This is Disgusting!!!!!

What a horror story. Childen this boy's age have no knowledge of sex or sexuality; the concept of a mommy-mommy family, for a 5-year old, is devoid of any sexual meaning. It is not an 'introduction to homosexuality', it is an introduction to a reality that is without negative or (at his age) sexual connotation.

To date, there haven't been any large-sample profiles of the benefits of a heterosexual family over a homosexual family. The 50+ smaller research papers on the subject have been consistantly positive in their assesment of the capabilities of a same-sex marriage to produce a flourishing child.

An excerpt from a reasononline.com article:

Reasononline said:
Opponents of gay parenting, for the most part, have been forced to fall back on the assertion that the jury’s still out. Noting—correctly—that none of the research on children of gay couples made use of the large random samples that generate the most robust results, they claim studies to date provide no basis for supposing that gay parents won’t be inferior. But as New York University sociologist Judith Stacey argues, “they have to stretch pretty far to find that. The studies have been very consistent and very positive.” Stacey concedes that most of them are “small scale” but adds that “there are some 50 studies now, and we don’t see them going the other way. I have yet to see one legitimate refereed publication or scholar come out with a generally negative finding.”

Couple this with the fact that the AAP and the Children's Welfare League endorse same-sex adoption rights, it paints a clear picture that homosexual couples are capable parents. The point I'm trying to make is that there's nothing wrong with acknolwedging their existance in schools, just like there's nothing wrong with acknolwedging heterosexual parent couples in schools. The oft-repeated mantra of 'children need a mother and a father' certainly sounds nice, but lacks any scientific or sociological basis.
 
ScreamingEagle said:
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said "social engineering".

The whole purpose of the liberal/socialistic/communistic agenda in the schools is to engineer a new world order. What better way to engineer this than to begin with the children at the youngest age possible?

If school authorities can take away parental rights by arresting parents who protest their agenda, the liberal/socialistic/communistic social engineers have won the war.

They haven't won the war until they can arrest a parent for speaking about it at home because their child told on them.
 
nakedemperor said:
What a horror story. Childen this boy's age have no knowledge of sex or sexuality; the concept of a mommy-mommy family, for a 5-year old, is devoid of any sexual meaning. It is not an 'introduction to homosexuality', it is an introduction to a reality that is without negative or (at his age) sexual connotation.

To date, there haven't been any large-sample profiles of the benefits of a heterosexual family over a homosexual family. The 50+ smaller research papers on the subject have been consistantly positive in their assesment of the capabilities of a same-sex marriage to produce a flourishing child.

An excerpt from a reasononline.com article:



Couple this with the fact that the AAP and the Children's Welfare League endorse same-sex adoption rights, it paints a clear picture that homosexual couples are capable parents. The point I'm trying to make is that there's nothing wrong with acknolwedging their existance in schools, just like there's nothing wrong with acknolwedging heterosexual parent couples in schools. The oft-repeated mantra of 'children need a mother and a father' certainly sounds nice, but lacks any scientific or sociological basis.

I would like to start by stating, I have 4 children! How many do you have??

I am assuming none! this being said I think the point of the whole conversation here is parental rights. Do you understand that particular concept. I have read a number of your post and you seem to be inteligent.

If a parent has objections to his/her child being taught particular subject matter that is their "RIGHT" it is not ok for the schools to label them a nut job or threaten legal action if they refuse to let their child participate.

I for one do not have a problem with gays, however does my 3-9 yr old need to hear about it from a teacher?? I think not. It is not the teachers place to tell my children about alternative lifestyles. It is their job to teach my children age appropriate material that includes, believe it or not, reading, writing, and arithmetic.

You can blather on and on about how children dont have the social and moral background that they need I personnaly feel that is a load of crap. I would say 90% of the children in my school district come from the "normal" family and almost all are very well adjusted. Of course you are going to have a few "problem" children in every grade, but name one year you were in school that you didn't have a trouble maker. This is getting of topic again so to get back on, I have to say


PARENTAL RIGHTS TAKE PRECEDENT OVER ANYTHING THE SCHOOL IS GOING TO TEACH.


I a partent finds something offensive than it is!!!

If this parent was homosexual and was offended by not being included in the "types" of families do you think they would have arrested him/her??

These are the types of questions that need to be answered why is it only the "middle class Christian parent" is labled a religious nut or intolerant if they object to something and their children can be forced by the state to do something against their wishes?
 
Trigg said:
I am assuming none! this being said I think the point of the whole conversation here is parental rights. Do you understand that particular concept. I have read a number of your post and you seem to be inteligent.

Nakie is in college, or so he says, and no amount of intelligence is worth squat without at least a thimble full of common sense. Nakie is all but void of common sense. He's so far left, and so full of liberalness, he's hard to take seriously some times. Just a heads up on who you're dealing with.

Trigg said:
These are the types of questions that need to be answered why is it only the "middle class Christian parent" is labled a religious nut or intolerant if they object to something and their children can be forced by the state to something against their wishes?

It's the liberal minority imposing their agenda on the majority, and this is what is in the proccess of being stopped. People see it happening, and people are getting tired of it. The way people vote is proof.

If you are the unfortunate soul that's the object of a liberal injustice, or a family member or close friend, help them fight the liberals and their immoral, Christian hating agenda. We can win this fight.
 
Pale Rider said:
Nakie is in college, or so he says, and no amount of intelligence is worth squat without at least a thimble full of common sense. Nakie is all but void of common sense. He's so far left, and so full of liberalness, he's hard to take seriously some times. Just a heads up on who you're dealing with.



It's the liberal minority imposing their agenda on the majority, and this is what is in the proccess of being stopped. People see it happening, and people are getting tired of it. The way people vote is proof.

If you are the unfortunate soul that's the object of a liberal injustice, or a family member or close friend, help them fight the liberals and their immoral, Christian hating agenda. We can win this fight.

Pale, I'm really not that far left if you take the time to evaluate my beliefs. Also, stop saying the left has a Christian hating agenda; it just makes you look ignorant. The majory of Democrats in this country are Christians!

This from a June 2005 Gallup/Zogby poll: " According to CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll data, 82 percent of self-described Republicans are white Christians - but so are 57 percent of Democrats and 67 percent of all Americans."

That is to say, 57% of Democrats are white *and* Christian, therefore *at least* 57% of Democrats are Christians, and probably more along the lines of 70+% considering the high percentage of black and latino Christians.
 
Trigg said:
I am assuming none! this being said I think the point of the whole conversation here is parental rights. Do you understand that particular concept. I have read a number of your post and you seem to be inteligent.

You hit it exactly dead center. N.E. is about as leftist as they come, despite his denials. It IS about parental rights. But leftists can't stand the concept. Despite their braying about being about "choice", the fact is that you only get to choose items from their menu.

Leftists recognize that they cannot win their cause in the public forum because they have consistently and repeatedly failed to convince the majority of their fellow citizens that their views have merit. So after being dealt defeat after defeat at the polls and at the hands of various state legislatures, leftists seek to impose their will and their views through the only avenue remaining to them - the courts and our so-called "schools". Schools which are becoming ever more biased toward secularism.
 
nakedemperor said:
Pale, I'm really not that far left if you take the time to evaluate my beliefs. Also, stop saying the left has a Christian hating agenda; it just makes you look ignorant. The majory of Democrats in this country are Christians!

This from a June 2005 Gallup/Zogby poll: " According to CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll data, 82 percent of self-described Republicans are white Christians - but so are 57 percent of Democrats and 67 percent of all Americans."

That is to say, 57% of Democrats are white *and* Christian, therefore *at least* 57% of Democrats are Christians, and probably more along the lines of 70+% considering the high percentage of black and latino Christians.

Stating facts doesn't make anyone look ignorant nakie. Christianity is a hindrance to liberal ideas of progressive social relations. It must be removed. This is a cardinal tenet of liberalism today, and it is clear why there is no desire among the left to promote the Christian faith, why they defend abortion, homosexuality, pre* and extramarital sex, and almost every other vile crudity that pervades our country: men must be "free," and Christianity is the greatest obstacle to that freedom and does all sorts of evil to prevent people from being "free" In the liberal mind, "freedom" equals "progress," so, Christianity must be eliminated, or at least relegated to a non*influential role in society's affairs.

And yes, you ARE left, FAR left, and liberal to the core.
 
Pale Rider said:
Stating facts doesn't make anyone look ignorant nakie. Christianity is a hindrance to liberal ideas of progressive social relations. It must be removed. This is a cardinal tenet of liberalism today, and it is clear why there is no desire among the left to promote the Christian faith, why they defend abortion, homosexuality, pre* and extramarital sex, and almost every other vile crudity that pervades our country: men must be "free," and Christianity is the greatest obstacle to that freedom and does all sorts of evil to prevent people from being "free" In the liberal mind, "freedom" equals "progress," so, Christianity must be eliminated, or at least relegated to a non*influential role in society's affairs.

And yes, you ARE left, FAR left, and liberal to the core.

christianity's moral and ethical tenants hold one accounatble for their actions and there are those that simply do not want to be held responsible for their actions
 
manu1959 said:
christianity's moral and ethical tenants hold one accounatble for their actions and there are those that simply do not want to be held responsible for their actions

Nonetheless Christianity allows evil people to enter heaven at the last moment in a moment of repentance. It's a pass/fail test. If at the moment of death you are remorseful for your sins, eternal happiness is yours.

I am not a Christian. If this is not accurate please correct me.

In Buddhism by contrast you are truly accountable for your actions, even into the next rebirth and beyond. If you are evil in this lifetime you may repent and try to earn merit for the rest of your life, but this may only be evidenced in the next rebirth and beyond.

Seems to me Buddhism holds people more accountable than Christianity.
 
nucular said:
The schools should get out of the business of behavior (outside of good behavior in the school itself) and into the business of knowledge. Instead of exhausting everybody with these dumb controversies (pledge,homosexuality) they should be teaching these kids how to study. Put the average American kid in a library and they couldn't find what they need if it bit them in the ass. Why not just rid the schools of all controversial social engineering whether it emanates from right or left. End the tug of war and get on with objective facts. No one disputes that 2+2=4 or that Abraham Lincoln was the president during the Civil War, but sadly many children don't even know that much because they are being distracted by feel good crap.

Interesting column regarding "social engineering" in our schools and when it all started.......too much to post here......three different articles....see link.

The Subversion of Education in America: Lesson #1
By Alan Caruba

I’ll bet you think that the problems with our nation’s schools are a fairly recent phenomenon. Wrong. It dates backs to the 1960’s. Those that have implemented the subversion of our educational system have sought to fly well below the radar of public awareness, depending on stealth and duplicity to achieve the wreckage that has already stunted the lives of thousands who have passed through it.

In this and three other commentaries, I will walk you through the history of the problem with the help of an extraordinary book, "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America" by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt. The facts I will share with you are found in a fat compendium of research by this former senior official with the US Department of Education who discovered the mother lode, copied it, and fled. She is one of America’s unsung heroes.

As Iserbyt points out, in the 1960’s "American education would henceforth concern itself with the importance of the group rather than with the importance of the individual." The purpose of education would shift to focus on the student’s emotional health, rather than academic learning. Remember the 1960’s? Sex, drugs and rock’n roll? Drop out, tune in, and turn on? Just about everything that is wrong with America today had its genesis in this pathetic decade of youthful self-indulgence."

In 1965, there were two major federal initiatives developed with funding from The Elementary and Secondary Education Act passed that year. One was the 1965-1969 Behavioral Science Teacher Education Program and the other was the publication by the government of "Pacesetters in Innovation", a 584-page catalogue of behavior modification programs to be used by the schools.

Let me repeat that: a catalogue of behavior modification programs! We’re not talking of programs to teach students anything. We are talking about programs to indoctrinate children passing through the system to believe in values contrary to those on which this nation was based.

In brief, the intention was to create a generation or two of Americans who would accept the United Nations, not the United States, as their new "nation", a global nation, one-world government. The last thing the conspirators wanted was a nation of individuals who could or would actually think for themselves.

The Subversion of Education in America
 
kurtsprincess said:
Interesting column regarding "social engineering" in our schools and when it all started.......too much to post here......three different articles....see link.



The Subversion of Education in America


Great post....what it really comes down to is this..Do parents have the right to decide what morality they wish to teach their children or does the state? I find it so amusing and angering how many leftists scream in terror at the notion of a moment of silence before class because that they say is forced prayer in disguise, yet a five year old must sit and be brainwashed that homosexual couples are the norm and when a father hears of this, tries to do something he is arrested.............. HYPOCRISY!!!!!
 
I'm getting so sick of public schools and their utter bullcrap. If we threw out all this PC, behavioral crap and left values up to the parents, we'd find a country full of geniuses. Did you know that the average 12-year old is capable of grasping the concepts of differential equations? I only recently took that class during my FOURTH year at COLLEGE, 10 years after being 12. Studies also show that the earlier a child learns a forgeign language, the easier they learn it and the more likely they are to achieve fluency. Most Americans are either mono-lingual or learned English as their SECOND language. Most don't even touch foreign languages until high school.

If things keep up like this, my kid will most certainly be home-schooled, and if I can help it, that kid'll be speaking Spanish, French, and Chinese by age 12, and will more than likely learn calculus before he figures out that girls/boys aren't "icky." If the schools would actually get back to their real purpose, every kid would be like this.
 
Pale Rider said:
In the liberal mind, "freedom" equals "progress," so, Christianity must be eliminated, or at least relegated to a non*influential role in society's affairs.

And yes, you ARE left, FAR left, and liberal to the core.

So how do you reconcile the "elimination of Christianity" goal with the fact that more than 70% of Democrats are Christians?

Do you hear the words that are coming out of your mouth? Do you really think Democrats want to "ELIMINATE CHRISTIANITY"? Why do NONE of the conservatives take this guy to task on his inane blather, even if you agree with him that liberal goals aren't compatible with fundamentalist Christianity?

And liberal to the core? Very yes.
 

Forum List

Back
Top