No opting out of pro-gay school propaganda

[Jaybear]

He was basically saying that Canada never fought a war of independence, not that Canada never fought a war.

Canada? Seems like we are getting off track.

The topic is about whether parents should be able to opt out, when the school conducts training to address the very real problem of bullying of gay students.

It a local issue. That is why in Utah, there is no sensitivity training, but parents can opt out if the children are scheduled to hear a speech from the President of the US. That is also why I sent my children to private school.

[Jeff K.]

California doesn't allow such freedoms. Imagine if Utah didn't.

[Jason]

Canada? Seems like we are getting off track.

Yeah, pretty much.

The topic is about whether parents should be able to opt out, when the school conducts training to address the very real problem of bullying of gay students.

Actually the topic is whether parents should be able to avoid having pro-gay propoganda preached to their children as a captive audience.

It a local issue. That is why in Utah, there is no sensitivity training, but parents can opt out if the children are scheduled to hear a speech from the President of the US. That is also why I sent my children to private school.

Considering how banal that particular speech was I appreciate the ability to let my children spend their time doing something more constructive.

[Jaybear]

Actually the topic is whether parents should be able to avoid having pro-gay propoganda preached to their children as a captive audience.

Oh, I see its not anti-bullying lessons, its "pro-gay propaganda."

So what's the concern? Are you worried that children will turn gay?

Considering how banal that particular speech was I appreciate the ability to let my children spend their time doing something more constructive.

Yeah, like teaching them how to express open contempt for the President.

[Jaybear]

Parents can also be forced to allow their children to attend since classes on diversity are "not" considered sex education classes and therefore cannot be opted out of. While they may not speak directly of the sexual act, they can indeed advocate for the lifestyle in California and under the law parents do not have a right to "opt out" of such classes. In effect separating the parent from what is being taught.

If they were in fact advocating a homosexual lifestyle, I would join you in taking offense.

So, we either agree on this one, or you are grossly exaggerating what is happening in order to rationalize your opposition to a worthwhile lesson...anti-bullying.

Since you have not actually responded to the CFR or retracted your bald assertions of what is sought, I am going to go with the latter.

[Jason]

Oh, I see its not anti-bullying lessons, its "pro-gay propaganda."

Yep.

"Bullying" seems to be the fad of the day, but I don't recall it ruining my life. (Yes I was often a victim of "bullying". Glasses, a bowl haircut, and being too good a student will do that for a kid. I also survived playing on schoolground equipment that would be illegal today, eating school lunches that would be considered unbalanced today, and never getting trophies for finishing second or less)

So what's the concern? Are you worried that children will turn gay?

Yes. Children are impressionable. If everyone around them constantly says "despite what your parents say this is acceptable behavior," they may begin to believe it.

Yeah, like teaching them how to express open contempt for the President.

Although the office always deserves respect, some of the men who have held it don't.

[Pahoran]

Oh, I see its not anti-bullying lessons, its "pro-gay propaganda."

That's right.

If you want to teach children that bullying is wrong, you teach them that bullying is wrong. If instead you teach them that a particular group of kids are precious and protected, so that bullying them is wrong, then you are engaged in propaganda on behalf of that group.

You also implicitly send the message that bullying others outside of that elite group is okay.

Especially, bullying those whose parents voted for or otherwise supported Prop 8, just for example. Because Prop 8 was disliked by that precious and protected group.

So what's the concern? Are you worried that children will turn gay?

Naturally, as a staunch pro-"gay" propagandist, you predictably toe the party line in deriding the very possibility of such a thing. However, the actions of the immoralists does not match their PR, as documented here.

If it really was impossible to "turn" impressionable youth, why to "gays" spend so much time and energy trying to do exactly that?

Yeah, like teaching them how to express open contempt for the President.

So missing a speech is an expression of open contempt, is it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jaybear]

That's right.

If you want to teach children that bullying is wrong, you teach them that bullying is wrong. If instead you teach them that a particular group of kids are precious and protected, so that bullying them is wrong, then you are engaged in propaganda on behalf of that group.

You also implicitly send the message that bullying others outside of that elite group is okay.

I would certainly expect that anti-bullying lessons have been prepared and vetted by experts in the field.

Having neither seen the program at issue, nor having any special expertise on the subject, I am not in the position to provide the level of feed back, that you and Jason feel compelled to offer.

Naturally, as a staunch pro-"gay" propagandist, you predictably toe the party line in deriding the very possibility of such a thing. However, the actions of the immoralists does not match their PR, as documented here.

If it really was impossible to "turn" impressionable youth, why to "gays" spend so much time and energy trying to do exactly that?

Not really. I find it humorous that you are motivated by the fear that children are being recruited to the gay lifestyle. With all the beer, and body wash commercials recruiting children to become heterosexuals, seems only fair that the gays would do likewise.

So missing a speech is an expression of open contempt, is it?

Is that what you think I said? Because that is certainly not what I intended to impart.

[Jeff K.]

Pahoran, on 10 March 2011 - 01:10 PM, said:

That's right.

If you want to teach children that bullying is wrong, you teach them that bullying is wrong. If instead you teach them that a particular group of kids are precious and protected, so that bullying them is wrong, then you are engaged in propaganda on behalf of that group.

You also implicitly send the message that bullying others outside of that elite group is okay.

I would certainly expect that anti-bullying lessons have been prepared and vetted by experts in the field.

Having neither seen the program at issue, nor having any special expertise on the subject, I am not in the position to provide the level of feed back, that you and Jason feel compelled to offer.

Many groups with agenda have their lesson plans funneled through different non government entitites that "help" the school districts. A bias is often presented in which only certain types of "examples" are presented. ie not bullying. Then there is the manipulative "day of silence" in which people are pressured not to say they do not like one lifestyle or another. This of course is often touted by GLAAD as acknowledgement and support for their cause (you won't see the Jewish Councils bringing it up, or even various Arab councils or others. It is obviously used for a specific group under a veneer.

If you wish to look at it from a liberal standpoint. Liberal gasp at the idea of a "moment of meditation" since they see it as a manipulative manner in which to permit prayer. And yet they see nothing wrong with a day long activity which follows the same pattern for one particular group.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

Naturally, as a staunch pro-"gay" propagandist, you predictably toe the party line in deriding the very possibility of such a thing. However, the actions of the immoralists does not match their PR, as documented here.

If it really was impossible to "turn" impressionable youth, why to "gays" spend so much time and energy trying to do exactly that?

Not really. I find it humorous that you are motivated by the fear that children are being recruited to the gay lifestyle. With all the beer, and body wash commercials recruiting children to become heterosexuals, seems only fair that the gays would do likewise.

I take it you believe children are not impressionable? That they are not influenced by local schools? And yet you put your children in a private school for just that reason.

[Calm]

He was basically saying that Canada never fought a war of independence, not that Canada never fought a war.

Yep, they were intelligent enough to get their independence without having to resort to violence.

[Jeff K.]

He was basically saying that Canada never fought a war of independence, not that Canada never fought a war.

Actually to be more precise, Canada never fought a war in which freedom of speech was one of the components, as it is in the US war of independence.

[blackstrap]

Back to the OP,thanks.

[krose]

I take it you believe children are not impressionable? That they are not influenced by local schools? And yet you put your children in a private school for just that reason.

I can't speak for Jaybear, but we put our kids in a (non-religious) private elementary school because Utah public schools are overcrowded, not because of any paranoid fear that the schools might influence them in some undesirable way. Class sizes are much smaller.

I know that kids get their values from their parents, not some teacher. That's why my daughter (now in public high school) is able to ignore the recruiting efforts of her LDS friends, and roll her eyes when a history teacher tells her class that the Nauvoo Expositor was destroyed because it was full of lies, and a Spanish teacher inappropriately bears her testimony. At the same time her fundamentalist friend complains that her classes are teaching lies about climate change, evolution and Roosevelt. Both of them trust what their parents say much more than their teachers.

[krose]

Yes. Children are impressionable. If everyone around them constantly says "despite what your parents say this is acceptable behavior," they may begin to believe it.

Wow. It's quite a leap to go from accepting a lifestyle as legitimate to actually living it yourself.

Although it's not an unexpected viewpoint for someone who believes sexual orientation is a choice, that there was a point in your life where a positive spin might have made you desire dudes instead of girls. I don't see it myself. There never was a chance that I could have made my heart beat faster when looking at Jimmy in his swimsuit, instead of Sharon in hers, even if I were taught it was acceptable (or even urged to do so).

[rpn]

The real problem is that so much of the bullying that goes on in schools involves calling people names related to being gay. And those words are often used without regard to whether the kid knows what they mean. Lots of kids know only that they are the most offensive words that you can call anyone, and ones that are guaranteed to make the other person mad. I do not think you could have an effective anti-bullying campaign without teaching that no matter what your religious or personal belief is, it is not okay to use those pejorative terms about people, just like we don't use the r ---- word or the n- word or words referring to appearance to demean, mock or make fun of others. And I wouldn't want my child to be part of an anti-bullying campaign that failed to address the whole problem --- that would just sanction the bullying for any part of the problem that wasn't explicitly addresses.

What I would tell my children to do if they were given that curriculum would be to stand up and say, I do not believe that a gay lifestyle is one the God intends people to live or accept it as normal. AND I also absolutely do not agree that anyone should call people who live such a lifestyle names or beat them up or otherwise be unkind.

[bluebell]

Wow. It's quite a leap to go from accepting a lifestyle as legitimate to actually living it yourself.

Although it's not an unexpected viewpoint for someone who believes sexual orientation is a choice, that there was a point in your life where a positive spin might have made you desire dudes instead of girls. I don't see it myself. There never was a chance that I could have made my heart beat faster when looking at Jimmy in his swimsuit, instead of Sharon in hers, even if I were taught it was acceptable (or even urged to do so).

Even for those who don't believe that sexual orientation is a choice, there are many who believe that it is much more fluid than your post accepts.

You don't have to watch oprah for more than a few days at a time before she has someone on her show that was married to an opposite sex partner, never had ANY belief that they were homosexual growing up and was always attracted to the opposite sex and then one day they meet someone of the same sex that they are attracted to and declare themselves homosexual.

I know that's no scientific proof but there has been a lot of study on the idea of a sexuality scale which suggests that while some people are VERY much one orientation, others could literally go either way (yet do not consider themselves bi-sexual).

It doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to suggest that such young adults could be influenced by others to try out a lifestyle they might not otherwise have had any real desire to try.

[LDS Guy 1986]

If your child attends school in Vallejo, California, he will watch pro-gay propaganda videos whether you like it or not.

Forced by the ACLU to provide "mandatory diversity training" to students and faculty, the Vallejo Unified School District isnow showingall students "anti-bullying" films produced by a homosexuality affirming San Francisco group called GroundSpark. Among other topics, the films discuss same-sex relationships.

Read more:No opting out of pro-gay school propagandahttp://www.wnd.com/?...9#ixzz1G46Kk7Pz

Another example of why one should home school there children or send them to a private school.

Public Schools are Public Enemy #1 of morality and modesty, look at Northwestern they had a full fledged sex shows after class. It won't be too long before have these "educational demonstrations" in high schools!

[krose]

I know that's no scientific proof but there has been a lot of study on the idea of a sexuality scale which suggests that while some people are VERY much one orientation, others could literally go either way (yet do not consider themselves bi-sexual).

I am familiar with it. So how does such a sexuality scale affect the LDS teaching that these things were already set in our "pre-mortal existence"?

[krose]

Public Schools are Public Enemy #1 of morality and modesty, look at Northwestern they had a full fledged sex shows after class. It won't be too long before have these "educational demonstrations" in high schools!

And here I thought the "Hollywood elite" was supposed to be Enemy #1.

Your slippery slope assertion is utter nonsense. First, Northwestern is a private university. Second, the professor who arranged for the woman and her self-stimulating demonstration is in trouble with the university and has apologized.

Get a grip on reality and try again.

[bluebell]

I am familiar with it. So how does such a sexuality scale affect the LDS teaching that these things were already set in our "pre-mortal existence"?

The LDS teaching is that gender is eternal.

As far as sexuality goes-we live in a mortal world that is full of imperfection. Asking an LDS person how someone is born with a sexual orientation that does not represent what the person would have had in the premortal life is like asking how someone is born with a physical or mental imperfection that does not represent the spiritual mind or body which existed before it.

Such things can be explained without too much trouble for someone who truly believes that God does not condone homosexuality.

[USU78]

I would certainly expect that anti-bullying lessons have been prepared and vetted by experts in the field.

No they wouldn't. They'd be be created either by teachers no longer fit for the classroom and who've been given jobs as "curriculum specialists" by the local Board of Education . . . or they'd be drafted by graduate students.

But even if they were drafted by somebody claiming to be an expert on the subject of "bullying," that person is just as likely to be somebody from out of town who happens to own a briefcase as someone who has specialized and useful knowledge on the subject.

My own theory is the "lessons" in Vallejo were probably drafted by Berkeley grad students, whom I wouldn't trust to be able to stir the cocoa mix into the hot water without scalding themselves and staining their burkas.

[Jaybear]

No they wouldn't. They'd be be created either by teachers no longer fit for the classroom and who've been given jobs as "curriculum specialists" by the local Board of Education . . . or they'd be drafted by graduate students.

But even if they were drafted by somebody claiming to be an expert on the subject of "bullying," that person is just as likely to be somebody from out of town who happens to own a briefcase as someone who has specialized and useful knowledge on the subject.

My own theory is the "lessons" in Vallejo were probably drafted by Berkeley grad students, whom I wouldn't trust to be able to stir the cocoa mix into the hot water without scalding themselves and staining their burkas.

That quite a rant. But why bother pretending that your objection is rooted in the production value of the lesson plan, when we all know that you would object to any program designed to portray homosexuals as normal, valuable, productive members of society. What is that term you use to describe gays .... "sufferers of SSDS"?

[USU78]

That quite a rant. But why bother pretending that your objection is rooted in the production value of the lesson plan, when we all know that you would object to any program designed to portray homosexuals as normal, valuable, productive members of society. What is that term you use to describe gays .... "sufferers of SSDS"?

So, you concede that "expert" isn't a particularly useful descriptive . . . and that relying on alleged "experts" to draft tendentious lesson plans for distracted teachers is not a particularly good idea?

[Jaybear]

So, you concede that "expert" isn't a particularly useful descriptive . . . and that relying on alleged "experts" to draft tendentious lesson plans for distracted teachers is not a particularly good idea?

Remarkable how your brain works that you would derive the above statement from the words that I actually wrote.

Some advice. If you ever feel compelled to respond to something I said with "So" or "In other words", its a near certainty that you are about to blatantly characterize what I said. Then again, I am sure you already know that.