• 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!

California Wants To Indoctrinate Second Graders Regarding LGBT

Checkerboard Strangler said:
One of my children actually approached us with a question regarding gay people when he was in the third grade.
Our response was limited to an age appropriate answer:

"Yes, Mr. So-and-so is 'gay'. He has a relationship which is a lot like other people's but it's a little bit different."

"How is it different?"

"It's different because Mr. So-and-so married a man, and while most people don't do that, a very few do and it's complicated, so we will explain it to you a little bit more when you're older and you can understand."

He seemed satisfied with that for the time being, and next time the subject came up several years later, he was matter of fact about it all...yes he understood that sometimes men married men and women married women ho hum yawn who cares, etc.

And then something very funny happened about 2011, when he was fifteen. We were watching some music videos and one by Queen came on, and he turned to me and asked if the band Queen were all gay and was that why they used that name.

Of course, Freddie Mercury was gay, and I said that being that Freddie was the front man and because all of their music was written with him in mind, the name Queen seemed appropriate even though everyone else was straight.
He looked thoughtful, and then just said, "Oh okay..." and that was the end of it.
Click to expand...


I've had similar conversations with my daughter when she was younger and asked questions about the same sex couples we know. I went with the "less is more" approach and gave only the answers that made sense to her based on her age. When she was 5 and first asked, I just told her that some people want to be with people of their own gender because its who they love. That was enough. Now that she's 13 she gets it and there's no awkwardness with the topic at all; she thinks nothing of it.
 
Roadvirus said:
Liberal philosophy: Brainwash 'em while they're young! Turn them into Liberal freaks before they learn to think for themselves.
Click to expand...

How dare they teach children that it is not OK to hate people for being gay. This is an assault on Christians! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!

:roll:
 
Praxas said:
Damn, sorry they didn't include conservative approved indoctrination of dragging gays behind cars until they are dead.
Click to expand...

What is the rate, for every gay dragged to death there are 50 cops murdered for being cops?
 
marke said:
What is the rate, for every gay dragged to death there are 50 cops murdered for being cops?
Click to expand...


Much higher than that. Hundreds of times more.

That said, the greatest murdering of LGBTs in USA history was by a Hillary Clinton Democrat and 1st generation son of Muslim immigrants. The Obama administration claimed it was because the shooter was a homosexual (with no proof of that) and homosexuals are psychotic killers as Obama's team's explanation - claiming the shooter claiming himself it was for Islamic jihad answering an Obama Muslim cleric from Iran calling for the murder homosexuals was false.

Who has murdered the MOST LGBTs in the USA? Democrats. Clinton supporter top of the list. How many LGBTs have Trump supporters murdered? None.

How many police officers were killed after BLM - beloved by the Democratic Party - openly called for the assassination of police officers? Many.
 
Last edited:
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I agree that 2nd grade is a little bit too soon. I suspect that California believed that if they get out ahead of the curve they can beat conflicting home indoctrination schemes, and they're most likely lazily copying the racial equality model as a blueprint to implement it.

But where the latter might actually be a healthy administrative response, I actually agree with the parent in the video who is saying that some second graders (if not most or all) are perhaps still too young in a developmental sense to comprehend an advanced subject like LGBT.

Little hands will get raised, and then conversations will happen which drag the curriculum into uncharted waters, again...way too soon.
Unfortunately, if a school district is going to get ahead of the curve on this, in a case like LGBT, they need to get ahead of it with the parents first, and the children later on down the road, like maybe fifth or sixth grade.

This doesn't mean that they must omit prominent figures and their contributions, like for instance Alan Turing (who was gay), it's just that it is not necessary to make specific mention as to Turing's sexual orientation that early. People like Turing can be revisited later, as would be the case if a 5th or 6th grade technology class were available.
Click to expand...

What exactly is wrong with teaching second graders that being LGBT is normal and acceptable? They will be exposed to LGBT people in their community, it is important to educate them about it.
 
Carjosse said:
The only thing completely and utterly disgusting is the homophobia displayed by these parents. What is exactly is wrong with teaching children about acceptance of and that is okay to be LGBT?
Click to expand...

Second graders? They shouldn't know anything about sex including the terms heterosexual or LGBT. It's thoroughly disgusting to use them as pawns to subvert their parent's wishes. We don't need a course on LGBT, just as we don't need a course being against homosexuality. California disgusts me more and more every day. A few short decades ago the right disgusted me with their arrogant holier than though attitude and now the left disgust me with their arrogant holier than though attitude.
 
Moderate Right said:
Second graders? They shouldn't know anything about sex including the terms heterosexual or LGBT. It's thoroughly disgusting to use them as pawns to subvert their parent's wishes. We don't need a course on LGBT, just as we don't need a course being against homosexuality. California disgusts me more and more every day. A few short decades ago the right disgusted me with their arrogant holier than though attitude and now the left disgust me with their holier than though attitude.
Click to expand...

Teaching about LGBT =/= teaching about sex. Kids learn very quickly that most families have a mom and dad, why is disgusting to teach them that it is acceptable for people to have two moms or two dads?
 
Last edited:
Carjosse said:
What exactly is wrong with teaching second graders that being LGBT is normal and acceptable? They will be exposed to LGBT people in their community, it is important to educate them about it.
Click to expand...

Nothing's wrong.
The question was about school districts and their attempt to launch a second grade approach and some parent's aren't sure that the district is going to take the "less is more" approach. I happen to believe that at that age less IS more, scale it down a little bit and just ease them into the concept.

I agree that it is very important to educate them about it.
 
Moderate Right said:
It's disgusting that it is advanced. As I replied to OldNate, it has become a pissing contest as to who can be the first to indoctrinate young kid's minds first. It's not the state's or the school board's decision to go out of their way to indoctrinate young minds with their ideology. It is a liberal agenda and agendas should be kept out of public education. If a family is not liberal they should not have to succumb to the state forcing a liberal ideology down their kid's throats. This goes way too far.
Click to expand...

Again, like with Transgendered rights to bathrooms in the slippery slope argument leading up to the USSC decision on Prop 8.. Remember, I do. We said all these things would happen, and we got a no, no, no, they won't teach little kids about gay sex, never, won't happen, and no, no, no, transgendered people will not be allowed to shower with the opposite biological sex, or biological boys would not be allowed to compete with girls.. We heard all of that wouldn't happen..

Welp.. ;)


Tim-
 
Hypothetical said:
as if parents sit at home telling their kids "gay people suck" or something.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is exactly what many parents sit at home telling their kids. What, do you think people come out of the womb worried about what other people are doing with their naughty bits?

:roll:

Should they not teach that hating black people is bad because you personally doubt that any parents are teaching their children to hate black people? Or perhaps because not being allowed to hate - or rather, act publicly on that hate - against black people is "orwellien"?



Host a march celebrating the contribution of "isms" to freedom or something. There really is no point listening to anyone who thinks it is offensive teaching children not to hate people for immutable characteristics.
 
sangha said:
Kids will learn that famous historical figures were gay.

Right wingers get the vapors

Film at 11
Click to expand...

Who cares if an inventor or highly-decorated war hero was gay? It's irrelevant.
What they're famous for should be more important.
 
Moderate Right said:
It's disgusting that it is advanced. As I replied to OldNate, it has become a pissing contest as to who can be the first to indoctrinate young kid's minds first. It's not the state's or the school board's decision to go out of their way to indoctrinate young minds with their ideology. It is a liberal agenda and agendas should be kept out of public education. If a family is not liberal they should not have to succumb to the state forcing a liberal ideology down their kid's throats. This goes way too far.
Click to expand...

Try law abiding. Liberalism has nothing to do with it.
It is against the law to discriminate against anyone on the basis of sex, race, creed, color or sexual orientation.
Thus, at some point pupils need to be gradually made aware of the fact that people with different sexual orientations exist, and that they should be respected as anyone else is.

Law abiding...you might disagree with the law, but it is the law, and it is incumbent upon the state, ANY state, to promote respect for the law.
 
Moderate Right said:
Second graders? They shouldn't know anything about sex including the terms heterosexual or LGBT. It's thoroughly disgusting to use them as pawns to subvert their parent's wishes. We don't need a course on LGBT, just as we don't need a course being against homosexuality. California disgusts me more and more every day. A few short decades ago the right disgusted me with their arrogant holier than though attitude and now the left disgust me with their arrogant holier than though attitude.
Click to expand...

Well, since you decided to put it in those caustic terms, let me say that we WANT you to be so thoroughly disgusted that you will never set foot in our state, so that being accomplished, I call it a good day for California.

Anyway, with that said, none of us actually have even had a peek at what they intend to inculcate into those young skulls filled with mush just yet, so this may actually be a news story about a bunch of knee-jerk reactionaries frightened by something they don't even understand yet.
I am in favor of a minimalist approach at such a young age, drips and drabs, not even a trickle, just respect for the law against discrimination at first.

Respect for the basic dignity of the human individual is what comes first, explaining the specifics on our differences comes gradually.

You are now free to roam about the country expressing your horror and spreading your wild tales about California, just stay out.
 
Roadvirus said:
Who cares if an inventor or highly-decorated war hero was gay? It's irrelevant.
What they're famous for should be more important.
Click to expand...

Ummmm, with regards to Alan Turing, the fact that his own life story is a lesson in what not to do is very relevant.

Turing was charged with "gross indecency" under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885.

Turing was convicted and given a choice between imprisonment and probation, which would be conditional on his agreement to undergo hormonal treatment designed to reduce libido. He accepted the option of treatment via injections of what was then called stilboestrol (now known as diethylstilbestrol or DES), a synthetic oestrogen; this treatment was continued for the course of one year. The treatment rendered Turing impotent and caused gynaecomastia, fulfilling in the literal sense Turing's prediction that "no doubt I shall emerge from it all a different man, but quite who I've not found out".
Turing's conviction led to the removal of his security clearance and barred him from continuing with his cryptographic consultancy for the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the British signals intelligence agency that had evolved from GC&CS in 1946, though he kept his academic job. He was denied entry into the United States after his conviction in 1952, but was free to visit other European countries. Turing was never accused of espionage but, in common with all who had worked at Bletchley Park, he was prevented by the Official Secrets Act from discussing his war work.

On 8 June 1954, Turing's housekeeper found him dead; he had died the previous day. Cyanide poisoning was established as the cause of death. When his body was discovered, an apple lay half-eaten beside his bed, and although the apple was not tested for cyanide, it was speculated that this was the means by which Turing had consumed a fatal dose. An inquest determined that he had committed suicide.
Click to expand...

This is the man whose work in cryptanalysis broke the German Enigma code, and likely one of the main reasons the Allies prevailed in the war.
His work likely saved England.

May we never return to those times.
 
Roadvirus said:
Who cares if an inventor or highly-decorated war hero was gay? It's irrelevant.
What they're famous for should be more important.
Click to expand...

Who cares is that it's part of 'un-demonizing' them from the monsters many people think.

It's like if people think 'only white people can be leaders', because it's pretty much all they've seen, seeing that a black person can be a good leader helps them correct their thinking and realize people are more equal than they think. This was a big problem with the ending of slavery - no one had seen much of any black people except as slaves outlawed from learning to read and write - and they want EQUAL RIGHTS? To VOTE?
 
Craig234 said:
Who cares is that it's part of 'un-demonizing' them from the monsters many people think.

It's like if people think 'only white people can be leaders', because it's pretty much all they've seen, seeing that a black person can be a good leader helps them correct their thinking and realize people are more equal than they think. This was a big problem with the ending of slavery - no one had seen much of any black people except as slaves outlawed from learning to read and write - and they want EQUAL RIGHTS? To VOTE?
Click to expand...

I grew up in the DC suburbs of Maryland in the late 1950's when the District of Columbia and Maryland both still had so called "soft" segregation.
My only exposure to black people at the time were the men who came to pick up the trash.
As a four year old I was with my mother on a trip into DC and as we passed DuPont Circle I saw some old black men on their way to the nearby park. Wanting to be a friendly person, I leaned out the open car window and yelled "Hi Mister Trash Man!!".
I think if my mother could have sunken into the car seat and become invisible she probably would have.

Thankfully upon entering elementary school I was finally exposed to a black music teacher and a black social studies teacher and black fellow students, so my youthful ignorance was soon corrected.
My poor mother, I'm sure I embarrassed her on many occasions but that one stands out in my young memories as perhaps one of the most awful.
Hey, I just wanted to be friendly and to say "HI".
 
To add to my post above, a problem that happens is when groups are demonized. They become feared, hated, and turned into monsters, and injustice is done.

There are countless examples. In the US, 150 years ago Irish immigrants were demonized, we see picture of the 'no dogs or Irish' signs. Black people have always had issues with being demonized in the US in various ways. Today, Muslims and 'immigrants' are. Nazi Germany was made to fear Jewish people as sub-human yet a threat to their country wanting to rule the world or whatever. Another US case was the great fear of Japanese Americans but not German Americans, leading to
interment camps. Gays have long been demonized - such as people thinking 'they want to turn all our children gay and our species will go extinct'. Seriously that was a widely held view. I could go on with examples, but this happens a lot in societies.

So a way to help un-demonize - the get people to recognize others as human and not a group of monsters - is to show people who can be well thought up from that group.

I recently watched a movie, "the Intruder", which depicted the demonization of black people by whites around 1960, using as a plot the forced integration of ten black children to the local school - but it showed the fear and hate of that, and how black people being kept separate, living apart, helped fuel the demonization. People can learn the demonization and fear and hate, or they can learn that that's wrong. California picked the right choice on that. Many Republicans don't.

One more example - I've seen a documentary about how a black leader in an African country, and some far-right American anti-gay activists, promoted an agenda there that included the law condemning gay people to be executed.

The black leader, saying he was Christian, would give fiery speeches and show films of gay sex, and yell 'disguting' things about 'EATING POOP' and how they wanted to convert others to be gay, to whip the audience into a frenzy of fear and hatred and disgust, building support for the agenda to outlaw and kill gay people. Look at Saudi Arabia still executing gay people today.

What California is doing is helping to undo the demonization of gay people, so it's as much a thing of the past as the demonizing of Irish immigrants. And they're right. It's called justice, it's called moral. How often have you heard people born gay called 'immoral' for that? That's a matter of ignorance, and teaching it's wrong is a good idea.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I grew up in the DC suburbs of Maryland in the late 1950's when the District of Columbia and Maryland both still had so called "soft" segregation.
My only exposure to black people at the time were the men who came to pick up the trash.
As a four year old I was with my mother on a trip into DC and as we passed DuPont Circle I saw some old black men on their way to the nearby park. Wanting to be a friendly person, I leaned out the open car window and yelled "Hi Mister Trash Man!!".
I think if my mother could have sunken into the car seat and become invisible she probably would have.

Thankfully upon entering elementary school I was finally exposed to a black music teacher and a black social studies teacher and black fellow students, so my youthful ignorance was soon corrected.
My poor mother, I'm sure I embarrassed her on many occasions but that one stands out in my young memories as perhaps one of the most awful.
Hey, I just wanted to be friendly and to say "HI".
Click to expand...

What a great story, and good points about the effect of meeting black teachers undoing the effects of not having met a group much, which is still a problem for many - for example, many Americans don't know 'Muslims' or 'illegal immigrants' or at least don't think they do or know them as people. That's an effect of it seems like 98% of all mentions of "Muslim" in the media being "Muslim terrorist".
 
Carjosse said:
Teaching about LGBT =/= teaching about sex. Kids learn very quickly that most families have a mom and dad, why is disgusting to teach them that it is acceptable for people to have two moms or two dads?
Click to expand...

Because kids shouldn't be taught an agenda by the school system.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Try law abiding. Liberalism has nothing to do with it.
It is against the law to discriminate against anyone on the basis of sex, race, creed, color or sexual orientation.
Thus, at some point pupils need to be gradually made aware of the fact that people with different sexual orientations exist, and that they should be respected as anyone else is.

Law abiding...you might disagree with the law, but it is the law, and it is incumbent upon the state, ANY state, to promote respect for the law.
Click to expand...

They don't need to come up with a course to teach a liberal agenda, just as they don't need a course to teach a conservative agenda. Agendas should be left out of the classroom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom