1069

It would be "offensive' to teach erroneous information to public school children.
I've already stated that less than half of all children in the US now live in "traditional" families, ergo those who do are a minority.
The majority of school-age American children today, in the year 2007, live in single-parent households, blended families, or myriad other situations in which they do not occupy a household also occupied by both of their biological parents.
And that's just fine.
Schools have no business implying that it is not just fine, or that it is bad, or even that it could be better.
All family structures are equally okay, in that all family structures have the potential to be equally loving and nurturing.
Schools have no business implying to children that one particular type of family structure is preferable to others, or that any type of family structure is inherently inferior.
Why the hell would we permit public schools to tell children such things?

__________________
Lightdemon: "Is 10 going to outer space or something?"
Jerry: "...yes, 10 is going to outerspace."

A_Wise_Fool

Classic. BAN something under the guise of fairness? Give me a break.

If you honestly think this will work then you can try this:

• Give an example of banning something biased towards traditional family values
• Give an example of banning something biased towards alternative family values.

Don't just say "BAN focusing on one set of values over another." I want clear examples.

If you ban one thing you invariably support it's opposite, and that is unfair of course becuase you can't support one over the other.

Edify_Always_In_All_Ways

Wait- boys can use the girl's locker rooms? The rest of the legislation seems pretty standard (although I think they should do it school-by-school when someone has a problem), but the locker rooms and bathrooms being non-gender segregated seems extremely abusable.

__________________
The flamethrower- proof that someone was thinking "I want to set that guy on fire, but I'm not close enough."

Jerry

You're saying that, all things being equal, a divorced home is no better or worse than an intact home.

Please back this claim with credible sources.

__________________
Lerxst was right
......Lerxst is always right
!Lerxst in 2012!

Jerry

Let the lawsuits roll in....and the sexualization of the children which will follow.....

A_Wise_Fool

That kind of claim goes far above and beyond simple opinionated logic.

I have a feeling I would not have been equally loved and nurtured by my parents if both were seperated and I only got to see one once a month.


I call proof by statistics on that claim before it should be considred.

The silenced majority

If you don't live in a house with both of your parents, yet still have a relationship with both of them, aren't they still "mom" and "dad"?

If you were conceived IVF, you still have a "mother" and a "father", they aren't your parents. To suggest that hey have nothing to do with being a "mother" and "father" is ridiculous, although I will be the 1st to point out that it takes a whole lot more than the ability to reproduce to be a "mother" or " father".

Your still trying to dodge the issue here.

The issue being: a minority group has now been given the power to pursue legally anytime the curriculum of their school offends them when, in their opinion, the teaching goes in a direction of "heterocentricity" or the endorsement of the traditional family.

Some animals on the farm seem to now be "more equal" than the others don't they?

__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”. ~ Samuel Adams

1069

Rather, I would imagine that those who promote making such proclamations part of public school curriculum would need to produce credible evidence that 1. this is true, and 2. that it would be to the benefit of public school children to be made to learn it as part of the curriculum.

Barring the meeting of those two criteria, public educators are not (and never have been) permitted to make such moral judgements openly in the presence of public school children. Apparently, since legislation has been passed to this effect, some public school educators were making such groundless proclamations or insinuations in the presence of children.
In light of this law, they will no longer make them.... or they will no longer be public school educators.
And I think this is a positive thing.

1069

You might, arguably, be far more "loved and nurtured"; if both your parents remarried, you'd theoretically have four adults to love and nurture you, rather than two.
Additionally, most people aren't that good at being 'loving and nurturing" to their children when they are in loveless, miserable, or possibly even abusive marriages.
Often, parents become better parents individually and apart than they ever were together.

These are not universal truths, however, any more than "traditional families are always best" is a universal truth.
There is no universal or objective truth when it comes to what sort of family structure is most suitable for a given individual (even a child).
Jerry's mom abandoned him, and he was miserable.
I never saw my mom after I was two (and even before that, I didn't see her often) and I had the most pleasant and nurturing upbringing that ever a child had. I was always secretly glad to be motherless, siblingless.
There are too many variables to say that one type of family structure is preferable to any other type.
Different family structures suit different individuals; different individuals thrive in different situations. All children thrive on love, and as long as there's that, the structure of the family is irrelevant; it's a good family.
Public school educators have no business implying differently.
I'm glad there is now legislation in place to prevent them from doing so.

Jerry

The statement of yours that I quoted was a blinket statement that the schools should not promote any family structure over any other family structure.

Your's was not a statement saying only that schools should not promote hetero families over homo families; your claim was much broader in scope, hence your need to back them up.