The Sodomite Party strikes again: Parents rip school

[brinett9 0]

To be honest, I don't think that marriage is a valid subject for a second grade classroom. At that age, I think those issues are best left to parents.

I'm going to agree, Jack.

 

I don't object to same sex marriage being discussed in school, but what is the context in which marriage is being discussed in a 2nd grade class?

 

If it's intended as "sensitivity and tolerance training" or something of the sort, maybe it's straying too close to political indoctrination.

[torridjoe 48]

Uh no. Just because they've legalized it doesn't make it the same. Are you saying that now it's the same but 10 years ago it was different? yeah, that's why we throw phrases around like "hetero marriage", "traditional marriage" and "gay marriage". They're synonymous lol

 

Uh, yes, because they've legalized it DOES make it the same. There is no such thing as gay marriage in Massachusetts. You can't get a "gay marriage" license. If you're two people who want to get married, you go get a license. It's exactly the same no matter who you are.

[MDC 7,470]

OK, we disagree. Seven year olds can handle marriage, I think. It's not like most of them don't exist under one.

 

Of course they can handle talking about marriage. And I think their parents should talk to them about it.

[torridjoe 48]

I'm going to agree, Jack.

 

I don't object to same sex marriage being discussed in school, but what is the context in which marriage is being discussed in a 2nd grade class?

 

If it's intended as "sensitivity and tolerance training" or something of the sort, maybe it's straying too close to political indoctrination.

 

The context is in teaching how people are all different, but ultimately they behave in the same broad ways, such as committing themselves to each other in a love partnership.

 

 

Of course they can handle talking about marriage. And I think their parents should talk to them about it.

 

Sure they can. But some won't, and it's the job of the schools to teach them.

[brinett9 0]

The context is in teaching how people are all different, but ultimately they behave in the same broad ways, such as committing themselves to each other in a love partnership.

Yeah. Sensitivity training. Can't say I support it.

[Strike 5,565]

Uh, yes, because they've legalized it DOES make it the same. There is no such thing as gay marriage in Massachusetts. You can't get a "gay marriage" license. If you're two people who want to get married, you go get a license. It's exactly the same no matter who you are.

 

That's a legal indistinction. Marriage goes far beyond legalities. It's a shame you are completely unable to see other, reasonable, alternative viewpoints then your own. It's truly sad.

[jerryskids 6,825]

Of course they can handle talking about marriage. And I think their parents should talk to them about it.

Amazingly, this is like the second time evah I agree with you. The other, if I recall, was mutual liking of "Instance of a Fingerpost." That was you, right?

 

I like this MDC much better than stevejohnson or xmann.

[MDC 7,470]

Sure they can. But some won't, and it's the job of the schools to teach them.

 

Since when is it the job of schools to teach 2nd graders about marriage?

[torridjoe 48]

That's a legal indistinction. Marriage goes far beyond legalities. It's a shame you are completely unable to see other, reasonable, alternative viewpoints then your own. It's truly sad.

 

and where does the school's curriculum go far beyond the fact that gay people get married too?

 

Since when is it the job of schools to teach 2nd graders about marriage?

since when wasn't it?

[Strike 5,565]

Sure they can. But some won't, and it's the job of the schools to teach them.

 

That's pretty funny. Actually, it's the job of schools to teach them things like reading, writing, and arithmetic, and history. I think most people would agree that schools shouldn't teach kids EVERYTHING so to suggest that schools are obligated to teach this is ridiculous. It's like saying that since parents don't teach kids about giving BJ's the school should. And since there's no distinction between gay and hetero marriage maybe the schools should teach both boys and girls how to give BJ's.

[torridjoe 48]

It's like saying that since parents don't teach kids about giving BJ's the school should.

 

Do you dispute that? Almost every school district in the country does exactly that.

[Strike 5,565]

Do you dispute that? Almost every school district in the country does exactly that.

 

I doubt it but I guess the next step is to teach it to 2nd graders

[MDC 7,470]

since when wasn't it?

 

Look, I simply disagree with you. I don't think it's appropriate for public educators to teach kids that young about any form of marriage, gay or straight. A fair percentage of kids are going to come from unconventional homes - one parent, no parents, parents who've remarried or maybe aren't married. It's a potentially sensitive issue better left to parents/guardians at that age.

[torridjoe 48]

Look, I simply disagree with you. I don't think it's appropriate for public educators to teach kids that young about any form of marriage, gay or straight. A fair percentage of kids are going to come from unconventional homes - one parent, no parents, parents who've remarried or maybe aren't married. It's a potentially sensitive issue better left to parents/guardians at that age.

 

That's exactly WHY it needs to be taught in schools. Kids need to understand that they're all families. Straights, gays, grandparents, single parents, Party of Five--the demographic makeup is not what defines a family.

[Strike 5,565]

That's exactly WHY it needs to be taught in schools. Kids need to understand that they're all families. Straights, gays, grandparents, single parents, Party of Five--the demographic makeup is not what defines a family.

 

It's a shame you are completely unable to see other, reasonable, alternative viewpoints then your own. It's truly sad.

[torridjoe 48]

It's a shame you are completely unable to see other, reasonable, alternative viewpoints then your own. It's truly sad.

 

Try sharing one and see.

[MDC 7,470]

That's exactly WHY it needs to be taught in schools. Kids need to understand that they're all families. Straights, gays, grandparents, single parents, Party of Five--the demographic makeup is not what defines a family.

 

But it doesn't need to be taught in schools - that's what parents are for. This way, I don't have to talk to my kids about polygamy, and you can teach your six-year-old daughters about blowjobs. Everybody wins.

[bob_probert_2000 1]

In Mass they decided same sex marriage was ok and it is ok by law. If they want to teach it, then so be it. Would I be ok with it in Ohio? No, but there is no same sex law here.

 

I haven't a problem with same sex partnerships as long as they are hot females that release movies.

 

 

 

In all seriousness, I do believe that the state laws should be the dictating precedence. Having an aunt and a very close business friend that are both gay, I am not against what they do in their own homes. Though my personal opinion is that parents should be the ones teaching their children about such subjects, in states where such bonds are allowed, I can hardly argue that what they are doing is wrong. The public voted for their representation, which approved the bond of gay partners. If you don't like it, move out of Mass. or get your ass out and vote for a different party.

 

My wife is a teacher that loops between 1st and 2nd grade. I know those are subjects not approached as subjects of dicipline. Ohio is not Mass.

[Strike 5,565]

Try sharing one and see.

 

Yeah, because it's reasonable that schools decide what should and shouldn't be taught to children beyond the three R's, and at what age

[torridjoe 48]

Yeah, because it's reasonable that schools decide what should and shouldn't be taught to children beyond the three R's, and at what age

 

Who should decide--the church? Wal-mart? The Sierra Club? Who else besides schools were you imagining to handle the task of curriculum development?

 

But it doesn't need to be taught in schools - that's what parents are for. This way, I don't have to talk to my kids about polygamy, and you can teach your six-year-old daughters about blowjobs. Everybody wins.

 

If that's what parents were for, we wouldn't have schools in the first place.

 

In Mass they decided same sex marriage was ok and it is ok by law. If they want to teach it, then so be it. Would I be ok with it in Ohio? No, but there is no same sex law here.

 

Bingo. Mass schools should reflect Mass culture, subject to federal law. (Alabama schools shouldn't be allowed to teach that lynching neggra's is OK, for instance).

[MDC 7,470]

If that's what parents were for, we wouldn't have schools in the first place.

 

Schools were around long before people considered teaching things like diversity training and family units.

[bob_probert_2000 1]

Who should decide--the church? Wal-mart? The Sierra Club? Who else besides schools were you imagining to handle the task of curriculum development?

If that's what parents were for, we wouldn't have schools in the first place.

Why does the school have to include sex and marriage at all?

 

I know there is a sex ed class at like 4th grade, but that is appropriate as the kids come closer to puberty. If I didn't want my kids to attend sex ed, I'd keep them out. Standard class adding info about marriage cannot be avoided.

 

I am not saying I am opposed to what happened in Mass, but in my state, I prefer I be the one to teach my kids when I feel they are ready.

 

 

If that's what parents were for, we wouldn't have schools in the first place.

 

 

I am going to disagree with you here. If parents were best suited to teach enhancing subjects like reading, math, etc, then you are right no need for schools.

 

The fact is, teachers are trained to get your kids to learn. They are trained in the latest techniques and practices. Parents aren't- that is much of why I am against home schooling. Not that some aren't capable, but putting all the burden on home to teach is silly.

 

Now you can argue they are trained to teach our kids best about sexuality and marriage. May be true, but the arguement is as much about timing as it is about subject.

 

When are kids ready? I don't have the answer, but I prefer to decide for myself, not my school system decide for me.

[torridjoe 48]

Schools were around long before people considered teaching things like diversity training and family units.

 

but not before people considered teaching things like marriage.

[fastfish 0]

I wish this thread could go "live" coast to coast. Torrid is making it very plain why legalizing homo-hookups is a disaster for the basic institution of our culture: the marriage of a man and a woman.

 

If ya follow Torrid's line of reason to it's conclusion, you get homo-indoctrination starting in pre-school and re-enforced thru elemetary school, with advanced brain washing in jr. high school. By the time the kids hit high school, seeing boys and girls dating each other will be an object of curiosity for the multitude of new recruits the Gay Agenda graduated from their very well planned assult on the institution of marriage.

 

Homo-hookups are not the same as marriage between a man and woman... not in the past, not in the future, not now and not in Massachucettes. But in Torrid's mind, if he wishes hard enough, clicks his heels together 3 times, and says "there's no love like gay love" over and over, Torrid thinks it might make the whole history of the world fit his perverse dream.

[torridjoe 48]

Why does the school have to include sex and marriage at all?

 

I know there is a sex ed class at like 4th grade, but that is appropriate as the kids come closer to puberty. If I didn't want my kids to attend sex ed, I'd keep them out. Standard class adding info about marriage cannot be avoided.

 

I am not saying I am opposed to what happened in Mass, but in my state, I prefer I be the one to teach my kids when I feel they are ready.

I am going to disagree with you here. If parents were best suited to teach enhancing subjects like reading, math, etc, then you are right no need for schools.

 

The fact is, teachers are trained to get your kids to learn. They are trained in the latest techniques and practices. Parents aren't- that is much of why I am against home schooling. Not that some aren't capable, but putting all the burden on home to teach is silly.

 

Now you can argue they are trained to teach our kids best about sexuality and marriage. May be true, but the arguement is as much about timing as it is about subject.

 

When are kids ready? I don't have the answer, but I prefer to decide for myself, not my school system decide for me.

 

 

Sex? When did this become anything having to do with sex?

 

You can decide for yourself, but not for the school system. Individual parents don't get to decide what schools teach. That's just not the way it works.

 

I wish this thread could go "live" coast to coast. Torrid is making it very plain why legalizing homo-hookups is a disaster for the basic istitution of our culture: the marriage of a man and a woman.

 

If ya follow Torrid's line of reason to it's conclusion, you get homo-indoctrination starting in pre-school and re-enforced thru elemetary school, with advanced brain washing in jr. high school. By the time the kids hit high school, seeing boys and girls dating each other will be an object of curiosity for the multitude of new recruits the Gay Agenda graduated from their very well planned assult on the institution of marriage.

 

Homo-hookups are not the same as marriage between a man and woman... not in the past, not in the future, not now and not in Massachucettes. But in Torrid's mind, if he wishes hard enough, clicks his heels together 3 times, and says "there's no love like gay love" over and over, Torrid thinks it might make the whole history of the world fit his perverse dream.

 

You're a riot. Gay marriage will make hetero people not get married? I love it.

How exactly does one "assault" marriage by fighting to have them? They're embracing it full-on.

 

Care to document the various ills facing MA society since legalization?

[MDC 7,470]

but not before people considered teaching things like marriage.

 

True, but I'm just refuting your claim that we wouldn't have schools if parents were more qualified to talk about marriage.

[brinett9 0]

Care to document the various ills facing MA society since legalization?

Well, Coco Crisp is on the DL.

[bob_probert_2000 1]

Sex? When did this become anything having to do with sex?

 

You can decide for yourself, but not for the school system. Individual parents don't get to decide what schools teach. That's just not the way it works.

 

I used sex ed as an example. It is set in curriculum at an age approprite time in kid's lives. If you don't agree, you don't send them to it. It is a choice.

 

I never said that individuals set the curriculum. My point is leave subject like marriage to the parents and let them decide when it is appropriate.

[supermike80 1,922]

Sex? When did this become anything having to do with sex?

 

Kind of my point too. The short-sighted parents on this board are automatically linking same sex marriages with SEX. That somehow they are unable, or unwilling to have a discussion with their young children about the virtues of love, commitment, and marriage, without it coming around to sex. This to me is ludicrous.

[torridjoe 48]

I used sex ed as an example. It is set in curriculum at an age approprite time in kid's lives. If you don't agree, you don't send them to it. It is a choice.

 

I never said that individuals set the curriculum. My point is leave subject like marriage to the parents and let them decide when it is appropriate.

 

Why shortchange all the other kids because some kids' parents don't think it's appropriate?

[Strike 5,565]

Kind of my point too. The short-sighted parents on this board are automatically linking same sex marriages with SEX. That somehow they are unable, or unwilling to have a discussion with their young children about the virtues of love, commitment, and marriage, without it coming around to sex. This to me is ludicrous.

 

No, it's not about sex. It's about what a school should teach our children without our knowledge, and at what age.

[bob_probert_2000 1]

Why shortchange all the other kids because some kids' parents don't think it's appropriate?

 

Link to where all the other parent feels it is appropriate?

 

 

What no link? Make it a choice on the subjects we all know are touchy. Sex and same sex marriage are clearly two of those subjects.

[Strike 5,565]

Why shortchange all the other kids because some kids' parents don't think it's appropriate?

 

Noone is saying they can't teach it. Just notify the parents so they can choose to not have their children attend that day if they don't feel it's appropriate. Is that too much to ask?

[bob_probert_2000 1]

Kind of my point too. The short-sighted parents on this board are automatically linking same sex marriages with SEX. That somehow they are unable, or unwilling to have a discussion with their young children about the virtues of love, commitment, and marriage, without it coming around to sex. This to me is ludicrous.

 

If you read my post in regards to sex ed, you'll realize there is no linking sex and same sex marriage there. I was simply making a point about education and how the touchier subjects are currently handled.

[supermike80 1,922]

No, it's not about sex. It's about what a school should teach our children without our knowledge, and at what age.

 

I'm still not clear what your point is. Are you saying the school should not discuss any marriage? Do you honestly believe, in this day, that children are NOT aware of same sex relationships?

 

This discussion is about love and marriage. I don't see the relevance of whether it is between man and woman or anything else.

 

UNLESS you are strongly against it on religious grounds, then I can understand--this is an entirely different discussion.

 

But if youre objecting purely on a knowledge basis, that your kids shouldn't be exposed to this, then you need to ban all marriage, or else your point makes no sense to me. But whatever.

[torridjoe 48]

Noone is saying they can't teach it. Just notify the parents so they can choose to not have their children attend that day if they don't feel it's appropriate. Is that too much to ask?

 

So you think parents should be able to have their kids opt out of physics if they believe in intelligent design? Parents get opt-outs for sex ed. This isn't anything to do with sex ed.

[supermike80 1,922]

If you read my post in regards to sex ed, you'll realize there is no linking sex and same sex marriage there. I was simply making a point about education and how the touchier subjects are currently handled.

 

Probie, wasn't really directing this at you, just in general. It's all good.

[George Carlin 1]

I don't even have kids and I don't want teachers talking about Brokeback Mountain in schools.

 

HTH

[torridjoe 48]

Link to where all the other parent feels it is appropriate?

What no link? Make it a choice on the subjects we all know are touchy. Sex and same sex marriage are clearly two of those subjects.

So no teaching about race? No teaching physics? No teaching about war? No teaching about religions?

 

Where did I say "all other parents" feel its appropriate? I said it's senseless to change policy because a few parents object. If you don't like your school's curriculum, change it through normal channels or find another district.

[Strike 5,565]

So you think parents should be able to have their kids opt out of physics if they believe in intelligent design? Parents get opt-outs for sex ed. This isn't anything to do with sex ed.

 

This is the dumbest post you've ever made. No, it's not but it's up there.