Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Shadowfax
Participant[quote=jstoesz]There goes that civil discourse…
Have a nice day.[/quote]
I didn’t see anything there that was uncivil…
Participant[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!
Participant[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!
Participant[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!
Participant[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!
Participant[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!
Participantzk: word. (haha)
Participantzk: word. (haha)
Participantzk: word. (haha)
Participantzk: word. (haha)
Participantzk: word. (haha)
Participant[quote=swdad]I don’t think you understand what jstoez is trying to convey. But first let me correct you – the phrase “separation of church and state” is *not* in the Constitution. Not sure you realize it but here in San Diego, 43.2% of our property taxes is allocated to public schools. For example, a $300K house at 1.1125%, 43.2% of that is $1442 – that’s a decent chunk of change for a lower-tier home. Again, most people do not agree with homosexuality and especially do not want it shoved down the throats of our children. No…we’re not homophobic, intolerant nor hateful. We simply don’t agree. And I definitely do not agree with allocating 43.2% of my money to institutions that promote this as normal. Promoting sexual orientation does not belong in the classroom and the government should not make it a mandate. As mentioned earlier, my kids attend parochial school, which, by the way is NOT funded by the 43.2% I pay. It would be fair for all if that 43.2% was used as a voucher so that folks can send their children to a school of their choice.[/quote]
I don’t think you understand that the entirety of your property tax is not being allocated to “promoting sexual orientation.” All the bill advocates doing is including homosexuals in the discourse of applicable classes. And you unfortunately don’t have a choice whether to pay property tax and if you send your kid to parochial school, you HAVE made a choice. It’s just not funded by your taxes.
Oh, and who are “most people.” I think your view is skewed by those with whom you associate. My views are skewed by the fact that I know and respect a lot of gay people and their straight friends.
I hope you are not sending your kids to a catholic school, cause then I could say that most of your school’s leaders do believe in homosexuality. But they choose to educate people about in private. (Yes, I have issues with people in leadership taking advantage of kids like that and then LYING about it or covering it up. If you are gay, be gay. Don’t hide behind a psalter then abuse boys in your “spiritual care”.)
Participant[quote=swdad]I don’t think you understand what jstoez is trying to convey. But first let me correct you – the phrase “separation of church and state” is *not* in the Constitution. Not sure you realize it but here in San Diego, 43.2% of our property taxes is allocated to public schools. For example, a $300K house at 1.1125%, 43.2% of that is $1442 – that’s a decent chunk of change for a lower-tier home. Again, most people do not agree with homosexuality and especially do not want it shoved down the throats of our children. No…we’re not homophobic, intolerant nor hateful. We simply don’t agree. And I definitely do not agree with allocating 43.2% of my money to institutions that promote this as normal. Promoting sexual orientation does not belong in the classroom and the government should not make it a mandate. As mentioned earlier, my kids attend parochial school, which, by the way is NOT funded by the 43.2% I pay. It would be fair for all if that 43.2% was used as a voucher so that folks can send their children to a school of their choice.[/quote]
I don’t think you understand that the entirety of your property tax is not being allocated to “promoting sexual orientation.” All the bill advocates doing is including homosexuals in the discourse of applicable classes. And you unfortunately don’t have a choice whether to pay property tax and if you send your kid to parochial school, you HAVE made a choice. It’s just not funded by your taxes.
Oh, and who are “most people.” I think your view is skewed by those with whom you associate. My views are skewed by the fact that I know and respect a lot of gay people and their straight friends.
I hope you are not sending your kids to a catholic school, cause then I could say that most of your school’s leaders do believe in homosexuality. But they choose to educate people about in private. (Yes, I have issues with people in leadership taking advantage of kids like that and then LYING about it or covering it up. If you are gay, be gay. Don’t hide behind a psalter then abuse boys in your “spiritual care”.)
Participant[quote=swdad]I don’t think you understand what jstoez is trying to convey. But first let me correct you – the phrase “separation of church and state” is *not* in the Constitution. Not sure you realize it but here in San Diego, 43.2% of our property taxes is allocated to public schools. For example, a $300K house at 1.1125%, 43.2% of that is $1442 – that’s a decent chunk of change for a lower-tier home. Again, most people do not agree with homosexuality and especially do not want it shoved down the throats of our children. No…we’re not homophobic, intolerant nor hateful. We simply don’t agree. And I definitely do not agree with allocating 43.2% of my money to institutions that promote this as normal. Promoting sexual orientation does not belong in the classroom and the government should not make it a mandate. As mentioned earlier, my kids attend parochial school, which, by the way is NOT funded by the 43.2% I pay. It would be fair for all if that 43.2% was used as a voucher so that folks can send their children to a school of their choice.[/quote]
I don’t think you understand that the entirety of your property tax is not being allocated to “promoting sexual orientation.” All the bill advocates doing is including homosexuals in the discourse of applicable classes. And you unfortunately don’t have a choice whether to pay property tax and if you send your kid to parochial school, you HAVE made a choice. It’s just not funded by your taxes.
Oh, and who are “most people.” I think your view is skewed by those with whom you associate. My views are skewed by the fact that I know and respect a lot of gay people and their straight friends.
I hope you are not sending your kids to a catholic school, cause then I could say that most of your school’s leaders do believe in homosexuality. But they choose to educate people about in private. (Yes, I have issues with people in leadership taking advantage of kids like that and then LYING about it or covering it up. If you are gay, be gay. Don’t hide behind a psalter then abuse boys in your “spiritual care”.)
-
AuthorPosts