• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fox News Poll: Most Voters Say Allow Gays to Serve Openly

Obviously the parents aren't doing their job in this department because the schools are teaching this stuff. The same goes for sexual education. If parents were collectively responsible enough to teach their kids this stuff the schools wouldn't need to.

So you have no proof. It has nothing to do with what parents teach and has everything to do with what the GLSEN and gays want taught to kids to indoctrinate them that gay is normal and it is ok to be gay.

Well, I hate to break this to you, but it is okay to be gay. Would you mind showing me where it states in our federal laws that it isn't okay?

In your opinion but I do not know parents that want a gay child.

I don't recall any teachers saying it is normal or abnormal. They are teaching kids about diversity.


Indoctrination

Gay Penguins Possible in Public Schools: Parents Angry | RightReborn.com


Attorneys for the school board in Alameda, CA are saying that parents will have no legal right to remove their children from class if a new curriculum, with lessons on homosexual, bisexual, and transgender individuals, is implemented. Targets of the initiative include innocent minds in kindergarten, as young as five years old.

Parents of the students in suburban San Francisco and Oakland, where the Unified School District is located, say they are being bullied by school administrators. It is the parents belief that issues of sexuality are best learned at home and are not age-appropriate for those enrolled in elementary school. The parents are also outraged that they are being told that they do not have the right to remove their children from the class, especially when the teachings are in direct conflict with their religious views.
 
Do you REALLY want to get into a discussion about "normal" again? I would drop that, if I were you. A school's responsibility in this matter is to teach what exists without moral implications. Since homosexuality is NOT an illness, and though not typical from a statistical sense, it is not an abnormal type of sexuality or relationship, portraying it as "normal" is completely within the parameters of a school setting. Morality and values determine "normal".

Not in many parents eyes.
 
From a scientific and informational perspective, being gay is a good and normal lifestyle. From a moral and values oriented perspective... that is up to the individual or family. The former is the school's responsibility; providing information. The latter is the individual/family responsibility.

It is not. It is the parents. Kindergarten is not the place it shows the schools are trying to indoctrinate the kids and will do it despite what parents say or think.
 
If the law is changed what can I do.....I will obey the law until its revoked when our military goes to hell in a hand basket as there will be violence against gays and a mass exodus of good Officers and Chiefs causing the military cayous....There will be lots of fights if a gay guy looks at a straight guy in the wrong way.........It will be a total waste........

Well despite your pessimism, I am happy to hear that you would support following law. That is a refreshing thing to hear.
 
Not in many parents eyes.

That's OK. That is a moral/values perspective, and though I disagree, it is their right to present their morals/values to their children.
 
It is not. It is the parents. Kindergarten is not the place it shows the schools are trying to indoctrinate the kids and will do it despite what parents say or think.

Your word "indoctrinate" is a misrepresentation... of course. It is the school's responsibility to present information that is age appropriate. It is the parents responsibility to instill morals and values.
 
Why was he there?

Irrelevant to why he was arrested. He could have been their for a bake sale and refused to leave. He still would have been arrested. He could have made his case and left when asked... and followed the law, and he wouldn't have been arrested. He was arrested for trespassing. Why he trespassed is irrelevant.

Do you think that someone who robs a store because they are poor and need food should not be arrested?
 
That's OK. That is a moral/values perspective, and though I disagree, it is their right to present their morals/values to their children.

Thats right your the guy that avoids links and facts and when you are losing ban the people. I am done I will not respond to you so you can ban me.
 
Indoctrination

Gay Penguins Possible in Public Schools: Parents Angry | RightReborn.com


Attorneys for the school board in Alameda, CA are saying that parents will have no legal right to remove their children from class if a new curriculum, with lessons on homosexual, bisexual, and transgender individuals, is implemented. Targets of the initiative include innocent minds in kindergarten, as young as five years old.

Parents of the students in suburban San Francisco and Oakland, where the Unified School District is located, say they are being bullied by school administrators. It is the parents belief that issues of sexuality are best learned at home and are not age-appropriate for those enrolled in elementary school. The parents are also outraged that they are being told that they do not have the right to remove their children from the class, especially when the teachings are in direct conflict with their religious views.

I'm going to need to log off, shortly. I'd rather see a description of this situation from a less skewed source.
 
Thats right your the guy that avoids links and facts and when you are losing ban the people. I am done I will not respond to you so you can ban me.

Moderator's Warning:
Do not discuss moderation action, publicly. This can result in a serious infraction.
 
There were civilians wounded in that attack at Ft. Hood......What are you going to amend now?

Alas, I guess the 13 people who died at Ft. Hood truly is comparable to the nearly 3,000 who died on September 11th. Your victory sir.
 
When a terrorist kills one on our soil it is to many.

Well it's nice to know that Obama has succeeded in keeping foreign terrorists from attacking us again even though we had that one domestic terrorist attack. Bush certainly failed in that respect.
 
Well it's nice to know that Obama has succeeded in keeping foreign terrorists from attacking us again even though we had that one domestic terrorist attack. Bush certainly failed in that respect.

Exactly...Obama has gone over a year without an attack on US Soil.

Bush was in office or 9 months and we had the worst attack in the history of American soil
 
Well it's nice to know that Obama has succeeded in keeping foreign terrorists from attacking us again even though we had that one domestic terrorist attack. Bush certainly failed in that respect.

Nice try but it means nothing. Can Obama continue to stop terror attacks like Bush did?
 
Exactly...Obama has gone over a year without an attack on US Soil.

Bush was in office or 9 months and we had the worst attack in the history of American soil

Keep up Ft Hood happened and the man had terror ties.
 
Well it's nice to know that Obama has succeeded in keeping foreign terrorists from attacking us again even though we had that one domestic terrorist attack. Bush certainly failed in that respect.

I don't think it's very fair to place the blame solely on Bush for that. While it did happen on his watch, there were screw ups all the way up the chain of command that led to 9/11 happening under our radar.
 
Nice try but it means nothing. Can Obama continue to stop terror attacks like Bush did?

Obama has succeeded in preventing a foreign terrorist attack in his first year. Bush did not. Obama is already a better president. It doesn't matter how many years Bush prevented another foreign terrorist attack, he failed to prevent the first one. Case closed.
 
Keep up Ft Hood happened and the man had terror ties.

That's a stretch...and even (and thats a huge if) a true terrorist tie was ever established in doesn't even register compared to 911.
 
I don't think it's very fair to place the blame solely on Bush for that. While it did happen on his watch, there were screw ups all the way up the chain of command that led to 9/11 happening under our radar.

Let's be clear on something. Since the conservatives like to give all the credit to Bush for preventing terrorist attacks since 9-11, it is only fair that he receive all the credit for failing to prevent 9-11.
 
Let's be clear on something. Since the conservatives like to give all the credit to Bush for preventing terrorist attacks since 9-11, it is only fair that he receive all the credit for failing to prevent 9-11.

While it may be fair play to say it to those conservatives who say that he prevented terrorist attacks since 9/11, it doesn't suddenly make it accurate.
 
While it may be fair play to say it to those conservatives who say that he prevented terrorist attacks since 9/11, it doesn't suddenly make it accurate.

Fine, in all fairness, it wasn't Bush's fault that 9-11 happened. Nor was it Obama's fault that Ft. Hood happened. And neither of them can be completely credited for keeping such attacks from occurring.

Are you happy Mr. Anti Demagoguery!
 
Back
Top Bottom