I apologize for the delay, as I had meant to reply to this post sooner. Please note that I will be cherry picking specific quotes, if you feel that I have missed something important, please bring it up and I'll debate it. Please note also that I will speaking in generalities unless I name a specific poster, and do not take personal offense over an argument with a quote, for it is only an argument and not an attack on the poster him/herself.
With the qualifiers out of the way, let's begin!
I don't know what would be the equivelent for you , what a teacher could tell your child that would fill you with horror .
The equivalent for me (if I had children, which I don't), would be to have a teacher tell my child that gay people are morally inferior and that they should not be married. Frankly, I'm sort of confused as to what most of the fuss is about. Gay couples exist. Gay married couples exist. Chances are pretty good that most public schools have children of gay couples in attendance, it's almost a certainty that most of the students there know a gay person. If you want to for your children not to be exposed to homosexuals (now there's an exercise in futility), send them to a private Christian school. If this issue bothers these parents that badly, they should be attending the school board meetings and expressing their concerns there. I've attended a lot of school board meetings, mostly when I was still in high school. They're generally pretty unpopulated. I prefer that schools keep up with modern means, whether it's morality or math curriculum. For parents to decry the teaching of homosexual tolerance is on a par with a parent decrying the teaching of the earth being spherical because they adhere to some 15th century version of Christianity.
Should one of your chillds teachers tell your child that there is no point in study of scripture?
No. They should tell your child that Christians, as with Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and yes, even Moslems, are people deserving of human respect and love. They definitely should not be telling my child that Jesus will save them or died for their sins or mandating that they pray, unless I have enrolled them in a private Christian school. Nor should they be teaching a Christian morality that even now is disagreed upon by a range of Christian churches, unless they are offering a theology class.
We're told to be tolerant of others. It's clear liberals are not tolerant of views they disagree with. They use the courts to force them on others.
You may be told to be tolerant of others, but it's your decision whether you choose to exercise that tolerance or to withold it. There are examples of liberals and conservatives both that have intolerance of disagreeing views. If conservatives were so tolerant of a disagreeing view, I don't see why they would push DOMA through and make anti-gay marriage issues an underpinning of their domestic/social platform. And yes, I'm aware that Biden and some other Democrats voted for DOMA, but it is by and large a social conservative cause. As for using the courts for the agenda, the whole purpose of the courts is to protect the rights of the people from encroachment by the legislature. Our government is composed of three branches, each with equal weight and responsibilities. It is the purpose of the judicial branch to hold the legislative and executive branches accountable to the standards set forth within the Constitution, and a Court's opinion is usually the final say in a matter. But think where we would be as a nation without the courts and their infringement on the legislature: huge, monolithic companies would have actual (as opposed to virtual) monopolies on goods and services, several of the New Deal programs that FDR would like to have seen enacted would have been in effect, if the Court hadn't said no, and segregation may well be alive in the South, for though the Civil Rights Act of 1964 went a long way to burying Jim Crow, it was the Court decisions in the 50's that were the impetus for that movement.
And let's face it, both liberals and conservatives go crying to court when they don't get their way. It is the court's duty and responsibility to make the decisions in a rational, non partisan rendering. I am interested in what will happen when the gay marriage issue gets to SCOTUS, because a lot of people on both sides are confusing judicial conservatism with social conservatism, and they're definitely not the same animal.
They are teaching Natzism next, why not?
They shouldn't teach Nazim, or are you arguing that they should teach that Nazism is morally acceptable? It is of great importance for future generations to learn of the horrors that the Nazi's perpetrated, how they came to power, and how they abused that power once in high positions. I've never seen a school that taught that Nazism is morally acceptable, yet Nazi's (or at least Neo-Nazi's) still exist. This would suggest to me that despite the effort of schools to teach moral behavior (at least concering Nazism), people are still capable of coming to their own conclusions and forming their own morality (though it may be sick and reprehensible), despite the best effort of educators to portray the horrors for what they were.
It does not mean putting up with what you like , it means allowing what you do not like.
In proper terms are you actually tolerant?
Are you? I think that I'm pretty tolerant, though no doubt some would disagree. I try to see an opposing view, even if it conflicts morally or politically with my own. But it seems that there are many who are loathe to entertain the thought, much less make any sort of compromise to resolve the issue.
We just can't afford to debate with them endlessly about this, to deal over and over again with their hatred, with their irrationality, with their extremism.
Why not? That is how negotiations are conducted, and legislative consensus built. If we each remain in our houses, esconced in our isolationism, how does that do anything toward resolving the conflict. Because while the conflict is a money maker and vote getter for both sides of the issue, there are actual people in the middle hurting because of it.
These are Americans and Canadians, with families and friends, and we have finally got to stick up for them and do what is in our power to do, and that is RE-EDUCATE from the bottom up, starting in the school system.
I don't favor a moral re-education in the schools, though I do favor the teaching of tolerance for a lifestyle that some may find morally wrong but is legal in every which way. I think that a social education is more effective and more likely to cause less controversy, if someone doesn't like Will & Grace they can find whatever is playing on the Hallmark Channel. I personally favor that avenue as opposed to an in your face confrontation.
Now...if you think having your child's school take over your right to teach them about sex, same-sex relationships, or birth control in the way that's best for your family
Same sex issues are not even in the same category as birth control and sex ed. That would be like including a discussion of segregation in that category, because you didn't like the outcome of that conflict and felt that we should still be a segregated society (speaking hypothetically, not personally). Gay people exist. Married gay people exist. There is no moral judgement to be made in the acknowledgement of their existence. So I don't see how teaching that gay couples exist and are as worthy of respect as any other couple, is anywhere near related to sex ed. If you wanted to talk about including gay sex in sex ed, that's another discussion entirely and one that I would be happy to continue in another thread, but I don't see its relation to this one.
Cross-dressers, transsexuals, etc. exist in the real world as citizens with equal rights. Whether or not the parents wish their kids to know about these people, those people exist in the real world and those kids will sooner or later encounter them. The function of the school is not to teach the kids that the world is a fantasy world without GLBT people in it - - that is teaching a lie, the parents may want their kids to be taught a lie, but the schools must not become complicit in teaching that lie
I can't argue with this.
when what really has happened is parents were blindsided and searching for answers to questions that had no idea they would have to answer so early in their childrens lives.
A teacher had a medical procedure that was probably a treatment for a diagnosed medical disorder. I don't see the problem? Would you deny that bigotry is a driving force for many of the parents (I'm not sure who would be in the majority, the parents you bring up or the parents MT does)? That they don't want their children exposed (and being taught by) a freak, a degenerate? If a teacher sees a therapist for depression, should the parents be notified, or if they take an anti-depressant? What if they have a stroke, should it be the schools responsibilty to notify that Mrs. Whatshername will now be talking funny and her face will sag? I don't agree with all of MT's analysis in this case BT, but I don't necessarily agree with yours either.
School is SUPPOSED to be about education of the basics. The Child's morality & spirituality, and how they're to be raised is the domain of the parents, and PARENTS ALONE.
There is a blurry line between the responsibility of the school to the child, the parents, the taxpayer, and the society in general. Be that as it may, how can you argue that teaching that gay couples exist, and that they should be given the love and respect that is given to any other couple, is wrong, or at least not the responsibility of the school? Because, unless I've misread this whole debate and the title article incorrectly (which we all know is always a possibility), that seems to be the issue. There is a larger issue that I'll address at the end of the post, of enablement, which I think is the root of the matter.
So much for the party of "choice". That apparently has to do with what they choose for you, and screw the parents if you disagree. They apparently know better.
Are the Republicans that push for amendment to both the state and federal constitution banning gay marriage, and in some cases, civil unions, any better? It seems to me from where I sit that they're a lot alike. One side mandates one thing, the other side mandates another. I may not choose to marry my partner, but that should be our decision and uninfluened by the State. Yet there are many social conservatives that will not allow us to have the right to make that decision. We've gone over this issue before and we know where each of us stands on it, and you're not in the group that I used, but a lot of Republicans are.
I don't believe that the teacher's right to work trumps the responsibility of the school towards the parents and students in this case.
I disagree. As stated before, a sex change involves a lot of medical and psychological treatment. If you're going to deny the teacher the right to work based on its (sorry, I don't know the proper terminology) transgenderism, that sets a bad precedent, and I wonder where it will end? Stroke, heart attack, depression, psoriasis, obesity? The teacher has every right to work, and parents isolating their kids in some kind of fairy tale does no one, the school, the child, the parent, or society in general, any kind of good. The parent has every right to teach their child that transgenderism is wrong, sick, whatever. It may be hateful, ignorant, and crude, but that's their right. What they don't have is the right to remove the teacher because it had a medical procedure overseen by competent physicians, and probably covered by an insurance carrier, as these operations are very expensive. All of which point to a diagnosed disorder being treated.
It amazes me that students are sent home for wearing T shirts because it might offend someone and then when parents question the handlin of a situation in school they are the intolerant ones.
I agree. There's some incredibly stupid stuff that goes on under the guise of a no-tolerance policy. I don't know what happened to the days when schools were able to make an intelligent decision benefiting all parties, it seems to me that the no-tolerance thing is easier. Easy isn't always better. Suspending a kid for a bottle of aspirin or a girl for a bottle of Midol borders on the absurd, if it wasn't so serious.
I think the school did a poor job of presenting that change.
I'm still at a loss as to why the school needs to present anything? Is it different because it's a medical-sexual issue as opposed to just a medical issue? I tend to agree with MT on this, that it isn't the intellectual quandary that it's made out to be. How hard is it to explain to a child that there is a medical issue undergoing treatment, because when you get down to it that's what it is. I tend to think that the lines about a parents right to explain are overblown. Does the parent have a right to explain to the child before the school does if someone has a heart attack? If the school teaches about diabetes before the parent has had the chance to discuss with their children a disease that makes you blind and results in the amputation of limbs, has that infringed on a parent's rights? I think it's a bunch of hogwash. For some, it's bigotry masquerading as concern.
But that is entirely beside the point , to teach something to children that their parents are not persueded is true is evil and it isn't anything but evil.
Then send your kids to a private school that will make those teachings. There are many choices for education in this country, people act like there's only one way. I don't see why I should send my kid to a school with my tax dollars only to have a teacher discuss a Christian lifestyle and the "evils" of homosexuality. And yes, I went to a public school that had teachers like that. If you want that, then by all means feel free to open your wallet and send your kids to a school that espouses things like that. Just don't expect me to pay for it.
If you want to persuede adults I don't object , but the notion that the children will learn a new right and wrong as approved by the state is anathema to freedom and free men.
Isn't that what happened in the South when it was desegregated? All of a sudden, all of these black children were sitting side by side with the white children. Were their parents in an intellectual quandary as to how to explain it? Do you think that public schools should teach that homosexuality is wrong, that it's "not okay to be gay"? Because the only difference I see between your example and the one cited in this thread, is that one causes hurt, alienation, and possibly violence, while the other only espouses respect towards someone else. These high words about morality being approved by the state sound good, and make a great sound bite. But they are generally historically ignorant. History as taught in public schools is rife with controversy about moral judgements passed on in the textbooks. Should there be waivers for a history class too? Right and wrong is taught by the parents, if the parents are either too lazy, too uninformed, or too apathetic to pass that on to their children, then someone should. I'm not saying that it should be mandated, but not all parents are great, or even mediocre. Some are flat out awful, even (and sometimes especially) when it comes to handing out moral direction.
Mandatory ROTC.
Should parents be allowed to opt out their children?
Yes and no. They should be allowed to opt out, but only after viewing a presentation by the ROTC. That way both sides are presented, and it may plant a seed for the child to enter the ROTC after high school, when not subject to the whim of the parent.
I think the major issue of this article and this thread is that teaching about homosexuals and homosexual lifestyles (and in a lesser, slightly related way, transgenderism) is enabling homosexuals and the supposed "gay agenda". But I see it as presenting both sides of an issue. I would bet a large sum of money that these lessons aren't going to make anyone gay, any more than gay parents make someone gay. If a parent wishes to drill it into their child's head that homosexuality is wrong and perverted or whatever, they still have that option, though it will be in conflict with what the school teaches. Such conflicts are not uncommon and are usually resolved without going to court. But also in my perception, this is both political sides utilizing a conflict, with no effort at resolution, to further their respective agendas.
In the meantime, the people in the middle, in this case the kids, get screwed.
