• 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!

A gay Texas teacher is on leave after she showed students a photo of her wife

phattonez said:
If the parents object, then she can have the picture on her desk but outside of the view of the children. If the parents want, then the child should be excluded from that lesson.
Click to expand...

So if a teacher has a husband of a different race, she should not be able to have that picture on her desk if a parent objects?
 
phattonez said:
If parents object, for whatever reason, then they have every right to keep their children from being exposed to it. Parents shouldn't even need to state the reason.
Click to expand...

Sorry. That doesn't cut it. If parents want to hide their children from reality - by all means - they have the right to do so. But, they do NOT have the right to deny each and every other child their right to reality. There's nothing illegal about same-sex marriage, but if parents don't like it - they are free to homeschool their child or put them in a parochial school where the policy is to suppress things such as that.
 
phattonez said:
Sodomy is more than just anal sex. Lesbians engage in sodomy just like homosexual men.
Click to expand...

You're the only person I can think of in my entire 56 year life span on this planet who has decided that a fully clothed head picture of someone is exposing someone else to sex acts.
 
phattonez said:
I have nothing against heterosexual sex.



So what harm am I causing to my children by preventing them to be exposed to deviant lifestyles?
Click to expand...

Mommy why does my teacher wear a necklace of a man being slowly crucified to death?
 
phattonez said:
That was institutionalized at the state level. I'm arguing that parents should have the right to control what their children are exposed to. It's not a crime to be racist, "homophobic", bigoted, or anything.
Click to expand...
That is what those four walls that enclose your home, are designed to do. So control away. Society does not make it easy or accommodate it, nor should it.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
So if a teacher has a husband of a different race, she should not be able to have that picture on her desk if a parent objects?
Click to expand...

If it is out of the view of the child then the parents are satisfied, while the teacher can still look at a picture of her spouse.
 
HowardBThiname said:
Sorry. That doesn't cut it. If parents want to hide their children from reality - by all means - they have the right to do so. But, they do NOT have the right to deny each and every other child their right to reality. There's nothing illegal about same-sex marriage, but if parents don't like it - they are free to homeschool their child or put them in a parochial school where the policy is to suppress things such as that.
Click to expand...

So the parents, who fund the school, get no right to decide what their children are exposed to in that school?
 
phattonez said:
If the parents object, then she can have the picture on her desk but outside of the view of the children. If the parents want, then the child should be excluded from that lesson.
Click to expand...

Wrong. In a public school, there can be no discrimination, because the school is funded by all taxpayers, not just by white Christian heterosexuals.

The problem here is not the teacher, but rather narrow-minded parents.
 
tres borrachos said:
You're the only person I can think of in my entire 56 year life span on this planet who has decided that a fully clothed head picture of someone is exposing someone else to sex acts.
Click to expand...

It's not being exposed to sex acts directly. It's being exposed to the idea that such a relationship is normal and good. And yes, these couples have sex, every adult knows it, and children do eventually learn.
 
phattonez said:
I have nothing against heterosexual sex.



So what harm am I causing to my children by preventing them to be exposed to deviant lifestyles?
Click to expand...

You're basically shielding them from reality and making sure that they won't be able to function in a real world that has some people who are gay.
 
phattonez said:
No one is defending any "right" of parents to do physical harm to their children.
Click to expand...

Then you should modify what you wrote. No parent has an absolute right to protect their children any way they see fit. With that out of the way, I'm sure I could come up with psychological harm cases as well--there are cases of parents making their children apparently schizophrenic in families with no previous history of schizophrenia for instance, by simply holding them to an impossible standard. For example, a mother tells her child "if you love me, you'll go get me some ice cream from the store down the street," but when the child comes back with the ice cream, the mother yells at him that if he had loved her, he would have never left her alone. And so on, day in, day out, and by the time that child is 18, he's a complete basket case.

The problem with your view is that we have to walk a fine line in judging just what does harm to children. My view is that a child who is raised to think of homosexuality as inherently wrong is harmed since that is a kind of ethical add-on to scripture that doesn't really say as much, and furthermore, it is simply the case that the world is full of gay people, and everyone has to figure out how to get along. That's awfully difficult to do when you think that something so basic to another person's psyche as their sexuality is inherently morally wrong. I've never met a human being who could pull off the feat of loving the sinner but hating the sin. The few genuine Christians I've ever met who really did figure out how to love everyone were at best saddened by human wrong doing; hate was not anywhere in their character.

I think the question of whether the state has a right over the child that is greater than that of the parent, or vice versa, is based on a flawed assumption. The child is a human being, and no one, not the parents, not the state, no one owns the child. We have to start there, I think, and that means that neither state nor parents may indoctrinate children.
 
btthegreat said:
That is what those four walls that enclose your home, are designed to do. So control away. Society does not make it easy, nor should it.
Click to expand...

Why do I have no right to decide what goes on in the public space? Do I not pay taxes that contribute to that space just as much as you do? Is this no longer a democracy?
 
phattonez said:
I have nothing against heterosexual sex.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. The issue isn't whether you agree with the orientation of the couple, it's the implication that because it's a picture of a couple it's somehow indecent.



So what harm am I causing to my children by preventing them to be exposed to deviant lifestyles?
Click to expand...


The same harm that would be done if you didn't want your kids taught by someone who is black, or Cuban, or Muslim, or a Texans fan, or whatever other subdivision you infidels feel the need to demonize.
 
rocket88 said:
You're basically shielding them from reality and making sure that they won't be able to function in a real world that has some people who are gay.
Click to expand...

No, I'll teach my children about it, but in no way do I want them thinking that it's normal, or good.
 
HowardBThiname said:
Sure they do -- ALL of them. Not just those who want to discriminate.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to force other parents to do anything with their children. I just want to control what my children are exposed to.
 
phattonez said:
Why do I have no right to decide what goes on in the public space? Do I not pay taxes that contribute to that space just as much as you do? Is this no longer a democracy?
Click to expand...

Better get that wacky evolution banned too
 
phattonez said:
Clearly you don't believe that final authority for what children should be exposed to should rest with the parents. The state reigns supreme over parents, according to this argumentation.
Click to expand...

Clearly there's a difference between private schools, home schools, and public schools. Public schools are government entities that are constrained by the US Constitution as to what they can and cannot do. Parents have a choice - home school or private school if they don't like what the public school is teaching. Since the parent is the final authority, it's up to the parents to place their children where they feel is best. It is not up to the parents to determine what the government funded public school dos or doesn't do; that's up to the law and the Constitution.

Read my sig below.

Imagine what it would be like in a public school, if the Christian parents, the Sikh parents, the Muslim parents, the Jewish parents, and the Atheist parents, among all the others were given the final authority to determine what could and could not be taught in just one public school? What a cluster **** that would be.

Parents can run for election to the school board, or do as my wife and I did and be an officer of the PTA/PTO and be an active member of parent advisory committees for the school board. However, those parents are still constrained by the US Constitution, and US law. And, that's a good thing, since the alternative is the chaotic cluster **** I described above.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Then you should modify what you wrote. No parent has an absolute right to protect their children any way they see fit. With that out of the way, I'm sure I could come up with psychological harm cases as well--there are cases of parents making their children apparently schizophrenic in families with no previous history of schizophrenia for instance, by simply holding them to an impossible standard. For example, a mother tells her child "if you love me, you'll go get me some ice cream from the store down the street," but when the child comes back with the ice cream, the mother yells at him that if he had loved her, he would have never left her alone. And so on, day in, day out, and by the time that child is 18, he's a complete basket case.

The problem with your view is that we have to walk a fine line in judging just what does harm to children. My view is that a child who is raised to think of homosexuality as inherently wrong is harmed since that is a kind of ethical add-on to scripture that doesn't really say as much, and furthermore, it is simply the case that the world is full of gay people, and everyone has to figure out how to get along. That's awfully difficult to do when you think that something so basic to another person's psyche as their sexuality is inherently morally wrong. I've never met a human being who could pull off the feat of loving the sinner but hating the sin. The few genuine Christians I've ever met who really did figure out how to love everyone were at best saddened by human wrong doing; hate was not anywhere in their character.

I think the question of whether the state has a right over the child that is greater than that of the parent, or vice versa, is based on a flawed assumption. The child is a human being, and no one, not the parents, not the state, no one owns the child. We have to start there, I think, and that means that neither state nor parents may indoctrinate children.
Click to expand...

It is abundantly clear about the issue. Are you really arguing that I'm going to harm my children because they'll think the same thing about homosexuality that all of my ancestors have ever thought about it?
 
phattonez said:
I'm not trying to force other parents to do anything with their children. I just want to control what my children are exposed to.
Click to expand...

Home school will do that for you, which is why a heck of a lot of very religious people choose to home school their kids.
 
phattonez said:
I'm not trying to force other parents to do anything with their children. I just want to control what my children are exposed to.
Click to expand...

Fair 'nuff. But, the teacher has a right to show an image of her wife as well.

As parents, we don't get to control everything that goes on in a public school -- if we want total control -- we need to homeschool (like I did) or send our child to private school.
 
tres borrachos said:
You're the only person I can think of in my entire 56 year life span on this planet who has decided that a fully clothed head picture of someone is exposing someone else to sex acts.
Click to expand...
I believe we are already acquainted! I have sad news to report. I have met a lot of them. Sometimes a ring on a finger has been so designated, or a political slogan, or a rainbow emblem on clothing.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Irrelevant. The issue isn't whether you agree with the orientation of the couple, it's the implication that because it's a picture of a couple it's somehow indecent.
Click to expand...

It absolutely is. I'm fine with a picture of a heterosexual couple because I'm fine with the idea of a heterosexual couple. I'm not fine with a picture of a homosexual couple because I'm not fine with the idea of a homosexual couple.

And either way it doesn't matter. I don't need to justify to anyone why I'm raising my children the way I am. As long as I'm not harming my children, I get final say.

The same harm that would be done if you didn't want your kids taught by someone who is black, or Cuban, or Muslim, or a Texans fan, or whatever other subdivision you infidels feel the need to demonize.
Click to expand...

In other words, none.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom