What Our Third Graders Are Being Taught

[Jimmy Leeds]

Loulam likes to pretend he's some sort of maverick, oppressed Republican...nobody piles on the hate here. Except you slinging lies and insults to those who disagree.

Our third graders are safe now? How has their safety been compromised recently? News to me.

Yeah, you lefties NEVER do that

[emptynet]

Holy $hit!!!!!!!!!!

What a bunch of IDIOTS!!!!!!

Does everything have to be the right or left side? Does it always have to result in Democrat vs. Republican.?

Open your eyes!!!! Children are learning how to live in this ever changing world. Deal with it.

If children are learning about this in school GOOD!!! It doesnt mean little Timmy is going to be gay. It means that when he gets older he wont feel awkward around gays. He or she will be more mature when handling the subject as, yeah so what he or she is gay. Not like most of us did when we were younger because it was such a taboo topic.

What's wrong with children learning about it in school? How many parents out there can honestly say they have sat down with their kids and discussed the topic of gay people?

What, it's OK for parents to let schools teach kids about the dangers of drugs so they grow up healthy physically, but teaching them about gays and growing up more mature mentally is a no, no. Let mommy and daddy take care of that...yeah like they ever will.

[LOULAM1]

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/1-0...07-1301173.html

"Marini said, as advocates for gay marriage have often argued, that the benefits of marriage come into play often when one spouse is sick. "It's a time of emergency, a time of hysteria," she said. And a bad time to explain legal rights and status to hospital officials, well-meaning or not, she said.

Phrases like "domestic partner" and "civil union" only add to the confusion, she said, whereas "marriage" is more universally understood."

I feel no pain as marriage is between a man and a woman and the benefits of a "real" union should remain as such ESPECIALLY FOR THE TAXPAYER!

[RowdyFan42]

I feel no pain as marriage is between a man and a woman and the benefits of a "real" union should remain as such ESPECIALLY FOR THE TAXPAYER!

Now you're saying gay people don't pay taxes? What's next, gay marriage is all part of the Israeli agenda?

[Pepperkorn]

I don’t care if this is pointed out in school or not. I don’t find same sex parents offensive or threatening to me or my daughter – I don’t really understand why anyone would but it’s a fact some people do. My daughter was exposed to same sex parents from the get go -- her best friend at school in her infant room (they had a clique at 4 months...this is what I mean -- my daughter is a social animal - she's just going to be popular I guess it's OK) ANYHOW so one of the girls had 2 mommies. When Rebecca was about 1 1/2 she asked me where her buddy’s Dad was when parents came in for a party. I told her she had 2 mommies instead. No questions asked, no big deal.

We moved when Rebecca was 2 so we all sort of lost touch but Rebecca still talks about her buddy to this day and about a month ago out of the blue she asked me where her old pal’s daddy WAS. She explained to me that she knew she had two mommies but just knew there had to be some sort of daddy in the picture somewhere and wanted me to explain it all to her. No prompting, we hadn't seen the family in almost two years. My daughter is just 4 but somehow this was an inconsistency that somehow stuck in her head I guess.

Personally I feel that if your child understands something is missing in an explanation then they are ready to take it one step further. It’s not too soon to explain the situation. No I’m not telling her all about what it is to be a lesbian – like I don’t explain what it is to be hetero (DUH?) Talking about same sex parents doesn’t have to be sexual explicit – have you NO IMAGINATION? See, when people call a certain type of person Narrow minded it’s not insisting they accept something they personally find morally reprehensible – it’s the fact you can’t even broach a very real subject touching your child life in a non-judgmental – non-sexual way. What sort of warped individual must ascribe BOINKAGE to a life-long partnership? If you can’t do that then YOU are the one damaging your child’s psyche, not the person saying some people have two mommies or two daddies. Do you think your kid is so vacant that they only know what you tell them – they are that vapid and non-inquisitive?

Anyhow… I had to say "well there is a daddy but he just wanted to make sure your friend got born. He thought it was good that her two mommies take care of her instead of him.” Rebecca watches so much animal kingdom stuff that there are lots of parallels in nature you can point to to explain things - it keeps man-made morality out of the equation all together. That helps A LOT!

But really in thinking about it… I’m pretty sure she has that innate human superiority thing going on though… the animal kingdom isn’t US. As if we know better or something. As I age and learn more I really find it harder and harder to just find human superiority. They have a larger bag of tricks but, I don’t know… our morality sucks. We’re so wasteful and really disrespectful of all we share this planet with. Its’ not so much we lack empathy it’s that we deny it, fight against it. I think at one point this ignoring our empathetic feelings for others was vital for our survival. But now it’s no longer relevant and in fact our knee-jerk contradiction of our own individual innate empathy is leading to humanities demise. This isn’t a liberal diatribe attributed to our current administration’s values – if someone thinks it is they’re ascribing it themselves – they found the relevance… because this is pandemic. Every people the world over has this same code of selfishness as Ayn Rand put it. I.. … I just went off and a

Edited February 20, 2007 by Pepperkorn

[Pepperkorn]

Now you're saying gay people don't pay taxes? What's next, gay marriage is all part of the Israeli agenda?

[RowdyFan42]

PK, I thought that was very well put.

EDIT: The first post, not the response to me. Not that there was anything wrong with that one...

Edited February 20, 2007 by RowdyFan42

[Pepperkorn]

Thanks Rowdy. It helps to hear it since I am raising a little impressionable person!

[halfsharkalligatorhalfman]

In response to pepperkorn's post since i found it interesting though this may be not entirely relevent:

i find your argument somewhat contradictory. At first you discuss how "man-made" morality is inherently flawed since it's based on the idea that man is superior to other animals, then go on to argue that man needs to strive beyond selfishness and towards greater empathy. This is flawed to me because the natural world is so inherently about selfishness. Survival of the fittest and the like, nature rewards either selfish behavior or selfless behavior tied to the species' or your genetics' greater success, making it in a way selfish.

In many ways animals are some of the most selfish creatures on earth, and most of their acts of selflessness are tied inherently to the survival or their species and genetic code. So the only way to acheive selflessness as you define it is by creating a proper moral code of superiority over animals.

As to whether selfish or selfless behavior is the proper means to an end in our society, it seems to me that the ultimate goal of life is to find trustworthy people towards whom you can act selflessly. Selfless behavior can be incredibly risky and if the person's a jerk you will get exploited. That goal seems inherently tied to human behavior from the birth of humanity.

of course the other goal of getting as much as you can from any partnership is as well. also i heard gay people pay taxes.

Edited February 20, 2007 by halfsharkalligatorhalfman

[Pepperkorn]

Well, you actually misunderstood me to a point. Man has corrupted his natural instinct by creating some intellectual justification for his selfishness which in my opinion contradicts the moral superiority he is supposedly making judgements upon. His selfishness has extended beyond meeting his needs and has gone on to basically be ruled by the seven deadly sins and yet claim a "god-given" moral superiority. Most animals don't really take beyond what their needs dictate. Sure there are instances but not on the pandemic grand scale man has.

An Ayn Rand fan are ye? Obviously not with the second to the last paragraph. I like that - I think it makes life pretty neat - emotional risks.

I'd have no problem with Man claiming superiority were he to LIVE by his moral imparitive as opposed to spout it in defense of his lack of empathy... I'm sort of in a hury making dinner -- does that make sense?

Edited February 21, 2007 by Pepperkorn

[halfsharkalligatorhalfman]

Yeah I was a huge Ayn Rand fanatic. At this point in my life I think she had tremendously important and valuable ideas particularly about realizing your own potential and ability, but ultimately incomplete ideas in terms of realizing a truly fulfilling and happy life. I could go on and on for pages about it since it consumes my own ideas regarding philosophy so I'll just end it and say that I think a lot of her followers misunderstand her appeals for selfish behavior and use it as an excuse to be a parasite. Something she despised more than anything.

As to claiming that man is inherently empathetic and has used selfishness as a moral excuse to crush it. I don't know if I buy that. Selfishness seems much more engrained in human nature than true empathy. In fact true empathy seems incredibly difficult, selfishness is easy. Maybe this is more a sign of my immaturity or perhaps this is more of a male-female debate than anything else. True empathy i think can only come from morality as far I can tell. At the very least on the much larger level you speak of.

I don't know maybe i misunderstood everything. But I agree people can use moral codes to justify selfish impulsive behavior and great harm can come from that. And you're right that part of the idea of morality is that you are greater than your impulses since you are greater than an "animal" and that idea can be corrupted. I guess I just disagree with what you consider man's (woman's) true nature?

I hope that made sense or was a response to what you were saying.

[LOULAM1]

Now you're saying gay people don't pay taxes? What's next, gay marriage is all part of the Israeli agenda?

[RowdyFan42]

I never said gay people don't pay taxes. "Gay marriage" effects the heterosexual taxpayer, corporations, educational institutions and the states involved and that was my point.

Uh... quoi? Howzabout you explain your "homosexuality is bad for the tax base" stance for those of us who are NOT bigots?

By the way, civil unions for gays just went into effect in New Jersey. How long until the thought of that drives you insane -- well, more insane than you already are -- and you move to another state?

God forbid you call out AIPAC or Israel to Rowdy then you are a bigot and called a troll.

My opinions on Israel are irrelevant. What's disturbing is your flat-out obsession with that organization and that country, your insistence upon bringing them up in practically every thread and your penchant for blaming all of the world's problems on them.

My threads here generate more interest than any left wing nut on the board.

That would be because you're a grade-A nutjob and most of us are marvelling at how you've managed to not get yourself put in an institution. Trust me, if the validity of your views was measured by the responses your threads get, not only would no one ever reply, but you'd barely get any readers.

[LOULAM1]

Uh... quoi? Howzabout you explain your "homosexuality is bad for the tax base" stance for those of us who are NOT bigots?

By the way, civil unions for gays just went into effect in New Jersey. How long until the thought of that drives you insane -- well, more insane than you already are -- and you move to another state?

My opinions on Israel are irrelevant. What's disturbing is your flat-out obsession with that organization and that country, your insistence upon bringing them up in practically every thread and your penchant for blaming all of the world's problems on them.

That would be because you're a grade-A nutjob and most of us are marvelling at how you've managed to not get yourself put in an institution. Trust me, if the validity of your views was measured by the responses your threads get, not only would no one ever reply, but you'd barely get any readers.

"My opinions on Israel are irrelevant." Rowdy

The fact that a few people are actually now more aware of what the "American Israel Public Affairs Committee" is and just how powerful the Israeli lobby is in this country makes every post worth it (especially to annoy you).

Go ahead, post a thread on Air America, the Civil Unions in NJ or Obama and see what kind of reaction you get... nada!

You're a joke and well worth tuning in for every night because I'm still waiting for you to post a decent thread troll... and that's all you do, troll on other people's topics.

You're a joke.

[Jimmy Leeds]

Any complaints from the usuals about the name calling form the left?

Oh......that's okay.

[RowdyFan42]

Any complaints from the usuals about the name calling form the left?

Oh......that's okay.

Do you deny that he's just as much of a wingnut as he says everyone else is?

[halfsharkalligatorhalfman]

loulam you failed to clarify your point as to how gay marriage affects the heterosexual taxpayer, corporations, educational institutions and the states involved.

Then you put yourself on a pedestal for no reason. You're delusional if you think anybody reads your posts in order to be educated, instead of some good hearted humor.

[Jimmy Leeds]

Do you deny that he's just as much of a wingnut as he says everyone else is?

[LOULAM1]

loulam you failed to clarify your point as to how gay marriage affects the heterosexual taxpayer, corporations, educational institutions and the states involved.

Then you put yourself on a pedestal for no reason. You're delusional if you think anybody reads your posts in order to be educated, instead of some good hearted humor.

Edited February 23, 2007 by LOULAM1

[annabelle]

Sex Education programs also cost the education system, maybe it shouldn't be taught....

I personally would have no reservations about my children being taught about same sex marriage/partnerships. Perhaps if a large number of North American society wasn't so homophobic children wouldn't have to be taught that there is nothing wrong with same sex couplings.

So when is the proper time to teach children not to hate a group of people? I don't see what is wrong with teaching young children who have not been completely taken over with social ideologies that no group of people deserves to be hated or discriminated against. Just think of it this way, if it's taught in schools maybe you'll be spared answering your childs questions about same sex couples because obviously you aren't comfortable with it.

Edited February 24, 2007 by annabelle

[LOULAM1]

Sex Education programs also cost the education system, maybe it shouldn't be taught....

I personally would have no reservations about my children being taught about same sex marriage/partnerships. Perhaps if a large number of North American society wasn't so homophobic children wouldn't have to be taught that there is nothing wrong with same sex couplings.

So when is the proper time to teach children not to hate a group of people? I don't see what is wrong with teaching young children who have not been completely taken over with social ideologies that no group of people deserves to be hated or discriminated against. Just think of it this way, if it's taught in schools maybe you'll be spared answering your childs questions about same sex couples because obviously you aren't comfortable with it.

I'm comfortable with it Anna, just as long as it is not being taught in grade school periond. Sex Ed is a topic for high school students (9th through 12th) but the left feels that teaching this curriculum in 2nd and 3rd grade is the way to go.

The problem is and you bring it up blatantly in your post above and I will state this again: Why is it the schools responsibility to teach our young children (K through 8th grade or 5 through 12 or 13 years of age) sex ed or morality issues when it should be taught at home by the parents?

Pretty simple concept as there used to be a mother and father (or mother and mother and or father and father) that looked after their children and provided them with the proper values, ethics and morality at an early age... now it is the schools responsibility to teach values, ethics and morality? Not to mention in the 3rd grade?

Keep the child as innocent for as long as possible, and don't give me this crap that kids are being hunted down in grade school if they have gay parents. There may be issues in high school, but everybody has issues when you get into your teen years like zits, dating and what to wear.

Peace.

[HngKngPhooey]

Strom Thurmound, as a Democrat, led a famous filibuster of the 1964 civil rights act. He, and many other Southern Democrats, became a Republican afterwards in protest after it passed. It's not spin, it's fact. I realize that the two are difficult for you to differentiate.

Edited March 5, 2007 by HongKongPhooey

[HngKngPhooey]

It's just too bad that the movie is being shown to future Republicans, anyway.

Poor, unwashed, underfed (or grossly overfed on cheap, fatty foods), undereducated public school students. Their parents are probably vacuum salesmen or low rung civil servants who are conservative just because they "hate them fags." It's not like they make enough money to actually care about the economics of the party.

By third grade, all the biases of their parents will likely be inculcated into them. It's not like poor people talk about a wide variety of issues. Their lives are dull and they're probably all illiterate. I honestly doubt that any conversation strays too far from how minorities are all creatures of Satan at the dinner table.

Edited March 6, 2007 by HongKongPhooey

[Eltab213]

You fail to recall that it was Abraham Lincoln (a Republican) who freed the slaves.

It was a Republican administration which enacted every piece of legislation which provided freedom, liberty, and rights to black people of our nation.

Moreover, the "anti-Federalists," are the party we now call the "Democrats." They were the ones who most opposed our Constitution. As for the Republicans, the were the party which sprung from the Whigs when the Whigs "waffled" on the issue of slavery. The Republicans were, from the very start, the anti-slavery party.

I think you really need to study your history more.

As for now? Ask yourself these questions.

1. How many black people (or members of ANY other ethnic minority group, for that matter) held positions in Bill Clinton's cabinet? Answer: None

2. How many black people (or members of ANY other ethnic minority group, for that matter) held positions in George Bush's cabinet? Answer: Several

Here's another: How many black people have been nominated for appointment to the Supreme Court by Bill Clinton (or ANY other Democrat president)? Answer: NONE

George Bush appointed one, though.

Edited March 6, 2007 by Eltab213

[HngKngPhooey]

Welcome to Njdevs HongKongPhooey!

I just wanted to point out the reason that the "great emancipator" Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans "freed" African Americans - was because of politics. Slavery didn't work in the newly founded Republican parties economic ideologies. True, the Republicans "freed" the slaves, but it had nothing to due with the equality of men.

Before you label me a "liberal", understand that my intention isnt to bash the Republican party. Im not a Republican, nor am I a Democrat, I just wanted to clarify that your statements intended message of "freed" slaves for equality, was erroneous.

Edited March 6, 2007 by HongKongPhooey