Thiebear Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Listening to the Radio: edit: found it: (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23077) My favorite quote: The school superintendent is standing behind the teacher, saying the book is another way to teach the children diversity The prince turns down princess after princess until he picks a prince, they kiss and get married and live happily ever after: Read to 7 year olds??? MY GIRL is 7 years old in (edit)2nd grade: (WHY, are you inserting agenda's) into a 1st grade class? The Principal says they did nothing wrong because Mass has same sex marriage. Of course they didnt notify parents. (The its easier to apologize after than it is to ask for permission beforehand). The other side of the coin would be: Whats the difference between this and reading Shrek where he kisses Fiona.. Both = and "Ewwwwwwww" from the class... the difference being a prince kissing an princess is and ewwww. A prince kissing a prince equals the start of questions that might as well be a sex education class unless you just tell the children its nothing we'll explain it in 4 years.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissU28 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 homosexuality is a topic we are not allowed to even approach in sex ed in the 5th grade here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 I see absolutely nothing wrong with this - teach the kids that some princes like to kiss other princes. The worst thing that could happen is that this kids grow up more understanding and tolerent - God forbid. homosexuality is a topic we are not allowed to even approach in sex ed in the 5th grade here Something is seriously wrong in this world. As long as we make being gay that different, kids will never understand it - and therefore when they grow to be adults... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 i think that permission should have been asked prior to this. i know my parents would have said no, and i didn't grow up to be an intolerant bigot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted April 25, 2006 Author Share Posted April 25, 2006 I see absolutely nothing wrong with this - teach the kids that some princes like to kiss other princes. The worst thing that could happen is that this kids grow up more understanding and tolerant - God forbid.Something is seriously wrong in this world. As long as we make being gay that different, kids will never understand it - and therefore when they grow to be adults... I'm not religious but I believe god does forbid . My point being 7 year olds need NOOOOOOO sexual education whatsoever... My 7 year old doesn't NEED to understand it.. She thinks boys are stinky and stupid... the innocence is nice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 big deal.. u, american make a big deal out of everything. We got to improve our school systems from top to bottom and not blame teachers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 big deal.. u, american make a big deal out of everything. We got to improve our school systems from top to bottom and not blame teachers I think the issue is whether or not introducing homosexuality to kids of that age is an improvement. I'm not sure 2nd grade is an appropriate venue for that kind of discussion. I'm surprised however that it can't even be addressed in 5th grade. Right about that time kids are not only going through a lot of changes, as cliched as that sounds, but also beginning to discover who they are. I don't see it as a bad thing to discuss homosexuality at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissU28 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 I think the issue is whether or not introducing homosexuality to kids of that age is an improvement. I'm not sure 2nd grade is an appropriate venue for that kind of discussion. I'm surprised however that it can't even be addressed in 5th grade. Right about that time kids are not only going through a lot of changes, as cliched as that sounds, but also beginning to discover who they are. I don't see it as a bad thing to discuss homosexuality at that point. there are a list of topics we are not allowed to approach or answer questions about... they include homosexuality, masturbation, abortion, and birth control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 My point being 7 year olds need NOOOOOOO sexual education whatsoever...My 7 year old doesn't NEED to understand it.. She thinks boys are stinky and stupid... the innocence is nice... exactly. i know that a lot of sex ed has to be parent ok'd before hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Welcome to the Communistwealth of Massachusetts.... please leave all sanity, common sense, morals, values and any sort of religious upbringing at the border or risk being ridiculed or worse. Massachusetts needs this sort of crap so that the panty-waisted parents don't have to explain to little Jack or Jill why Uncle Bob is wearing a dress at his wedding. Don't get me wrong; I have no problem with people living the homosexual lifestyle so long as those people who chose the lifestyle do not attempt to force other people to accept it. Hold hands in public, do whatever you want in the bedroom, just don't tell me that I have to like it or tell you that you're a good person for doing it. Which is exactly what this is all about... indoctrinating these kids to believe that this stuff is good, right, and the acceptable norm in society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 i think that permission should have been asked prior to this. i know my parents would have said no, and i didn't grow up to be an intolerant bigot. Never said it was a definite. But why do you need permission for two boys or two girls to kiss, but not a boy and a girl? Why teach that this is different? I'm not religious but I believe god does forbid .My point being 7 year olds need NOOOOOOO sexual education whatsoever... My 7 year old doesn't NEED to understand it.. She thinks boys are stinky and stupid... the innocence is nice... Good - lets listen to a 2,000 year old book that was written with an overly political slant about how we feel about homosexuality. While were at it lets only pick out that part - not the part that teaches tolerence, forgiveness, understanding, and love for our fellow man. Plus - i don't see how this is sexual education if its just a kiss. :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted April 25, 2006 Author Share Posted April 25, 2006 Never said it was a definite. But why do you need permission for two boys or two girls to kiss, but not a boy and a girl? Why teach that this is different?Good - lets listen to a 2,000 year old book that was written with an overly political slant about how we feel about homosexuality. While were at it lets only pick out that part - not the part that teaches tolerence, forgiveness, understanding, and love for our fellow man. Plus - i don't see how this is sexual education if its just a kiss. :whoknows: Pssst... my reply was a joke to YOUR "God Forbid" comment above mine.. When you relax you'll get it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 My point being 7 year olds need NOOOOOOO sexual education whatsoever... So, if the prince had married the princess, you'd be demanding that the parents should've had the right to censor the school's "teaching sex"? Or is it a case of "prince kisses princess" is OK, but "prince kisses prince" is a nefarious attempt to push a sexual agenda? Sorry folks, but this isn't a case about "pushing" a (gay) agenda. This is a case of "he's failing to push" a (straight) agenda. This book isn't about sex, and the objections aren't about "teaching sex". The objections are about "there's a gay guy in this story, and he's not a monster". (Unless you want to claim that Cinderella is about sex, 'cause it features two people getting married and living together, too.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 there are a list of topics we are not allowed to approach or answer questions about... they include homosexuality, masturbation, abortion, and birth control. Note the location. Remember, there are a lot of places where the "wisdom" is that the way to Keep Our Kids Safe is to deny them any knowledge about the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Pssst... my reply was a joke to YOUR "God Forbid" comment above mine.. When you relax you'll get it... I'm perfectly relaxed - it was just a point i wanted to make and your post gave me the perfect springboard. Sorry i sound overly-emotional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Ban Beauty and the Beast. After all, Bestiality is way worse. Sometimes people need to stop reading sexuality into everything. I seriously doubt most children that age would think about it one way or another. If you want them to think about it, you have to say something. Otherwise it goes right over their heads. I doubt any kid would get anything more out of this book than some guys prefer guys. Big deal. In Beauty and the Beast, it's about looking past when one looks different. Using the logic portrayed in this thread, everyone would have to look at it in an adult rated x kind of way. Sad. I like the failure to push straight agenda charge as that seems exactly correct at getting to the heart of the problem some people have with this book being read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 So, if the prince had married the princess, you'd be demanding that the parents should've had the right to censor the school's "teaching sex"? Or is it a case of "prince kisses princess" is OK, but "prince kisses prince" is a nefarious attempt to push a sexual agenda? Sorry folks, but this isn't a case about "pushing" a (gay) agenda. This is a case of "he's failing to push" a (straight) agenda. This book isn't about sex, and the objections aren't about "teaching sex". The objections are about "there's a gay guy in this story, and he's not a monster". (Unless you want to claim that Cinderella is about sex, 'cause it features two people getting married and living together, too.) :applause: :applause: :applause: I particulary like the "he's failing to push" a (straight) agenda. part. Good post Larry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 (Unless you want to claim that Cinderella is about sex, 'cause it features two people getting married and living together, too.) Ban Beauty and the Beast. After all, Bestality is way worse. And lets not forget the necr0philia that goes down in Sleeping Beauty - disgusting. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterPinstripe Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Never said it was a definite. But why do you need permission for two boys or two girls to kiss, but not a boy and a girl? Why teach that this is different?Good - lets listen to a 2,000 year old book that was written with an overly political slant about how we feel about homosexuality. While were at it lets only pick out that part - not the part that teaches tolerence, forgiveness, understanding, and love for our fellow man. Plus - i don't see how this is sexual education if its just a kiss. :whoknows: Well, if you only pick and choose parts of it Rince, you might as well not listen to any of it. It does teach us that, but for people the believe in it, I can telly ou dont, you can not just pick the parts that you like, and leave the parts you dont like. The bible says its wrong, so its wrong. But fo those of you who dont believe in it, that doesnt mean a thing. And cant really got into another one of those religious debates which too often turn into nothing in here. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Well, if you only pick and choose parts of it Rince, you might as well not listen to any of it. It does teach us that, but for people the believe in it, I can telly ou dont, you can not just pick the parts that you like, and leave the parts you dont like. The bible says its wrong, so its wrong. But fo those of you who dont believe in it, that doesnt mean a thing. And cant really got into another one of those religious debates which too often turn into nothing in here. :2cents: You're right (i think - it was hard to tell with all of those commas) i'm not burden by believing in the book. I get to choose that Jesus was a great man who love all of mankind and wouldn't have wanted us spending our time hating people just because of who they laid down with - its quite nice actually. And my point was - if those that do believe are going to pick and choose what to listen to, why not pick the parts that teach love and tolerence instead of hate and ignorance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted April 25, 2006 Author Share Posted April 25, 2006 The not pushing anything part falls apart when the school superintendent says they were teaching diversity.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 (Long lead-in. Feel free to skip if you want.) A few years ago, there was a movement started in this country by several "black leaders" to get Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn banned. The reason given for this effort was that the character Slave Jim was a) a reference to slavery, and a racial steriotype, full of "massah"s and "lawdies". They felt that the character was an insult to blacks. Some people pointed out that when the book was first published, a lot of people wanted to ban the book, and they were objecting to Slave Jim, too. They were objecting because Slave Jim was a negro, and he was the Good Guy. (The point) When I read that, I thought it was pathetic, the lengths people will go to in order to attempt to justify treating people as second-class people. That they literally (and correctly) believed that allowing the creation of a work of fiction in which a member of The Group existed was a threat to their position. I thought how great it was that we've progressed to the point where writing a story in which the good guy is black is no longer considered a dangerous attempt to push the Negro agenda by forcing people to tolerate them. (Virtually) no one, today, would even think of attempting to whip up public outrage over the fact that "somebody wrote a book, and it's got a Negro in it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 The not pushing anything part falls apart when the school superintendent says they were teaching diversity.... Ummm..... isn't "pushing" diversity a good thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted April 25, 2006 Author Share Posted April 25, 2006 Ummm..... isn't "pushing" diversity a good thing? again: see 7 years old.. Diversity at Middle School I can see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcl05 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Lets also remeber that gay marriage is LEGAL in Massachusetts. Their marriages are just as valid there as anyone elses. If the state condones the relationship, why can't two dudes smooch in a book? It is an absurd argument to suggest that it pushes a gay sexual agenda. In Sleeping Beauty, a comatose chick is assaulted (smooched) by a guy she doesn't know, wakes up, and swoons. Does that condone anonomyous random hook-ups with drunk, wasted girls? Better get it out of the classroom! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.