Mom and Dad banned in California schools, offends gays. - Page 4

RightinNYC · 10-13-07, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1069

Well, anyone who's offended should definitely leave, by all means.
Hasta la bye-bye.

And yet you'd be the first person to flip a **** if a school wanted to include some program teaching morals, you complained, and the parents said "Don't like it, take your kids out."

1069 · 10-13-07, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

And yet you'd be the first person to flip a **** if a school wanted to include some program teaching morals, you complained, and the parents said "Don't like it, take your kids out."

I'd never send my kids to public school in the first place.
They've always attended private, as did I.

1069 · 10-13-07, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Sb777 bans anything that could be determined as being biased or derogatory toward alternative lifestyle.

And again, public schools have no business teaching anything that is "biased against" or "derogatory toward" any student's family structure.
Public schools are not there to cast moral judgements- be they positive or negative- upon the student body, or their families, or their family structures.
Neither public school teachers nor school administrators (nor anyone, in my humble opinion) possesses the qualifications or expertise to do so, and even if they did... why would they?
In what way would that be beneficial to any child?

This law rocks, as does Governor Schwarzenegger.

The silenced majority · 10-13-07, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1069

And again, public schools have no business teaching anything that is "biased against" or "derogatory toward" any student's family structure.
Public schools are not there to cast moral judgements- be they positive or negative- upon the student body, or their families, or their family structures.
Neither public school teachers nor school administrators (nor anyone, in my humble opinion) possesses the qualifications or expertise to do so, and even if they did... why would they?
In what way would that be beneficial to any child?

This law rocks, as does Governor Schwarzenegger.

So we can no longer teach children about how "mom and dad" are where babies come from if it offends a gay or transgendered student?

What about the important role the "husband and wife" played in the frontier days where both traditional roles were crucial for survival? I guess we can't teach about that either if it offends gays and the transgendered.

It doesn't rock.

It's terrible and a clear demonstration how the left shamelessly uses their constituency plus useful idiot cowards like Schwarzenegger to further grip the US education system.

MrVicchio · 10-13-07, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1069

I find it difficult to fathom that someone employed by a university has trouble stringing a grammatical and coherent sentence together.
What are parents paying for, these days?

I work the computer lab, I'm not an educator. So :P

1069 · 10-13-07, 02:02 PM

Quote:

So we can no longer teach children about how "mom and dad" are where babies come

Over half of all school-aged children in the US do not live in "traditional" family structures, making those who do a minority. I thought conservatives were all about not catering to minorities?

Mom and dad aren't "where babies come from", and schools never taught that anyway.
One in ten children in this country are adoptees, and public schools have been sensitive to that fact- have had to be sensitive to it (since many adoptees belong to families with wealth and status)- for as long as sex education has been systematically taught in public schools. Sex education has never been mixed in with any sort of "traditional family" education. Biological facts are taught, such as the fact that a sperm and an egg combine to make a zygote.
Today, many children are conceived via IVF, many via artificial insemination, many enter families through adoption, and some are even concieved with the help of surrogate mothers.
Public schools have always been sensitive to and morally neutral toward all of these situations (again, they've had no choice but to be, because generally only the well-off have the money to pursue these alternatives, and the well-off are also the ones with status and power; it's only the poor and powerless who have no choice but to get their children the "traditional" way, ie by fvcking... so why would schools teach that that way is somehow morally superior to any other way?).

This new legislation is pretty much just reenforcing policy that is already in place: that family structure is a morally neutral issue and is to be presented- if at all- in a morally neutral and nonjudgemental manner.

The silenced majority · 10-13-07, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1069

Mom and dad aren't "where babies come from", and schools never taught that anyway.

Man and woman, usually mom and dad. I'll concede your point though.

Quote:

One in ten children in this country are adoptees], and public schools have been sensitive to that fact- have had to be sensitive to it (since many adoptees belong to families with wealth and status)- for as long as sex education has been systematically taught in public schools.

Adopted kids still come 100% of the time from a man and a woman, that is unless we pass a law that would allow a single woman to impregnate herself then put the child up for adoption - which btw is about as ridiculous as a notion one could come up with.

I didn't see how any of it could be offensive to gays or the transgendered anyhow.

Quote:

Sex education has never been mixed in with any sort of "traditional family" education.

One of the reasons why so many people contend sex-education and see it as being largely ineffective in stopping teen pregnancy or STD's.

I recognize a straw man being set up here, and I don't want to get in to the whole sex-ed rigmarole now.

Quote:

Biological facts are taught, such as the fact that a sperm and an egg combine to make a zygote.
Today, many children are conceived via IVF, many via artificial insemination, many enter families through adoption, and some are even concieved with the help of surrogate mothers.
Public schools have always been sensitive to and morally neutral toward all of these situations (again, they've had no choice but to be, because generally only the well-off have the money to pursue these alternatives, and the well-off are also the ones with status and power; it's only the poor and powerless who have no choice but to get their children the "traditional" way, ie by fvcking... so why would schools teach that that way is somehow morally superior to any other way?).

This issue isn't about what means of re-production are available to different sections of society.

It's about how the ball has been placed in the court of a minority group to determine what offends them about our current education and provides legal avenues for them to now address their grievances, no matter how trivial they may be.

Quote:

This new legislation is pretty much just reinforcing policy that is already in place: that family structure is a morally neutral issue and is to be presented- if at all- in a morally neutral and nonjudgemental manner.

No what the legislation does is pretty much the same agenda the left pursues everywhere else.

The design is: Create legislation that makes a government bureaucracy the arbiter of what's "fair". Bring legal action to anything that may slightly represent a violation of the new law to clog up the schools with so much legal problems that they'll eventually cave and give in to the curriculum demands of the left.

See also: the fairness doctrine.

1069 · 10-13-07, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Adopted kids still come 100% of the time from a man and a woman

Are the man and woman the same man and woman that the child knows as 'mom and dad", though? No, of course not. They're a different man and woman, complete strangers the child has never met, except in cases of open adoption, in which case they are benign adult acquaintances who pop in once in a while to say hello, still a far cry from being "mom and dad".

Children of single parents, children of blended families, and children of homosexual couples are also created from an egg and a sperm, but not necessarily the egg and sperm of the people they know as their parents.

There has never been any time when biological sex education in public schools has been mixed with morality education about traditional family structures, and there never has been and never will be any time when such would be appropriate.

The silenced majority · 10-13-07, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1069

Are the man and woman the same man and woman that the child knows as 'mom and dad", though? No, of course not. They're a different man and woman, complete strangers the child has never met, except in cases of open adoption, in which case they are benign adult acquaintances who pop in once in a while to say hello, still a far cry from being "mom and dad".

Children of single parents, children of blended families, and children of homosexual couples are also created from an egg and a sperm, but not necessarily the egg and sperm of the people they know as their parents.

There has never been any time when biological sex education in public schools has been mixed with morality education about traditional family structures, and there never has been and never will be any time when such would be appropriate.

What could be offensive about simply stating the fact that an overwhelming amount of the time the egg and sperm are "mom and dad".

Nothing, unless you are the ultra-sensitive whiner the left hopes that you are.

I see this as nothing more than a method of stoking the feeling of indifference that a gay or transgendered kid may have in order to falsely make the child believe that government can in fact insulate them from reality by being able to sue the school if the kid is offended by something taught there.

I'll leave it at that.

Jerry · 10-13-07, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1069

Personal attacks are against forum rules.
Further personal attacks will be reported, and will doubtless result in infraction points, with the ultimate aim of banning you from the forum.

You have absolutly NO ground to throe the rule book at anyone over personal attacks.