195 replies to this topic

[the_professor]

Oh Joe, you just hate gays like I do.....(JOKING)

I don't know the stats on the number of gay pedophiles, but like I said in one of my recent posts, parents are now wondering about Uncle Bob, and if their male children should be around him. You know, he painted his wives' toe nails when she was sick, and that could just be because he's.....well.....you know.

Parents used to only wonder about Uncle Bob in regards to their little girls. Now they have double to worry about. I think the gay movement has made some of us even more homophobic and paranoid than before.

It's like when your neighbor gets robbed down the street in board daylight. It opens your eyes a little bit, doesn't it? A little too close to home, isn't it? Then if another neighbor gets robbed on the street over, you begin to really get concerned. Are you over reacting? I don't think so.

But, we're becoming more aware, aren't we?

Nope, we shouldn't be concerned when it comes to gay people, they're ALL good...just like the rest of us. (sic) Everybody is just perfect and wonderful, right?

As the liberals like to say, "It's ALL good!" (sic) "No worries!"

I think you are misusing the acronym sic.

[rpo]

No, I wasn't serious...any more than I'm serious when a Catholic priest molests a little boy or girl, he is simply taking aside to instruct for Biblical reasons. I guess it's just a coincidence that most of the children molested by priests were little boys. (sic) How many priest are women???? Logic, it's not just for sane people.

There you go again attempting to link homosexuality to pedophilia when you have ZERO evidence to back up your hate speech. Did you even consider that a strong majority of young people involved with altar functions are boys? Girls were not even allowed until 1983, and a strong majority of the molestations took place prior to that.

I'm not stretching the truth any more than you are trying to play down that fact that this sort of thing happens. And, it is just as concerning for parents as any act of molestation. It doesn't HAVE to be gay, but believe it or not, some parents didn't used to get AS concerned when their male child was alone with a male adult, until gays really made themselves known and started to rally their troops towards shoving their sexually down our throats, and yelling, "Hey, we're gay! And we're out here in BIG numbers!!!!" I can tell you, THAT made everyone sit up and notice.....happy? Now the general pubic is even MORE homophobic! Uncle Bob can't even babysit his nephews anymore, take them to the ball park or a movie!
That's how much the gay movement has helped out. (sic)

Wow. And why can't "Uncle Bob" babysit his nephews? Because you believe that all gay people are out to molest children? I have absolutely no idea why you believe that gays fighting for equal rights means 'Uncle Bob" is going to molest your children at the ball park? That is one of the most bigoted statements I have ever read. Disgusting.

I don't know the percentage of gay molestations verses straight and it really doesn't matter to a parent, who has had that happen to their kid. But I can guarantee you they are thinking about it NOW! Thanks to all the information and gay parades out there! Gays are REALLY educating us!

If I was to argue that I do not know the statistics, but I heard through the grapevine that a gun killed a kid, therefore all guns should be banned, would you support me? Of course not, because it is lunacy, but is just like your argument. Your constant attempts to link homosexuality to pedofilia is quite sickening. What caused you to have such hatred towards this group of people? I know it is not due to statistics backing your claim, because you also consistently state you have no idea what they are, but that does not matter because gays cannot be trusted, right?

But we are getting off track....let's talk about the OP.

If we are going to teach different modes of living and sexuality, it's only fair we place studies in schools concerning Christianity, Communal living, the religion of Mormon, bestiality, ALL OF IT! Let's load them down with social studies, because, Hey! They don't have enough to study now! (sic)

Let's really do it right and give our kids even more to study. And it will be much more interesting than the boring math they have to learn, or English and Spanish.

The gay party has opened a door now, but they don't want to hear any feed back or negative remarks. I'm sorry, the world doesn't work that way. All the world isn't going to celebrate you or anybody being gay when you are trying to change everything in our laws and schools!

People get upset when a religion wants to have prayer in schools. H3ll, I get upset with that idea. But you and others think it's just fine and dandy to teach our kids about who was/maybe gay in history books????

Seriously? I mean really....seriously???

Yes, if that person made strides in achieving acceptance of their minority group. That is the reason to teach of someone's race, sexual preference, etc. If that is not what they are known for, then it really does not matter. There is nobody justifying teaching children that someone is gay who may not have been. You are the one making that up out of thin air.

[rpo]

Don't you think asking the general public to accept your life style and sexual preference enough?

That is exactly what they are trying to do. As I stated before, if someone worked tirelessly to equalize the rights of their discriminated group of people, then they deserve to be mentioned. As it stood before, NONE of those people were allowed in the history books. You simply want those types of people to disappear and never be seen, but they are a sector of the population that does not deserve to be pushed into a dark corner. Sorry.

Big news flash, there will never be 100% of people excepting of homosexuality.

What an excellent reason to continue discrimination against a group of people. I am certain the same argument for discrimination was used against previous forms of racism as well.

No, I don't hate gays.

Your statements on this forum prove otherwise. Each time you argue your side, you are promoting false claims that gay men are pedophiles and that gays cannot be trusted. You clearly do not believe you are being discriminatory, but you are.

Gay people are people and can be good friends, relatives and neighbors. But I do have a limit on what they should teach in schools. AND, I DON'T want to talk to them about their sexual experience any more than I want to hear that from any body else. And teach it in schools? I don't think so....

I don't want religion taught in schools either....and no, I don't hate religious people until they get in my face and want to convert me and my kids to their faith.

But you won't GET this, any more than some religious people will. Think on THAT for awhile.

I simply think it's inappropriate to teach kids what their parents would rather them be taught at home. Do parents have ANY rights anymore? Or should we just allow the government to raise them for us?

The government is trying to put an end to discrimination by teaching that everyone should be accepted as they are. To prove that everyone is equal, showing the accomplishments of people who helped end racism/discrimination is done in public schools. There is NOTHING in the new law, nor any other, that is going to have schools teaching sex to young children.


Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

[ducky]

I think you are misusing the acronym sic.

It's not actually an acronym. It is Latin and means "thus" or "so." I believe you are correct that it is being misused.

For example, if a newspaper were to print a letter to the editor and the writer had misused a word, but the paper didn't feel at liberty to change the spelling or grammar, they would print it exactly as written and put [sic] after the word or phrase in question. It's not meant for when you are being sarcastic or facetious. It's also used in anything that is being transcribed verbatim for when people mispeak and the transcriber doesn't want it to be taken for a typo.

Back to the OP, why is it automatically assumed that so much detail will be involved? Has anyone seen the subject matter in question?

[rpo]

It's not actually an acronym. It is Latin and means "thus" or "so." I believe you are correct that it is being misused.

For example, if a newspaper were to print a letter to the editor and the writer had misused a word, but the paper didn't feel at liberty to change the spelling or grammar, they would print it exactly as written and put [sic] after the word or phrase in question. It's not meant for when you are being sarcastic or facetious. It's also used in anything that is being transcribed verbatim for when people mispeak and the transcriber doesn't want it to be taken for a typo.

Exactly. It simply means the sentence prior quoted exactly as originally written/said.

Back to the OP, why is it automatically assumed that so much detail will be involved? Has anyone seen the subject matter in question?

No subject matter has been written whatsoever, nor have ages/grades been determined. All we really know is that the teaching of influential gay/lesbian Americans will be required at some point during public schooling. It just becomes a requirement once textbooks are allowed to be revised, which is not until 2015 (or possibly later if our budget woes worsen).

[The Average Joe]

And RPO has yet to address my concerns about omission of FACTS to advance an agenda...propaganda.

"The government is trying to put an end to discrimination by teaching that everyone should be accepted as they are. To prove that everyone is equal..."

One problem. Everyone should not be accepted as they are. I don't accept pedophiles. Nor do I accept bullies. Ditto arrogant aholes. And many other classes...I don't accept those that harm, or hate...

Everyone is NOT equal. They might have equal potential (for the most part I suppose), but a mass murderer has far less value than an altruistic billionaire. They are NOT equal in societal or spiritual value. That's the problem with the left...they want equal outcomes, not equal opportunity.

[MurphysLaw]

There are always things that you don't want schools to teach your kids, but where's the limit? If someone is a white supremacist are schools suppose to accept their idea and not teach about the civil rights movement? I am for schools teaching about the LGBT rights movement: The stonewall Riots, Harvey Milk contribution to the movement, and even the almost repeal of DADT.

The teaching of gay history is not going to corrupt young minds if shows like the kardashians, jersey shore, and 16 and pregnant haven't done so already.

[MurphysLaw]

And RPO has yet to address my concerns about omission of FACTS to advance an agenda...propaganda.

"The government is trying to put an end to discrimination by teaching that everyone should be accepted as they are. To prove that everyone is equal..."

One problem. Everyone should not be accepted as they are. I don't accept pedophiles. Nor do I accept bullies. Ditto arrogant aholes. And many other classes...I don't accept those that harm, or hate...

Everyone is NOT equal. They might have equal potential (for the most part I suppose), but a mass murderer has far less value than an altruistic billionaire. They are NOT equal in societal or spiritual value. That's the problem with the left...they want equal outcomes, not equal opportunity.

I don't think that person meant bullies, rapist, murderers, and lazy people. I think that person meant people of different gender and ethnicity, people that are disabled, and gay people. Things that don't affect people. You took that quote an dissected it way too much.

[The Average Joe]

I don't think that person meant bullies, rapist, murderers, and lazy people. I think that person meant people of different gender and ethnicity, people that are disabled, and gay people. Things that don't affect people. You took that quote an dissected it way too much.

I'll let RPO speak for himself. And as of yet, I have yet to hear a defense of the omission of anything that "might reflect negatively" on any of the selected classes. That IS propaganda. Should we apply the same standard to white christian males through history? How about Hitler? Or Stalin? Wouldn't want to reflect negatively on fascists or communists...
Face it, this law is no more than an attempt to distort historical FACT while promoting a political agenda. Omission can be just as much a lie as an actual lie. Propaganda as a topic is fine for history class, but it has no place in the content.

propaganda:

the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

So I ask those of you that think this law is good to defend only reporting the good the anointed groups did in history...and ignoring the bad.
Instead of Harvey Milk day the schools are gonna need a Paul Harvey day to get "the rest of the story."

[rpo]

I don't think that person meant bullies, rapist, murderers, and lazy people. I think that person meant people of different gender and ethnicity, people that are disabled, and gay people. Things that don't affect people. You took that quote an dissected it way too much.

That is precisely what I meant. I have no idea how anyone would think it would be ok to teach positive things about rapists, pedophiles, etc. That poster is just trying to make a political point by bringing in topics that are far outside the topic at hand. It is the same argument used against same-sex marriage when people argue that marrying your dog will be next.

[rpo]

I'll let RPO speak for himself. And as of yet, I have yet to hear a defense of the omission of anything that "might reflect negatively" on any of the selected classes. That IS propaganda. Should we apply the same standard to white christian males through history? How about Hitler? Or Stalin? Wouldn't want to reflect negatively on fascists or communists...
Face it, this law is no more than an attempt to distort historical FACT while promoting a political agenda. Omission can be just as much a lie as an actual lie. Propaganda as a topic is fine for history class, but it has no place in the content.

propaganda:

the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

So I ask those of you that think this law is good to defend only reporting the good the anointed groups did in history...and ignoring the bad.
Instead of Harvey Milk day the schools are gonna need a Paul Harvey day to get "the rest of the story."

I have not seen anyone on this forum advocating the teaching of pedophiles. Nobody knows who would be in the teaching requirements for this, and we are likely years away from knowing. At this point, arguing against something that is an unknown is going to get us nowhere.

[ducky]

I'll let RPO speak for himself. And as of yet, I have yet to hear a defense of the omission of anything that "might reflect negatively" on any of the selected classes. That IS propaganda. Should we apply the same standard to white christian males through history? How about Hitler? Or Stalin? Wouldn't want to reflect negatively on fascists or communists...
Face it, this law is no more than an attempt to distort historical FACT while promoting a political agenda. Omission can be just as much a lie as an actual lie. Propaganda as a topic is fine for history class, but it has no place in the content.

propaganda:

the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

So I ask those of you that think this law is good to defend only reporting the good the anointed groups did in history...and ignoring the bad.
Instead of Harvey Milk day the schools are gonna need a Paul Harvey day to get "the rest of the story."

Kind of like how poor history teachers need to explain "the real story" to a whole Disney-watching generation who grew up thinking Pocahantas (Matowaka) was an ecologically-minded buxom Indian who fell wildly in love with Captain John Smith, who was kind of a surfer dude, and saved his life.

I understand what you are saying that it is a disservice to not tell the whole story about historical figures, but do you mean controversy instead of propaganda?

That's why I was questioning if things will be taught in an age-appropriate manner. I think it is more important for younger students to learn Thomas Jefferson crafted the Declaration of Independence than the fact that he may have fathered a child with a slave, which would be fine for older students to hear. It's more important for students to recognize the name of Bill Clinton as a former President of the United States than to know about a stain on a dress and perjury. It's not a matter of purposeful omission, but rather adding layers of knowledge when a student is able to understand and process what is being presented.

[The Average Joe]

"That's why I was questioning if things will be taught in an age-appropriate manner. I think it is more important for younger students to learn Thomas Jefferson crafted the Declaration of Independence than the fact that he may have fathered a child with a slave, which would be fine for older students to hear. It's more important for students to recognize the name of Bill Clinton as a former President of the United States than to know about a stain on a dress and perjury. It's not a matter of purposeful omission, but rather adding layers of knowledge when a student is able to understand and process what is being presented."

Well stated. However, in this case, layers of knowledge will NOT be added to the curriculum BY LAW.

A governing board shall not adopt any
instructional materials for use in the schools which
that , in its determination, contains:
(a) Any matter reflecting adversely upon persons because
of their race, color, creed, national origin, ancestry, sex,
handicap, or occupation on the basis of race or
ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, sexual
orientation, or because of a characteristic listed in Section 220



That is what I find troubling. So, let's have a discussion about the impacts of illegal immigration vs legal immigration. Certainly a valid topic for a modern history discussion (1900-2000). We won't be able to talk about legal Italian immigrants and the mob...that would reflect adversely on them. Can't do a section on Tammany Hall as that would reflect adversely on Irish immigrants. We won't be able to talk about the fiscal drain by illegal Mexican immigrants because that would reflect adversely on them. Will we be able to examine the reasons African Americans still suffer socioeconomically without addressing their own negative cultural issues (illegitimacy, etc)? Can we examine how some Native American tribes were warlike and brutal? How about the church and the Crusades? Muslim burning of the Library of Alexandria? Not according to this law.

Such a broad latitude is given to school boards by the words "in their determination," that there will certainly be abuses as they bend over backward to be politically correct. After all, being politically correct only means ignoring or hiding uncomfortable truths.

I'm all for examining the topics (as you might have guessed, I am a huge fan of history), I am NOT for sugar coating (propagandizing) any particular groups role in that history.

And RPO, you still haven't addressed my question, instead claiming these are far outside the topic. The topic is this law. I offer real world examples of just what this law would allow or not allow. It's the not allow that I have a problem with. Do YOU have a problem with selective editing of facts to be politically correct?

[swmr545]

In regards to what may or may not be taught, I don't think you have much to worry about in regards to FCUSD. Our district is already out of compliance w/ state laws that have been in place for 8 years; and it is up to the individual districts ("governing boards") in what they will be adopting as curriculum for their students. So if FCUSD doesn't want to teach about the LGBT community, then they just don't have to adopt any such curriculum, however the books that the state will be approving for use will have LGBT history in it, which means if a student wants to read a history book, they will be able to read about the LGBT community.

They can be as delusional as they want, they are bi or gay if they are having gay sex. How could anyone consider themselves straight if they're having gay sex? That sounds like a mental problem to me.

I didn't get all that from his post especially when he tries to cite comparisons with a priest and a single woman.

What I was trying to get across is that to some people, the act of sex has nothing to do with their sexual identity. There is a subset in the straight community known as "MSM" (men who have sex with men). These men do NOT consider themselves gay, and identify as straight since they are emotionally and romantically involved with women and only seek physical pleasure from another man.

[Harold]

What I was trying to get across is that to some people, the act of sex has nothing to do with their sexual identity. There is a subset in the straight community known as "MSM" (men who have sex with men). These men do NOT consider themselves gay, and identify as straight since they are emotionally and romantically involved with women and only seek physical pleasure from another man.

Aw, the Bill Clinton argument that he didn't have sex with Monica (cuz BJ's aren't "sex").

If someone is MSM, I don't care what they want to deny or call themselves, they are GAY, aka homosexual. OK, maybe Bi if they go both ways, but they are GAY. That's like a pedophile saying "I'm not a pervert, I just like having sex with little boys". I say "Face it Chester, you're a pervert!"
in reference to the comic strip called "Chester, the Molester" from Larry Flint's magazine