Mass 2ndgrade teacher reads 'gay marriage' book (diversity)

[dfitzo53]

No, perhaps I worded that poorly. I think children should be taught about religions, practices, history, culture, and so on. My concern is that I see kids who can't read in second and third grade, yet are still learning about the Italian Renaissance (which, as an Art History major, I am NOT dissing at all, btw). I fear our focus has changed from educating our children in the basic, the foundations first and foremost, to feeling as though we have to cover every culture, every religion, etc., or we will hurt someone's feelings, and they may be left out. Honestly, I think the reading and writing should come first. When you have that down, feel free to move on.

I was taught to read at home and personally I believe that's by far the best way to go about it. If you're leaving your child's education solely to the schools you're making a big mistake.

This is starting to get off topic though, which wasn't my intention. I understand your broad point about the fundamentals, but I wasn't really talking about education in the humanities at that age anyway. I was thinking more along the lines of comparative religion and history classes at the high school level.

[Major Harris]

By the way it all depends - if they are preaching and praying then yes, because that is opinion. If they are teaching, this is what Christians believe then no, because that is fact.

(This part is not directed at Major, but people in general):

I think that got missed in all of this - there was no opinion present in reading the story. Its a fact that gay people exist and this prince happened to be one. Now its up to the kids to decide how they feel about that - believe it or not kids can make up their own minds on some decisions. We don't always give them the credit they deserve.

7 year olds don't make many decisions. if you let a 7 year old make decisions, they're sitting in front of the couch watching cartoons while eating ice cream and french fries.

but i do see what you're saying.

[rincewind]

I wasn't getting upset with you for asking it, just getting frustrated b/c apparently I was not communicating well. What part do you disagree with?

Not much actually. But i do believe in sex and drug education - but VERY black and white factual education when it comes to those subjects. I really don't want a teacher telling my kids certain things are 'bad' just because the teacher feels they are. If i found out Oakton was a teacher at my kids school, i would relocate.

[Major Harris]

I was taught to read at home and personally I believe that's by far the best way to go about it. If you're leaving your child's education solely to the schools you're making a big mistake..

:notworthy

:notworthy

and fwiw, no teacher, principal or school official in their right mind would suggest otherwise. schools are BEGGING for more parental involvement.

show me a kid that can't read in high school, and i'll show you a parent that has never attended a PTA meeting, conference, or anything. sorry to go off topic.

[chomerics]

:notworthy

:notworthy

and fwiw, no teacher, principal or school official in their right mind would suggest otherwise. schools are BEGGING for more parental involvement.

show me a kid that can't read in high school, and i'll show you a parent that has never attended a PTA meeting, conference, or anything.

Or a blind person

[fight_on_til_you_have_won]

i believe it is a choice. i can't say that it's much more than a gut feeling. would i be proven wrong, my stance would change.

It's as much of a choice as when you get a hard dick looking at a hot, naked woman. I don't know how much clearer I can get.

I just get the feeling that people talk about homosexuality in the most abstract sense, and don't go straight to the horse's mouth for the information.

[Major Harris]

It's as much of a choice as when you get a hard dick looking at a hot, naked woman. I don't know how much clearer I can get.

I just get the feeling that people talk about homosexuality in the most abstract sense, and don't go straight to the horse's mouth for the information.

well, i don't think any gay person, in today's climate, would say they choose to be gay.

and until it's proven otherwise, i doubt my stance will change. as i said, it's my opinion. I just happen to not claim otherwise.

[Major Harris]

Or a blind person

braille, anyone?

[Goaldeje]

I was taught to read at home and personally I believe that's by far the best way to go about it. If you're leaving your child's education solely to the schools you're making a big mistake.

This is starting to get off topic though, which wasn't my intention. I understand your broad point about the fundamentals, but I wasn't really talking about education in the humanities at that age anyway. I was thinking more along the lines of comparative religion and history classes at the high school level.

I can see that. I have two liberal arts degrees, and have travelled the world. Culture is incredibly important to me, but not at the expense of the basics. This story took place in an elementary school, that was my point.

[Larry]

No, perhaps I worded that poorly. I think children should be taught about religions, practices, history, culture, and so on. My concern is that I see kids who can't read in second and third grade, yet are still learning about the Italian Renaissance (which, as an Art History major, I am NOT dissing at all, btw). I fear our focus has changed from educating our children in the basic, the foundations first and foremost, to feeling as though we have to cover every culture, every religion, etc., or we will hurt someone's feelings, and they may be left out. Honestly, I think the reading and writing should come first. When you have that down, feel free to move on.

I say that, but the same goes for middle schoolers as well. How many kids graduate high school even who know a decent amount about Tibetan government, but can't balance a checkbook (I can't either, thank God for the internet banking)? Education, I fear, has become something other than preparing children for life.

But that said, at least some form of "sex ed" is about preparing children for life.

Just like "drivers ed".

When "kids" walk across the stage and out the door, they're going to be doing more than performing calculations and writing. They're going to be driving. And many of them are going to be having sex. (Many of them will have already done so.)

To me, "how to put on a condom" is just as important a "life skill" as parallel parking. (Probably more so: How many of you have parallel parked more recently than you've had sex?) (Please don't answer that question.)

And just as, as the saying goes, "everything important I learned in Kindergarten", some lessons need to be learned young. (I'd list "share", but from what I've heard, some places seem to go way too far with that, with confiscating school supplies so they can be handed out to the class. But that's another topic.) "Don't hit." "Play Fair." "Don't Lie."

There's more to education than spelling. (Obviously, in my case.)

[Goaldeje]

But that said, at least some form of "sex ed" is about preparing children for life.

Just like "drivers ed".

When "kids" walk across the stage and out the door, they're going to be doing more than performing calculations and writing. They're going to be driving. And many of them are going to be having sex. (Many of them will have already done so.)

To me, "how to put on a condom" is just as important a "life skill" as parallel parking. (Probably more so: How many of you have parallel parked more recently than you've had sex?) (Please don't answer that question.)

And just as, as the saying goes, "everything important I learned in Kindergarten", some lessons need to be learned young. (I'd list "share", but from what I've heard, some places seem to go way too far with that, with confiscating school supplies so they can be handed out to the class. But that's another topic.) "Don't hit." "Play Fair." "Don't Lie."

There's more to education than spelling. (Obviously, in my case.)

I'm actually good with that, although I think sex ed should not be taking place in 2nd grade. And I really don't think parent notification is too much to ask for.

[Winslowalrob]

I can see that. I have two liberal arts degrees, and have travelled the world. Culture is incredibly important to me, but not at the expense of the basics. This story took place in an elementary school, that was my point.

I don't believe that culture is taught at the expense of the basics, because a lot of kids don't know a damn thing about other cultures as well as the basics. Dick Cheney's wife wrote an article about this stuff (Which I loathe, but has gotten maddd props from the conservative community) which I believe obscures the debate;

If our children have been doing worse and worse in schools

If they have been taught about other cultures

Therefore teaching other cultures makes them do worse in schools

May I remind you that our elementary schools are among the best or THE best in the world (I forgot our ranking ). Ask almost any foreigner that comes here with young children and they marvel at our elementary schools, we have that crap down pat. Our middle schools and high schools are failing, to varying degrees, but teaching about Tibet in elementary school does not cause kids to forget phonetics.

[chomerics]

You are wrong, my internet friend. Just wrong.

That is your opinion, not mine

If you have read my posts, you will see that I think the actions of a homosexual are sinful. I have equated those sins numerous times with my own sin of over-eating, for example. Both actions are wrong, and I believe both actions involve a conscious choice made by the person doing those actions.

Yet you would not have anywhere near the disdain if the book was about a man that was fat, and it showed he was OK, so you are not being truthful with yourself by equating the two.

How in the world can I then feel that they are "inferior in terms of morality"?

Your previous posts have led everyone to believe in this conclusion. You may not "think" they are morally inferior to you, as you stated in this passage, but your posts reek of moral superiority.

I have stated that I believe in the eyes of God all sin is equal. There is no sin greater than the next. According to what I believe, therefore, my sin is just as much a sin as the homosexuals'.

Maybe it is just me, but again, I don't think you would be as up in arms if the book was about a man who ate to much.

So where do you infer that I place myself above them on any subjective ground whatsoever?

With this post. . .

I think homosexuality is wrong. I think there IS something wrong with it. . .I personally do not treat homosexuals with disrespect, shun them, mock them, etc., and I would never teach my children to do that. But I will teach them that my wife and I believe it is wrong.

Saying someone else is wrong in the way they live their life IS placing yourself on a morally superior platform whether you realize it or not.

The fact is, you have leapt to that conclusion by making a lot of presumptions. If I have said anything different in this thread or any other, please find it and show me, and I will gladly admit it.

look above, you place yourself on a morally superior platform by stating that homosexuality is wrong. You say you are morally superior to them because you live your life in a non-homosexual, or a better way then they o. Other then yourself, who is to say that your position is right, and that you are better then they are? You have contested you don't think you are better then them, your post talks of a different viewpoint.

From these assumptions you have drawn, you also have decided that a perfectly natural comparison point is the racist segregationists. I trust now you will understand that is not a valid comparison at all.

No, you have given nothing that even remotely constitutes a good argument, go back and read the progress of this thread, why would I "understand" it is not a valid comparisson? Because of your vastly inferior semantical argument where you say you don't put them below you, yet they are wrong? You have got to be kidding me.

I do not agree with the choices they make, but I do not want to ban them, segregate our schools, or anything even remotely like any of that.

Yet you still think they are morally inferior to yourself, which is OK, just admit it.

If I did, my hypocrisy would be incredible.

About the only thing I think we both agree on here. . .

I am basing my beliefs on my faith, and I believe they have a choice, based on personal experience, as well as outside data shown from other sources.

What unbiased sources are these? You were asked previously in this thread for the supposed "sources" and produced nothing, do you have any UNBIASED sources for this supposed data?

Is it absolute fact? No, as someone so adroitely stated above, both sides have agendas to push, so its doubtful we will know the truth for some time.

Completely contradicts your previous sentences. how can you base your opinion on "data" then stat the data is superfolous at best? Seriously, stop with the semantice, and the PC talk, because it is pretty obvious that your position is not exactly as you state based on some of your other posts.

But that's what i believe. No where have I stated that I am superior in any way to homosexuals. Find it. If you can't support your assertations with fact, don't say it.

read between the lines, and you can see where this argument comes from, it isn't rocket science, just a basic understanding of psychology and how people justify their own misgivings on socially unjust issues.

[Sarge]

Keep the agenda out of schools. Nobody wants to hear about the deviant behaviors of a minority of people, and second grade kids shouldn't be hearing about sex at all, whether hetero or homo

[rincewind]

Yet you would not have anywhere near the disdain if the book was about a man that was fat, and it showed he was OK, so you are not being truthful with yourself by equating the two.

I was kinda wondering about that too.

[Goaldeje]

Yet you would not have anywhere near the disdain if the book was about a man that was fat, and it showed he was OK, so you are not being truthful with yourself by equating the two.

You are completely twisting words and arguements to make an invalid point. This is silly. I was rebutting your assertion that there is a connection between my views on homosexuality and racism/segregation. I would be uncomfortable with such a book if the book portrayed overwight people as being in a "normal" or "acceptable" lifestyle, when in fact it is unhealthy and can be dangerous.

Your previous posts have led everyone to believe in this conclusion. You may not "think" they are morally inferior to you, as you stated in this passage, but your posts reek of moral superiority.

Please do not presume to know who or what I think is morally inferior to me. For a liberal, you seem fairly judgemental. I would hope that posts have not come across that way, and if they have, I am truly sorry. I understand who and what I am, and that I have no reason whatsoever to feel superior to anyone.

Saying someone else is wrong in the way they live their life IS placing yourself on a morally superior platform whether you realize it or not.

Or perhaps it's defining what you believe in. Acknowledging that people all around me are doing things wrong, and placing myself in that same boat with everyone else does not, in my mind constitute moral superiority. If it has come across that way, wasn't meant to.

look above, you place yourself on a morally superior platform by stating that homosexuality is wrong. You say you are morally superior to them because you live your life in a non-homosexual, or a better way then they o. Other then yourself, who is to say that your position is right, and that you are better then they are? You have contested you don't think you are better then them, your post talks of a different viewpoint.

Do you always read this much into other people's posts. You are starting to come across as incapable of having an intelligent debate without resorting to repeating the same arguement over and over. Much the same way my 7 year old does, come to think of it. If you repeat it over and over, does it make it true?

What unbiased sources are these? You were asked previously in this thread for the supposed "sources" and produced nothing, do you have any UNBIASED sources for this supposed data?

To my knowledge, I have not been asked before, unless I missed it. Having said that, I already referenced my father, a highly respected psychologist who deals with homosexuals every day of the week. Beyond that (which I'm sure you will discount), this quote indicates it exists:

"Does the genetic disposition toward homosexuality limit the person's free will in the realm of sexuality?" from http://www.meta-library.net/genetics/orient-body.html

as well as this quote:

"We do not know the cause of homosexuality, but scientists are starting to reveal some very interesting research that may proved that being gay can be genetically determined, or an individual my be genetically predisposed to be gay." from http://www.dowling.edu/faculty/Perring/wheelan.htm

I won't list more. There are obviously many many Christian doctors, who support this theory, but I tried to leave them out as I knew you would not take them seriously.

At any rate, I hope that helps. Rince, you too.

[Larry]

Keep the agenda out of schools. Nobody wants to hear about the deviant behaviors of a minority of people, and second grade kids shouldn't be hearing about sex at all, whether hetero or homo

Did you just skip the previous 388 posts on this thread?

They didn't "hear about sex". They heard about kissing.

Do you think that should be banned from elementary school?

[Larry]

You are completely twisting words and arguements to make an invalid point. This is silly. I was rebutting your assertion that there is a connection between my views on homosexuality and racism/segregation. I would be uncomfortable with such a book if the book portrayed overwight people as being in a "normal" or "acceptable" lifestyle, when in fact it is unhealthy and can be dangerous.

Quick! Ban "Popeye" cartoons, they have fat characters in them, and he's Popeye's friend.

I think Shreck was overweight, too.

Star Trek 4, 5, and 6. (Sorry, Scotty, but, y'know.)

And have you seen the beer bellies on a lot of NFL linemen?

(Do you really want to see how far I can run with this? Should overweight people be prohibited from raising children, because they might try to "push the fat agenda down their throats"?)

[Mooka]

Should overweight people be prohibited from raising children, because they might try to "push the fat agenda down their throats"?)

Cmon Larry you know the dangers.

"Baby, it's what's for dinner. "

[dfitzo53]

Or perhaps it's defining what you believe in. Acknowledging that people all around me are doing things wrong, and placing myself in that same boat with everyone else does not, in my mind constitute moral superiority. If it has come across that way, wasn't meant to.

I don't want you to feel like I'm ganging up on you, but I want to try to help explain how your posts sound. When you call a belief, lifestyle or worldview wrong the implication is that yours is right, otherwise you wouldn't hold it. In drawing that distinction between right and wrong there's an inherent ranking that takes place. Right is better than wrong.

I think Chomerics is completely justified in sensing an air of superiority in your posts, whether it's intentional or not. If you don't mean to give that impression, you might contemplate a different choice of words.

[rincewind]

Right now Dave is saying - "Everytime I think I'm out, they pull me back in." :mad:

[dfitzo53]

Right now Dave is saying - "Everytime I think I'm out, they pull me back in." :mad:

:laugh:

The debate is proceeding much more nicely now than it was then. Without naming names I grew tired of the posts of certain individuals last night.

[Major Harris]

this thread just goes to show that those in the middle don't really garner much attention. people love a good fight.

[rincewind]

this thread just goes to show that those in the middle don't really garner much attention. people love a good fight.

:redpunch: :redpunch:

:wavetowel :jump:

[Major Harris]

see what i mean? :cry: