OT: Gay History in California Public Schools

[jstoesz]

Honestly, I really don’t care. I was not trying to wade into the morality of the issue. I was not trying to cast stones or label who threw the first. I don’t care. But this issue that you all are having is not going to go away if we all agreed on homosexual curriculum. There will always be another issue to educate someone else’s kids about. Some other state of federal mandate for some other tertiary or even core issue. The real difference, the more basic disagreement, is one of control. How much do we want the federal or state government to politicize our child’s education? The very same people who were railing against Intelligent Design (no I do not wish to open this can of worms either) as not fit for schools are now in favor of gay sensitivity training. Their position has changed because the subject matter has changed.

If you can not admit that you want to teach other people’s kids your own worldview, then this discussion is pointless. The corollary here is that you also want to drown out other people’s world views in the process. This is absurd, and this game will never end. If you want the government to have this level of control, one day you will find yourself in the minority, with your tax dollars getting siphoned off in huge amounts to support things you find offensive. And that too is wrong!

[zk]

[quote=jstoesz] How much do we want the federal or state government to politicize our child’s education? The very same people who were railing against Intelligent Design (no I do not wish to open this can of worms either) as not fit for schools are now in favor of gay sensitivity training. Their position has changed because the subject matter has changed.
[/quote]

To say that those of us who are against intelligent design being taught as science are saying ID is not fit for schools is incorrect.

Generally, those who rail against intelligent design rail against ID being taught as science. Not against ID being taught as one religious idea. If you fail to make that distinction, you fail to make your point. We are against ID being taught as science because ID is not science. The inconsistency you attempt to point out does not exist.

[zk]

[quote=jstoesz] How much do we want the federal or state government to politicize our child’s education? The very same people who were railing against Intelligent Design (no I do not wish to open this can of worms either) as not fit for schools are now in favor of gay sensitivity training. Their position has changed because the subject matter has changed.
[/quote]

To say that those of us who are against intelligent design being taught as science are saying ID is not fit for schools is incorrect.

Generally, those who rail against intelligent design rail against ID being taught as science. Not against ID being taught as one religious idea. If you fail to make that distinction, you fail to make your point. We are against ID being taught as science because ID is not science. The inconsistency you attempt to point out does not exist.

[zk]

[quote=jstoesz] How much do we want the federal or state government to politicize our child’s education? The very same people who were railing against Intelligent Design (no I do not wish to open this can of worms either) as not fit for schools are now in favor of gay sensitivity training. Their position has changed because the subject matter has changed.
[/quote]

To say that those of us who are against intelligent design being taught as science are saying ID is not fit for schools is incorrect.

Generally, those who rail against intelligent design rail against ID being taught as science. Not against ID being taught as one religious idea. If you fail to make that distinction, you fail to make your point. We are against ID being taught as science because ID is not science. The inconsistency you attempt to point out does not exist.

[zk]

[quote=jstoesz] How much do we want the federal or state government to politicize our child’s education? The very same people who were railing against Intelligent Design (no I do not wish to open this can of worms either) as not fit for schools are now in favor of gay sensitivity training. Their position has changed because the subject matter has changed.
[/quote]

To say that those of us who are against intelligent design being taught as science are saying ID is not fit for schools is incorrect.

Generally, those who rail against intelligent design rail against ID being taught as science. Not against ID being taught as one religious idea. If you fail to make that distinction, you fail to make your point. We are against ID being taught as science because ID is not science. The inconsistency you attempt to point out does not exist.

[zk]

[quote=jstoesz] How much do we want the federal or state government to politicize our child’s education? The very same people who were railing against Intelligent Design (no I do not wish to open this can of worms either) as not fit for schools are now in favor of gay sensitivity training. Their position has changed because the subject matter has changed.
[/quote]

To say that those of us who are against intelligent design being taught as science are saying ID is not fit for schools is incorrect.

Generally, those who rail against intelligent design rail against ID being taught as science. Not against ID being taught as one religious idea. If you fail to make that distinction, you fail to make your point. We are against ID being taught as science because ID is not science. The inconsistency you attempt to point out does not exist.

[Shadowfax]

zk: word. (haha)

[Shadowfax]

zk: word. (haha)

[Shadowfax]

zk: word. (haha)

[Shadowfax]

zk: word. (haha)

[Shadowfax]

zk: word. (haha)

[Shadowfax]

[quote=jstoesz]If you can not admit that you want to teach other people’s kids your own worldview, then this discussion is pointless. The corollary here is that you also want to drown out other people’s world views in the process. This is absurd, and this game will never end. If you want the government to have this level of control, one day you will find yourself in the minority, with your tax dollars getting siphoned off in huge amounts to support things you find offensive. And that too is wrong![/quote]

A worldview is by definition expansive not exclusive. I don’t want to exclude ID from RELIGION classes, but I don’t have a problem with including as much detail about history as is feasible in the curriculum. In CA especially, there is a unique set of factors that made the state what it is today, and the homosexual population of SF in particular makes for interesting course material.

The article indicates that the schools will have discretion about when and how to introduct these materials. I don’t see any need to discuss sexuality as such, but just to attribute the contributions that different groups of people have made seems sufficient.

As for your property tax dollars, you could always sell your house and rent and then you wouldn’t have to worry about that part!

[Shadowfax]

[quote=jstoesz]If you can not admit that you want to teach other people’s kids your own worldview, then this discussion is pointless. The corollary here is that you also want to drown out other people’s world views in the process. This is absurd, and this game will never end. If you want the government to have this level of control, one day you will find yourself in the minority, with your tax dollars getting siphoned off in huge amounts to support things you find offensive. And that too is wrong![/quote]

A worldview is by definition expansive not exclusive. I don’t want to exclude ID from RELIGION classes, but I don’t have a problem with including as much detail about history as is feasible in the curriculum. In CA especially, there is a unique set of factors that made the state what it is today, and the homosexual population of SF in particular makes for interesting course material.

The article indicates that the schools will have discretion about when and how to introduct these materials. I don’t see any need to discuss sexuality as such, but just to attribute the contributions that different groups of people have made seems sufficient.

As for your property tax dollars, you could always sell your house and rent and then you wouldn’t have to worry about that part!

[Shadowfax]

[quote=jstoesz]If you can not admit that you want to teach other people’s kids your own worldview, then this discussion is pointless. The corollary here is that you also want to drown out other people’s world views in the process. This is absurd, and this game will never end. If you want the government to have this level of control, one day you will find yourself in the minority, with your tax dollars getting siphoned off in huge amounts to support things you find offensive. And that too is wrong![/quote]

A worldview is by definition expansive not exclusive. I don’t want to exclude ID from RELIGION classes, but I don’t have a problem with including as much detail about history as is feasible in the curriculum. In CA especially, there is a unique set of factors that made the state what it is today, and the homosexual population of SF in particular makes for interesting course material.

The article indicates that the schools will have discretion about when and how to introduct these materials. I don’t see any need to discuss sexuality as such, but just to attribute the contributions that different groups of people have made seems sufficient.

As for your property tax dollars, you could always sell your house and rent and then you wouldn’t have to worry about that part!

[Shadowfax]

[quote=jstoesz]If you can not admit that you want to teach other people’s kids your own worldview, then this discussion is pointless. The corollary here is that you also want to drown out other people’s world views in the process. This is absurd, and this game will never end. If you want the government to have this level of control, one day you will find yourself in the minority, with your tax dollars getting siphoned off in huge amounts to support things you find offensive. And that too is wrong![/quote]

A worldview is by definition expansive not exclusive. I don’t want to exclude ID from RELIGION classes, but I don’t have a problem with including as much detail about history as is feasible in the curriculum. In CA especially, there is a unique set of factors that made the state what it is today, and the homosexual population of SF in particular makes for interesting course material.

The article indicates that the schools will have discretion about when and how to introduct these materials. I don’t see any need to discuss sexuality as such, but just to attribute the contributions that different groups of people have made seems sufficient.

As for your property tax dollars, you could always sell your house and rent and then you wouldn’t have to worry about that part!

[Author]

Posts