Lesbian Teacher: How I convince kids to accept "gay marriage" starting at 4

[Slade3200]

Why would a child choose to make a friend of a child that lives with perverts? Surely the kid would be taught to be discerning when making friends.

Since I obviously have no clue how your warped mind works let me ask you this... Do you think it is the childs fault for having gay parents? Do you think this child should be punished and deserving of having no friends in school?

She already said she would. She said she wouldn't let her children play with the children of "those perverts" is what she said so yes, she would punish the child for the "sins" of the parents.

It's not a punishment. There is no right to friendship from any individual.

The words "I am not your friend " is not a punishment.

Whats wrong with you? I'll try and slow down and make it real simple so you can understand... You say it's not punishment to promote a culture where a child of gay parents is shunned in school? You think it is ok for these children to be labeled as damaged and different. If all parents adapted your point of view what kind of environment does that foster for children of gay's and for children who realize they are gay at a young age?

Imagine it is your child or grandchild that realizes they are gay when they turn 7... The fact that you are promoting the isolation and discrimination of grade school children shows how out of touch you are... The fact you would promote the labeling of these children as perverts, is just plain wrong... Usually I say, "to each their own" however, I fear for any children that are taught the garbage "values" you've been touting... I'm glad your job as a parent is finished and I can only hope that your offspring are strong minded and have evolved so that they don't pass your hatefulness on to future generations.

If there is a child of Gay parents in school that is being shunned because of their parents, it is entirely the fault of those parents. There are no accidental pregnancies in same sex families. Maybe the selfish gays should think before they subject children to such treatment. Children aren't gay when they turn 7. If a 7 year old wants sex, it's because they were groomed to accept it.

Being LGBT isn't about sex... Shows how truly ignorant you are. And you are still making a case that since it's the parents fault the kids should suffer. You aren't gonna win this one so just swallow your pride and accept that you are wrong.

 

[Katzndogz]

Since I obviously have no clue how your warped mind works let me ask you this... Do you think it is the childs fault for having gay parents? Do you think this child should be punished and deserving of having no friends in school?

She already said she would. She said she wouldn't let her children play with the children of "those perverts" is what she said so yes, she would punish the child for the "sins" of the parents.

It's not a punishment. There is no right to friendship from any individual.

The words "I am not your friend " is not a punishment.

Whats wrong with you? I'll try and slow down and make it real simple so you can understand... You say it's not punishment to promote a culture where a child of gay parents is shunned in school? You think it is ok for these children to be labeled as damaged and different. If all parents adapted your point of view what kind of environment does that foster for children of gay's and for children who realize they are gay at a young age?

Imagine it is your child or grandchild that realizes they are gay when they turn 7... The fact that you are promoting the isolation and discrimination of grade school children shows how out of touch you are... The fact you would promote the labeling of these children as perverts, is just plain wrong... Usually I say, "to each their own" however, I fear for any children that are taught the garbage "values" you've been touting... I'm glad your job as a parent is finished and I can only hope that your offspring are strong minded and have evolved so that they don't pass your hatefulness on to future generations.

If there is a child of Gay parents in school that is being shunned because of their parents, it is entirely the fault of those parents. There are no accidental pregnancies in same sex families. Maybe the selfish gays should think before they subject children to such treatment. Children aren't gay when they turn 7. If a 7 year old wants sex, it's because they were groomed to accept it.

Being LGBT isn't about sex... Shows how truly ignorant you are. And you are still making a case that since it's the parents fault the kids should suffer. You aren't gonna win this one so just swallow your pride and accept that you are wrong.

I have already won, Normal parents are starting to stop putting up with this slop. And, it's LGBTQIF now. The insanity spreads like a virus.

 

[koshergrl]

Since I obviously have no clue how your warped mind works let me ask you this... Do you think it is the childs fault for having gay parents? Do you think this child should be punished and deserving of having no friends in school?

She already said she would. She said she wouldn't let her children play with the children of "those perverts" is what she said so yes, she would punish the child for the "sins" of the parents.

It's not a punishment. There is no right to friendship from any individual.

The words "I am not your friend " is not a punishment.

Whats wrong with you? I'll try and slow down and make it real simple so you can understand... You say it's not punishment to promote a culture where a child of gay parents is shunned in school? You think it is ok for these children to be labeled as damaged and different. If all parents adapted your point of view what kind of environment does that foster for children of gay's and for children who realize they are gay at a young age?

Imagine it is your child or grandchild that realizes they are gay when they turn 7... The fact that you are promoting the isolation and discrimination of grade school children shows how out of touch you are... The fact you would promote the labeling of these children as perverts, is just plain wrong... Usually I say, "to each their own" however, I fear for any children that are taught the garbage "values" you've been touting... I'm glad your job as a parent is finished and I can only hope that your offspring are strong minded and have evolved so that they don't pass your hatefulness on to future generations.

If there is a child of Gay parents in school that is being shunned because of their parents, it is entirely the fault of those parents. There are no accidental pregnancies in same sex families. Maybe the selfish gays should think before they subject children to such treatment. Children aren't gay when they turn 7. If a 7 year old wants sex, it's because they were groomed to accept it.

Being LGBT isn't about sex... Shows how truly ignorant you are. And you are still making a case that since it's the parents fault the kids should suffer. You aren't gonna win this one so just swallow your pride and accept that you are wrong.

It is about sex. It's also about mental illness.

This isn't about pride, it's about protecting children from monsters.

 

[Slade3200]

She already said she would. She said she wouldn't let her children play with the children of "those perverts" is what she said so yes, she would punish the child for the "sins" of the parents.

It's not a punishment. There is no right to friendship from any individual.

The words "I am not your friend " is not a punishment.

Whats wrong with you? I'll try and slow down and make it real simple so you can understand... You say it's not punishment to promote a culture where a child of gay parents is shunned in school? You think it is ok for these children to be labeled as damaged and different. If all parents adapted your point of view what kind of environment does that foster for children of gay's and for children who realize they are gay at a young age?

Imagine it is your child or grandchild that realizes they are gay when they turn 7... The fact that you are promoting the isolation and discrimination of grade school children shows how out of touch you are... The fact you would promote the labeling of these children as perverts, is just plain wrong... Usually I say, "to each their own" however, I fear for any children that are taught the garbage "values" you've been touting... I'm glad your job as a parent is finished and I can only hope that your offspring are strong minded and have evolved so that they don't pass your hatefulness on to future generations.

If there is a child of Gay parents in school that is being shunned because of their parents, it is entirely the fault of those parents. There are no accidental pregnancies in same sex families. Maybe the selfish gays should think before they subject children to such treatment. Children aren't gay when they turn 7. If a 7 year old wants sex, it's because they were groomed to accept it.

Being LGBT isn't about sex... Shows how truly ignorant you are. And you are still making a case that since it's the parents fault the kids should suffer. You aren't gonna win this one so just swallow your pride and accept that you are wrong.

I have already won, Normal parents are starting to stop putting up with this slop. And, it's LGBTQIF now. The insanity spreads like a virus.

Keep telling yourself that... No matter how much you say the words, it doesn't make it true. The OP is one proof that you are the opposite of correct.

 

[Slade3200]

She already said she would. She said she wouldn't let her children play with the children of "those perverts" is what she said so yes, she would punish the child for the "sins" of the parents.

It's not a punishment. There is no right to friendship from any individual.

The words "I am not your friend " is not a punishment.

Whats wrong with you? I'll try and slow down and make it real simple so you can understand... You say it's not punishment to promote a culture where a child of gay parents is shunned in school? You think it is ok for these children to be labeled as damaged and different. If all parents adapted your point of view what kind of environment does that foster for children of gay's and for children who realize they are gay at a young age?

Imagine it is your child or grandchild that realizes they are gay when they turn 7... The fact that you are promoting the isolation and discrimination of grade school children shows how out of touch you are... The fact you would promote the labeling of these children as perverts, is just plain wrong... Usually I say, "to each their own" however, I fear for any children that are taught the garbage "values" you've been touting... I'm glad your job as a parent is finished and I can only hope that your offspring are strong minded and have evolved so that they don't pass your hatefulness on to future generations.

If there is a child of Gay parents in school that is being shunned because of their parents, it is entirely the fault of those parents. There are no accidental pregnancies in same sex families. Maybe the selfish gays should think before they subject children to such treatment. Children aren't gay when they turn 7. If a 7 year old wants sex, it's because they were groomed to accept it.

Being LGBT isn't about sex... Shows how truly ignorant you are. And you are still making a case that since it's the parents fault the kids should suffer. You aren't gonna win this one so just swallow your pride and accept that you are wrong.

It is about sex. It's also about mental illness.

This isn't about pride, it's about protecting children from monsters.

For you it is about sex, which makes YOU the pervert, and YOU are the one with the mental illness calling perfectly normal people monsters... go get checked out.

 

[Katzndogz]

It's not a punishment. There is no right to friendship from any individual.

The words "I am not your friend " is not a punishment.

Whats wrong with you? I'll try and slow down and make it real simple so you can understand... You say it's not punishment to promote a culture where a child of gay parents is shunned in school? You think it is ok for these children to be labeled as damaged and different. If all parents adapted your point of view what kind of environment does that foster for children of gay's and for children who realize they are gay at a young age?

Imagine it is your child or grandchild that realizes they are gay when they turn 7... The fact that you are promoting the isolation and discrimination of grade school children shows how out of touch you are... The fact you would promote the labeling of these children as perverts, is just plain wrong... Usually I say, "to each their own" however, I fear for any children that are taught the garbage "values" you've been touting... I'm glad your job as a parent is finished and I can only hope that your offspring are strong minded and have evolved so that they don't pass your hatefulness on to future generations.

If there is a child of Gay parents in school that is being shunned because of their parents, it is entirely the fault of those parents. There are no accidental pregnancies in same sex families. Maybe the selfish gays should think before they subject children to such treatment. Children aren't gay when they turn 7. If a 7 year old wants sex, it's because they were groomed to accept it.

Being LGBT isn't about sex... Shows how truly ignorant you are. And you are still making a case that since it's the parents fault the kids should suffer. You aren't gonna win this one so just swallow your pride and accept that you are wrong.

I have already won, Normal parents are starting to stop putting up with this slop. And, it's LGBTQIF now. The insanity spreads like a virus.

Keep telling yourself that... No matter how much you say the words, it doesn't make it true. The OP is one proof that you are the opposite of correct.

The op is about the ability to groom children into accepting sex from a homosexual and twisting those children into thinking it's normal behavior.

 

[Vandalshandle]

 

[Tom Horn]

Seems preferable to your teachers, who apparently taught hatred, intolerance and bigotry. Or was that your parents who instilled those American Christian values in you?
May God help your kids to reject your teachings.

Christians are hateful, intolerant bigots? I'm wondering who would hire somebody like you to do anything...mow a lawn, unload a truck, sell women's shoes...anything.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Are other teachers free then to 'teach' whatever topics they want?

Should Billy Bob teach the finer points of handguns, hunting and survivalism?

Should a Catholic teacher teach that abortion is killing babies?

Want to make it part of the curriculum, that's one thing, but allowing any teacher to just decide they can/should/will 'teach' whatever they want because of their personal belief system, whatever it is, is a slippery slope indeed.

Apples and Oranges... Try using realistic comparisons next time. We are talking about children being exposed to what other children are either living with at home (with LBGT) parents, or what some may be going through in a few years. Children shouldn't be seeing this stuff and scratching their head, vomiting in their mouths, and then bullying the "different" kids in school. Explaining that people have families with two moms or dads is not politicizing an issue like your guns and abortion examples, its a real life situation that children face in school.

\

boloney. this is a politically charged subject as well, like it or not.

and my main point, again, is that this is not something any single teacher should be deciding.

just because you may agree with her position doesn't mean that what she did, in the context of just deciding on her own to forward an agenda within a public school, is correct, or should be tolerated.

for the umpteenth time in this thread. this would be fine if taken through proper channels and implemented as part of approved curriculum. without that approval she has no right to do this.

It doesn't have to be part of a curriculum to be discussed in school... My girl is a school counselor and deals with the social and emotional health of students from K-8. So many situations come up that are situational whether it be helping kids understand divorce, a new student that is muslim, a student that has gay parents, eating disorders or a teacher that happens to be gay. These are all things that are real and part of these kids lives while they are in school. There is nothing wrong with having talks with children about the things they are faced with that they may not understand. I feel sorry for the kid that makes a friend that has gay parents and when they go home are told that their new friend is living with pervert homo's, it is just plain wrong... All you bigots on this thread that are posting these disgusting prejudicial comments, you should be ashamed of yourselves... Yall are the problem.

There's a difference between a discussion and a concerted, planned program.

Nice ad hominem with the bigot label also. You may feel free to go **** yourself. I have not advocated bigotry. Period. Common sense adherence to some protocol for introduction of a program like this isn't bigotry and if you think it is it is only because you know you're wrong and can do no better than reaching for your label card.

"Bigot" is their go to response to everything. Still not sure how not believing in homosexual marriage makes one a bigot.

 

[Fueri]

Are other teachers free then to 'teach' whatever topics they want?

Should Billy Bob teach the finer points of handguns, hunting and survivalism?

Should a Catholic teacher teach that abortion is killing babies?

Want to make it part of the curriculum, that's one thing, but allowing any teacher to just decide they can/should/will 'teach' whatever they want because of their personal belief system, whatever it is, is a slippery slope indeed.

Apples and Oranges... Try using realistic comparisons next time. We are talking about children being exposed to what other children are either living with at home (with LBGT) parents, or what some may be going through in a few years. Children shouldn't be seeing this stuff and scratching their head, vomiting in their mouths, and then bullying the "different" kids in school. Explaining that people have families with two moms or dads is not politicizing an issue like your guns and abortion examples, its a real life situation that children face in school.

\

boloney. this is a politically charged subject as well, like it or not.

and my main point, again, is that this is not something any single teacher should be deciding.

just because you may agree with her position doesn't mean that what she did, in the context of just deciding on her own to forward an agenda within a public school, is correct, or should be tolerated.

for the umpteenth time in this thread. this would be fine if taken through proper channels and implemented as part of approved curriculum. without that approval she has no right to do this.

It doesn't have to be part of a curriculum to be discussed in school... My girl is a school counselor and deals with the social and emotional health of students from K-8. So many situations come up that are situational whether it be helping kids understand divorce, a new student that is muslim, a student that has gay parents, eating disorders or a teacher that happens to be gay. These are all things that are real and part of these kids lives while they are in school. There is nothing wrong with having talks with children about the things they are faced with that they may not understand. I feel sorry for the kid that makes a friend that has gay parents and when they go home are told that their new friend is living with pervert homo's, it is just plain wrong... All you bigots on this thread that are posting these disgusting prejudicial comments, you should be ashamed of yourselves... Yall are the problem.

There's a difference between a discussion and a concerted, planned program.

Nice ad hominem with the bigot label also. You may feel free to go **** yourself. I have not advocated bigotry. Period. Common sense adherence to some protocol for introduction of a program like this isn't bigotry and if you think it is it is only because you know you're wrong and can do no better than reaching for your label card.

"Bigot" is their go to response to everything. Still not sure how not believing in homosexual marriage makes one a bigot.

yeah, bigot is a label, as is racist, hater etc., etc., which are buzzwords/cards too often pulled out and misapplied to silence any opposition as part of shaming language, which has become an all too common tactic. IMO, the idea in general is to deflect from the actual points being discussed, put the target immediately on the defensive and in such a position as they must now prove the negative and argue their way out of a hole they often had no hand in digging.

As they say in politics if you're explaining you're losing, so it's clever, but a lot of the time it's nonsense and a rather naked tactic.

to his credit the poster to which I was responding retracted that statement after reconsidering my actual statements, which was and is appreciated, and is about as rare as hen's teeth on this forum, so I can't put him in the 'them' category, which I think would be a misapplication as well in this case.

 

[koshergrl]

It's not a punishment. There is no right to friendship from any individual.

The words "I am not your friend " is not a punishment.

Whats wrong with you? I'll try and slow down and make it real simple so you can understand... You say it's not punishment to promote a culture where a child of gay parents is shunned in school? You think it is ok for these children to be labeled as damaged and different. If all parents adapted your point of view what kind of environment does that foster for children of gay's and for children who realize they are gay at a young age?

Imagine it is your child or grandchild that realizes they are gay when they turn 7... The fact that you are promoting the isolation and discrimination of grade school children shows how out of touch you are... The fact you would promote the labeling of these children as perverts, is just plain wrong... Usually I say, "to each their own" however, I fear for any children that are taught the garbage "values" you've been touting... I'm glad your job as a parent is finished and I can only hope that your offspring are strong minded and have evolved so that they don't pass your hatefulness on to future generations.

If there is a child of Gay parents in school that is being shunned because of their parents, it is entirely the fault of those parents. There are no accidental pregnancies in same sex families. Maybe the selfish gays should think before they subject children to such treatment. Children aren't gay when they turn 7. If a 7 year old wants sex, it's because they were groomed to accept it.

Being LGBT isn't about sex... Shows how truly ignorant you are. And you are still making a case that since it's the parents fault the kids should suffer. You aren't gonna win this one so just swallow your pride and accept that you are wrong.

It is about sex. It's also about mental illness.

This isn't about pride, it's about protecting children from monsters.

For you it is about sex, which makes YOU the pervert, and YOU are the one with the mental illness calling perfectly normal people monsters... go get checked out.

We know who the perverts are here, even though you did get a pervert to make a fake study to prove otherwise.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The point being made was that a teacher shouldn't be the one deciding the course of action.

Then you made the point that it should be up to the school and parents to decide. I said it should be up to the country as a whole to decide.

All of a sudden talking about who should be in charge of making such decisions has gone from the topic to not the topic all because you decided it was so.

Surely talking about whether teachers should tell kids about gay people or not is what this discussion is about, and talking about who should decide what is taught in schools is part of this discussion.

But, by all means, destroy the issues that are part of this topic so you don't need to deal with them.

So how does the country as a whole decide?

I've tried actually to rationally discuss this with you, but it seems you'd like to ride a unicorn over yon rainbow to chase what should be instead of talking about this rationally in terms of what is practicable.

The nation should decide? fine, then tell this teacher to stfu until it does.

Well, I actually said this.

Either through politicians making the decision. You know, we elect them do make such decisions.
Or by having people take a vote in a referendum.
Or by following the Constitution and saying that all people should be treated equally, and they can do what they like as long as they don't hurt people, and teaching this sort of thing. You know the people have legitimized the Constitution for a long time now.

As for your unicorn comments, well.....

You seem to think rational arguments are me agreeing with you. Er... doesn't work like that.

At present primary school teachers have a lot of leeway in what they can teach.

Should a teacher only teach things they've been specifically authorized to teach?

So if a kid can't do his shoelaces up, but the teacher hasn't been authorized to teach them that, then they have to tell the kid they can't teach it to them?

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

Why shouldn't a teacher tell kids about their own family?

No a rational argument would be something realistic, practicable I think is the word I used, not necessarily agreeing with me, but certainly not waxing on about reforming how the entire country decides on policy directions to then inform teachers of what they should teach.

That is a trip on a unicorn if there ever was one..

Well what you think is realistic and what I think is realistic might be two different things based upon experience.

You say the national govt deciding what kids learn isn't realistic, why not? It happens in a lot of countries. As it happens it's therefore realistic.

You think it's a trip on a unicorn, I know it exists. Do you see the problem here?

Now it's the government. Before it was the country as a whole.

To some people there's a big difference between those two things.

Words: mean stuff.

You're either adapting your argument to eschew your unicorn or simply unclear. Maybe I missed that someplace, I dunno. If so I apologize

In either/any case I have been, without question, advocating for the use of the systems in place, such as the schoolboard, which is typically the people elected for these purposes (aka the government), since minute 1.

Thanks for finally seeing the light.

I gave choices, and one of those choices was the govt, seeing as they are supposed to represent the people. The fact that they don't says a lot about the people and their voting.

So, you've been advocating that this is done by the school board, and if anyone says anything other than what you think you start talking about unicorns. I'm not really interested in your unicorns to be honest. And if you're just going to dismiss things I say in such a manner, I won't bother with you.

 

[Fueri]

So how does the country as a whole decide?

I've tried actually to rationally discuss this with you, but it seems you'd like to ride a unicorn over yon rainbow to chase what should be instead of talking about this rationally in terms of what is practicable.

The nation should decide? fine, then tell this teacher to stfu until it does.

Well, I actually said this.

Either through politicians making the decision. You know, we elect them do make such decisions.
Or by having people take a vote in a referendum.
Or by following the Constitution and saying that all people should be treated equally, and they can do what they like as long as they don't hurt people, and teaching this sort of thing. You know the people have legitimized the Constitution for a long time now.

As for your unicorn comments, well.....

You seem to think rational arguments are me agreeing with you. Er... doesn't work like that.

At present primary school teachers have a lot of leeway in what they can teach.

Should a teacher only teach things they've been specifically authorized to teach?

So if a kid can't do his shoelaces up, but the teacher hasn't been authorized to teach them that, then they have to tell the kid they can't teach it to them?

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

Why shouldn't a teacher tell kids about their own family?

No a rational argument would be something realistic, practicable I think is the word I used, not necessarily agreeing with me, but certainly not waxing on about reforming how the entire country decides on policy directions to then inform teachers of what they should teach.

That is a trip on a unicorn if there ever was one..

Well what you think is realistic and what I think is realistic might be two different things based upon experience.

You say the national govt deciding what kids learn isn't realistic, why not? It happens in a lot of countries. As it happens it's therefore realistic.

You think it's a trip on a unicorn, I know it exists. Do you see the problem here?

Now it's the government. Before it was the country as a whole.

To some people there's a big difference between those two things.

Words: mean stuff.

You're either adapting your argument to eschew your unicorn or simply unclear. Maybe I missed that someplace, I dunno. If so I apologize

In either/any case I have been, without question, advocating for the use of the systems in place, such as the schoolboard, which is typically the people elected for these purposes (aka the government), since minute 1.

Thanks for finally seeing the light.

I gave choices, and one of those choices was the govt, seeing as they are supposed to represent the people. The fact that they don't says a lot about the people and their voting.

So, you've been advocating that this is done by the school board, and if anyone says anything other than what you think you start talking about unicorns. I'm not really interested in your unicorns to be honest. And if you're just going to dismiss things I say in such a manner, I won't bother with you.

good grief.

When I wasn't clear on what you were saying at one point, I shelved my point so you could make yours, asking what methodology you were talking about to come to conclusions about would or would not be taught, so I was not at all simply dismissing everything you had to say.

I don't think anything other than the schoolboard is a unicorn worthy argument. Do I think some esoteric hypothetical groupthink mindset by the "country as a whole", which is what I thought you were talking about, without any basis for how to implement such a system, is a unicorn flight? yep.

Do I think some nebulous "let the government decide" is a unicorn flight? That's a maybe, but maybe not if a methodology was explained whereby that could actually happen and maybe what made that new methodology superior to the one currently in place. "Other countries do it" isn't such a rationale.

Not addressing the salient point of: how?, therefore, to me, seemed like unicorn country, as anyone can therefore posit anything, which I suppose they can, but the other party then is free to challenge it as baseless. Is that justified? Maybe, maybe not, but I've at least explained why I think it is in this case beyond 'I think so' or 'joe bob also thinks so'

It's quite ok, if you'd rather not bother with me. I have a feeling we're into 'beating a dead unicorn' country anyhow. lol.

 

[Dhara]

Are other teachers free then to 'teach' whatever topics they want?

Should Billy Bob teach the finer points of handguns, hunting and survivalism?

Should a Catholic teacher teach that abortion is killing babies?

Want to make it part of the curriculum, that's one thing, but allowing any teacher to just decide they can/should/will 'teach' whatever they want because of their personal belief system, whatever it is, is a slippery slope indeed.

Apples and Oranges... Try using realistic comparisons next time. We are talking about children being exposed to what other children are either living with at home (with LBGT) parents, or what some may be going through in a few years. Children shouldn't be seeing this stuff and scratching their head, vomiting in their mouths, and then bullying the "different" kids in school. Explaining that people have families with two moms or dads is not politicizing an issue like your guns and abortion examples, its a real life situation that children face in school.

\

boloney. this is a politically charged subject as well, like it or not.

and my main point, again, is that this is not something any single teacher should be deciding.

just because you may agree with her position doesn't mean that what she did, in the context of just deciding on her own to forward an agenda within a public school, is correct, or should be tolerated.

for the umpteenth time in this thread. this would be fine if taken through proper channels and implemented as part of approved curriculum. without that approval she has no right to do this.

It doesn't have to be part of a curriculum to be discussed in school... My girl is a school counselor and deals with the social and emotional health of students from K-8. So many situations come up that are situational whether it be helping kids understand divorce, a new student that is muslim, a student that has gay parents, eating disorders or a teacher that happens to be gay. These are all things that are real and part of these kids lives while they are in school. There is nothing wrong with having talks with children about the things they are faced with that they may not understand. I feel sorry for the kid that makes a friend that has gay parents and when they go home are told that their new friend is living with pervert homo's, it is just plain wrong... All you bigots on this thread that are posting these disgusting prejudicial comments, you should be ashamed of yourselves... Yall are the problem.

There's a difference between a discussion and a concerted, planned program.

Nice ad hominem with the bigot label also. You may feel free to go **** yourself. I have not advocated bigotry. Period. Common sense adherence to some protocol for introduction of a program like this isn't bigotry and if you think it is it is only because you know you're wrong and can do no better than reaching for your label card.

"Bigot" is their go to response to everything. Still not sure how not believing in homosexual marriage makes one a bigot.

You think LGBT aren't citizens worthy of a right to marry, same as het citizens and you don't see how that constitutes bigotry?

You want to limit an entire groups freedom to marry because you don't like them.

Alternatives to "not believing" in marriage equality include don't marry someone of the same sex and don't limit same sex couples from civil marriages.

 

[Katzndogz]

Apples and Oranges... Try using realistic comparisons next time. We are talking about children being exposed to what other children are either living with at home (with LBGT) parents, or what some may be going through in a few years. Children shouldn't be seeing this stuff and scratching their head, vomiting in their mouths, and then bullying the "different" kids in school. Explaining that people have families with two moms or dads is not politicizing an issue like your guns and abortion examples, its a real life situation that children face in school.

\

boloney. this is a politically charged subject as well, like it or not.

and my main point, again, is that this is not something any single teacher should be deciding.

just because you may agree with her position doesn't mean that what she did, in the context of just deciding on her own to forward an agenda within a public school, is correct, or should be tolerated.

for the umpteenth time in this thread. this would be fine if taken through proper channels and implemented as part of approved curriculum. without that approval she has no right to do this.

It doesn't have to be part of a curriculum to be discussed in school... My girl is a school counselor and deals with the social and emotional health of students from K-8. So many situations come up that are situational whether it be helping kids understand divorce, a new student that is muslim, a student that has gay parents, eating disorders or a teacher that happens to be gay. These are all things that are real and part of these kids lives while they are in school. There is nothing wrong with having talks with children about the things they are faced with that they may not understand. I feel sorry for the kid that makes a friend that has gay parents and when they go home are told that their new friend is living with pervert homo's, it is just plain wrong... All you bigots on this thread that are posting these disgusting prejudicial comments, you should be ashamed of yourselves... Yall are the problem.

There's a difference between a discussion and a concerted, planned program.

Nice ad hominem with the bigot label also. You may feel free to go **** yourself. I have not advocated bigotry. Period. Common sense adherence to some protocol for introduction of a program like this isn't bigotry and if you think it is it is only because you know you're wrong and can do no better than reaching for your label card.

"Bigot" is their go to response to everything. Still not sure how not believing in homosexual marriage makes one a bigot.

You think LGBT aren't citizens worthy of a right to marry, same as het citizens and you don't see how that constitutes bigotry?

You want to limit an entire groups freedom to marry because you don't like them.

Alternatives to "not believing" in marriage equality include don't marry someone of the same sex and don't limit same sex couples from civil marriages.

No one was saying gays should not marry. Gays should not be permitted to groom children to accept homosexual acts committed on their person as normal.

 

[Dhara]

\

boloney. this is a politically charged subject as well, like it or not.

and my main point, again, is that this is not something any single teacher should be deciding.

just because you may agree with her position doesn't mean that what she did, in the context of just deciding on her own to forward an agenda within a public school, is correct, or should be tolerated.

for the umpteenth time in this thread. this would be fine if taken through proper channels and implemented as part of approved curriculum. without that approval she has no right to do this.

It doesn't have to be part of a curriculum to be discussed in school... My girl is a school counselor and deals with the social and emotional health of students from K-8. So many situations come up that are situational whether it be helping kids understand divorce, a new student that is muslim, a student that has gay parents, eating disorders or a teacher that happens to be gay. These are all things that are real and part of these kids lives while they are in school. There is nothing wrong with having talks with children about the things they are faced with that they may not understand. I feel sorry for the kid that makes a friend that has gay parents and when they go home are told that their new friend is living with pervert homo's, it is just plain wrong... All you bigots on this thread that are posting these disgusting prejudicial comments, you should be ashamed of yourselves... Yall are the problem.

There's a difference between a discussion and a concerted, planned program.

Nice ad hominem with the bigot label also. You may feel free to go **** yourself. I have not advocated bigotry. Period. Common sense adherence to some protocol for introduction of a program like this isn't bigotry and if you think it is it is only because you know you're wrong and can do no better than reaching for your label card.

"Bigot" is their go to response to everything. Still not sure how not believing in homosexual marriage makes one a bigot.

You think LGBT aren't citizens worthy of a right to marry, same as het citizens and you don't see how that constitutes bigotry?

You want to limit an entire groups freedom to marry because you don't like them.

Alternatives to "not believing" in marriage equality include don't marry someone of the same sex and don't limit same sex couples from civil marriages.

No one was saying gays should not marry. Gays should not be permitted to groom children to accept homosexual acts committed on their person as normal.

Well, in my lifetime, as a lesbian, I have never groomed a child to be gay or known another LGBT to do so.

Whether you like it or not some famiies are two moms or two dads.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, I actually said this.

Either through politicians making the decision. You know, we elect them do make such decisions.
Or by having people take a vote in a referendum.
Or by following the Constitution and saying that all people should be treated equally, and they can do what they like as long as they don't hurt people, and teaching this sort of thing. You know the people have legitimized the Constitution for a long time now.

As for your unicorn comments, well.....

You seem to think rational arguments are me agreeing with you. Er... doesn't work like that.

At present primary school teachers have a lot of leeway in what they can teach.

Should a teacher only teach things they've been specifically authorized to teach?

So if a kid can't do his shoelaces up, but the teacher hasn't been authorized to teach them that, then they have to tell the kid they can't teach it to them?

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

Why shouldn't a teacher tell kids about their own family?

No a rational argument would be something realistic, practicable I think is the word I used, not necessarily agreeing with me, but certainly not waxing on about reforming how the entire country decides on policy directions to then inform teachers of what they should teach.

That is a trip on a unicorn if there ever was one..

Well what you think is realistic and what I think is realistic might be two different things based upon experience.

You say the national govt deciding what kids learn isn't realistic, why not? It happens in a lot of countries. As it happens it's therefore realistic.

You think it's a trip on a unicorn, I know it exists. Do you see the problem here?

Now it's the government. Before it was the country as a whole.

To some people there's a big difference between those two things.

Words: mean stuff.

You're either adapting your argument to eschew your unicorn or simply unclear. Maybe I missed that someplace, I dunno. If so I apologize

In either/any case I have been, without question, advocating for the use of the systems in place, such as the schoolboard, which is typically the people elected for these purposes (aka the government), since minute 1.

Thanks for finally seeing the light.

I gave choices, and one of those choices was the govt, seeing as they are supposed to represent the people. The fact that they don't says a lot about the people and their voting.

So, you've been advocating that this is done by the school board, and if anyone says anything other than what you think you start talking about unicorns. I'm not really interested in your unicorns to be honest. And if you're just going to dismiss things I say in such a manner, I won't bother with you.

good grief.

When I wasn't clear on what you were saying at one point, I shelved my point so you could make yours, asking what methodology you were talking about to come to conclusions about would or would not be taught, so I was not at all simply dismissing everything you had to say.

I don't think anything other than the schoolboard is a unicorn worthy argument. Do I think some esoteric hypothetical groupthink mindset by the "country as a whole", which is what I thought you were talking about, without any basis for how to implement such a system, is a unicorn flight? yep.

Do I think some nebulous "let the government decide" is a unicorn flight? That's a maybe, but maybe not if a methodology was explained whereby that could actually happen and maybe what made that new methodology superior to the one currently in place. "Other countries do it" isn't such a rationale.

Not addressing the salient point of: how?, therefore, to me, seemed like unicorn country, as anyone can therefore posit anything, which I suppose they can, but the other party then is free to challenge it as baseless. Is that justified? Maybe, maybe not, but I've at least explained why I think it is in this case beyond 'I think so' or 'joe bob also thinks so'

It's quite ok, if you'd rather not bother with me. I have a feeling we're into 'beating a dead unicorn' country anyhow. lol.

Good grief indeed. What the hell are you going on about. Yes, right now I'd rather not bother with you. I'm not really sure where you're going with anything and it's kind of headache inducing to reply to you.