Secret gay indoctrination?

[Bullypulpit]

'Confidentiality' promise requires students 'not to tell their parents'


I'd love to see any other sources to see if there is another side to this story. But if the story is accurate, it's completely outrageous.

Given that WorldNetDaily is little more than a right wing tool, the credibility of its offerings is suspect, at best. Having read the article, and finding no links except to the webpages of the school and the local school board, it is safe to say that the supporting information is non-existent.

What we have here is simply throwing red-meat to the right wing-nut base in the hopes of stirring up fear and loathing of a non-existent plot.

 

[Bern80]

Given that WorldNetDaily is little more than a right wing tool, the credibility of its offerings is suspect, at best. Having read the article, and finding no links except to the webpages of the school and the local school board, it is safe to say that the supporting information is non-existent.

What we have here is simply throwing red-meat to the right wing-nut base in the hopes of stirring up fear and loathing of a non-existent plot.

Wow, two whole pages of posts to whip out the old "right-wing-puppet" argument.

Impressive Bully

 

[glockmail]

Wow, two whole pages of posts to whip out the old "right-wing-puppet" argument.

Impressive Bully

Soon we'll be reading the "no original thought" post.

 

[Gem]

Quite frankly, this seems like nothing more than an example of why its a truly lousy idea to get your news from one source, especially one that is biased towards one side of the political spectrum.

However, since Avatar ended his original post with the caveat that he wanted to see the other side to this story and "if true" it was outrageous, I think it was pretty obvious that most here took it with a grain of salt.

From what I have read, I can completely understand why parents who believe that homosexuality is a sin would be upset by the school's decision. Having students speak openly about how they are gay and how that effects their lives in a school sponsored setting sends the very obvious message that homosexuality is ok and that the school is fine with it as a moral equivalent to heterosexuality. If you believe that being gay is a sin - having your child's school teaching your child the opposite is going to be an issue.

From the school's standpoint, I agree completely that you can not have an effective learning environment without all students feeling safe and secure. Students have to be taught to respect eachother and the differences that they will encounter in the world. Since homosexual students will be part of most educational settings, there is nothing wrong with a public school addressing it.

I think that the school can address these issues without promoting one particular lifestyle, however - since it sounds like the school did the right thing by allowing parents the ultimate say in whether or not their students are present for the information or not - this sounds to me like one more "non-story" story.

I am always a little shocked when I side with Bullypulpit on anything (just kidding, Bully), but it seems like the reported from WorldNet Daily was a bit more rabid than he needed to be. The school wanted to promote a safe, non-bullying environment, so it held a presentation to discuss that all students needed to be treated equally regardless of personal choices or differences. Parents had the right to remove their children from this presentation if it contained a message they did not approve of.

This sounds like the ideal situation to me - public schools not following any one religions messages and parents having the ultimate, final say of what their children are exposed to.

 

[Shattered]

Your kids are gay.

You're an ass. What kind of idiot stoops to dragging someones KIDS through the mud just to make waves on a message board?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Given that WorldNetDaily is little more than a right wing tool, the credibility of its offerings is suspect, at best. Having read the article, and finding no links except to the webpages of the school and the local school board, it is safe to say that the supporting information is non-existent.

What we have here is simply throwing red-meat to the right wing-nut base in the hopes of stirring up fear and loathing of a non-existent plot.

Conservative news is closer to the middle and the truth than the left wing whack jobs.

I have quoted conservative sources for years and never once been proven wrong. Often I was asked to "prove it" and I did.

But hey, they taught you well in law school eh? If the facts arent on your side, attack the deliver
Ahem, and now for a copy of the agreement itself: http://www.illinoisfamily.org/content/img/f33228/DeerfieldHSConfidentiality.pdf

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Quite frankly, this seems like nothing more than an example of why its a truly lousy idea to get your news from one source, especially one that is biased towards one side of the political spectrum.

However, since Avatar ended his original post with the caveat that he wanted to see the other side to this story and "if true" it was outrageous, I think it was pretty obvious that most here took it with a grain of salt.

From what I have read, I can completely understand why parents who believe that homosexuality is a sin would be upset by the school's decision. Having students speak openly about how they are gay and how that effects their lives in a school sponsored setting sends the very obvious message that homosexuality is ok and that the school is fine with it as a moral equivalent to heterosexuality. If you believe that being gay is a sin - having your child's school teaching your child the opposite is going to be an issue.

From the school's standpoint, I agree completely that you can not have an effective learning environment without all students feeling safe and secure. Students have to be taught to respect eachother and the differences that they will encounter in the world. Since homosexual students will be part of most educational settings, there is nothing wrong with a public school addressing it.

I think that the school can address these issues without promoting one particular lifestyle, however - since it sounds like the school did the right thing by allowing parents the ultimate say in whether or not their students are present for the information or not - this sounds to me like one more "non-story" story.

I am always a little shocked when I side with Bullypulpit on anything (just kidding, Bully), but it seems like the reported from WorldNet Daily was a bit more rabid than he needed to be. The school wanted to promote a safe, non-bullying environment, so it held a presentation to discuss that all students needed to be treated equally regardless of personal choices or differences. Parents had the right to remove their children from this presentation if it contained a message they did not approve of.

This sounds like the ideal situation to me - public schools not following any one religions messages and parents having the ultimate, final say of what their children are exposed to.

I disagree. I thinik the ideal situation is school choice.

 

[Kagom]

Quite frankly, this seems like nothing more than an example of why its a truly lousy idea to get your news from one source, especially one that is biased towards one side of the political spectrum.

However, since Avatar ended his original post with the caveat that he wanted to see the other side to this story and "if true" it was outrageous, I think it was pretty obvious that most here took it with a grain of salt.

From what I have read, I can completely understand why parents who believe that homosexuality is a sin would be upset by the school's decision. Having students speak openly about how they are gay and how that effects their lives in a school sponsored setting sends the very obvious message that homosexuality is ok and that the school is fine with it as a moral equivalent to heterosexuality. If you believe that being gay is a sin - having your child's school teaching your child the opposite is going to be an issue.

From the school's standpoint, I agree completely that you can not have an effective learning environment without all students feeling safe and secure. Students have to be taught to respect eachother and the differences that they will encounter in the world. Since homosexual students will be part of most educational settings, there is nothing wrong with a public school addressing it.

I think that the school can address these issues without promoting one particular lifestyle, however - since it sounds like the school did the right thing by allowing parents the ultimate say in whether or not their students are present for the information or not - this sounds to me like one more "non-story" story.

I am always a little shocked when I side with Bullypulpit on anything (just kidding, Bully), but it seems like the reported from WorldNet Daily was a bit more rabid than he needed to be. The school wanted to promote a safe, non-bullying environment, so it held a presentation to discuss that all students needed to be treated equally regardless of personal choices or differences. Parents had the right to remove their children from this presentation if it contained a message they did not approve of.

This sounds like the ideal situation to me - public schools not following any one religions messages and parents having the ultimate, final say of what their children are exposed to.

Makes sense. Glad to see someone else sees it that way.

 

[Gunny]

You're an ass. What kind of idiot stoops to dragging someones KIDS through the mud just to make waves on a message board?

OOH! OOH! I KNOW ... I KNOW ..... PICK ME!!!!

 

[glockmail]

OOH! OOH! I KNOW ... I KNOW ..... PICK ME!!!!

So you're OK with that?

 

[red states rule]

I disagree. I thinik the ideal situation is school choice.

The only time libs want you to have a choice is when you choose to murder your unborn baby

Once you have the child, you are to stupid to choose where and how to educate them

 

[jasendorf]

You're an ass. What kind of idiot stoops to dragging someones KIDS through the mud just to make waves on a message board?

As a note... HE dragged his kids into this thread. Not me.

And, I find it interesting that you're upset I called his kids gay (I was joking obviously, I have no idea whether his kids are gay); yet, you had no problem with his talk of dragging someone behind their truck by their neck.

 

[Gunny]

As a note... HE dragged his kids into this thread. Not me.

And, I find it interesting that you're upset I called his kids gay (I was joking obviously, I have no idea whether his kids are gay); yet, you had no problem with his talk of dragging someone behind their truck by their neck.

Look at it this way .... next time he brings his kids in, PLEASE refrain from the urge to mention them. He's whined about it all over the board so much it's dripping with snot.

 

[Gem]

Luv Wrote:

I disagree. I thinik the ideal situation is school choice.

I was speaking more about the ideal of THIS situation - than educational problems altogether. I agree with you, I think that having an educational monopoly as we have now has been a terrible mistake - and something like school choice would be one possible solution towards righting it.

 

[boedicca]

Unions are now impacting Public Education the way they have ruined the Auto and Airline industries.

 

[Gem]

What do you think are the major things that the Unions have done that have damaged public education?

 

[boedicca]

A few:

- bloated administrations that siphon dollars from the classroom
- tenure protecting poor performing teachers
- lack of merit-based pay which dissuades high achievers from teaching careers
- efforts to prevent charter schools and other competitive (parental choice) alternatives
- use of union dues for donations to political campaigns without seeking approval of individual teachers

 

[glockmail]

Look at it this way .... next time he brings his kids in, PLEASE refrain from the urge to mention them. He's whined about it all over the board so much it's dripping with snot.

You need to go out and get yourself laid.

 

[glockmail]

A few:

- bloated administrations that siphon dollars from the classroom
- tenure protecting poor performing teachers
- lack of merit-based pay which dissuades high achievers from teaching careers
- efforts to prevent charter schools and other competitive (parental choice) alternatives
- use of union dues for donations to political campaigns without seeking approval of individual teachers

Nailed it!

 

[Gem]

I would agree with all of those.