Court: No Opt-out of Homosexual Indoctrination in Class for Massachusetts Parents

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SILVERNAME

Guest
Parents vow to appeal decision all the way to the US Supreme Court

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

BOSTON, MA, February 2, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A federal appeals court panel has upheld a Massachusetts policy of indoctrinating elementary school students with pro-homosexual attitudes without their parents consent.

The three judge panel ruled that a lower court decision was correct when it denied parents the right to remove their children from such classes, while admitting that the purpose of the literature to which their children were being exposed was to influence children to “tolerate” gay marriage.

“It is a fair inference that the reading of King and King was precisely intended to influence the listening children toward tolerance of gay marriage,” the court admits. “That was the point of why that book was chosen and used.”

lifesite.net/ldn/2008/feb/08020404.html
 
Beware of Freedom to Marry Week

by Kim Trobee
Ever heard of Freedom to Marry Week? You soon will. The Gay Straight Alliance Network is doing its best to make sure high schools everywhere use next week to indoctrinate students with the idea that it’s wrong to deny marriage to homosexuals.

The GSA Network suggests schools hold mock weddings, host guest speakers, facilitate teach-ins and a put on a movie night to watch gay-themed films. The students will be told that same-sex couples are denied medical coverage, hospital visitation and citizenship for a partner from another country. Randy Thomas with Exodus says the list is bogus.

citizenlink.org/fnif/A000006423.cfm
 
Parents vow to appeal decision all the way to the US Supreme Court

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

BOSTON, MA, February 2, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A federal appeals court panel has upheld a Massachusetts policy of indoctrinating elementary school students with pro-homosexual attitudes without their parents consent.

The three judge panel ruled that a lower court decision was correct when it denied parents the right to remove their children from such classes, while admitting that the purpose of the literature to which their children were being exposed was to influence children to “tolerate” gay marriage.

“It is a fair inference that the reading of King and King was precisely intended to influence the listening children toward tolerance of gay marriage,” the court admits. “That was the point of why that book was chosen and used.”

lifesite.net/ldn/2008/feb/08020404.html
I’d send my kids to parochial schools or home school them before I’d let the government indoctrinate them with these lies.
 
Parents vow to appeal decision all the way to the US Supreme Court

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

BOSTON, MA, February 2, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A federal appeals court panel has upheld a Massachusetts policy of indoctrinating elementary school students with pro-homosexual attitudes without their parents consent.

The three judge panel ruled that a lower court decision was correct when it denied parents the right to remove their children from such classes, while admitting that the purpose of the literature to which their children were being exposed was to influence children to “tolerate” gay marriage.

“It is a fair inference that the reading of King and King was precisely intended to influence the listening children toward tolerance of gay marriage,” the court admits. “That was the point of why that book was chosen and used.”

lifesite.net/ldn/2008/feb/08020404.html
It seems that some decisions and attitudes at that level will probably have to be changed by some…Warning or Miracle of God.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
 
Why is anybody surprised by this?

Some of us who opposed same sex marriages had stated that it would not end with the ‘marriage’. Some of us have said your children would be forced to learn about SSM in school. But the pro-SSM folks said ‘no, that would never happen, sex education would be optional’

Well, you were wrong. Now you have to pay the piper. Thanks!:mad:
 
And this is why my aunt told me she would take food off her own plate and starve before she took her boys out of Catholic schools and sent them to public “institutions”.

Sick - just sick. :mad:

~Liza
 
I do like the idea of gay tolerance taught in the schools, but not the gay marriage thing. That bugs me.
 
I do like the idea of gay tolerance taught in the schools, but not the gay marriage thing. That bugs me.
Why “gay tolerance”? Why do we have to “tolerate” behavior we find sinful and disordered? How about acceptance of all human beings as human beings - sexual orientation not withstanding? I am not about to teach my children (if I had them) that they need to be tolerant of something we do not support or encourage. Would I teach them to be respectful of ALL people? Yes, of course. But what is being proposed here is just not necessary in my opinion.

~Liza
 
I’d send my kids to parochial schools or home school them before I’d let the government indoctrinate them with these lies.
Indeed. As I tell my wife…

“Two words: home schooling.”
 
I come at this from another angle.

First, I believe that any kind of sex education should be approved by the parent of the student.

Second, having gay people in my family, I have seen the cruelty that society can impose on good people, because they are gay. I have never hid the gay reality from my children or the fact tha they have two gay relations. These are wonderful people who have always been very kind to my kids. I have taught my kids to love them and be respectful.

Now that they are young adults, they are not out campaigning (my kids) for or against same-sex marriage, but they do have gay friends whom they treat with a great deal of respect and they also have gay people on their “bleep” list. They work alongside other people and enjoy their company because they’re human, regardless of their difference.

They have learned that there is such a thing as homosexuality and lesbianism and to look at people’s hearts, minds and values. Some people they welcome into their inner circle and others they do not. They also understand the Church’s position on same-sex activities and they’re comfortable with that. They separate the sexual activity from the homosexual, heterosexual or lesbian.

If there is anything that I feel proud of is having taught my kids about the sacredness of human sexuality, not the sacredness of heterosexuality. This can be a little dangerous. In some communities, everything goes as long as it’s straight. That extreme is also morally unacceptable in our home.
 
I come at this from another angle.

First, I believe that any kind of sex education should be approved by the parent of the student.

Second, having gay people in my family, I have seen the cruelty that society can impose on good people, because they are gay. I have never hid the gay reality from my children or the fact tha they have two gay relations. These are wonderful people who have always been very kind to my kids. I have taught my kids to love them and be respectful.

Now that they are young adults, they are not out campaigning (my kids) for or against same-sex marriage, but they do have gay friends whom they treat with a great deal of respect and they also have gay people on their “bleep” list. They work alongside other people and enjoy their company because they’re human, regardless of their difference.

They have learned that there is such a thing as homosexuality and lesbianism and to look at people’s hearts, minds and values. Some people they welcome into their inner circle and others they do not. They also understand the Church’s position on same-sex activities and they’re comfortable with that. They separate the sexual activity from the homosexual, heterosexual or lesbian.

If there is anything that I feel proud of is having taught my kids about the sacredness of human sexuality, not the sacredness of heterosexuality. This can be a little dangerous. In some communities, everything goes as long as it’s straight. That extreme is also morally unacceptable in our home.
It’s not a realy strong argument…exactly what and why are the kdis being cruel? Teach 'em to be nice to everyone and have manners. It should never be deeper than that.

Why do pre-adolescent children need to learn how a man and a man engage in sexual activity to be “tolerant” and how is “tolerant” respectful of human dignity?

It just doesn’t add up.
 
It’s not a realy strong argument…exactly what and why are the kdis being cruel? Teach 'em to be nice to everyone and have manners. It should never be deeper than that.

Why do pre-adolescent children need to learn how a man and a man engage in sexual activity to be “tolerant” and how is “tolerant” respectful of human dignity?

It just doesn’t add up.
I think that you read more into my post that what it said.

I was not talking about kids being cruel. Kids will often be cruel, not just about sexual issues, but even the way they dress. I was referring to adults being cruel.

Also, I never said that kids have to know the physical technicalities of gay or lesbian sex.

In our house, we answered those questions if they arose. I was talking about knowing that your cousin or your uncle is gay. When you have a gay person in your family, it’s not going to be a secret for long. Let’s face it, they’re always our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters. Unless they behave in a manner that is totally inappropriate, we don’t exclude them from family functions.

I prefer that my children know that their relative is a good person, even when others on the street make gay jokes or are cruel to gay people because they are homosexual. I never wanted them growing up believing that their gay relation is a bad person, because they hear other people gay bashing. I wouldn’t want them to learn that Muslims are bad people either, just because others bash Muslims.

I have always taught them what is right and wrong and that people make choices; but those choices do not make these people targets for gossip, cruel jokes, or ridicule. I’ve also taught them that to exclude others from society, except when they are dangerous is not Christian. I always give them the example of John Paul II and how he visited his would-be assasin in prison. Our Holy Father understood the fullness of mercy and compassion, even toward those who act contrary to what is right.

I hope this is a little clearer and I apologize if I left my first post a little ambiguous or confusing.

🙂
 
I think that you read more into my post that what it said.

I was not talking about kids being cruel. Kids will often be cruel, not just about sexual issues, but even the way they dress. I was referring to adults being cruel.

Also, I never said that kids have to know the physical technicalities of gay or lesbian sex.

In our house, we answered those questions if they arose. I was talking about knowing that your cousin or your uncle is gay. When you have a gay person in your family, it’s not going to be a secret for long. Let’s face it, they’re always our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters. Unless they behave in a manner that is totally inappropriate, we don’t exclude them from family functions.

I prefer that my children know that their relative is a good person, even when others on the street make gay jokes or are cruel to gay people because they are homosexual. I never wanted them growing up believing that their gay relation is a bad person, because they hear other people gay bashing. I wouldn’t want them to learn that Muslims are bad people either, just because others bash Muslims.

I have always taught them what is right and wrong and that people make choices; but those choices do not make these people targets for gossip, cruel jokes, or ridicule. I’ve also taught them that to exclude others from society, except when they are dangerous is not Christian. I always give them the example of John Paul II and how he visited his would-be assasin in prison. Our Holy Father understood the fullness of mercy and compassion, even toward those who act contrary to what is right.

I hope this is a little clearer and I apologize if I left my first post a little ambiguous or confusing.

🙂
Thanks for the clarification! 👍 So, I am confused or are you saying you agree with pre-adolescent children learning about homosexual lifestyles in a public, American school?

I must misread your post and I thought you were supporting that action.
 
Thanks for the clarification! 👍 So, I am confused or are you saying you agree with pre-adolescent children learning about homosexual lifestyles in a public, American school?

I must misread your post and I thought you were supporting that action.
Actually, I support good science and health classes in schools. These should include facts about human life, its conception, stages of develoment brith and even abortion. We should all know what happens and how it happens.

I also support good social science classes. These should include real issues, such as the issues that affect the modern family: marriage, divorce, the issues faced by single-parents, the fact that there are same-sex couples, issues of aging and healthcare that affect the average family, parents and relatives who have to face the fact that a loved one is gay, how society responds or fails to respond to any of these issues.

My problem is when teachers stop giving facts and slap their personal opinion on an issue, either for or against.

Therefore, I subscribe to these ideas.
  1. The teacher should keep his or her opinion private, just as you would if you were teaching on the coming elections. You don’t have a right to draw kids to one political side or the other.
  2. The ethical standards by which we judge these issues should be left up to the parents to teach. Give kids assignments that will allow them to discuss these things with their parents. A teacher should not be telling a student that abortion is good or that same-sex marriage is good. Just give them the facts and create interesting assignments that generate healthy conversations at home with parents. It is the parents’ role to teach morality. The teacher has to teach kids to treat everyone with respect, especially while in school. That’s basic ethics. Morality is rooted in faith. That comes from the home.
  3. I believe that you can’t take a curriculum and fit it to every kid a fixed age, because kids develop differently. These are tough subjects to grapple with. The the more mature the student, the better education you can give him or her.
In my experience mistering to kids and raising my own, I have found that by sticking to the facts and waiting for them to ask the questions, they learn better and I don’t influence or do harm to what their parents want to teach them regarding values and morality.

I’ve had kids in my ministry ask me what I think about gay marriage. I always tell them that I’m neither God, the Church nor their parent. Therefore, my opinon will not be very useful to them. I then ask them if they would like to know what the Church says. Sometimes they do and sometimes they just thank me and move on to another subject.

What I never do is pretend there are no such settings as alternative families or gay households. That’s not real. The same applies to other issues, such as abortion. I never encourage abortion, but I never deprive an adolescent who wants to know what happens during an abortion a medical response. I explain how the pregnancy is terminated and then I tell the kids that they have to ask their parents to explain why this is right or wrong. I make a big issue out of the fact that they have to ask their parents, because they have opened up Pandora’s box and they should know all of the facts.

I take this position because I believe that it’s the parents’ role to transmit faith and morals to their children. The Church is the resource, but the parent should be the teacher.

Both of my kids attended Catholic school until grade 12. Both knew about all of these issues. In their science and social science classes they discussed the issues from a purely academic perspective, no judgments. In their religious ed classes they reviewed them again from the teaching of the Church. What they did very well in my daughter’s school was that they covered the same topic in the three classes simultaneously. If it was gay sex, they did it in science, social science and theology class during the same week. I liked this approach.

JR
 
Why is anybody surprised by this?

Some of us who opposed same sex marriages had stated that it would not end with the ‘marriage’. Some of us have said your children would be forced to learn about SSM in school. But the pro-SSM folks said ‘no, that would never happen, sex education would be optional’

Well, you were wrong. Now you have to pay the piper. Thanks!:mad:
Give 'em an elbow room and they’ll take a mile…
 
It’s not a realy strong argument…exactly what and why are the kdis being cruel? Teach 'em to be nice to everyone and have manners. It should never be deeper than that.

Why do pre-adolescent children need to learn how a man and a man engage in sexual activity to be “tolerant” and how is “tolerant” respectful of human dignity?

It just doesn’t add up.
The OLD FASHIONED words for what you are saying is GOOD MANNERS. Teach the children these and the OTHER does not need to be discussed.
 
Here is a follow up article to this story, this one is even much more detailed and informative.

Clinton Appointee Judge Rejects David Parker Lawsuit against Homosexual Programs in Grade School

Appeals Judge issues outrageous ruling embracing homosexual ‘tolerance’ lessons, ignoring Constitutional religious guarantees; links ’same-sex marriage’ to homosexual instruction

Folks, it is astonishing how far the “gay agenda” (which some homosexual activists say doesn’t exist!) has come in the last 30 years. From defending homosexual bars to opposing parents who merely want to be informed about pro-homosexuality lessons in their young child’s class, the agenda moves on. Massachusetts and California are the states to watch to see where the homosexual youth- and school agenda is headed.

We recommend carefully studying the MassResistance website, and other sites like Linda Harvey’s TruthatSchool.org to get engaged on this issue.

The following is MassResistance.org’s report on Judge Lynch’s decision, which the Parkers and Wirthlins are appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court:

americansfortruth.com/news/clinton-appointee-judge-rejects-david-parker-lawsuit-against-homosexual-programs-in-grade-school.html
 
Why is anybody surprised by this?

Some of us who opposed same sex marriages had stated that it would not end with the ‘marriage’. Some of us have said your children would be forced to learn about SSM in school. But the pro-SSM folks said ‘no, that would never happen, sex education would be optional’

Well, you were wrong. Now you have to pay the piper. Thanks!:mad:
How true that is. I remember the back and forth arguments that it would never come to this - well here it is.
This is the gradual eroding of ethics, morals and religious values - SSM…the work of the devil.
Rolling out the red carpet for the future arrival of the antichrist.
 
The sad thing is that instead of bring understanding of the trials and tribulations of those with SSA, those with an agenda are creating more problems for everyone.

No matter what the cause the “in your face” tactics do nothing by antagonize more people then it changes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top