OT: The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools

[NotCranky]

[quote=njtosd]Ok – nobody responded to my earlier point, and I’m curious as to why not (maybe i’m boring . . .). Would the people on this board be ok if the family was polygamous (i.e. more than 2 people)? If all the members of the family are fine with it, shouldn’t that be ok to include in a children’s book?[/quote]

Polygamists are not adopting, or they are? Has that gone somewhat mainstream?
Does the law support it?

I want my kids to be able to deal with the actual world, not one someone wants ,or has invented in some compare and contrast story that ultimately isn’t relevant.
Lesbians adopt children. Men marry men. Those things are prevalent.

It isn’t really a matter of what I think is right or wrong. I think a lot of things are right and wrong.

[NotCranky]

[quote=sdduuuude]I think you are all missing his point.

The point is not against homosexuals.

The point is that the school is forcing discussions of sexuality earlier than he is comfortable with.

It’s a good point.[/quote]

Story about a biological family , nice pictures of a boy and girl. Someone did some
baby making…why should two women who acquire a child by non-reproductive means be called out for eliciting thoughts about the birds and the bees in children?

How did old mother hubbard get all those children?…OMG!

[spdrun]

Polygamists are not adopting, or they are? Has that gone somewhat mainstream?
Does the law support it?

Of course they do — divorcees aren’t forbidden from adopting, and if someone remarries a few times, that makes them a (what) in all but name ….?

Plus quite a few people probably have unofficial arrangements that are polygamous in all but legal name. If those can be hidden from a background check, then I’m sure some of them do adopt.

[Hobie]

[quote=sdduuuude]
The point is that the school is forcing discussions of sexuality earlier than he is comfortable with.

It’s a good point.[/quote]

Bingo. SDD. Everything else is another discussion.

And Flu, friggin’ genius wrt Brian. Nicely done.

[CDMA ENG]

I am going to throw my two cents into the hat here…

I am sorry but there is an agenda there.

I really do not think it is radical but I believe as SDDuuuude does. It should be up to the parent to decide when and where the engage the topic with the child.

To that point remember Rich your parents signed a consent form for you to attend sex ed class. We all had our parents do that. Hence the decision of when that subject was broached still belonged to the parent(s).

The next argument would be that the kids are probably hearing about these things anyway on the school yard. My nieces go to a pre-school where there were multiple “two mommies” scenarios and my sister was forced to make a decision to explain the situation but it is still up to her what explanation she is going to give.

The point is that she still had control over the situation. It is not up to our schools to indoctrinate one line of thinking or another.

So lets go onto the verbiage…

Why did it have to be a “two mommies” scenario as the OP said? There is no other explanation to this other than to introduce the idea of a homosexual family to the reader. Simply… that is an agenda.

But why bring sexual identity at all into this?

Why not simply say something like “a loving couple adopt a child”… Strip all sexual identity, hetro or homo, from the argument and leave “two loving people” in the story. Much more beautiful of an idea than the whole straight/gay thing and leaves the reader to interpret the situation as they want to.

Leave the decisive language for 10th grade when they are reading 1984 and other suggestive literature and have the maturity to deal with subjects for themselves after their parents have had first crack at the Bird and the Bees.

CE

[spdrun]

Puberty starts anywhere from age 10 to 16 — waiting till age 15 (10th grade) is far too late. The point of sex ed is to educate the kids whose parents are too ignorant or ashamed to have that discussion themselves.

[CDMA ENG]

[quote=spdrun]Puberty starts anywhere from age 10 to 16 — waiting till age 15 (10th grade) is far too late. The point of sex ed is to educate the kids whose parents are too ignorant or ashamed to have that discussion themselves.[/quote]

And your point is other than just to be a negative troll…

CE

[NotCranky]

The twist on polygamy and hidden polygamy seems trollish too.

[njtosd]

delete

[njtosd]

You think one person being involved with two other people isn’t prevalent? Polygamy has been much more common in history than monogamy. But I only raise this issue to make a point: there is no logical argument that can be made for gay marriage that can’t be made for polygamy. Why is one the open minded choice and the other held in disdain?

[njtosd]

[quote=Blogstar]The twist on polygamy and hidden polygamy seems trollish too.[/quote]

What do you mean?

[sdduuuude]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=sdduuuude]
Well, maybe against the radical ones with an agenda, which is likely not very many.[/quote]

That’s my point — there is no “radical gay agenda” here.

Here’s what happened: a reading assignment mentioned, in passing, 2 women adopting a child together. Where exactly is the “radical agenda?” I don’t see it.

OP’s takeaway: “Radical gay agenda! It sickens me!”

You are giving him a pass by saying it’s not about the gays, that it’s about early discussion of sexuality.

First, there’s nothing radical about that. I remember getting sex education in 5th grade. That was in 1981. And it was way more explicit than this, which is really just about two women adopting a child together (you could probably skirt the sex part pretty easily if the child asks about it).

Second, if it’s just about any mention of sexuality, why is the title The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools? Why isn’t it The Radical Early Sex Education Agenda?

So, like I said (more succinctly) in my first post:

oblique mention to a youngster of two women adopting a child ==
an “agenda”, and also, “sickening”

Sounds pretty anti-gay to me.[/quote]

See CDMA’s answer. Explained it very well.

[quote=CDMAEng]
Why did it have to be a “two mommies” scenario as the OP said? There is no other explanation to this other than to introduce the idea of a homosexual family to the reader. Simply… that is an agenda.

But why bring sexual identity at all into this?

Why not simply say something like “a loving couple adopt a child”… Strip all sexual identity, hetro or homo, from the argument and leave “two loving people” in the story. [/quote]

Plus, I interpreted “still in her early years of elementary school” as well before 5th grade. Still, the point is – “the right age” for some may be too early for others.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=spdrun]Puberty starts anywhere from age 10 to 16 — waiting till age 15 (10th grade) is far too late. The point of sex ed is to educate the kids whose parents are too ignorant or ashamed to have that discussion themselves.[/quote]

Stating your preference (that waiting until age 15 is far too late) doesn’t really address the issue at hand.

It’s like saying “if he only believed that the topic of homsexuality should be breached at the same age that I believe, then he wouldn’t have this problem.”

[spdrun]

And your point is other than just to be a negative troll…

I’m not being a troll. I’m stating the truth, which is that I have little patience for fundies of ANY religion who hurt those that they purport to love via their superstition and prudery.

One of the purposes of education should be to counter harmful superstitions.

Gay folk and lesbians exist. Deal with it.
Sex exists. Deal with it.
Birth control exists. Learn about it.

Your kid won’t die or be scarred for life from learning any of those things, quite the contrary.

[spdrun]

I’m saying, the earlier the better. I have no problem with a 4 or 5 year old knowing that some kids have a mommy and daddy, and others have two of a single gender. They’ll know it eventually, so may as well learn. Kids are open-minded by default, so it’s unlikely that any trauma will ensue.

And it’s healthier that the kids that are gay by nature go through puberty knowing that what they’re feeling is OK, not a shameful thing to be painfully hidden.

[Author]

Posts