to succeed Mitt Romney as governor of Massachusetts, all but one have chosen to send their children to private schools. Nothing wrong with that -- millions of parents would move their kids out of public schools tomorrow if they thought they could afford something better. For millions more, government schooling isn't an option in the first place: They would no sooner let the state decide what their children should learn than they would let it to decide whom they should marry.

In an interview this month, Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, the only Republican in the race, explained why she and her husband picked a private school for their son and daughter. "I want my kids to be in an environment where they can talk about values," she said -- talk about values, that is, "in a way that you can't always do in a public school setting."

It's hard to see anything objectionable in Healey's words, but they triggered a broadside from Attorney General Thomas Reilly, a Democrat and the only gubernatorial candidate whose children all attended public schools.

Healey is "completely out of touch with the lives of regular people," he snapped. "Somehow the perception is that the kids in public schools are not learning the values that they should be learning. ..... Public schools reinforced the values of our home. ..... It was a wonderful experience." Those quotes appeared in The Boston Globe on April 17. Now consider a story that appeared three days later.

On April 20, in a story headlined "Parents rip school over gay storybook," the Globe reported on the latest controversy in Lexington, where school officials committed to normalizing same-sex marriage have clashed with residents who don't want homosexual themes introduced in class without advance parental notice. Last year, a Lexington father named David Parker complained to officials at the Joseph Estabrook Elementary School about the "diversity" curriculum in his son's kindergarten class, which included pictures of families headed by gay and lesbian couples. Parker was arrested on trespassing charges when he refused to leave the school grounds without a promise that he would be alerted before similar lessons were taught in the future.

The latest incident, also at the Estabrook School, was triggered when a second-grade teacher presented to her class a storybook celebration of homosexual romance and marriage.

There is nothing subtle about "King & King," the book that Heather Kramer read to her students. It tells the story of Prince Bertie, whose mother the queen nags him to get married ("When I was your age, I'd been married twice already," she says), and parades before him a bevy of princesses to choose from. But Bertie, who says he's "never cared much for princesses," rejects them all. Then "Princess Madeleine and her brother, Prince Lee," show up, and Bertie falls in love at first sight -- with the brother. Soon, the princes are married. "The wedding was very special," reads the text. "The queen even shed a tear or two." Bertie and Lee are elevated from princes to "King and King," and the last page shows them exchanging a passionate kiss.

Page 2 of 2 --Dismayed by such blatant propagandizing, the parents of one student made an appointment to discuss their concerns with school officials. "This is a highly charged social issue," Robin and Robert Wirthlin told them. "Why are you introducing it in second grade?" Kramer said she had selected the book in order to teach a unit on weddings. When the Wirthlins checked the Lexington Public Library, they found 59 children's titles dealing with weddings, but "King & King" wasn't among them. The library's search engine listed it instead under "Homosexuality -- Juvenile fiction."

Massachusetts law requires schools to notify parents before "human sexuality issues" are taught in class and gives parents the right to exempt a child from that portion of the curriculum. But the Wirthlins' request to be given a heads-up before something as contentious and sensitive as same-sex marriage comes up in their child's class again was rejected out of hand.

"We couldn't run a public school system if every parent who feels some topic is objectionable to them for moral or religious reasons decides their child should be removed," Lexington's superintendent of schools, Paul Ash, told the Globe. "Lexington is committed to teaching children about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal." Reviewing "King & King" for the website Lesbian Life, Kathy Belge -- who describes herself as a longtime lesbian activist and the director of a queer youth program -- writes that it is "sure to capture a child's imagination" and praises it in particular for its nonjudgmental embrace of homosexuality: "The same-sex attraction is normalized. There's no proselytizing, no big lesson. It just is."

But homosexuality and gay marriage are not like subtraction or geography; they cannot be separated from questions of morality, justice, and decency. No matter how a school chooses to deal with sexual issues, it promotes certain values -- values that some parents will fervently welcome and that others will just as fervently reject. And what is true of human sexuality is true of other issues that touch on deeply felt religious, political, or ideological values.

When it comes to the education of children, there is always an agenda -- and those who don't share that agenda too often find themselves belittled, marginalized, or ignored. Perhaps it was true, as Thomas Reilly says, that the public schools his children attended "reinforced the values of our home." But as the Parkers and Wirthlins in Lexington can testify, other families have a very different experience. When Kerry Healey says she wants her children "to be in an environment where they can talk about values ..... in a way that you can't always do in a public school setting," many public-school parents will know exactly what she means.

disciple
05-04-2006, 02:04 PM
I don't think you copied the article/s correctly, at all.

riz
05-04-2006, 02:17 PM
A passionate WHAT? I really want to know!!1

disciple
05-04-2006, 02:26 PM
A passionate WHAT? I really want to know!!1
Hahaha... It seems a lot of people are making jokes I don't expect them to lately.

terrasin
05-04-2006, 04:59 PM
I really dislike when people try to push their opinions on others. However, pushing opinions on children who can be effected by it is unexcusable. Children should, first off, not have any known knowledge of sexuality till they mature enough to handle it. And we wonder why the age of kids getting into sexual situations gets lower every year. It's disgusting to see that part of the problem are the people who should be helping with schoolastic education. I wouldn't want some teacher telling my kids when I have them someday about sex or other issues that have no business being in the classroom to begin with. That's a parents job.

CJ

zeroneff
05-04-2006, 05:04 PM
I think if you're going to you'r child about this problem you first have to make it clear that god made boy's and girls for a reson and not for homosexuls

DrummerGurl4God
05-04-2006, 05:08 PM
i agree with zeroneff and everybody else on this situation about homosexuality

skilltroks
05-04-2006, 05:30 PM
I never was taught about homosexuality in school. I actually learned about it from the media/tv. The kids will learn someday when they are ready, and can understand it.

NightCrawler
05-04-2006, 06:02 PM
I am with CJ, but then again I want to homeschool my kids if at all possible.

zeroneff
05-05-2006, 04:57 AM
I really dislike when people try to push their opinions on others. However, pushing opinions on children who can be effected by it is unexcusable. Children should, first off, not have any known knowledge of sexuality till they mature enough to handle it. And we wonder why the age of kids getting into sexual situations gets lower every year. It's disgusting to see that part of the problem are the people who should be helping with schoolastic education. I wouldn't want some teacher telling my kids when I have them someday about sex or other issues that have no business being in the classroom to begin with. That's a parents job.

CJ

yes i agree but there young kids that alredy had the "talk" and try's to talk about it in class....

terrasin
05-05-2006, 05:59 AM
I am with CJ, but then again I want to homeschool my kids if at all possible.
I would never put my kids in public school. People don't learn anything there anyway. :|

And I know some people are like "Well, they need human interaction and blah blah blah blah blah". They will have plenty of interaction with people their own age. But they will be people we deem worthy.

CJ

Pretendeavor
05-05-2006, 06:17 AM
hmmmm. *about

timmyrotter
05-05-2006, 07:01 AM
there... i put the rest of the article up, i was in a hurry and forgot yesterday.

NightCrawler
05-05-2006, 09:45 AM
I would never put my kids in public school. People don't learn anything there anyway. :|

And I know some people are like "Well, they need human interaction and blah blah blah blah blah". They will have plenty of interaction with people their own age. But they will be people we deem worthy.

CJI was homeschooled until I got to college. I came out fine.

:: eye twitch, shoulder jolt ::

No, seriously. I did. As well adjusted human beings, we can interact socially fine. It doesn't take a ton of practice.

timmyrotter
05-05-2006, 11:44 AM
i was homeschooled until i was in 8th grade. im just now graduated. so its too soon to tell if i have turned out okay ;)

disciple
05-05-2006, 02:39 PM
I schooled myself, 4th grade on, and I got my GED.

But psychologically... another story. :D

unshakeable15
05-06-2006, 10:59 AM
I would never put my kids in public school. People don't learn anything there anyway. :|
That's insulting to those of us who went to public school. i may have had to put up with a lot of crap, but i did learn a lot. Mostly in honors and AP classes, or electives, but i still learned.

terrasin
05-06-2006, 12:04 PM
I went to public school and I learned more from watching the Discovery channel and going out on my own and learning things first hand. Public school for me was a waste of my time after 4th grade. :\

CJ

NightCrawler
05-06-2006, 06:31 PM
But back on topic, a lot of liberal thinkers have supposed that since homosexuality is natural (false premise) that it should be taught as such, and supported.

If it were natural, should we teach it? I mean, people are confused enough as it is. If there were people born that way, should there be special programs or should it be more global, as in all students must receive such education? How would it be presented?

Since I believe, and many others here do too, that it is a false premise to base it on, how should we teach kids about homosexuality? Should it be left out completely? I believe it should be left out, as I believe that sexual education should be left out. Keep sexual information appropriate to their needs (for example, it may be good to teach girls about menarche around 10-14 years old, but should they also learn how to put a condom on a banana? Should they even when they are 17?) -- only needs: anything and everything that can be taught by a parent or legal guardian should be omitted.

petrameansrock
05-06-2006, 08:58 PM
It seems stupid and irresponsible to teach children ANYTHING about sexuality at this young of an age. I don't get why they're teaching kids about homosexuality BEFORE teaching about heterosexuality. People assume that heterosexuality will always be the normal trait, and homosexuality only affects those who are already gay. The truth is that when a child is young, the way and form in which they were introduced to homosexuality can influence their sexual preference later in life. I know I'm straight because I think homosexuality is disgusting (not the PEOPLE. love the sinner hate the sin), but lets not forget that little kids think that straight sex is disgusting too. If they are brought up being exposed to homosexual ideals, it will become more accepted and thus much more common. And the real ironic thing? They never read HETEROsexual storybooks in school.

Isildur9473
05-07-2006, 01:40 PM
That's insulting to those of us who went to public school. i may have had to put up with a lot of crap, but i did learn a lot. Mostly in honors and AP classes, or electives, but i still learned.

I've learned a lot more about the world in public school than I would have been had I been homeschooled. I'm really happy my parents made me to and subject myself to all kinds of people, rather than shelter me and make me learn about things from a Christian perpsective. Forget that, I wouldn't ever subject my children to that.

I've also learned a lot more about a lot of things due to the diversity in classes I can take at public school. Instead of not knowing a thing about Evolution, or literature that migth be deemed inappropriate by a radical, I'm not completely ignorant.

disciple
05-07-2006, 02:21 PM
Hm... don't we have a thread for Homeschool Vs. Public School, or at least something like that? I would love to discuss both sides of the argument.

NightCrawler
05-08-2006, 07:21 AM
Childrengarden and 2nd grade ... both are WAY to early to be presenting material ... about anything like this. Try 10th.

timmyrotter
05-08-2006, 11:16 AM
Hm... don't we have a thread for Homeschool Vs. Public School, or at least something like that? I would love to discuss both sides of the argument.


this thread, if you read the first post, was about a particular event...

unshakeable15
05-08-2006, 03:30 PM
And the real ironic thing? They never read HETEROsexual storybooks in school.
What do you call Cinderella? Snow White? Little Mermaid? All of them are love stories between a man and a woman. They kiss and everything. i very much doubt they'd have storybooks for kids where two guys had sex, or two girls had sex.

riz
05-09-2006, 03:54 PM
Childrengarden and 2nd grade ... both are WAY to early to be presenting material ... about anything like this. Try 10th.


Tenth grade? Sixteen-year-olds? Adolescence starts MUCH earlier. Seventh grade sounds more appropriate than 10th!

petrameansrock
05-09-2006, 07:51 PM
Why must we teach about homosexuality at all? We don't really "teach" about heterosexuality, it's just accepted so thats what everyone uses. If someone really feel they are gay, then more power to them, but we don't need to be teaching kids all about homosexuality when most of them wont even grow up to be gay. Look at it this way:

1. If everyone is born either gay or straight, then we don't need to read gay love stories or teach about homosexuality because it won't influence children's sexual preference anyway.

2. If homosexuality is a choice made during adolescence, then influencing children to accept homosexuality is wrong, because we don't influence our children to be straight (well not so much because its usually just accepted) so influencing homosexuality could make gay children commonplace, which is another problem we don't need.

I dread the day when I have kids and my 8th grade son comes up to me talking about his new boyfriend Tommy. I hope that never happens.

terrasin
05-09-2006, 08:27 PM
I think the point they are expressing in schools is to accept people who are gay and that "it's ok to experiment".

CJ

john316
05-10-2006, 09:29 AM
I really dislike when people try to push their opinions on others. However, pushing opinions on children who can be effected by it is unexcusable. Children should, first off, not have any known knowledge of sexuality till they mature enough to handle it. And we wonder why the age of kids getting into sexual situations gets lower every year. It's disgusting to see that part of the problem are the people who should be helping with schoolastic education. I wouldn't want some teacher telling my kids when I have them someday about sex or other issues that have no business being in the classroom to begin with. That's a parents job.

CJ


^^ Agree 100%...thanx CJ you saved me a lot of typing :)

zeroneff
05-11-2006, 06:58 AM
It's not teaching how but not to...

timmyrotter
05-11-2006, 11:29 AM
^ did anyone get that?

zeroneff
05-11-2006, 05:43 PM
you're have to tell him or her that homosexualaty is rong if you don't talk about it how do you know how they will act you can't avoid it you need to tell them that is rong before they get a rong impretion :)

timmyrotter
05-12-2006, 10:16 AM
well that is not going to happen (if you are talking aobut teachers teaching kids that). but parents can...

Isildur9473
05-12-2006, 02:00 PM
you're have to tell him or her that homosexualaty is rong if you don't talk about it how do you know how they will act you can't avoid it you need to tell them that is rong before they get a rong impretion :)

No, teachers should never say that in a public school system.

zeroneff
05-12-2006, 02:13 PM
not teachers

Isildur9473
05-12-2006, 11:25 PM
not teachers

Who are you trying to say should? If you mean parents, that's one thing, but school officials are certainly something else.

skilletosis
05-13-2006, 07:35 PM
Going back to the original post here. I clearly remember having the debate in the homosexuality thread that there is a homosexual agenda. The member whom I love but disagree with on many a issue said there was no agenda. Well this my friends is proof of the agenda. It wasn't enough for the gay rights activists to get a ruling in favor of same sex marraige, no. We knew the next step would come and this is it. Then there will another and another. Then what's next.

Isildur9473
05-13-2006, 07:46 PM
It wasn't enough for the gay rights activists to get a ruling in favor of same sex marraige

And I thought I was the only one that believed that the homosexuals were out to get us because they wanted the same rights we have. I guess equal rights in this country for homosexuals is wrong since it's going to make everyone homosexual, very good point.

The sad thing is it's still illegal in so many states. :\

skilletosis
05-13-2006, 10:31 PM
And I thought I was the only one that believed that the homosexuals were out to get us because they wanted the same rights we have. I guess equal rights in this country for homosexuals is wrong since it's going to make everyone homosexual, very good point.

The sad thing is it's still illegal in so many states. :\

Greg I have not one bit of a clue what you mean. Are you being sarcastic? Or are you being serious. If your being serious than I could debate you. If your being sarcastic all I can say is The Hill isn't the place for sarcasm. No where did I say they were out to get us. I said they have an agenda and recent events have proven that. I didn't say it would make everyone homosexual but one thing is for sure. Teaching in schools about homosexual relationships in the second grade is wrong. This can and will cause confusion and major conflict on something that is a moral issue. Parents decide the morals to teach their children and it is just not the place of the schools to take it upon themselves to do so. Especially at such a formative age. That's almost as brilliant as the anti smoking education for young kids. Good grief I've had 7 and 8 year olds come home and cry hesterically that their aunt was going to die because she smokes. What the schools thought was a good idea had a completely different outcome that was harmful. They thought she was gonna kill over any minute. I can't even imagine the confused ideas that they can gleen from a reading of King and King at such a young age.

Isildur9473
05-14-2006, 12:33 AM
Greg I have not one bit of a clue what you mean. Are you being sarcastic? Or are you being serious. If your being serious than I could debate you. If your being sarcastic all I can say is The Hill isn't the place for sarcasm. No where did I say they were out to get us. I said they have an agenda and recent events have proven that. I didn't say it would make everyone homosexual but one thing is for sure. Teaching in schools about homosexual relationships in the second grade is wrong. This can and will cause confusion and major conflict on something that is a moral issue. Parents decide the morals to teach their children and it is just not the place of the schools to take it upon themselves to do so. Especially at such a formative age. That's almost as brilliant as the anti smoking education for young kids. Good grief I've had 7 and 8 year olds come home and cry hesterically that their aunt was going to die because she smokes. What the schools thought was a good idea had a completely different outcome that was harmful. They thought she was gonna kill over any minute. I can't even imagine the confused ideas that they can gleen from a reading of King and King at such a young age.

I'm being serious about homosexuals getting married. They have every right to, and a government built off of equality for all has no right to stop them. I may have misunderstood what you said, but what I got out of the comment I responded to was homosexual marriage was wrong.

What exactly is wrong with anti-smoking education? I don't really want my kids to smoke to tell you the truth. I remember learning about that in school, I can remember a kid named Dylan who cried since his parents smoked. Then he turned 12 and stopped doing things like that. Kids cry, kids don't understand everything, that's the way it is. But by not educating them against smoking and other health risks at an early age makes them more likely to start smoking.

In health class staring in the 6th grade, they showed us pictures of people horribly disfigured from drunk driving accidents. You know what I got from that? Don't drive under the influence. They showed us pictures of lungs in 2nd or 3rd grade from people who smoked, and guess what that did? I no longer had a desire to smoke.

Mr. Xcitement
05-14-2006, 01:51 AM
I'm just going to say that, it's for things like this that I'm busting my hump working, so my wife won't have to and can home school our kids.

skilletosis
05-14-2006, 08:33 AM
Homeschooling is great but it is not for everyone and I'm not just talking about the kids I'm talking about the parents also.

Greg here's what's wrong with anti smoking education. You will understand this better when you have young children. All kids mature at a different rate. As a parent you will know what, when and how to speak to your children about any subject in a manner that they will understand without terrifying them. The anti smoking education doesn't take individuals into account. Smoking is bad for you and it can and for many will cause serious health issues. Not all kids hear it the way it is presented due to maturity. Many hear the last phrase and understand it as your loved one IS going to die at any second. They come home and they think they could find out in just hours or a day that grama or uncle is dead. It is not the schools job to terrify my kids. They are there to learn academics. Not only were my kids hesterical I spoke to other parents and they said the same thing about many of their kids. Trust me Greg when you have small children to raise your views will be a bit different. I'm not saying you'll change your mind on everything but your protective nature will come out.

disciple
05-14-2006, 09:30 AM
I'm sorry, I am with Greg on anti-smoking education. If kids don't know the effects early, they're likely to try smoking and get addicted. Not every kid turns out like me and has common sense all on his lonesome.

Mr. Xcitement
05-14-2006, 12:05 PM
which is why parents need to be more involved, not schools

404not_found
05-14-2006, 10:28 PM
which is why parents need to be more involved, not schools

I agree... everything from sex to smoking etc should be left to the parents, not schools. The school is there to teach... not raise your kids. I would think the parents would know when the time is right to talk with their kids about these things better than the school.

Also... there is nothing wrong with smoking. Yes it is not good for you but then neither are potato chips and all that other junk food. Smoking just works a little faster. I'm sure parents who smoke would not want their kids coming home freaked out about how their mom or dad is gonna die. If the parent smoked, I'm sure they would find the time to appropriately talk with their kids about it.

Isildur9473
05-14-2006, 10:35 PM
Ok, so we've established this.

I don't agree with you guys (Besides disciple)... At all.

NightCrawler
05-15-2006, 07:34 AM
Well, this was a fun thread. But darn it, I just used sarcasm on the Hill.

skilletosis
05-15-2006, 09:57 AM
Well, this was a fun thread. But darn it, I just used sarcasm on the Hill.

Not only was there sarcasm but the post is completely devoid of a contribution.

Ok so I think I need to sum something up here. The original post is about whether homosexual education belongs in school in. Now I am focusing my coments on the fact that this was in a second grade class. No this type of education doesn't belong in school at any grade level. However when it comes to anti smoking education I do think it could properly be covered in health and nutrition classes at the appropriate age level which would be more like middle school. The arguement against this is "well we want to teach them before they are confronted with it". And as I said at middle school level is about the same age that kids can understand the issue. If your jr high school has an issue with kids smoking on campus then that school has a major problem with supervision and discipline that needs to be addressed.

NightCrawler
05-15-2006, 12:28 PM
Not only was there sarcasm but the post is completely devoid of a contribution. True. Sorry.

And as I said at middle school level is about the same age that kids can understand the issue. If your jr high school has an issue with kids smoking on campus then that school has a major problem with supervision and discipline that needs to be addressed.
So, does it sound more of a 'would be best per situation of school'?... rather than a universal mandate?

skilletosis
05-15-2006, 02:35 PM
You know we're getting ready to move to a very small country town and my oldest is in 7th grade. I would have absolutely no problem with anti smoking education because it is very age appropriate (old enough to understand and close enough to a time where these kids will be faced with the issue) and people smoke in every town in America. It would go well within a nutrition and health class.

Isildur9473
05-15-2006, 03:51 PM
Not only was there sarcasm but the post is completely devoid of a contribution.

No.. It really wasn't, but whatever.

Ok so I think I need to sum something up here. The original post is about whether homosexual education belongs in school in. Now I am focusing my coments on the fact that this was in a second grade class.

When I was in second grade, only the kids who were idiots didn't really understand it. They're not going to anyways. Sometimes kids have to be exposed to the world earlier.

The arguement against this is "well we want to teach them before they are confronted with it". And as I said at middle school level is about the same age that kids can understand the issue. If your jr high school has an issue with kids smoking on campus then that school has a major problem with supervision and discipline that needs to be addressed.

Well, when I was in school I was offered cigarettes before the 7th grade. You really need to hit them when they're young, since no matter how hard administration tries, they simly cannot control the problem.

Mr. Xcitement
05-16-2006, 12:58 AM
I think they could control the problem, where I live, nobody got away with smoking on school property, and people did try. Also, as someone who had to grow up fast, I don't agree with hitting them early or letting them know so much about the world so early, they need time to be children, and parents should be the #1 person to talk to them about smoking, not a school, because if a parent doesn't tell them, then they most likely won't learn, because I know a lot of people who didn't like school, and thus didn't pay attention. All of this boils down to why I want to home school my children, so I know what they learn, and yes, I'm willing to take a few college courses to both refresh myself and to learn new things to teach them.

Aragornsgirl217
05-31-2006, 10:54 AM
Tenth grade? Sixteen-year-olds? Adolescence starts MUCH earlier. Seventh grade sounds more appropriate than 10th!
If kids weren't taught at 7th grade, and WERE taught in the 10th grade (or even LATER), then we wouldn't have so many pregnant teens, or homosexuals running around here.

What really frustrates me is when teachers don't ask permission of the parents, or let the parents know, but then teach the kids 3 weeks earlier (that's what happened in my mothers case). Some parents don't care if/when their kids find out. I care when my future children find out, and I want to tell them, not someone who's been married 8 times.

alorian
06-01-2006, 06:14 PM
If kids weren't taught at 7th grade, and WERE taught in the 10th grade (or even LATER), then we wouldn't have so many pregnant teens, or homosexuals running around here.



Erm.. are you joking? Please tell me that you're kidding..

There are always the "kids that know" and they don't usually keep the info to themselves.
I learned about so much of this stuff before 7th grade, it's hilarious. So please, tell me you're joking.



I think they could control the problem, where I live, nobody got away with smoking on school property, and people did try. Also, as someone who had to grow up fast, I don't agree with hitting them early or letting them know so much about the world so early, they need time to be children, and parents should be the #1 person to talk to them about smoking, not a school, because if a parent doesn't tell them, then they most likely won't learn, because I know a lot of people who didn't like school, and thus didn't pay attention. All of this boils down to why I want to home school my children, so I know what they learn, and yes, I'm willing to take a few college courses to both refresh myself and to learn new things to teach them.

Ahem. This is so..
Trying to control smoking etc is like trying to contain communism. I'll let you draw your own conclusions and remember your own history.
You don't agree with hitting them with stuff stuff early? They find out about it anyway! Trust me. Sure, there are the few kids, most of the extremely sheltered and homeschooled etc, who have no idea about anything until they move out on their own, sadly, but...
There are kids at home who are learning stuff like this from WATCHING their parents, and having their parents tell them stuff.
Not sure if you've noticed, but when a child learns or hears something, they are prone to repeating it. This knowledge gets around as fast as wildfire, and is twice or thrice as hard to stop.

asparagus
06-01-2006, 07:41 PM
If kids weren't taught at 7th grade, and WERE taught in the 10th grade (or even LATER), then we wouldn't have so many pregnant teens, or homosexuals running around here.
Sex education makes people more likely to be homosexual?

NightCrawler
06-07-2006, 10:21 AM
Sex education makes people more likely to be homosexual?

I think homosexual sex education would make people more likely to become homosexual.

Model behaviour.
Seeing it as an acceptable option.
etc.

zeroneff
06-16-2006, 04:49 AM
Ok do you think that homosexual's can work in a public school..
Do you think they should be aruond children at all...

Isildur9473
06-16-2006, 12:02 PM
Ok do you think that homosexual's can work in a public school..
Do you think they should be aruond children at all...

Alright, so we don't let them get married. Then we don't let them hold certain jobs, then what? We take them out into the streets and shoot them? Come on, old religious prejudice should not govern our country.

disciple
06-16-2006, 12:07 PM
Yeah, I do think that not letting them hold certain jobs would be taking it too far.

terrasin
06-16-2006, 12:09 PM
To me, it's more than just some religious prejudice. It's about moral and family value. Man was not meant to be with man nor woman with woman. If it were so, than there would be a natural way for the two to have children.

CJ

Isildur9473
06-16-2006, 12:26 PM
To me, it's more than just some religious prejudice. It's about moral and family value. Man was not meant to be with man nor woman with woman. If it were so, than there would be a natural way for the two to have children.

CJ

According to religious doctrine that's the truth. No, they can't have children together, but the fact is this is the 21st century and we live in the United States. We can't go around invading other countries for the purpose of bringing them freedom and "helping" them if we can't even have freedom here on our own ground.

disciple
06-16-2006, 12:27 PM
According to religious doctrine that's the truth. No, they can't have children together, but the fact is this is the 21st century and we live in the United States. We can't go around invading other countries for the purpose of bringing them freedom and "helping" them if we can't even have freedom here on out own ground.
Is it just me, or did you change the subject in the middle of that post? o_O

Isildur9473
06-16-2006, 12:29 PM
Is it just me, or did you change the subject in the middle of that post? o_O

No. If we discriminate against homosexuals because some people believe it to be morally wrong, we're no better than the people who deny others freedoms in countries that we find it necessary to invade.

disciple
06-16-2006, 12:31 PM
No. If we discriminate against homosexuals because some people believe it to be morally wrong, we're no better than the people who deny others freedoms in countries that we find it necessary to invade.
Okay, just checking. I can't seem to keep up well today.

skilletfreak101
06-16-2006, 12:35 PM
why can't kids just be freely innocent anymore?

Isildur9473
06-16-2006, 12:37 PM
why can't kids just be freely innocent anymore?

Children were never freely innocent. They weren't freely innocent in the middle ages when they often died early, or had to go off and fight a war. They weren't freely innocent before that either. They aren't freely innocent now that we live in a society a lot of people find morally incorrect.

timmyrotter
06-16-2006, 02:00 PM
Alright, so we don't let them get married. Then we don't let them hold certain jobs, then what? We take them out into the streets and shoot them? Come on, old religious prejudice should not govern our country.


now your speaking my language, shooting them! woot woot!

riz
06-16-2006, 03:29 PM
As a Christian, I really think you should renege this statement. Even if you don't approve of that lifestyle, saying something like that in a serious thread should be cause for banning. I am not kidding here.

By saying that, you are acting in the same way that people who are hateful against those of a different race or sex. And that is something that should not be allowed anywhere.

disciple
06-16-2006, 07:41 PM
I'm inclined to agree with Riz.

Isildur9473
06-16-2006, 11:03 PM
Are you talking to me or Timmy?

terrasin
06-16-2006, 11:40 PM
No. If we discriminate against homosexuals because some people believe it to be morally wrong, we're no better than the people who deny others freedoms in countries that we find it necessary to invade.
So where does it stop? It's an attitude and thought process like that which is sending the world to hell in a handbag, so to say. Will it get to the point where the FCC allows nudity on TV? God forbid we discriminate nudists by not allowing nakedness on television for entertainment purposes (I'm not talking about national geographic style nude). There has to be a limitation of moral.

FYI, it's not just a "religious doctrine" that says homosexuality is morally wrong. Even before I was a believer I felt it was unnatural and immoral.

CJ

Isildur9473
06-17-2006, 11:07 PM
So where does it stop? It's an attitude and thought process like that which is sending the world to hell in a handbag, so to say. Will it get to the point where the FCC allows nudity on TV? God forbid we discriminate nudists by not allowing nakedness on television for entertainment purposes (I'm not talking about national geographic style nude). There has to be a limitation of moral.

FYI, it's not just a "religious doctrine" that says homosexuality is morally wrong. Even before I was a believer I felt it was unnatural and immoral.

CJ

Yeah, limitation with sense. Nudity is one thing, but denying the civil rights of an entire group of people, a rather large group at that is pointless. I don't really hear much about nudists lobbying for rights, maybe that's because I live in Idaho.

Nudity on television is facetious, but homosexuals getting married is really going to hurt you that much? Are we all going to hell since they're getting married? Come on, it's time we move on from acting like it's the middle ages.

terrasin
06-18-2006, 06:40 AM
I had posted something on this on another forum. The simple fact is that it will effect everyone in the long run. It will end up becoming commonplace and accepted, taught in schools as being normal, and sooner or later, it will end up in the church and will be accepted. This is not acceptable to me.

Maybe you are too young to understand the effect something like that would have on the world. Obviously you have next to no understanding on what it can do to your own family. Would you be fine with it if your daughter brought home her new girlfriend, Emily? Are these things you would want your kids taught in school? That homosexuality is "natural" and that they should be experimenting to "find out" what they are? Man, if someone ever told my kids that, I would break their nose.

This is also keeping in mind that 99% of homosexuals are sexually active. There goes abstinance right out the window. You will see a dramatic increase in STDs among teens. It's like stirring up a hornets nest by allowing it to happen.

CJ

riz
06-18-2006, 06:05 PM
Are you talking to me or Timmy?

I wasn't talking to you; sorry if it looked unclear.

Isildur9473
06-18-2006, 07:37 PM
I had posted something on this on another forum. The simple fact is that it will effect everyone in the long run. It will end up becoming commonplace and accepted, taught in schools as being normal, and sooner or later, it will end up in the church and will be accepted. This is not acceptable to me.

Taught in schools as being normal? They never taught us about a man and a woman in schools outside of literature, and that wasn't until 4th or 5th grade that we were reading books that had romance in them.

So, you're saying that by allowing homosexuals to get married, it's going to effect everyone else in the long run? Well tough "junk". This isn't a free country if we deny the rights to marriage based off of a traditional/religious view.

Maybe you are too young to understand the effect something like that would have on the world. Obviously you have next to no understanding on what it can do to your own family. Would you be fine with it if your daughter brought home her new girlfriend, Emily? Are these things you would want your kids taught in school? That homosexuality is "natural" and that they should be experimenting to "find out" what they are? Man, if someone ever told my kids that, I would break their nose.

I have no understanding? I have a homosexual aunt, so don't lecture me about not knowing what it's like to have homosexual people in your family. It's done nothing to my family, nobody cares. We haven't cut her off, or lectured her about how she's wrong, you know where that's got us? It's got us to the point where everyone's happy since we don't think about homosexuality as negative. It's never hurt any of us.

I accepted it with her, and I would accept it if my own children decided to go that route. I don't care. I don't care if people find it morally wrong, I don't care if it's 'the worst thing ever' in some people's opinions. The fact is that it exists, and we shouldn't be so midevil about it.

This is also keeping in mind that 99% of homosexuals are sexually active. There goes abstinance right out the window. You will see a dramatic increase in STDs among teens. It's like stirring up a hornets nest by allowing it to happen.

CJ

Oh, so by continuing to ban gay marriage, gay kids aren't going to have sex? Get real.

terrasin
06-18-2006, 08:55 PM
Ugh, my reply got deleted...

I'll put it simply and quickly.

More and more teachers are teaching kids to accept this at an early age by sneaking in books about it and reading to kindergardners through 3rd graders. I read news about them getting caught all the time. These are things a parent should have control over, not some teacher looking to press his/her beliefs on your child.

Is it a free country if we are sacrificing one persons freedom for another. Is it ok that we would no longer be able to control what our kids are taught in school about things like this? That's a double standard. :\

As I said before, I have friends who are gay. And while they can live the way they choose to doesn't mean I agree with their choice or lifestyle.

And I never said kids wouldn't have sex. What I said is that they should be teaching about abstaining instead of experimenting. There are too many other dangers out there for them to be with someone new each week.

CJ

Isildur9473
06-18-2006, 09:35 PM
Ugh, my reply got deleted...

I'll put it simply and quickly.

More and more teachers are teaching kids to accept this at an early age by sneaking in books about it and reading to kindergardners through 3rd graders. I read news about them getting caught all the time. These are things a parent should have control over, not some teacher looking to press his/her beliefs on your child.

I've read about those cases too, and while they do happen a lot, it's not an epidemic.

Is it a free country if we are sacrificing one persons freedom for another. Is it ok that we would no longer be able to control what our kids are taught in school about things like this? That's a double standard. :\

I'm not making the connection as to why gay's getting married/ telling kids that homosexuality exists is going to make more people end up being homosexual.

And I never said kids wouldn't have sex. What I said is that they should be teaching about abstaining instead of experimenting. There are too many other dangers out there for them to be with someone new each week.

In health class every year they told us to wait until we're married. I don't know what else they can do.


We're just going around in circles. We're not going to agree this one, so let's both go back to thinking that we're right.

skilletosis
06-19-2006, 07:19 AM
So what if it's not an epidemic. Schools should stay out of the business of teaching sexual morality. One book read to one child is more than enough.

I don't know why you're not making the connection. It has been stated multiple times. To treat something as normal and moral in marriage is the epitome of examples to children. Allowing gay marriage will only be the start. That is what this whole thread is about. If the state where this book was read didn't have gay marriage the book would never had been presented to the children.

But then I do know why you're not making the connection. Because you were taught that it was normal and morally ok. So I will present the other side of the coin. My cousin Rick is gay. We all love him. But when we were growing up Rick who was a young adult when we were all children would never bring his friends/dates/partners to family functions. There were never any arguments between him, his mom, or her brothers when it came to the fact that it was unacceptable. Nobody wanted to teach thier children that homosexuality was ok. In turn there were never any bad mouthing sessions behind Ricks back either. Being gay wasn't what defined Rick. It was just a part of his lifestyle. The only thing that we learned about Rick and sex was that he used Mr. Zogs on his surf board.

You are one of the few who was taught in school to wait till marriage. I never heard that in any classes in school. In CA 22 years ago they were teaching one minute of abistinence and the rest of the time was devoted to "other ways to prevent pregnancy and std's" with the emphasis on std's. Oh and the classes didn't help as we saw multiple girls ending up pregnant. I agree with CJ on all points but the one that rings in my mind on homosexuality is this. If you teach a bunch of hormone riden teens that experimenting to find out who you are is ok you are going to wind up with a bunch of kids finding ways to get thier jollys (I for one haven't forgotten what it was like having teen hormones) in ways that make it impossible to get pregnant. So there will be more promiscuity and sex, more std's, and more kids who are confused about thier sexuality because they were taught that it was a viable alternative.

timmyrotter
06-23-2006, 01:47 PM
schools shouldnt teach sexuality at all! besides sex-ed. but books to kids is too much. but im afraid this is a tough battle to win.

disciple
06-23-2006, 01:49 PM
schools shouldnt teach sexuality at all! besides sex-ed.
Contradiction: You just said they shouldn't teach sexuality, then you said they should.

timmyrotter
06-23-2006, 01:56 PM
okay, mister bossy... i meant no other sexuality than sex ed. ie: manditory books, and thats all that i can think of... but stuff like that.

terrasin
06-24-2006, 12:43 AM
That's the argument here. Schools shouldn't have a "Sex-Ed" class... It should be the parents job to inform kids on that stuff, not a teachers.

CJ

timmyrotter
06-24-2006, 10:58 AM
yeah but the only problem with that is irresponsible parents, with such a high divorce rate, obviously most parents arent too concerned with the well being of thier children.

but i do agree the parents SHOULD do it, but they wont.

asparagus
06-24-2006, 12:04 PM
I've been following this thread for a while now and I still can't quite figure out what's being debated. It seems everyone agrees that parents should teach their kids about sex. It also seems that everyone agrees that not all parents do that.

So I think the only issue really is at hand is how to educate kids that have parents that don't educate them.

It seems to me that it's better to be educated about STDs than not educated, so if the parents aren't going to do it, it's probably a good idea for the school to step in. As always, I think if parents want their kids to opt out of sex ed, then that should be an option.

disciple
06-24-2006, 12:16 PM
It seems to me that it's better to be educated about STDs than not educated, so if the parents aren't going to do it, it's probably a good idea for the school to step in. As always, I think if parents want their kids to opt out of sex ed, then that should be an option.
I think I agree with you; anything really to stop the spread of STDs (and the creation new ones) I am in support of, because despite what people say, most teens don't seem well-educated on STDs, at least the ones I have met with promiscuously sexual lifestyles.