This Is How The GAY Agenda Affects the rest of us!!!

cslaughlin13 said:
Avatar, I'm not necessarily saying that they would need to incorporate it into middle or elementary school, but isf they did, they should be allowed to do so.

Thank God you're not in charge of the schools. You're attitude is one of free polution for the young, impressionable mind.

CLEARLY, this development is the faggots trying to muscle in where they think the going will be easiest. The queers KNOW they can't influence an adult, so they play dirty, as usual, and try and sneek some sick crap in on unsuspecting and totally unknowing adolescent CHILDREN, and to top it off, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ASK THE PERMISSION OF THE PARENTS!

These Goddamned, sons a bitchin' FAGGOTS! Why the hell can't they just live their lives, and not PUSH, PUSH, PUSH their EVIL, SICK, PERVERTED CRAP down the throat of all the NORMAL PEOPLE???!!! Jesus CHRIST it's sickening to read and hear OVER and OVER and OVER again about the cock sucking FAGGOTS and their NEVER ENDING CRUSADE to INDOCRINATE!

If there was EVER a good reason to HOME SCHOOL, it would this type thing. theHawk is right. The liberals realize that their strongest hold, and greatest point of influence is in the schools, and they'll stop at NOTHING to further their GODLESS, SICK, VILE agenda.

OK... I'm otta here... reading this kind of crap boils my blood.
 
believe it or not, pale rider, homosexuals do not sit down all day and plot ways against straight people and their kids. Yes, I see that you don't agree with the idea that there are people in this world that are gay, but its not like we actually plan to overthrow the government or anything. You seem to be quite paranoid if you think that is waht is happening.
There is also another point i would like to bring up:
Let's say that your children were in a sex ed class and they said homosexuality was okay, couldn't you just tell you kids otherwise and that would be the end of it?
 
If schools wanna jump into teaching social behavior they need to start with MANNERS 101 and go on form there. The rest of the crap may be made obsolete.
 
This is ridiculous. Unless a class is supposed to study sexuality in America or the sexual preference of the individual plays a direct role in the historical event, then why are we doing this? Teaching tolerance in a history class is more important than learning history? This is just another example, amongst many others, of how the school systems are being stripped of substance.

While this may be a liberal agenda (it's certainly not mine though), remember that the conservative agenda is doing the same thing with Intelligent Design.

Both are wrong and both need to let fact and reason speak for themselves.
 
cslaughlin13 said:
believe it or not, pale rider, homosexuals do not sit down all day and plot ways against straight people and their kids. Yes, I see that you don't agree with the idea that there are people in this world that are gay, but its not like we actually plan to overthrow the government or anything. You seem to be quite paranoid if you think that is waht is happening.
So you ARE a queer. Well I didn't know that. Did kag the fag drag you over here?


cslaughlin13 said:
There is also another point i would like to bring up:
Let's say that your children were in a sex ed class and they said homosexuality was okay, couldn't you just tell you kids otherwise and that would be the end of it?

No, that would be the BEGINING of it, because homosexuality NOT ok. How about this... if all the kids in every school were told the TRUTH, that homosexuality is a mental illness? See, since YOU, the queers, male or female CAN'T HAVE any kids of your own unless you adopt them, what in the hell gives you the right to tell SOMEONE ELSE'S kids that your sickness is OK?
 
Pale Rider said:
Thank God you're not in charge of the schools. You're attitude is one of free polution for the young, impressionable mind.

CLEARLY, this development is the faggots trying to muscle in where they think the going will be easiest. The queers KNOW they can't influence an adult, so they play dirty, as usual, and try and sneek some sick crap in on unsuspecting and totally unknowing adolescent CHILDREN, and to top it off, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ASK THE PERMISSION OF THE PARENTS!

These Goddamned, sons a bitchin' FAGGOTS! Why the hell can't they just live their lives, and not PUSH, PUSH, PUSH their EVIL, SICK, PERVERTED CRAP down the throat of all the NORMAL PEOPLE???!!! Jesus CHRIST it's sickening to read and hear OVER and OVER and OVER again about the cock sucking FAGGOTS and their NEVER ENDING CRUSADE to INDOCRINATE!

If there was EVER a good reason to HOME SCHOOL, it would this type thing. theHawk is right. The liberals realize that their strongest hold, and greatest point of influence is in the schools, and they'll stop at NOTHING to further their GODLESS, SICK, VILE agenda.

OK... I'm otta here... reading this kind of crap boils my blood.
Whoa...calm down there Mr. Phelps (it's a joke, dont' take that seriously. I said that because Mr. Phelps says "Faggot" with any time he talks about gay people. In fact, it's rather derrogatory)

I agree that we don't need to enforce everything about homosexuals into the curriculum unless it's a topic being covered in whatever class would cover it. I also agree that sex ed should be restricted on its topics (but warnings on anal sex have always been given to us and I feel that it's a smart thing to put up a warning).
 
Avatar4321 said:
But since when does the government have power to dictate what is placed in school textbooks?

Since they pay the bills. This is why school voucher proponents are barking up the wrong tree. As long as government pays, they get to call the tune. The best thing would be for government at all levels to eliminate all funding and regulation of education. Conservatives can teach their kids traditional values; liberals can teach their kids progressive values.
 
Kagom said:
Whoa...calm down there Mr. Phelps (it's a joke, dont' take that seriously. I said that because Mr. Phelps says "Faggot" with any time he talks about gay people. In fact, it's rather derrogatory)

I agree that we don't need to enforce everything about homosexuals into the curriculum unless it's a topic being covered in whatever class would cover it. I also agree that sex ed should be restricted on its topics (but warnings on anal sex have always been given to us and I feel that it's a smart thing to put up a warning).

Faggot is bad? OK... just for you... queer then.

I'll admit, anal sex has been around for years, but even as I was growing up and gathering bits of information here and there about sex, until I finally took Sex Ed in high school, even then, there was no mention of anal sex. I had no idea ANYONE would want something up their ass, man or woman. I think that is a good thing, not bad. In my mind, since the subject was too taboo to even mention in Sex Ed, it had to be bad, and I still think that. Now, all the kids in schools are taught all about it. Don't you think that with all that talk about it, that might be the first thing they'd like to try? It's power of suggestion. Not only that, tell kids it's something they shouldn't do, and that's like waving a red flag in front of a bull.

Just because times change doesn't mean they change for the better.
 
Pale Rider said:
Faggot is bad? OK... just for you... queer then.

I'll admit, anal sex has been around for years, but even as I was growing up and gathering bits of information here and there about sex, until I finally took Sex Ed in high school, even then, there was no mention of anal sex. I had no idea ANYONE would want something up their ass, man or woman. I think that is a good thing, not bad. In my mind, since the subject was too taboo to even mention in Sex Ed, it had to be bad, and I still think that. Now, all the kids in schools are taught all about it. Don't you think that with all that talk about it, that might be the first thing they'd like to try? It's power of suggestion. Not only that, tell kids it's something they shouldn't do, and that's like waving a red flag in front of a bull.

Just because times change doesn't mean they change for the better.
Heh...

Yeah, times have changed. We don't go into detail about it. In fact, we never even talked about vaginal sex. We just mentioned what it is and what could happen from doing it. Sex Ed was more about talking about the sexual organs and all that jazz. As for people wanting to do it: it feels good. I'm sure you didn't want to hear that and for that reason alone I apologize. But it does feel good. The reason has to do with nerve endings and the such. I'll shut up about it now.
 
Kagom said:
Heh...

Yeah, times have changed. We don't go into detail about it. In fact, we never even talked about vaginal sex. We just mentioned what it is and what could happen from doing it. Sex Ed was more about talking about the sexual organs and all that jazz. As for people wanting to do it: it feels good. I'm sure you didn't want to hear that and for that reason alone I apologize. But it does feel good. The reason has to do with nerve endings and the such. I'll shut up about it now.

kag.... I'm sorry bud, but that was really lame.
 
This issue is a bit more complex than it seems on the surface.

On one hand its a good thing to give kids a more diverse, realistic picture of history.

On the other hand I don't think its a good idea to add even more itemization to textbooks. For example: 13.7% of all pictures in 8th grade American History textbooks must be pictures dipicting X in a positive light. IMO this is the same faulty mentality as "teaching to test"... where people are more concerned with meeting arbitray figures than they are with substance. In other words, did the kids actually learn and retain anything usefull?

Below is (IMO) a good write-up of the situation.

A textbook case of failure

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12705167/

At its core, the economic surge in India and China comes down to brains. The industries driving the region’s challenge to American leadership — communications, information technology, biotech and the like — can’t thrive without a steady supply of highly educated, intellectually flexible workers.

This is where the United States is falling behind. “Most U.S. high school students don’t take advanced science; they opt out, with only one-quarter enrolling in physics, one-half in chemistry,” the National Science Foundation found. The National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century concluded that U.S. students were “devastatingly far” from leading the world in science and math.

President Bush’s No Child Left Behind initiative put almost every imaginable part of the U.S. education system under a microscope, establishing national standards for teacher training, student testing and basic funding. But glaring in its omission from the program is any significant examination of that most basic of classroom tools, the textbook.

Scandalously bad textbooks

As younger, inexperienced teachers are thrown into classrooms to meet new federal standards, as much as 90 percent of the burden of instruction rests on textbooks, said Frank Wang, a former textbook publisher who left the field to teach mathematics at the University of Oklahoma.

And yet, few if any textbooks are ever subjected to independent field testing of whether they actually help students learn.

“This is where people miss the boat. They don’t realize how important the textbooks are,” Wang said. “We talk about vouchers and more teachers, but education is about the books. That’s where the content is.”

If America’s textbooks were systematically graded, Wang and other scholars say, they would fail abysmally.

American textbooks are both grotesquely bloated (so much so that some state legislatures are considering mandating lighter books to save students from back injuries) and light as a feather intellectually, flitting briefly over too many topics without examining any of them in detail. Worse, too many of them are pedagogically dishonest, so thoroughly massaged to mollify competing political and identity-group interests as to paint a startlingly misleading picture of America and its history.

Textbooks have become so bland and watered-down that they are “a scandal and an outrage,” the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a nonprofit education think tank in Washington, charged in a scathing report issued a year and a half ago.

“They are sanitized to avoid offending anyone who might complain at textbook adoption hearings in big states, they are poorly written, they are burdened with irrelevant and unedifying content, and they reach for the lowest common denominator,” Diane Ravitch, a senior official in the Education Department during the administrations of Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, wrote in the report’s introduction.

“As a result of all this, they undermine learning instead of building and encouraging it,” she added.

A closed market

The culprit is the system by which many states choose what books their students will read. Because the market is a small one, textbook publishers must cater to the whims of elected school board leaders in the biggest states that buy the most books: Texas and California, which control a third of the national market, the Association of American Publishers estimates.

Few elementary and high school textbook publishers “can afford to spend millions of dollars developing a textbook series and not have it adopted in these high-volume states,” the Fordham Institute said.

So the operating philosophy is one of “superficial compliance with the rules, not a focus on results,” Wang said.

As a result, the politics of the boards adopting the books in Texas and California shape what is, to all intents and purposes, a de facto national curriculum, said Wang, who left Saxon Publishers, where he was president and chairman, in 2001 after he concluded that “this system was really unintentionally hurting the kids.”

Texas and California have both been the focus of campaigns to introduce intelligent design, an alternative explanation of the origin of life that critics dismiss as “creationism lite,” into the curriculum. But from there, the pressures diverge.

In Texas, the Board of Education is dominated by political conservatives who are heavily lobbied by conservative activists, among them the evangelical group Focus on the Family and the husband-and-wife team of Mel and Norma Gabler, whose tireless campaigning for religiously centered teaching materials has made them among the most influential forces in the production of American textbooks.

Texas’ textbooks, which are often adopted by other states that have few alternatives, have included board-ordered passages mandating politically conservative definitions of marriage, abortion and same-sex relationships and instructing students that pregnancies are best prevented by “respecting yourself” and getting “plenty of rest.” They have eliminated any mention of condoms, even though Texas leads the nation in teenage pregnancies.

161 pages of bias guidelines

In California, by contrast, the controlling forces are “social content standards” that insist that the state’s textbooks — even those in math and the sciences — portray ethnic groups, women, the elderly, the disabled and religious groups in precise proportionality to their representation in the population.

Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley, now part of textbook giant Pearson Prentice Hall, developed a 161-page manual titled “Multicultural Guidelines” in 1996 just to navigate the process in California. As summarized in the Fordham Institute report, the manual says company textbooks:

must include illustrations of tall and short people, heavy and thin individuals, people with disabilities, and families headed by two parents, by one parent, by grandparents, by aunts/uncles, and by other adults. When writing about the development of the U.S. Constitution, authors are directed to cite the dubious claim that it was patterned “partially after the League of Five Nations — a union formed by five Iroquois nations.”

Wang vividly remembers an encounter he had with the board that approves California’s textbooks when he showed up to testify for a book by Saxon.

“I was relating how well students did on state standardized tests” using the Saxon program, he said. The chairwoman pounded her gavel to interrupt the testimony to point out that quality wasn’t part of the discussion, he recalled.

According to a transcript of the meeting, which took place in 2001, the chairwoman said: “Effectiveness, while certainly something that we all look at as consumers, [is] not a criteria [here] and I think it is important that we keep that in mind. Test scores [are not] part of the criteria.”

“She was only considering whether the books had met the criteria,” not whether they actually worked, Wang said.

Wang, Ravitch and others have what they call a radical proposal: do away with the approval process altogether and let teachers and local school officials choose their own books.

“The system is resistant to the entrepreneurial spirit,” Wang said. “There isn’t a mechanism for encouraging innovation in education because of systems like this adoption process.”
 
BaronVonBigmeat said:
Since they pay the bills. This is why school voucher proponents are barking up the wrong tree. As long as government pays, they get to call the tune. The best thing would be for government at all levels to eliminate all funding and regulation of education. Conservatives can teach their kids traditional values; liberals can teach their kids progressive values.

I believe they already have that, its called home schooling.
 
BaronVonBigmeat said:
Since they pay the bills. This is why school voucher proponents are barking up the wrong tree. As long as government pays, they get to call the tune. The best thing would be for government at all levels to eliminate all funding and regulation of education. Conservatives can teach their kids traditional values; liberals can teach their kids progressive values.

What are "Progressive" values ?
 
I have but one, simple question .....

Are heterosexuals identified by gender preference when beign recognized for theri accomplisments?

"That great heterosexual General, Gerorge Washington, who slipped across the Deleware river...."

It's just a bunch of BS, and nothing more.
 
I just have to add:

I coincidentally just saw a promo on the History Channel for a show tonight titled, "Washington, the Warrior."

Shouldn't that be: "Washington, the Woman-loving, Heterosexual Warrior?"
 
GunnyL said:
I have but one, simple question .....

Are heterosexuals identified by gender preference when beign recognized for theri accomplisments?

"That great heterosexual General, Gerorge Washington, who slipped across the Deleware river...."

It's just a bunch of BS, and nothing more.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GunnyL again.

I gotta agree 100% with you here how can they single out one group for recognition??
 
GunnyL said:
I have but one, simple question .....

Are heterosexuals identified by gender preference when beign recognized for theri accomplisments?

"That great heterosexual General, Gerorge Washington, who slipped across the Deleware river...."

It's just a bunch of BS, and nothing more.

:laugh:

Great point, Gunny. Wish I could rep you again.
 

Forum List

Back
Top