May I ask, What is wrong with the left coast???

[1480]

Originally Posted by Blacklight

Times are different now. Back when I was in school, gay culture was seen as an underground and hidden kind of thing that was persecuted and spat on by 90% of the mainstream populous. I mean heck.. AIDS was blamed on them back then. Now, gays are out in the open. They're fighting the discrimination and they're out there. Kids are going to encounter gays and lesbians and often times, the biggotry that surrounds them. They're going to need the nescissary information in order to understand what's going on. They should NOT be shielded from this no more than they should be shielded from Black issues, or Muslem issues, etc..
It's much easier to teach tollerance at a young age rather than at an older age when they get more set in their ways.

I kind of understand what you are saying, and I will give props on that for what you are trying to convey, because there is way too much nonsense going on in this world, because I see this everyday. What I am pi$$ed off about is, a teacher had children, who still wet their beds on a nightly basis, sign their names to a card that they have no idea of what is on there. To pledge a good intentioned idea but, still has no foundation in law but will be the basis of them getting thrown out in third grade when they something, that might be offesive to someone. You want to bring up differences in people with their skin color, I AGREE WHOLE HEARTEDLY. Then bring it up that way. It is more of a tangible subject, then someones sexual preference, which is not so tangible to a 5 and/or 6 year old.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by 1480

This sickens me to no end, why is the subject of sexuality brought up, other than a boy has a "weenus" and a girl has a "china", to 5-6 year olds? I'm leaving a link so you do not think I am rambling.


http://shavedlongcock.blogspot.com/2...dge-cards.html

Welcome to the leftcoast. There is no shortage of weird ideas out here that get pushed on kids. The only thing i can think of, is that people around here are much less formal around here than the Midwest. I agree with you though, these unprofessional teachers need to be driven out of the industry.

[PeriscopeDepth]

At what age are kids calling things "gay" in place of "stupid" these days? It was pretty young when I was in middle school. Probably not kindergarten, but certainly second grade. But then again, I went to a Catholic middle school. So who knows if that's an outlier.

PD

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Why the homophobia? I don't feel comfortable around gays, but I don't bash them or think they're evil or immoral. They have a right to love who they want to. "Inalienable Rights" (the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?) mean anything to anyone anymore?

I find the fear of homosexuals and more liberal minded people by the more conservative minded people at least interesting. I said fear, because that's what it looks like to me. If you are secure in your value and belief systems, this whole debate would be pointless. Let the sinners burn in H*ll as mainstream Christianity believes, but does not seem to think God can handle without help on earth. Your own doubts of your faith are showing. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil does not mean persecute those you find deviant! As far as when to teach about sexuality? That is often answered by the children themselves with no help from anyone else. They are not as naive as the parents may think! The public school system allows parents to exclude their children from any content they find inappropriate. The teacher in this case was stepping into a gray area, and should have at least worded the pledge to be unspecific regarding the target of harassment in deference to those who would take offense. THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED BY THOSE WHO WISHED TO LIVE AND WORSHIP AS THEY SAW FIT. NOT TO BE TOLD HOW THAT SHOULD BE BY THE RULING CLASS. Having shouted that out, obviously a free for all would not work. It's the definitions of what is harmful, or infringes on others that we argue.

Am I gay? No. Am I a liberal? Yes (liberty and justice for all). Am I religious? Not in the mainstream way. Do I own guns? Yes (liberty again). Do I live in California? Yes (born there). Do I believe in a strong military? Yes, the world has not matured enough to have it any other way.

Buddahaid

[Frederf]

I see a lot of people reading something into this that really isn't there. I'm a 25 year old college graduate and recent participant of the California public school system. Kids in middle and high school call each other names all the time including "anti-LGBT" ones.

I see this as an attempt to achieve a preemptive strike against calling each other bad names for the purposes of keeping behavior under control. Not all actions of the school is "instruction" on the academic matter but rather a large portion of school actions are for the purposes of keeping kids behaving long to learn something and possibly not emotionally scar each other. This is the latter.

This is not "teaching kids to be gays and lesbians" this is "teaching kids not to call each other hurtful names." I can see nothing wrong with a school delivering a message of moral behavior. I'm sure some people condone being hurtful to people based on their sexual orientation to the east of me, but not on the ground under my feet.

---

Let me pull out a good example of ignorance:

Originally Posted by 1480

About non-NORMAL homo sapien physical relationships? NOT AT SCHOOL.

This is where ignorant people do not understand the distinction between "instruction about X" and "teaching X." The job of a school is to educate the student about the subject matter. Human sociology in reference to sexual orientations is a perfectly valid academic topic if taught as such. "There are such people as homosexuals, this is what they are, what they do, their society and history" is certainly the place of a school to inform. Facts are never offensive.

While I'm a scientist and an atheist I think that teaching certain things in school like The Bible and Creationism is great, in history or social studies class where it belongs. For example The Bible is a very important book (as is religion) in the sense of human history and it would benefit any one, regardless of religion, to know about it.

Similarly I think you can teach Creationism (heck, what would that take, a week?) in school, just not in science class... because, it's not science. I can never understand why people get all up in arms wanting to teach creationism in science class. We don't teach Creationism in science class for the same reason we don't teach French literature in science class... BECAUSE THEY AREN'T MOTHERFLIPPIN' SICENCE!

[CCIP]

I also don't see a problem with this. And this is no doubt a response to an actual problem. "Gay" and "fag" are the "cool" words to throw at people these days. These things spread like crazy around schools. Of course it should firstly be the parents' responsibility to keep this controlled, but I don't see why schools can't have some involvement in it, either. I know back when I was in school, I'd get a slap on the back of the head from parents and teachers alike if I went around throwing words like this.

I am opposed to promoting "LGBT lifestyle" in schools, but I really don't see why kids shouldn't be alerted to the fact that using these names in the playground is wrong. And you can't keep kids completely sheltered. If a word like this goes around schools - stop them, before it gets pretty much just fixed into their vocabulary.

[Skybird]

did I get this right? This took place in a Kindergarten...?

I don't know how it is in America, but in Germany Kindergärten are filled with 2-5 year old.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Skybird

did I get this right? This took place in a Kindergarten...?

I don't know how it is in America, but in Germany Kindergärten are filled with 2-5 year old.

5-year-olds it was.

You'd be surprised how many young kids I hear constantly calling each other "gay" around here, though.

[Skybird]

No, I wouldn't, but it is talking about stuff they snapped up, not stuff that they really know and understand. Same is true for that toylike treaty they had to "sign". It is beyond the mental horizon of that age, and treating little kids like small adults is - well, I bite my lips.

[1480]

Hear me out a minute: I am not ignorant, nor am I a (insert any counterculture tag)-phobe. I gave up on the church I was raised into, for reasons too numerous to take up bandwidth here. 4-6 year olds, adding the caveat, that are being raised by their parents, should not have certain words in their vocabulary. I know for a fact that hatred is a learned behavior, along with sharing and responsibility. I don't know about you, but a school's number one priority is to educate. Would it not be irresponsible for an institution whose main goal is to teach, just "ban" words without giving their definition? So, if you tell a 5 year old that saying "fag" is not nice (which I agree with) but, do not instruct a child of the word's meaning, is that not in fact a grave omission of the educator's duty to educate? Telling someone that they will not say the word "jujubee" without giving them the definition of the word is just outright censorship rather then have them develop a moral system that will give them the choice to preclude said word.

It's the definition of the word "fag" that would be taught to a 4-6 year old that enrages me.

[Frederf]

Your post confuses me. You said it's right to explain why certain words are not allowed fully but you are enraged by a young kid would be given the definition?

[Zachstar]

Originally Posted by 1480

Are you accusing me of something? I bring up the AGE of the child and y'all start saying all kinds of bad things. So in your fun world Blacklight, you would want your 4-6 year old to learn about sexuality in schools, because they are not "biggoted?"

I am not sorry, but, I will not have my child taught about any type of sexuality at this age other then, what I mentioned before.

Then take your kid out of public school. That is your right. Just as it is my right to tell you that the age of hard headed age of hate has ended.

[Blacklight]

This is not "teaching kids to be gays and lesbians" this is "teaching kids not to call each other hurtful names." I can see nothing wrong with a school delivering a message of moral behavior.

This is exactly my point.
These kids weren't signing a legally binding document. It was more a symbolic kind of thing used as a teaching tool. This should not even BE an issue.

[1480]

Originally Posted by Frederf

Your post confuses me. You said it's right to explain why certain words are not allowed fully but you are enraged by a young kid would be given the definition?

You are right and I should have broken it down some more.

Why is it even brought up in the first place? Shouldn't this be taught at home? I do not expect my child to learn that hatred is wrong from a school. That is a parents job. If a child uses a word that is inappropriate, address it then through the definition system. My thing is why take a proactive approach to a problem that should be addressed at home?

Remember these are 4-6 year olds.

Then take your kid out of public school. That is your right. Just as it is my right to tell you that the age of hard headed age of hate has ended.

Ahhh Zach....

You are right, I do not have my child in public school. Yet 65% of my property tax bill goes to public school funding. So I'm penalized for wanting my child to have a private education. One who has to show a performance level, but does not get mandated by the nanny state to take out the pledge of allegience or offer condoms in grade school. Still I have to pay twice for this silliness. BTW, where are you going with the "age of hard headed age of hate?"

[Frederf]

Originally Posted by 1480

Why is it even brought up in the first place? Shouldn't this be taught at home? I do not expect my child to learn that hatred is wrong from a school. That is a parents job. If a child uses a word that is inappropriate, address it then through the definition system. My thing is why take a proactive approach to a problem that should be addressed at home?

Remember these are 4-6 year olds.

Ahhh Zach....

You are right, I do not have my child in public school. Yet 65% of my property tax bill goes to public school funding. So I'm penalized for wanting my child to have a private education. One who has to show a performance level, but does not get mandated by the nanny state to take out the pledge of allegiance or offer condoms in grade school. Still I have to pay twice for this silliness. BTW, where are you going with the "age of hard headed age of hate?"

It's brought up in school because there's a demonstrated need for the schools to address it. You should expect a school to teach hatred is wrong especially when hatred at school becomes an obstacle for schools to perform their primary task. The reasons to take a proactive approach are obvious:

1. By preventing the issue before it happens you avoid the emotional damage that such actions bring.
2. Using a punishment-based method has negative side effects.

The idea that "it's a parent's job" is irrelevant if a parent is not doing it. It needs to get done and if the parents don't do it then the schools must. Letting the behavior go unchecked is not practical. It is not the right of a parent to let either their wayward child damage others or to let their child be damaged by undo exposure to hate at school. If at any time you thought it was, you were misinformed.

Also your taxes going toward public education is not a punishment but rather the cost that you pay to live in a society surrounded by people who have had access to education. This is the benefit for the tax money you pay whether you have any direct use of public education or not. Make no mistake, adults with no children still benefit from the public education system.