Gay Curriculum

#26
#26
lawgator1 said:
Unless I am misreading the article, kindergarteners are NOT being taught about sexuality or gays or lesbians.
Click to expand...


right at the top of the article:

includes compulsory lessons about the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community

:blink:
 
#27
#27
lawgator1 said:
Unless I am misreading the article, kindergarteners are NOT being taught about sexuality or gays or lesbians. They are getting an anti-bullying lecture for 45 minutes every year. The fifth graders get the version that includes the sexuality part, and if you don't think that 10 and 11 year olds are saying things like, "That's so gay," or "You are so gay," then you don't know many fifth graders.

If people want to protest the content because it does not criticize homosexuality -- as they wish it would -- then that's fine. But I see once again right wingers are taking the facts, twisting them, and making it seem like 5 year olds are spending 6 months studying how to be tolerant of gay people, and that's just totally inaccurate.
Click to expand...

But I see once again lawgator is taking the facts, twisting them, and making it seem ...
 
#28
#28
droski said:
right at the top of the article:

includes compulsory lessons about the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community

:blink:
Click to expand...


You have to read a little further:

"The proposed curriculum will include a 45-minute LGBT lesson, once a year from kindergarten through fifth grade. The kindergartners will focus on the harms of teasing, while the fifth graders will study sexual orientation stereotypes."
 
#29
#29
lawgator1 said:
You have to read a little further:

"The proposed curriculum will include a 45-minute LGBT lesson, once a year from kindergarten through fifth grade. The kindergartners will focus on the harms of teasing, while the fifth graders will study sexual orientation stereotypes."
Click to expand...

We need lessons on cornholers to teach about the problems with teasing?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#30
#30
lawgator1 said:
You have to read a little further:

"The proposed curriculum will include a 45-minute LGBT lesson, once a year from kindergarten through fifth grade. The kindergartners will focus on the harms of teasing, while the fifth graders will study sexual orientation stereotypes."
Click to expand...

You have to read a little further:

Among the course materials that could be added to the curriculum is "And Tango Makes Three," a children’s book about gay penguins struggling to create a family. The book has been banned in some areas of the country.
 
#31
#31
lawgator1 said:
You have to read a little further:

"The proposed curriculum will include a 45-minute LGBT lesson, once a year from kindergarten through fifth grade. The kindergartners will focus on the harms of teasing, while the fifth graders will study sexual orientation stereotypes."
Click to expand...

the question law is why "sexual orientation stereotypes" need to be discussed. isn't this a private matter?
 
#32
#32
vols4sure said:
You have to read a little further:

Among the course materials that could be added to the curriculum is "And Tango Makes Three," a children’s book about gay penguins struggling to create a family. The book has been banned in some areas of the country.
Click to expand...


Pretty vague -- could be added? And where? Fifth graders? Twelfth graders? Five year olds? Pretty scary notion the way its written.

But let's be real -- it does not tell you actual facts.
 
#33
#33
I just don't understand the point of making a class for this subject. Make a rule that the use of those types of name calling gets you in trouble and then punish those that break the rule. Its not hard and this way no one is offended.
 
#34
#34
throw on me or my views.

But I am totally against any kid ever having to sit in a room and be told that it is "normal" or an "alternate lifestyle" to be a fudge packer.

It is not normal. Our society is becoming a cesspool.
:banghead2:
 
#35
#35
lawgator1 said:
You have to read a little further:

"The proposed curriculum will include a 45-minute LGBT lesson, once a year from kindergarten through fifth grade. The kindergartners will focus on the harms of teasing, while the fifth graders will study sexual orientation stereotypes."
Click to expand...

And you didn't read the part that sexual orientation is the only protected class receiving the "harms of teasing lecture". If it's about the harms of teasing why does it have to be about LGBT only?

But other groups think the new curriculum is not balanced in whom it protects.
“Under law, there are five categories of protected classes when it comes to discrimination,” explained Karen England, a spokeswoman for the Capitol Resource Institute, an organization that advocates conservative policy on social issues.
"The curriculum focuses on only one subgroup protected under anti-discrimination laws: sexual orientation.”
Click to expand...
 
#38
#38
volinbham said:
This is what you believe public education should include?
Click to expand...
Not my call. I'll leave that to the people paid to make such decisions. I'm 100% certain it has not one damn iota of effect on my life or the lives of my friends. Thus, I don't care.
 
#39
#39
hatvol96 said:
Oh, look. Another meaningless "issue" for the right to froth at the mouth about.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is another "issue" so much as it is another "episode" of an ongoing issue. I don't exactly consider it frothing at the mouth when parents of chidlren within the school are interested in having a say so in what is going on at the school.

But then again, the left "froths at the mouth" too, over this issue. Just look at the episode at Fulton with not being allowed to view LGBT websites.
 
#40
#40
allvol123 said:
But then again, the left "froths at the mouth" too, over this issue. Just look at the episode at Fulton with not being allowed to view LGBT websites.
Click to expand...
I agree both sides waste an immense amount of time babbling about this issue. However, the Fulton situation isn't really comparable. They're two distinct issues.
 
#41
#41
hatvol96 said:
I agree both sides waste an immense amount of time babbling about this issue. However, the Fulton situation isn't really comparable. They're two distinct issues.
Click to expand...

It all revolves around homosexuality or anything that isn't pro-heterosexuality. They are different matters, especially in a legal sense I would bet, but the underlying issue that creates them is the opposing views on sexuality. In any of these episodes, someone, somewhere wants to get their "morals" inserted.
 
#42
#42
allvol123 said:
It all revolves around homosexuality or anything that isn't pro-heterosexuality. They are different matters, especially in a legal sense I would bet, but the underlying issue that creates them is the opposing views on sexuality. In any of these episodes, someone, somewhere wants to get their "morals" inserted.
Click to expand...
I agree to an extent. However, one is a cirriculum question and the other is an access issue. I'm not moved one way or the other about this "class," though I'm pretty sure there are better uses of academic time. On the other hand, I've got a huge problem with high school students being limited in the legal, nonobscene sites they can see on the web in the library.
 
#43
#43
hatvol96 said:
I agree to an extent. However, one is a cirriculum question and the other is an access issue. I'm not moved one way or the other about this "class," though I'm pretty sure there are better uses of academic time. On the other hand, I've got a huge problem with high school students being limited in the legal, nonobscene sites they can see on the web in the library.
Click to expand...

I think you are correct on the access issue.

On the curriculum thing, bible thumpers like me(not really one), do not like the idea of this subject that has nothing to do with basic learning rammed down our collective throats. I'd love to send my kids to private school or homeschool but not sure it is in the cards. If they go to public school I want them focused on the 3 Rs, history, science, civics, etc.
 
#44
#44
allvol123 said:
I think you are correct on the access issue.

On the curriculum thing, bible thumpers like me(not really one), do not like the idea of this subject that has nothing to do with basic learning rammed down our collective throats. I'd love to send my kids to private school or homeschool but not sure it is in the cards. If they go to public school I want them focused on the 3 Rs, history, science, civics, etc.
Click to expand...

Did you really have to use that particular turn of phrase here? :)
 
#46
#46
volinbham said:
And you didn't read the part that sexual orientation is the only protected class receiving the "harms of teasing lecture". If it's about the harms of teasing why does it have to be about LGBT only?
Click to expand...



So as kids are made fun of for being "straight, or that's so straight" then you will see them being told that insulating somebody for being straight is bad.
 
#47
#47
orangestorm said:
So as kids are made fun of for being "straight, or that's so straight" then you will see them being told that insulating somebody for being straight is bad.
Click to expand...

I would say a lecture on not picking on small kids, ugly kids, or fat kids would be more than 100 billion times more applicable to elementary schoolers than a lecture on homosexuality.
 
#50
#50
vols4sure said:
I just don't understand the point of making a class for this subject. Make a rule that the use of those types of name calling gets you in trouble and then punish those that break the rule. Its not hard and this way no one is offended.
Click to expand...

^^^this^^^
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top