Gay rights vs. religious beliefs

[DanKroh 11]

"Softball questions?"

 

Not really; I was truly curious what level of activities you considered "pushing the homosexual agenta".

 

"An ongoing struggle in a Boston suburb over homosexual material in elementary classrooms has culminated in a lawsuit between parents and the school system.

The Parkers were upset over a book sent home with their five-year-old son in January of 2005, Whos in a Family, that presents families with gay or lesbian parents as normal.

Robert Skutch, author of Whos in a Family, says that the whole purpose of the book was to get the subject [of same-sex parent households] out into the minds and the awareness of children before they are old enough to have been convinced that theres another way of looking at life.

 

So what is the teacher supposed to say when the child who comes from a same-sex household asks why their family is not represented? "Sorry, you are a homosexual activist, and you can't talk about your family here?" I remember the book. It shows the different types of families. It doesn't advocate the propriety/impropriety of the relationships of the parents. Yes, it makes them aware of same-sex households, most likely because they probably have classmates who come from such a household. I personally don't see that as "advocating a lifestyle".

 

"Ever heard of GLSEN? Among their gaols:

GLSEN calls upon public policy makers to remove any prohibitive laws that forbid or discourage in-school discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression."

 

Yes, I know about GLSEN. Their main purpose is to try to stop harrasement of GLBT students in public schools. I guess it's bettr to allow GLBT students to be harrassed, bullied, and in some cases, physically assaulted than to expose their fellow students to any "positive" messages about homosexuality.

 

"More Mass. news: "The Commissioner of Education, David Driscoll, has apologized for the explicit teaching of homosexual sex to teenagers at a conference which was sponsored by a homosexual organization, GLSEN, at Tufts University on March 25.

 

He said, "There is no question that the comments of the Department of Education staff and the other consultant in those workshops go beyond the boundaries of what our staff should have done."

 

I actually hadn't heard about this one (which in itself is surprising); but I looked up a little more info. The controversial comments were made in during the "question and answer" portion of the class, which was clearly labeled "What They Didn't Tell You About Queer Sex & Sexuality In Health Class: A Workshop For Youth Only, Ages 14-21". Students asked very specific questions, which were answered in a factual, neutral way (at least, looking at the transcript from the person who recorded the session and "broke the story" in the news). Presumable, the students who attended were GLBT youth.

 

So first, this was not done in a "public school". It was done at a conference that people had to register and pay money to attend. The only thing I would criticize would be that if the conference organizers did not require parental permission slips for minors who attended, that might have been wise. But given that the sex education that students receive in school does not include anything about homosexuality, how are GLBT youth supposed to get information that would allow them to make informed and hopefully safer sexual decisions? Again, from looking at the transcript, I don't see anything here that wouldn't be told to a GLBT youth who went to a free (gay-friendly) clinic to get sex education information.

 

Other than the last you mentioned, which didn't actually happen at a public school, most of what you seem to be objecting to is acknowledging that students exist who are GLBT, or who have parents who are GLBT, and to try to find ways to prevent them from experiencing discrimination and harrasement. Again, what you see as "pushing an agenda", I see as trying to keep those students safe.

[BrentAllen 10]

Dan,

First, we are not talking about a kid asking a question about why his gay parents aren't included in a book. We are talking about a book being sent home to ALL families. Why, again, did the author write the book? If you don't see the problem with this, then I can only assume you are a member or supporter of GLSEN. GLSEN goes in to schools under the premise of protecting gay kids from abuse, and then turn into recruiters for the homosexual movement.

 

Second, I don't know where you read that the "Students asked very specific questions, which were answered in a factual, neutral way (at least, looking at the transcript from the person who recorded the session and "broke the story" in the news)" but you couldn't be further from the truth.

 

"Queer sex for youth, 14-21"

In one well-attended workshop, "What They Didn't Tell You About Queer Sex & Sexuality In Health Class: A Workshop For Youth Only, Ages 14-21," the three presenters acting in their professional capacities coaxed about 20 children into talking openly and graphically about homosexual sex. The three presenters, who described themselves as homosexual, were:

 

Margot E. Abels, Coordinator, HIV/AIDS Program, Massachusetts Dept. of Education

Julie Netherland, Coordinator, HIV/AIDS Program, Massachusetts Dept. of Education

Michael Gaucher, Consultant, HIV/AIDS Program, Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health

 

The workshop syllabus included:

"What's it like to be young, queer and beginning to date?

"Are lesbians at risk for HIV?

 

"We will address the information you want about queer sexuality and some of the politics that prevent us from getting our needs met."

 

The Department of Public Health employee, Michael Gaucher, had the following exchange with one student, who appeared to be about 16 years old:

 

Michael Gaucher: "What orifices are we talking about?"

Student: [hesitation]

Michael Gaucher: "Don't be shy, honey; you can do it."

 

Now, I don't know how you read that, but it is pretty clear who is asking the questions and who is leading the discussion.

Decorum prevents me from posting the rest of the discussion. You can read the entire disgusting transcript at http://www.massnews.com/maygsa.htm Just let me warn you - it is very graphic.

 

This was a "Teach-Out" for public school teachers, staffed by 2 Department of Education employees. The public school teachers who attended received state development credits for their participation. You may not see anything wrong with it, but the Commissioner of Education sure did, which is why he apologized. Margot Abels was terminated because of her participation.

If you can't see this as pushing an agenda, then you are so far left, you have fallen off the edge.

[packsaddle 753]

Discuss human reproductive biology in school? Discuss current social issues in school? Heaven forbid! Oops, who needs heaven to forbid that, plenty of volunteers right here.

 

Trevorum, "But what business is it of the government really? And exactly what are the objections to plural marriage? Ive never received satisfactory answers to either question."

 

Since no-one else will give it a try - None of their business, and none that I can think of outside the legal entanglements (as long as everyone is a consenting adult).

[DanKroh 11]

"First, we are not talking about a kid asking a question about why his gay parents aren't included in a book. We are talking about a book being sent home to ALL families. Why, again, did the author write the book? If you don't see the problem with this, then I can only assume you are a member or supporter of GLSEN. GLSEN goes in to schools under the premise of protecting gay kids from abuse, and then turn into recruiters for the homosexual movement."

 

Oh, so the children of gay parents should have been given a DIFFERENT book about "What is a family?" than the children of heterosexual parents? Last year, a lot of books were send home with my 1st grader, about one a week. This particular book was not one of them, but no, I don't see a problem with this, and I am neither a member nor particularly a supporter of GLSEN. I am familiar with their work to protect GLBT youth in schools, not so much on the "recruiting" thing. Please tell me that you don't mean by that that they are going to "turn kids gay".

 

"Second, I don't know where you read that the "Students asked very specific questions, which were answered in a factual, neutral way (at least, looking at the transcript from the person who recorded the session and "broke the story" in the news)" but you couldn't be further from the truth."

 

Well, this line was a good clue: "There was a five minute pause so that all of the teenagers could write down questions for the homosexual presenters. The first question was read by Julie Netherland, "What's fisting?""

 

Since the fisting thing was the splashy headline for the article, I thought it was worth mentioning that it was a student's question that led to that particular discussion. I have more of a penchant for using correct medical anatomical terms when discussing sex in my work, and the counselors chose to use slang. But then again, they were probably more understandable to the teenagers and young adults there.

 

"Now, I don't know how you read that, but it is pretty clear who is asking the questions and who is leading the discussion."

 

Actually, the thing about orifices was the tail end of a discussion about what constitutes sex. Since that is something that seems to elude even adult politicians, it seemed like a reasonable topic of discussion. So the councelors used "slang" instead of all the proper anatomical terms for human body parts. I'm sure that's never happened in a heterosexual sex ed class!

 

"Decorum prevents me from posting the rest of the discussion. You can read the entire disgusting transcript at http://www.massnews.com/maygsa.htm Just let me warn you - it is very graphic."

 

Actually, that's where I read the transcript, and I was able to read beyond the obvious bias of the authors (who kept refering to them as "children" to invoke the image of kindergardeners, rather than young adults aged 14-20). Sorry, but I just wasn't shocked or disgusted. But then again, I don't get overwrought at the mention of male and female body parts, or sexual acts that both homosexuals and heterosexuals often engage in.

 

I'm not disputing the fact that counselors probably did not read their audience well and presented material in a way that was probably a little too graphic for some of the people who attended, although, again, anyone who attended a discussion with such a title and DIDN'T expect a rather graphic discussion was incredibly naive. And unless someone was standing there blocking the door, they were free to get up and leave once they discovered the nature of the discussion. However, since that particular seminar was targeted for GLBT youth from 14-20, presumable it was "well-attended" because the topic interested most of them.

 

What I was mostly disputing was that this was an example of something that happened in a public school or school setting. Again, the entire seminar was optional, no one was forced to attend, especially since they had to register and pay money to attend.

 

"If you can't see this as pushing an agenda, then you are so far left, you have fallen off the edge."

 

Just can resist getting in that little dig, can you?

(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

Pack,

 

I get a few former motorpickle riders in my office with head injuries. Tell your wife it may be more than dental insurance that you need. The term bug juice takes on a whole new meaning in some instances.

 

My first knowledge of one who loved his flight among the gravel and cement was a young man in graduate school. When I first met him he was wearing his sandals and torn blue jeans. A month later, he had on boots and a month later came a jacket and then it was finally a helmet, weather not withstanding. By the end of the year he was limping so badly that he had could barley make it down the hall. I suppose he is now flying high in the Wheelchair Olympics.

 

Not to sound like your Mother but remember to put on your helmet, leather pants, knee high boots, flak jacket, and get yourself an automobile.

 

Like your Mother, I dont expect you to listen either. Have fun. Maybe I will see you. I am pretty good in getting people retrained and/or back to work. Sometimes there are too many pieces and I dont do so well.

 

FB

[packsaddle 753]

Heh, heh, Fuzzy, I'm afraid you're out of the picture as far as my wife is concerned, she just wants to make sure the remains are identified positively. I'm worth a whole lot more dead than alive. But thanks for the concern...I do wear the gear and helmet...I don't want to be a premature organ donor. Anyway, she'll just torpedo the whole thing buying new carpet or something and I'll eventually get too doggone old to do more than just dream. Don't say it!

 

Back to the public discussion topic, 'children' who are over 18, as much as many parents would like to deny, are consenting adults. Most of them are already well-informed in these topics from their schooling on the streets. In fact, the boys entering this unit at age 11, almost every one of them, enter with an impressive array of vocabulary and ideas on these topics. Much of what they think they know is completely false. Wouldn't it be better for them to at least get it right? I have asked this before, what issue or problem is it whose understanding or solution is enhanced by ignorance? I would be interested in knowing what any of you think.

 

[BrentAllen 10]

"In fact, the boys entering this unit at age 11, almost every one of them, enter with an impressive array of vocabulary and ideas on these topics. Much of what they think they know is completely false. Wouldn't it be better for them to at least get it right? I have asked this before, what issue or problem is it whose understanding or solution is enhanced by ignorance? I would be interested in knowing what any of you think."

 

I'll give you my thoughts. Stay with me here. Do not make too many assumptions, please

 

First, a question on extremes. Which of these two would you prefer to be your son's first sexual experience?

A. A gang-bang in a filthy, dilapidated crack house with someone they just met.

B. Sex in a bedroom with a woman they are deeply in love with, and have promised to spend the rest of their life with.

 

Would the difference between those experiences have much to do with their expectations of sex and love for the rest of their lives?

 

Second, many of us (Christians, at least, 70% of the country) believe that sex is a gift God gave to be shared between a married man and woman. It is a pleasure to be shared by those married couples who have devoted their lives to each other. It is a gift that can produce one of the greatest gifts from God, a child. We believe sex education should be taught in a manner that respects these beliefs, in the form of human reproductive biology (as you mentioned earlier). We fail to see how homosexual sex falls under the category of human reproductive biology, so coupled with our own religious beliefs, we have strong objections to homosexual sex being taught to our children.

Yes, we even have objections to books being sent home showing homosexual couples as a normal, acceptable lifestyle. We do not feel that way, so why should we want our children taught that? We do not teach our children to hate homosexuals or treat them badly, but we do not want our children taught that homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle they can simply choose.

 

As to when to teach boys about sex, I would prefer to teach it at an age when the boys have a true understanding about love, and that it should be taught as part of a loving, committed relationship. It should not be taught as a casual act to be shared by two kids who find themselves alone in a room at a party.

 

What about a boy sitting in the sex ed class who says he is attracted to boys, not girls?

He should be directed to a counselor to discuss those issues. Since homosexual sex is not part of reproductive biology, it should not be discussed in sex education classes in public schools. Since homosexuals make up less than 10% of the population, the course should not include discussions which are of interest to such a small number, and which are so highly objectionable to the majority.

 

Would we prefer ignorance over education?

On the topic of homosexual sex - yes. I see no reason why my son should be taught what homosexuals do to pleasure themselves. I see no harm in him remaining ignorant of those practices.

 

Finally, why do we object to groups such as GLSEN being allowed in the schools?

GLSEN has taken the position that anyone treating homosexuality as anything other than normal or equal to heterosexuality is guilty of harassment and bullying, which is false. They have forced their position into every nook and cranny of public education, from kindergarten to high school. As mentioned in earlier posts, the book "Who's in a family" is being used to teach 5 year-olds that a homosexual family is a normal, acceptable family lifestyle. I do not believe that and my religion does not teach that, so I do not want the public school teaching my son that. If you want to teach your children those lifestyles are acceptable choices for them to follow, that is fine - do it at home; do not force it on my children. Public schools should not be used to teach these ideas, to push these agendas.

Please note I am not teaching my children to hate or dislike homosexuals. I am teaching my children those lifestyles are ok for others, but not for us.