Judge Says Schools can Teach Sexual Orientation

[fix]

It’s probably a good idea that you homeschool if you don’t want your children “indoctrinated” with classmates who have homosexual parents. I’m talking about those who choose public schools, though. They cannot control if Johnny has two moms. And I do believe schools have rights to do sensativity training…especially if they feel certain children in their schools are discrimated again. Parents can of course opt out of this sesativity training, but I’m sure their child will still get the gist of it.

And for those who want to put our kids in a bubble and pretend homosexual families don’t exist, what do you do when your child enters the real world with these types of families? Obviously, they will some day.

What is sensitivity training? Why do the basic issues of social decorum need to be taught in school? As soon as such things are introduced they are mostly a way to propagandize.

 

[boppaid]

What is sensitivity training? Why do the basic issues of social decorum need to be taught in school? As soon as such things are introduced they are mostly a way to propagandize.

Well, sesativity training in the schools I’ve been in deal with teaching children that there are all different types of families in our society, so that they aren’t rude or upsetting to children in their school who come from families unlike their own (i.e., single parent families, homosexual parent parent families, mixed race families, etc.) Believe it or not (and I’m certainly not saying anyone on this board) some parents shelter their kids SO MUCH SO that when their kids come across a child who has two mothers, or one parent, or a grandparent raising them, or mixed race parents, the kids act rude and hurt those children’s feelings. For example, I witnessed a child who had two dads get teased by another child. I was horrified! Whether or not we agree w/ homosexual parents, we certainly can agree that we should not hurt the feelings of these children, ykwim?

Anyway, that is my answer to your first question. Now, your second,

Why do the basic issues of social decorum need to be taught in school?

The answer is, quite simply, because obviously some parents do not do their job by taking care of this at home. And it becomes the problem of the school when kids are being bullied because parents don’t do their job teaching sensativity at home.

Third,

As soon as such things are introduced they are mostly a way to propagandize.

My experience as an educator has not been such. I certainly don’t feel a need to “propagandize” homosexual marriage. I do, however, feel it is my responsibility as an educator to teach children sensativity. I don’t think educators (such as teachers, administrators, etc.) care about “propagandizing” for any particular minority.

 

[BryPGuy89]

Do the parents have a choice? Can they home school, meaning are they capable of doing the job? Can they afford private school if not? Public school parents have no rights to object to or change curricula? If so, when did public schools cease to be a public concern?

Perhaps more importantly, how is having a “gay day” even close to being an educational objective for elementary school students?

– Mark L. Chance.

I don’t see anything wrong with it as long as it doesn’t got oo far or get out of hand. We had, Mexican days and Black days (and month), we recognise subcultures in our society. This doesn’t promote or encourage anything, and I doubt in elementary school they would be as bold as to touch the topic of gay sex in 2nd grade. To aknowledge a group that may be shunned is in no way something that should be discouraged as long as it doen’t go beyond reasonable bounds. Just like going back to seperating blacks from the rest of society, but just chose a new group.

 

[Digger71]

In the ruling, Wolf makes the absurd claim that normalizing homosexuality to young children is “reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy.” According to Wolf, this means teaching “diversity” which includes “differences in sexual orientation.”

In addition, Wolf makes the odious statement that the Parkers’ only options are (1) send their kids to a private school, (2) home-school their kids, or (3) elect a majority of people to the School Committee who agree with them. Can you imagine a federal judge in the Civil Rights era telling blacks the same thing – that if they can’t be served at a lunch counter they should just start their own restaurant, or elect a city council to pass laws that reflect the US Constitution?

Wolf’s reasoning uses the Goodridge ruling on same-sex marriage as well as Mass. Dept. of Education “Frameworks” and a flawed interpretation of the state Parental Notification Law – to effectively trump the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom.

He bolsters his decision with a patchwork of statements from other court decisions – some going back over a decade – and declares that these past decagons are “law” which much be enforced when making his own ruling on this case.

massresistance.org/docs/parker_lawsuit/order_to_dismiss.html

Well. I am surprised you chose those quotes…

Why absurd? Do you want your (gay) child to be teased at school and discriminated at work? Do you want you adult child to quit his job because there’s a butch lesbian he has to work with? Do you want any of your childrens employers to go bankrupt because the highly talented staff they needed were all put off from working there by the office homophobia.

All possible.

Why odious? Are the anti-gay types to shy and retiring to stand up and have their votes counted? Creationists aren’t (but then they get trounced once their agenda gets publicity). Creationists also take their kiddies out of school and hive them ‘biology’ lessons of a sort, so why not the anti-gay elements?

And the comparisons to the situation of blacks! Well, it’s not at all like that is it? Christians of any Church make up the majority, and the laws of the nation reflect the historical might of that interest group. Christians are not the struggling pursecuted minority the blacks were.

If the ruling uses flawed reasoning it can be appealed surely. And if it is lifted from another ruling, that can be appealed. But as we have seen from the creationist movement, you cannot have state schools progressing a religious agenda, which all anti-gay laws and movements in the US spring from.

weird quotes…

 

[Digger71]

How about the right to free exercise of religion guaranteed by the constitution?

I’m no lawyer, but…

Not on public money you don’t.

 

[Digger71]

Aside from the sheer arrogance of a judge telling parents that if they don’t like what a public school is teaching with their tax dollars they ought to move to a private school, there is the very real issue of viewpoint discrimination and the simple common sense idea that second graders don’t need to be taught anything about sex, let alone anything about sodomy.

– Mark L. Chance.

He also said you could stand for election and stop it that way.

And by the way, I doubt they will be teaching any of the mechanisms involved.

 

[Digger71]

The Ruling should be appealed as it violates freedom of religion by establishing a state religion of hedonism and giving it preferential treatment over other religions.

Would that be like establishing the state religion of atheism through teacghing evolution?

I almost hate to point is out, but the world is not made up of the religion of evolution, the religion of hedonism, the religion of quantum mechanics, the religion of homosexuality.

The tendency to characterise everything that opposes your religious agenda as a religion is a categorisation error.

 

[Leeta]

I’m surprized to read these posts from some supposedly catechized Catholics.

Homosexuals can’t make a family and by definition can’t have one even if they adopt children or manufacture them.

A family can only be a mother and father in its basics excluding tragedies like death and divorce.

Johnny’s classmate having homosexual guardians would as a parent sound alarm bells. These kids are going to have witnessed many impure acts and seen many lovers tramp in and out. Yes, feel sorry for them,but the truth is that their home life is lacking and shouldn’t be paraded around one’s child as if it were something admirable or normal. I would not allow my child to have contact with that child unless I supervised. Homosexuals, like drug addicts choose their lifestyle. It is not comparable to being black Hispanic or German. Homosexuality is disordered, whereas a culture such as Bosnian is basicly good and not inherently evil.
No responsible school would have a “Lets Honor Drug Addicts’ Lifestyle Day”, since they are so discriminated against and ostracized! Also, many homosexuals are child abusers (40%), so it is a good idea to keep children’s contacts with practicing homosexuals to nil.
As adult Christians we would have to parctice prudence in such contacts and not allow them to lead us into occasions of sin in our efforts to evangelize them.
The judge was totally out of line. The innocence of children must be protected. Perversions are not part of academic education, especially not for elementary age.

I don’t know of any voucher program which has survived court challanges. Vouchers are pie in the sky and aren’t going to exist as long as we have judges like the above.
So Catholic schools are essentially only for the rich.

We home school also, but my house is inadequate and consequentially the schooling suffers from a lack of organization. We bought the biggest house we could, but we are simply too poor. We have no room for all the books on shelves. We’re slugging through it, but I doubt many moms would go through what I have to endure in the way of not being able to organize the schooling. Also, all the curriculums cost quite a bit.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Well, sensitivity training in the schools I’ve been in deal with teaching children that there are all different types of families in our society, so that they aren’t rude or upsetting to children in their school who come from families unlike their own (i.e., single parent families, homosexual parent parent families, mixed race families, etc.) Believe it or not (and I’m certainly not saying anyone on this board) some parents shelter their kids SO MUCH SO that when their kids come across a child who has two mothers, or one parent, or a grandparent raising them, or mixed race parents, the kids act rude and hurt those children’s feelings. For example, I witnessed a child who had two dads get teased by another child. I was horrified! Whether or not we agree w/ homosexual parents, we certainly can agree that we should not hurt the feelings of these children, ykwim?

Anyway, that is my answer to your first question. Now, your second, The answer is, quite simply, because obviously some parents do not do their job by taking care of this at home. And it becomes the problem of the school when kids are being bullied because parents don’t do their job teaching sensitivity at home.

Third,
My experience as an educator has not been such. I certainly don’t feel a need to “propagandize” homosexual marriage. I do, however, feel it is my responsibility as an educator to teach children sensitivity. I don’t think educators (such as teachers, administrators, etc.) care about “propagandizing” for any particular minority.

Basically what you are talking about is good manners. We teach that to our children.

And biologically no child can have two mothers or two fathers. Other then teaching that the mother is living with her girlfriend or woman friend I don’t believe it need go further.

No child should ever be led to believe that any and all chosen living styles are to be respected. But good manners dictates that the subject is not one to be pointed our to others.

 

[Digger71]

I’m surprized to read these posts from some supposedly catechized Catholics.

Homosexuals can’t make a family and by definition can’t have one even if they adopt children or manufacture them.

A family can only be a mother and father in its basics excluding tragedies like death and divorce.

Brothers and sisters aren’t family? Aunts and uncles? Wow! i never knew that, i bet they didn’t either. Gee there are going to be a lot of confused people out there.

Ah, but you slipped in the word ‘basic’, and use ‘by definition’. Well, there are lots of people who will argue about what ‘basic’ means, and who will argue with you about ‘by definition’. I am sure you know that.

 

[fix]

Well, sesativity training in the schools I’ve been in deal with teaching children that there are all different types of families in our society, so that they aren’t rude or upsetting to children in their school who come from families unlike their own (i.e., single parent families, homosexual parent parent families, mixed race families, etc.) Believe it or not (and I’m certainly not saying anyone on this board) some parents shelter their kids SO MUCH SO that when their kids come across a child who has two mothers, or one parent, or a grandparent raising them, or mixed race parents, the kids act rude and hurt those children’s feelings. For example, I witnessed a child who had two dads get teased by another child. I was horrified! Whether or not we agree w/ homosexual parents, we certainly can agree that we should not hurt the feelings of these children, ykwim?

Anyway, that is my answer to your first question. Now, your second, The answer is, quite simply, because obviously some parents do not do their job by taking care of this at home. And it becomes the problem of the school when kids are being bullied because parents don’t do their job teaching sensativity at home.

Third,
My experience as an educator has not been such. I certainly don’t feel a need to “propagandize” homosexual marriage. I do, however, feel it is my responsibility as an educator to teach children sensativity. I don’t think educators (such as teachers, administrators, etc.) care about “propagandizing” for any particular minority.

There is nothing new under the sun. All the talk about bullying and being impolite is nothing new to kids or in the school. What is new is the notion we need to teach manners and claim in doing so we can desensitize kids to notions of objective right and wrong at the same time.

 

[boppaid]

There is nothing new under the sun. All the talk about bullying and being impolite is nothing new to kids or in the school. What is new is the notion we need to teach manners and claim in doing so we can desensitize kids to notions of objective right and wrong at the same time.

I agree with you that bullying is nothing new. I guess I’m not sure what you’re saying. I’m assuming you also agree with me that bullying and teasing should not be tolerated, and sensitivity should be taught, correct?

That said, I believe that it is the parents responsibility to teach their children said responsibility. However, if they do not do their job then I believe it is most certainly the school’s problem, since bullying is not tolerated…especially after all the heightened violence in the media lately. Real or imagined rise in violence, schools are under much more pressure to ensure a safe (emotionally and physically) environment for their students, for liability reasons as well.

Aside from that, as an educator, I also believe it is my MORAL responsibility to make sure no child is teased for something he or she cannot help.

 

[fix]

I agree with you that bullying is nothing new. I guess I’m not sure what you’re saying. I’m assuming you also agree with me that bullying and teasing should not be tolerated, and sensitivity should be taught, correct?

Bullying should not be tolerated, or fighting, or arson, or robbing, or anything else. Why formal courses in sensitivity?

That said, I believe that it is the parents responsibility to teach their children said responsibility. However, if they do not do their job then I believe it is most certainly the school’s problem, since bullying is not tolerated…especially after all the heightened violence in the media lately. Real or imagined rise in violence, schools are under much more pressure to ensure a safe (emotionally and physically) environment for their students, for liability reasons as well.

I would say those current problems are a symptom of a greater malady. Indoctrination or re-education is not the answer. Such answers seem to always serve a particular agenda.

Aside from that, as an educator, I also believe it is my MORAL responsibility to make sure no child is teased for something he or she cannot help.

So, tell whomever is doing it to stop teasing. Why bring in a political agenda?

 

[KathleenElsie]

I agree with you that bullying is nothing new. I guess I’m not sure what you’re saying. I’m assuming you also agree with me that bullying and teasing should not be tolerated, and sensitivity should be taught, correct?

That said, I believe that it is the parents responsibility to teach their children said responsibility. However, if they do not do their job then I believe it is most certainly the school’s problem, since bullying is not tolerated…especially after all the heightened violence in the media lately. Real or imagined rise in violence, schools are under much more pressure to ensure a safe (emotionally and physically) environment for their students, for liability reasons as well.

Aside from that, as an educator, I also believe it is my MORAL responsibility to make sure no child is teased for something he or she cannot help.

Sensitivity should be taught, correct was your statement. It all depends on what you define as “sensitivity” and your end goal.

If the goal is to get the behavior accepted as normal then no it should not be taught. For this is taking social teaching toooo far. It then becomes indoctrination.

If the goals to get the behaviors of those that are bullying etc. to follow proper social etiquette then good manners should be reinforced in the schools, home and place of worship. Good manners do not require the parties to agree on the life-style, only to treat others with respect.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

Good manners do not require the parties to agree on the life-style, only to treat others with respect.

i disagree, when it comes to homosexuality, we shouldn’t be afraid to offend homosexuals or justly discriminate against them. we are only to treat them with dignity. i think there is a distinction there.

i don’t see any way out of this. our country is founded upon a error–in that it doesn’t explicitly recognize Christ as our King, but the various interpretations of our constitution. toleration and diversity become a mechanisms to promote our global capitalism.

i believe the only answer at this point is to completely decentralize everything and do away with public education. make parents the primary educators of children and not the state. why should our tax dollars pay to promote this garbage? why must i pay to make more sheep to function in our sick society?

 

[KathleenElsie]

i disagree, when it comes to homosexuality, we shouldn’t be afraid to offend homosexuals or justly discriminate against them. we are only to treat them with dignity. i think there is a distinction there.

i don’t see any way out of this. our country is founded upon a error–in that it doesn’t explicitly recognize Christ as our King, but the various interpretations of our constitution. toleration and diversity become a mechanisms to promote our global capitalism.

i believe the only answer at this point is to completely decentralize everything and do away with public education. make parents the primary educators of children and not the state. why should our tax dollars pay to promote this garbage? why must i pay to make more sheep to function in our sick society?

In my definition of manners V sensitivity manners allows us to treat them with dignity. Sensitivity requires us to accept there behaviors. If you have read my other post you will find we home school.

 

[boppaid]

Bullying should not be tolerated, or fighting, or arson, or robbing, or anything else. Why formal courses in sensitivity?

Because heightened sensitivity on these issues leads to less bullying.

I would say those current problems are a symptom of a greater malady. Indoctrination or re-education is not the answer. Such answers seem to always serve a particular agenda.

What are the “current problems” you are referring to? Children being picked on because they have gay parents? What do you suppose is the answer, if not teaching the children to be sensative to those who are different.

So, tell whomever is doing it to stop teasing. Why bring in a political agenda?

Because if you just try to “treat” the teasing, it will resume again as soon as the teacher’s back is turned. If you heighten a child’s sensativity, they are less likely to tease.

 

[boppaid]

I really don’t know where to start with this. (No offense meant…it’s just so far away from anything I believe, I’m having a hard time even addressing it.) But here goes:

i disagree, when it comes to homosexuality, we shouldn’t be afraid to offend homosexuals or justly discriminate against them. we are only to treat them with dignity. i think there is a distinction there.

We should NEVER offend the children of homosexuals. These are KIDS we are discussing here, not homosexual adults. There is a HUGE difference. Can you see the difference?

i believe the only answer at this point is to completely decentralize everything and do away with public education. make parents the primary educators of children and not the state. why should our tax dollars pay to promote this garbage? why must i pay to make more sheep to function in our sick society?

I’m assuming you homeschool? I think homeschooling is a wonderful option for you. I do not think, though, that we should take tax dollars away from public education. Many parents are unfit to educate their children. Many are on drugs, drop outs out of the sixth grade, working 10 hours a day 7 days a week to put food in their child’s belly, etc. These children DESERVE a free education.

 

[boppaid]

For all those saying “just teach them some manners”, I have a question. Do you think that will work? And another question, what do you think sensativity training entails? From what I understand, it simply means teaching children that some children have just a mom or just a dad. Some children live with their grandparents. Some children have two moms and two dads. It does not make a value judgement, it simply demonstrates how society is made up of all different values.

I am not afraid of my son being friends with so-and-so who has 2 moms. What would I be afraid of? That he would “turn gay”? That he would adopt their values?

If I am raising my children correctly, they will be strong enough to live up to the values I have instilled within them without my having to shield them from everyone else’s values. If I have to keep them in a bubble to make sure they stay “moral” and “right”, then I’ve done a lousy job raising them. Their foundation should be strong. If it’s not, the only one to blame should be me.

 

[KathleenElsie]

The definition:

conspiracyarchive.com/NewAge/Sensitivity_International.htm
"Sensitivity training is defined as group meetings, large or small, to discuss publicly (private) intimate and personal matters, and opinions, values or beliefs; and/or, to act out emotions and feelings toward one another in the group, using techniques of self-confession and mutual criticism.
It is also, ‘coercive persuasion in the form of thought reform or brainwashing.’ "

The above referenced article is not the best but it does refer the reader to the many aspects of this type of training. This training is New Age.