Jump to content

Parents say school undermines their authority over kids


Recommended Posts

Brent, I propose that we get the KKK to adopt the rainbow and try to convince the gay rights people to start flying the stars and bars. Nah, that one doesn't even compute in my mind! :) But I do contrast the origins of one with the other, a wonderful story about a miracle vs. a political movement founded on racial oppression. Before you go off on me, I know I'm in a minority opinion.

 

Dan, I blame myself. I shouldn't have mentioned the twin studies but your analysis is correct. It isn't actual direct experimental evidence, but it does establish a reasonable hypothesis of the presence of a (presently not-indentified) genetic component.

I note also that although some diseases may have similar obscure genetic influences, in no way do I consider homosexuality to be a disease. I have many gay acquaintances and friends and all of them are in perfect health, both physically and mentally. I value them just the way I do other people, for the creativity and vitality they give to me, my family, and the community. I hope that someday everyone (including BSA) will view them and treat them the same as any other good citizens.

Think I'll stick with the rainbow for now.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

packsaddle,

So long as you know!! ;^) Just havin' some fun with you - Biology was never my strong suit, so I'm out of my league with the rest of this discussion.

 

A sick thought did cross my mind, though - a rainbow colored Confederate Battle flag - yikes! Hope I never see one of those!

However... one year, while in Savannah around March 17th, I picked up a t-shirt with the Battle flag set in orange and green, featuring four-leaf clovers instead of stars. The message said "St. Patrick's Day Southern Style" which I thought was pretty cool.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'll try to respond to the issue raised in the initial post. Wish me luck...

 

I happen to agree that the school is in the wrong.

 

In most school districts, parents have the right to have their children withheld from sex ed (the idea being that certain parents would prefer to be the teachers in that area). Parents also have the right to an alternate curriculum when certain literary books are read (for instance, some parents might object to books that contain profanity or sexual themes).

 

So, it is within the parent's right to prevent their child from engaging in activities that either teach about or promote homosexuality, especially if it is against their family's belief structure.

 

Do I agree with such a choice? Not at all. It does the child a disservice to forcefully hold their head beneath the sand. Sorry to tell some of you guys, but gays are real, they're here, and they're not going away. Your children will have to interact with them. Your children will learn about their existence. Most of us grew up in a world where anti-gay statements were allowed. The words "Fag" and "Gay" were synonomous with "bad."

 

But your children will live in a drastically different world. "Fag" may one day be as bad as the N-word. Your children will be the ones who will either have to accept homosexuals or they will be branded as bigots.

 

However, it is still the parent's right to have the final say in their child's upbringing. In our current social climate in regards to homosexuality, schools should respect a parent's wishes on their education.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zahnada writes:Sorry to tell some of you guys, but gays are real, they're here, and they're not going away. [. . .] Your children will be the ones who will either have to accept homosexuals or they will be branded as bigots.Zahnada, are you saying that our children must "accept" homosexuals or be branded as bigots simply because they exist? By that rationale, our children should "accept" pedophiles and rapists, or be branded as bigots, simply because they exist.

 

And before anyone complians that I am equating homosexuality with pedophilia and rape, I am not -- I am only questioning the logic behind Zahnada'a argument.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep homosexuality is all around. Does that mean we or our children must tolerate it? Nope. Homosexuality is a lifestyle. Nothing more.

 

The school was flat out wrong to allow that or any other teacher to do what they did. Being a homosexual has nothing to do with education. It's all about agenda. If a Christian would have done the exact same thing they would have been sanctioned or fired! But since the person who made these statements to the children was a homosexual, nothing happened! Why? Lawsuit!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

Link to post
Share on other sites

FGoodwin,

 

Though you asked us not to, I'm going to comment on your use of pedophilia and rape as analogous to homosexuality - though you say you don't personally equate them, and I'll accept that at face value, you still chose to compare a human characteristic with criminal acts.

 

Instead of using pedophilia and rape, why not use Blacks and Jews? One an obvious unmutable characteristic (race) and one a choice (religion) which covers both sides of the coin on where homosexuality comes from (the born with it/it's a lifestyle choice argument).

 

Read your sentence now with those wording changes:

 

"Zahnada, are you saying that our children must "accept" homosexuals or be branded as bigots simply because they exist? By that rationale, our children should "accept" Blacks and Jews, or be branded as bigots, simply because they exist."

 

In the world of 2006, I'd wager that most of us now agree that children must accept Blacks and Jews or be branded as bigots - at least in public. This kind of bigotry is what needs to be shoved into a closet - a closet so deep it never sees the light of day.

 

CalicoPenn

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brent, ;) I need to break it to you gently, fella...I know gay people who feel the same way you do about the stars and bars. And your idea is a wonderful one. As a matter of fact, my daughter works for a local graphics shop and guess what? New design on the way! Thanks.

 

P.S. I have my hand cupped to my ear, listening for the scream...:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I dont know about NASCAR, and I know almost nothing, I thought Jeff Gordon was the "Rainbow Warrior" or was someone pulling my leg?

 

Remember when the University of Hawaii's Football team was the the Rainbow Warrior? Made as much sense as the present day University of Pennsylvania's Fighting Quakers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Zahnada, I'd like to try to comment on the original topic. It seesm to me that the problem here is defining the line between teaching facts that children need to know about, and teaching a viewpoint on moral and ethical issues. It's one thing to teach that that homosexuality exists, it's another thing to teach that all people should be treated with respect, but it's something else again to teach that one side or another of a controversial moral issue is right or wrong. For those of you think it's OK for the school to assign "Daddy's Roommate," would you think it was OK for a school in a conservative district to assign "Daddy and His Roommate Are Deviants"? There is a difficult line to be drawn here. For example, pretty much all curriculum in the country today would make it clear that slavery is wrong. That's no longer controversial. Similarly, I think all history curriculum would depict giving the vote to women as a positive development. But when you get to more recent events which remain controversial, I don't think the public schools should take a position. For example, while I'm OK with my high schooler discussing whether Roe v. Wade was a good decision, I'd have trouble with a required curriculum that took a firm decision one way or the other.

And one more thing:

"Gays aren't intolerant about hetersexuality. They're intolerant about bigotry and intolerance and are telling the bigots that their time is up."

It seems to me that many people on that side of the argument are intolerant of the opposing viewpoint, since they are willing to label the holders of that viewpoint as bigots, and to support indoctrinating elementary school students with their viewpoint. I would also suggest that before you tell the bigots that their time is up, you'd better count the votes. I suspect that in much of the country, a ballot initiative on whether school curriculum should include the books discussed above would overwhelmingly reject them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hunt,

OK, ok, stick to the topic...if you insist. ;)

I am always quick to acknowledge that I am (most of the time) in a minority opinion on these matters. However, your characterization, "I would also suggest that before you tell the bigots that their time is up, you'd better count the votes."

goes farther than I would like. I really do think that many of those in opposition to my views are honestly and sincerely engaged in a meaningful dialogue. At the same time I know that some of the individuals in the opposition qualify as bigots. I just wouldn't characterize the entire majority that way. Have I mentioned before that I dislike labels? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hunt,

 

Since in the three pages of discussion so far, no one has vociferously defended or advocated the actions of the teacher in the original article, I'm not sure who "those of you think it's OK" are.

 

I do agree with you that it is a fine line between acknowledging/respecting that there may be students in the class whose families include same-sex parents and teaching a particular moral stance about the same subject (either way, for or against). I don't think it is the place of teachers to teach that a parent is wrong because of their stance on this issue. A teacher can present that there are different sides and opinions on this issue, without making a value judgement about the "correctness" of any of those sides or opinions.

 

I also don't think it was appropriate for the teacher to explicitly "come out" to his students, either. But at the same time, the teacher should not be asked to "hide" his orientation or his relationship with his partner. If other teachers have pictures of their spouses on their desks, I see nothing wrong with this teacher having a picture of his partner on his desk, either. If other teachers attend school-related functions with their spouses, then this teacher should be able to attend with his partner as well. If and when students may ask the teacher about the picture, then he can simply tell them that "this is the person I love", without ever saying the word "gay" or "homosexual".

 

As far as the books themselves, I see nothing wrong with providing alternative reading for any child whose parents object to the books. I do have a problem with parents who want to ban the books entirely, thereby depriving children whose parents do want the books from reading them. I also have a problem with people who object to these books without ever having actually read them! They can even offer "Daddy and his roomate are deviants" as long as I have the option of saying "no thank you" for my son. It's my job, as the parent, to tell my own son why I think such a book is wrong. And yes, I would be equally upset if the school contradicted my teachings on the matter to my son.

 

As I said, every parent has the right to teach their children their particular prejudices. Just as every child has the right when they get old enough to decide their parents are full of horeseapples. See how well my parents' teaching of gay and racial prejudices stuck on me, after all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...