40sondacurb

bry623

And Vermont as well I believe.

Gay marriage aside, if the law says parents need to be notified, then it was violated. If my 7 year old told me they read a book about that, there'd be a good old fashioned lynching!!

ebackhus

I wouldn't care. I'm not a homophobe and I'm all for open-mindedness. The other money grubbing parents can sue, I'l going to let my kids learn about the modern real world.

bry623

But what this suit does it will make other schools think 2x before trying to force our children to embrace alternate lifestyles. Tolerate, yes; prolferate, NO.
I wished I hadn't banned giancarloc, this thread would get him all hot and bothered.

forcifer

lol what did happen to him?

if they did that to me, id freak out. gays (no offense) are sorta wierd to me..

Spatcher

Haha, yeah Bry. I loved his arguments cause he never got what we tried to tell him

Forcifer: giancarloc got into an argument in just about every post he made, so Bry finally banned him cause he got too heated.

I am not a homophobe, but I get weirded out by them. They should not have read that book to a bunch of 7 year olds. 7 year olds, well the ones I know, are grossed out by boys kissing girls. But boys liking boys, if I was 7 that would give me nightmares!

bry623

Yes, children should learn avut these things the same way I did............................... from Ron Jeremy.

mgoldb2

I find it funny that people scared that there children going to catch being gay or anything like that from a story.

I promise you your child not going to become gay because of some story read in class.

But that being said I am against the story being read for the reason of I can’t think of any educational value for a 7 year old.

School should not be a place to push any agenda liberal or conservative.

You know what the most important things we should be teaching a 7 year olds, ask questions about everything and never loose there curiosity of why something is true or why they should believe this or that.

Too many people in this country believe blindly what other people tell them. with out asking why. This happens on both side of the spectrum.

I think Mark Twain had it right
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."

Fox

Sounds like this teacher had an axe to grind.

As a legal battle, though, it's not going to hold up- especially in Massachusetts. The story in question, as described, isn't about sex, but love. Even so, it was definitely inappropriate in the context of a first grade class.

-=Rousseau=-

It was definately innappropriate. Teachers should not be trying to push some agenda onto students, especially at such a young age. Indoctrinating them to support homosexuality is wrong when they are at an age where they will most likely believe anything an adult tells them. This is the same as if a teacher was to try and convert all the students to Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. This would create outrage people, and rightly so. These type things are the matters of the parents, not the schools + government.

drbillchristian

I guess this thread is as good a place as any to throw-up my opinion.

My problem with the whole "Gay Marriage" issue is that not even the conservatives are able to clearly enunciate exactly what it is about Gay Marriage that most people find objectionable.

To introduce myself, I am an avowed homophobe. I don't know why, but I am. It makes me uncomfortable. THEY make me uncomfortable. I don't like seen two guys holding hands, or WORSE. And lesbians are kinda creepy too.

But I practice tolerance. I realize clearly that my "problem" with homosexuals is probably MY problem. Besides, the political and social winds have changed and not only is homosexuality (as an orientation more so than as a behavior) not only accepted, it's defended. Meaning that you lose significant points in this Game of Life by not being able to suppress YOUR (meaning MY) "uncomfortableness", and getting along with everyone around you.

Otherwise, they'll keep the Homosexuals (who DO get along with everyone) and throw YOUR (meaning MY) a** to the curb.

So I get along.

Having said all that (hoping to prove a certain level of self-awareness), my objection to Gay Marriage transcends my "uncomfortableness", and again what should be my advocates on this social issue (the conservatives, which means the Republicans) have completely failed to clearly describe exactly what it is that so many people object to.

It has to do with the very definition of marriage.

If you think about it in terms of social evolution, or the evolution of civilization, you can see how there had to be a point in human development when they figured out certain things. Like it's a bad idea to have sex with your parents, your children or other close relatives.

Another developmental point had to be when civilized people recognized that the community had an interest in protecting and nurturing children. And one way in which to do this is to "sanctify" the relationship between the two people that made the child. And that sanctification process involved both God and the Government, to underline it's importance, IMO.

From this point, certain social privledges naturally result. In short hand, in modern terms it can basically be described as "tax advantages" for "households" that are comprised of two married persons and some children.

This is how society structures and supports the developmental years of future adults.

The problem with Gay Marriage is that it's purpose is NOT for the creation and nurturing children. Affording a Gay Couple the "status" of being married may be good for THEM (in terms of what privledges the status of being married might be for the two (Gay) people that are "married", it has none of the Social Imperative (important word choice, please pay attention) that went into the creation of a (heterosexual) Marriage that was socially (now Governmentally) recognized.

And frankly, I don't want to give ANYONE special status without good reason. For the good of children, or possible children, yes. But to recognize and help "celebrate" the relationship of two people (gay or not), well frankly I could give a rat's a**. They can pay their taxes and get the Insurance benefits that all the other non-married people get. In short, they can be like everyone else. Which is, after all what they say they want. But Gay Marriage doesn't make homosexuals "like everyone else", it uplifts them to a higher status of social protection that previously had only been afforded to children.

Couple this with attempts at special "hate crime" legislation and I think the Gay political agenda is pretty clear. They want a better life, and they want you to pay for it. It's not about homophobia or "celebrating the relationship" or any other political phrase that gets bandied about. It's about providing a class of people with perks they haven't earned, who also cannot claim them due to some over-riding social imperative.

The Bottom Line:
Marriage is for Children, and not the Adults that are Married.

bry623

Well said.

-=Rousseau=-

I agree. However, homosexuals don't always "get along with everyone." The only homosexuals I know are either hateful of most people, spiteful, or reclusive.

40sondacurb

Amen

I notice many homosexuals have some kind of overt social problem, but that's a whole 'nother ball of yarn.