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

[Goaldeje]

great responses in this thread, and i'll try and explain my stance that this is something that should involve parent notification......

right or wrong, like it or not, the fact is that there are a LOT of people who wouldn't want this read to their children. i know my parents wouldn't have. are some of those people bigots? sure. but there are also a lot of people who feel that homosexuality is wrong and they don't all hate gay people. believe it or not, it is possible to disagree w/ someones lifestyle but still hold no ill will towards the PERSON. i have several friends that i don't agree with their lifestyle, but they're still my friend, because i see them as more than "the drunk guy" or "the womanizer."

as a teacher, i can tell you that pissing off parents is a big mistake. parents that you would otherwise never see or hear from or know that they care can make a big stink. point to my location all you want larry.

THis is exactly what I tried to say. Nicely said, Major. :applause:

[gchwood]

And this is where I have to disagree strongly. I really have a problem with risking the health of people and others on the idea that parents will actually do their jobs and that kids will actually listen. If HIV and other diseases were not passed on to others I wouldn't mind, but one uneducated person out there puts others at risk.

Then no one can be blamed but the parents. I am sick of parents havign kids and then deciding that they do not want to be parents that his why there is more violence and drug use then ever before.

But I have a hard time understandign how anyone can truely be uneducated about HIV and STDs and Sex. I did not have Sex Ed and I had parents who really could give you s**ts if I was there or not, so I had no formal education but I know all about that stuff.

[gchwood]

Sorry, still don't see how this is Sex Ed.

if they are teaching about sexual orientations than it is sex ed, how much easier do you want me to say it?

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Okay, so people will just come to accept and understand hom0sexuality... *shudder*

Obviously you missed the point. Thomas Malory CREATED two new philosophical concepts... Chivalry and Courtly Love in his book. These concepts largely did not exist in Europe prior to "La Mort D'Arthur".

Now remember that Create is defined as making something from nothing. Which is exactly what the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts did in "finding" the Right to Gay Marriage in the Massachusetts Constitution.

[Zguy28]

are some of those people bigots? sure. but there are also a lot of people who feel that homosexuality is wrong and they don't all hate gay people. believe it or not, it is possible to disagree w/ someones lifestyle but still hold no ill will towards the PERSON. i have several friends that i don't agree with their lifestyle, but they're still my friend, because i see them as more than "the drunk guy" or "the womanizer."

Don't try to tell that to Chomerics...Just ask MissU28.

[GrimReefa]

If I were a parent in this school system, this is exactly the problem I would have. You are going to jump all over me for this, but please read the rest of my arguement before doing so. I think homosexuality is wrong. I think there IS something wrong with it. (this next part is predicated on the hypothetical that my kids went to this school system) So why were my rights not respected? If I do not want my children being taught about homosexuality in any way shape or form that "normailzes" it, my rights were just stepped on. 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 (at the appropriate time) that my wife and I believe it is wrong. If they have seen something in school that defies my position, my position is undermined.

Someone I didn't quote made an outstanding point that the school system has to be considered combative here. They should have made a few phone calls to inform the parents, and allowed the parents to make decisions from there. The parents who objected to this (because they feared it would undermine their parenting) could have removed the children for that period, etc.

Your rights were stepped on when you were born into the real world, or at least here into the future.

Plenty of parents in the South in the 1950s felt it was wrong for white kids and black kids to go to the same school, and did not want their children to be taught in an integrated environment.

But the time for segregation was ending, just as the time for homophobia is ending now. You wish to raise your children in the past, but you can't do that. Sorry, buddy, but the tide has turned, and you can't fight the tide, and expecting the rest of the world to conform to your pipe dream is unrealistic.

Oh, and by the way, integration came from the courts, just like gay marriage. And just like gay marriage, the courts came under fire for "usurping" power and "legislating from the bench" when they were, in fact, only confirming the constitutional rights which had been unjustly kept from a large minority of citizens. Funny how you don't hear that charge being brought up anymore with regards to that political issue. But know that every time you hear an assault on "out of control judges legislating from the bench" what you are hearing is nothing less than a verbal assualt on the 50 year legacy of Brown vs. the Board of Education, since that decision was the pinnacle example of just that behavior.

[gchwood]

Why does it have to be pushing the acceptance of the gay lifestyle? Is every fairy tale that ends with the prince kissing the princess promoting a heter0sexual lifestyle? Maybe its time we stop seeing the gay prince as something to thought of as odd and different - he's just a prince.

Last I read the fairy tales they say "and they lived happily ever after." I don't remember any fairy tale but the ones where the frog turns into a prince after being kissed, and sleeping beauty that woke up with true loves first kiss. Other than those they all live happily ever after without the kiss. Seems to me that the kiss really only comes in when it is crucial to the plot.

[Destino]

Then no one can be blamed but the parents. I am sick of parents havign kids and then deciding that they do not want to be parents that his why there is more violence and drug use then ever before.

But I have a hard time understandign how anyone can truely be uneducated about HIV and STDs and Sex. I did not have Sex Ed and I had parents who really could give you s**ts if I was there or not, so I had no formal education but I know all about that stuff.

I don't know about you - but I'm really not interested in who I can blame. I am also sick of parents that don't do their jobs and this is all the more reason to include basic education, which really shouldn't have it's own seperate "sex ed" category. How your body works and the health risks out there should be taught in biology or as biology.

The moral issues involved are different. Discussions of how to protect yourself and abstinence... those are all up to parents IMO. Either to decide if the school can discuss it with their kids or to do it themselves.

[GrimReefa]

if they are teaching about sexual orientations than it is sex ed, how much easier do you want me to say it?

Any book/story involving a heterosexual couple is, then, by your definition, teaching about sexual orientation. In fact, the children are taught about sexual orientation every day, from when they wake up in the morning and watch mommy and daddy (or mommy and mommy, or whoever and whoever) kiss each other good bye before heading off to work. They're taught about sexual orientation when a particularly brave boy and girl from their classes start "going out" (I knew of two such "relationships" in elementary school). So is any Disney movie they see in the theaters, or any show they might watch on TV that involves one romantic relationship.

Are you going to ban all of that?

Your kids are smarter than you know. Just as you were more savvy than perhaps your parents gave you credit for being. They're not living in a vacuum, you know, as much as you may want them to be. And preparing children for what they may encounter in the real world is pretty much what school is for.

[gchwood]

I don't know about you - but I'm really not interested in who I can blame. I am also sick of parents that don't do their jobs and this is all the more reason to include basic education, which really shouldn't have it's own seperate "sex ed" category. How your body works and the health risks out there should be taught in biology or as biology.

The moral issues involved are different. Discussions of how to protect yourself and abstinence... those are all up to parents IMO. Either to decide if the school can discuss it with their kids or to do it themselves.

I agree. Biological functions are fine, however I don't know If I would get into talking about anal or oral sex in a biology class, but you can certianly cover diseases in a purely scietific forum without getting into sex education. This should still be reserved for high school aged kids though

Ultimately it is up to the parent to inform the child about sex and its ramifications (especially HIV and pregnancy) and how to protect themselves and how to be responsible when having sex

[Zguy28]

Where exactly in the bible does it say that gay marriage and homesexuality is wrong? Serious question because I've never been able to find that passage.

Well...

I couldn't write it better myself, so I'll just quote it.

What Jesus taught

• "And He answered and said to them, 'Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,'"
  -

Matthew 19:4 (NKJV) "But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.'"
-Mark 10:6 (NKJV)

When Jesus was asked questions about marriage he went straight back to the defining passages in Genesis that say that marriage is between male and female and is meant to be life long. He saw the creation accounts in Genesis as authoritative in His day. And what is authoritative for Jesus is authoritative for Christians also. While Jesus did not specifically teach on homosexuality, His establishment of the Genesis passages as the fundamental passages on marriage (even more fundamental than the Law) leaves no doubt as to the outcome. What else does the Bible say?

• "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."
  -

Romans 1:26-27 (NKJV) "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."
-1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJV)
"Knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,"
-1 Timothy 1:9-10 (NKJV)

Hope this help answer your question.

[Destino]

I agree. Biological functions are fine, however I don't know If I would get into talking about anal or oral sex in a biology class, but you can certianly cover diseases in a purely scietific forum without getting into sex education. This should still be reserved for high school aged kids though

Ultimately it is up to the parent to inform the child about sex and its ramifications (especially HIV and pregnancy) and how to protect themselves and how to be responsible when having sex

I agree. The only mention of those things in a biology setting would be to say STD's are spread via sexual contact. If you wanted to be specific as to what "sexual contact" is fine but getting any futher discussion can easily be redirected by telling kids "for more info talk to your parents."

[gchwood]

Any book/story involving a heterosexual couple is, then, by your definition, teaching about sexual orientation. In fact, the children are taught about sexual orientation every day, from when they wake up in the morning and watch mommy and daddy (or mommy and mommy, or whoever and whoever) kiss each other good bye before heading off to work. They're taught about sexual orientation when a particularly brave boy and girl from their classes start "going out" (I knew of two such "relationships" in elementary school). So is any Disney movie they see in the theaters, or any show they might watch on TV that involves one romantic relationship.

Are you going to ban all of that?

Your kids are smarter than you know. Just as you were more savvy than perhaps your parents gave you credit for being. They're not living in a vacuum, you know, as much as you may want them to be. And preparing children for what they may encounter in the real world is pretty much what school is for.

no any book that has any possible sexual element in regards to sexual orientation, ie kissing, is a sexual education.

As for me personally I am going to home school my kids, so that I can prepare them for the world in the way that I see fit not how other see it appropriate for my children. Furthermore Parents should be the ones preparing the children for the real world as far as that stuff is concerned. The teachers are there to teach English, math, history, and science, not sex

[rincewind]

Last I read the fairy tales they say "and they lived happily ever after." I don't remember any fairy tale but the ones where the frog turns into a prince after being kissed, and sleeping beauty that woke up with true loves first kiss. Other than those they all live happily ever after without the kiss. Seems to me that the kiss really only comes in when it is crucial to the plot.

Okay, so the two gay guys get to live happily everafter - good for them. :applause:

edit - i reply to some other posts in a little bit, i'm swamped at work for the moment.

[Major Harris]

As for me personally I am going to home school my kids, so that I can prepare them for the world in the way that I see fit not how other see it appropriate for my children. Furthermore Parents should be the ones preparing the children for the real world as far as that stuff is concerned. The teachers are there to teach English, math, history, and science, not sex

if parents would hold up their end of the bargain, we wouldn't have to teach all that other stuff. props to you for doing what is right, but you're not exactly the norm.

[webnarc]

Well...

Hope this help answer your question.

Thank you for posting this, but:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."

-1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJV)

is not the same as

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

It may not be that important, but it's different. The first passage reads closer to modern English than the second - which one is from the bible?

[chomerics]

No. I'm talking Right and Wrong, not legal and illegal. There's a HUGE difference. But I wouldn't expect you to be able to comprehend that Chom. Let's put gay marriage to a VOTE and then we'll see who is in the minority.

Umm, sure get a petition to put it on the ballot. . .oh wait, they are trying that, but can't get the 25% of legisslators needed to sign up for it. :laugh: Too bad the people that live in our state are tolerant to others huh.

BTW, your "give it a vote" is funny, considering in the entire US, the detractors for gay marriage has DECREASED by 10% since the last election. Only 51% of AMERICANS (not Massachusetts citizens) disapprove of gay marriage as of March of this year. . .so your "vote" will get wiped off the map :laugh:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=273

Oh, and you don't have any idea who or what MY "God" is, so please don't pretend that you do.

Ummm, how can you not understand the generic term of my post? Didi I even mention the word god? No, I presented it is such a way that it would cover just about ANY god, so please, explain to me how "invisible almighty omniscient being you believe in" construes that I do have any idea who or what you believe in.

No. It's within the legal parameters of the Communistwealth. Your belief that it is within the morals and values of the citizens won't hold a shred or reality until the CITIZENS of Massachusetts are given the chance to vote on it. Believe me, there are a number of us who are working to try and change the law. By one means or another.

Umm, well when the citizens arte given a chance to vote, I think you'll be shocked and surprised at how tolerant and moralistic of a society we actually have in our state. Take a look at the NATIONAL poll above :laugh:

[chomerics]

If I were a parent in this school system, this is exactly the problem I would have. You are going to jump all over me for this, but please read the rest of my arguement before doing so. I think homosexuality is wrong. I think there IS something wrong with it. (this next part is predicated on the hypothetical that my kids went to this school system) So why were my rights not respected? If I do not want my children being taught about homosexuality in any way shape or form that "normailzes" it, my rights were just stepped on. 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 (at the appropriate time) that my wife and I believe it is wrong. If they have seen something in school that defies my position, my position is undermined.

Someone I didn't quote made an outstanding point that the school system has to be considered combative here. They should have made a few phone calls to inform the parents, and allowed the parents to make decisions from there. The parents who objected to this (because they feared it would undermine their parenting) could have removed the children for that period, etc.

Ands if you thought blacks were "inferior" would your rights be trampled on if they talked about a black man kissing a white woman? What about the children of gay parents? There are studentls like that in our state, so what about them? What makes YOUR childs rights any more important then THEIR rights?

It has racist undertones and it's completely discriminatory to think your moralistic view of society is ANY BETTER then any others simply because you are in the majority. In your state you have a better argument, albeit a poor one, because marriage is not legal, but in Mass, itshould be considered racist to think like this. No difference between a homosexuay, a black person, or an Arab. It is discrimination no matter what angle you take.

[Goaldeje]

Your rights were stepped on when you were born into the real world, or at least here into the future.

Plenty of parents in the South in the 1950s felt it was wrong for white kids and black kids to go to the same school, and did not want their children to be taught in an integrated environment.

But the time for segregation was ending, just as the time for homophobia is ending now. You wish to raise your children in the past, but you can't do that. Sorry, buddy, but the tide has turned, and you can't fight the tide, and expecting the rest of the world to conform to your pipe dream is unrealistic.

Oh, and by the way, integration came from the courts, just like gay marriage. And just like gay marriage, the courts came under fire for "usurping" power and "legislating from the bench" when they were, in fact, only confirming the constitutional rights which had been unjustly kept from a large minority of citizens. Funny how you don't hear that charge being brought up anymore with regards to that political issue. But know that every time you hear an assault on "out of control judges legislating from the bench" what you are hearing is nothing less than a verbal assualt on the 50 year legacy of Brown vs. the Board of Education, since that decision was the pinnacle example of just that behavior.

This is the epitome of what is wrong with the liberal thought process. You get to decide that my rights are unimportant? You get to decide that my way of thinking is a "pipe dream"? Why do I have less rights than those who advocate gay marriage? The problem with liberals (not to generalize, of course :laugh: ) is that they feel they can decide what is right and what is wrong. What is acceptable and what isn't. Am I incapable of deciding for my own children what I want them exposed to and what I would rather they not be exposed to?

By the by, equating gay marriage with civil rights is a bit of a stretch, which I suspect you already know. Again, this merely perpetuates my way of thinking about liberals, so I supose I might thank you for confirming what I already thought. You assume an awful lot in your post about my way of thinking, that I think gays should be "second class citizens", and so on if you equate them with the civil rights movement. If you will refer to my earlier posts, you will see that nowhere did I suggest any such thing. I am fine with health insurance benefits and so on. I just don't think the lifestyle (a bit different from the color of your skin, I think) is one that I agree with, and therefore feel comfortable condoning.

[Major Harris]

No difference between a homosexuay, a black person, or an Arab. It is discrimination no matter what angle you take.

this is going in to a completely different topic. but there are people that would respectfully disagree with that.

[gchwood]

Okay, so the two gay guys get to live happily everafter - good for them. :applause:

That doesn't bather me near as much, happily ever after does not necessarily connotate sexual activity

[chomerics]

great responses in this thread, and i'll try and explain my stance that this is something that should involve parent notification......

right or wrong, like it or not, the fact is that there are a LOT of people who wouldn't want this read to their children. i know my parents wouldn't have. are some of those people bigots? sure. but there are also a lot of people who feel that homosexuality is wrong and they don't all hate gay people. believe it or not, it is possible to disagree w/ someones lifestyle but still hold no ill will towards the PERSON. i have several friends that i don't agree with their lifestyle, but they're still my friend, because i see them as more than "the drunk guy" or "the womanizer."

as a teacher, i can tell you that pissing off parents is a big mistake. parents that you would otherwise never see or hear from or know that they care can make a big stink. point to my location all you want larry.

I don't disagree with you, and if this was done in another state you would have a valid argument, but simply by the fact that it is legal in our state means it SHOULD be taught. If you don't want your kid exposed to the world then home school or send them to a religious school, but don't expect a version of morality you agree with is necessarily going to be taught, especially in a state where it is legal to marry gay people.

The states version or what is socially acceptable is something all people should consider when living in this state. I would never live in South Dakota for similar reasons, and I am extremely PROUD to be from here. We are the leaders on social evolution in the country, and I applaud our lawmakers for taking a stand.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Umm, sure get a petition to put it on the ballot. . .oh wait, they are trying that, but can't get the 25% of legiSlators needed to sign up for it. :laugh: Too bad the people that live in our state are tolerant to others huh.

Exactly. Because we have a group of professional legislators who don't give a **** what their constituents actually believe or (more importantly) what is RIGHT and WRONG. They got forced into putting a law in place by the Judiciary and now they don't want to find out what the average citizen actually thinks of it. If they're so sure the state is so tolerant, why not put it to a vote?

BTW, your "give it a vote" is funny, considering in the entire US, the detractors for gay marriage has DECREASED by 10% since the last election. Only 51% of AMERICANS (not Massachusetts citizens) disapprove of gay marriage as of March of this year. . .so your "vote" will get wiped off the map :laugh:

Which simply means that this country is doomed to fall under its own weight and immorality in the next century. Thankfully, I'll likely be dead long before it happens.

Umm, well when the citizens arte given a chance to vote, I think you'll be shocked and surprised at how tolerant and moralistic of a society we actually have in our state. Take a look at the NATIONAL poll above :laugh:

Sorry, "tolerant" and "moral" are OPPOSITES. One cannot be both "tolerant" AND "moral" at the same time.

[Zguy28]

Thank you for posting this, but:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."

-1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJV)

is not the same as

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

It may not be that important, but it's different. The first passage reads closer to modern English than the second - which one is from the bible?

The second one is verse 9 from the King James Bible.

If your looking for literal translations:9have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites, 10nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, the reign of God shall inherit.

1 Cor 6:9-10 Young's Literal Translation.

But the New Living Translation is IMO the best translation to date, balancing readability and accuracy from the Koine Greek.

9Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, 10thieves, greedy people, drunkards, abusers, and swindlers--none of these will have a share in the Kingdom of God.

Or in the original Koine Greek.

η ουκ οιδατε οτι αδικοι βασιλειαν θεου βασιλειαν ου κληρονομησουσιν μη πλανασθε ουτε πορνοι ουτε ειδωλολατραι ουτε μοιχοι ουτε μαλακοι ουτε αρσενοκοιται

ουτε κλεπται ουτε πλεονεκται ουτε κλεπται ουτε πλεονεκται ου μεθυσοι ου λοιδοροι ουχ αρπαγες βασιλειαν θεου ου κληρονομησουσιν

[Major Harris]

I don't disagree with you, and if this was done in another state you would have a valid argument, but simply by the fact that it is legal in our state means it SHOULD be taught. If you don't want your kid exposed to the world then home school or send them to a religious school, but don't expect a version of morality you agree with is necessarily going to be taught, especially in a state where it is legal to marry gay people.

The states version or what is socially acceptable is something all people should consider when living in this state. I would never live in South Dakota for similar reasons, and I am extremely PROUD to be from here. We are the leaders on social evolution in the country, and I applaud our lawmakers for taking a stand.

i hear ya' on that.

**note to self** don't move to boston. though i HAVE to see fenway before i or fenway dies.