Elementary School teaching about LGBT?

[FromTheSouth]

I'm starting to feel like I'm picking on a child, but you make it so easy.

And "being Black" and "acting Black" are also two different things. You can be Black and not listen to rap. You can be Black and speak proper English. You can be Black and not wear baggy clothes. Those are all CHOICES. So are you saying it's ok to discriminate against African-American's who make those choices? Your stance is that if your bigotry is based on choices, it's ok? Interesting.

Any more stereotypes you want to assume? Is wearing baggy clothing really your definition of acting black? Why don't we give them all basketballs and tell the women to get pregnant too? Is there a point here, or do you just want to prove that you're a racist?

And yes, it is OK to judge someone based on their appearance. If I am trying to hire someone, I will hire the one who comes in looking professional. I don't care what color their skin is. I will hire a black person who looks like an adult over a white person dressed like an extra in a Jay-Z video. What the fuck was your point here? Is this about the topic, or were you trying to generalize black people for a reason?

I guess. That's why after hearing actual gay people tell you IT'S NOT A CHOICE you still continue to get on your red, white, and blue soapbox and scream "God Bless America" to anyone who will listen.

You've once again missed the fucking point. Reading comprehension is tough for you isn't it. FUCKING PROVE TO ME THAT IT ISN'T A CHOICE. You can't prove that to me. But, let me explain to you what I said, because I need to spell it out for you. Even if actually being a homosexual, having those urges, isn't a choice, acting on them and living as an open gay person in society is a choice. Do you understand the difference? Probably not, but that's because you aren't very smart.

And what does "God bless America" and a red white a blue soapbox have to do with this debate, or what I said? Did you just take an opportunity to bash America after your racist rant from above? Are you trying to offend people or are you too stupid to realize what you're saying?

No, you're missing the point. So let me try and make it clear for you: Currently there is a problem with anti-Gay sentiments. A proposed solution is to start teaching tolerance to children at a younger age. Nobody is saying we should tell kids how to use a strap-on and where to buy lube.

Look, another prejudicial statement where you trot out a steroetype and make it offensive as possible. You are one ignorant fuck. And thanks for all that use of bold. But, let me explain to you my point. There is no reason to teach seven or eight year olds about human sexuality. You can't just say be nice to gay people without telling them what a gay person is. At that point, you open teachers up to a lot of questions that kids should be asking their parents. At the age of 13-14, kids have an understanding of what a gay person is, so it is a better age to teach tolerance. You can't fucking teach someone to be tolerant of something that they don't understand. I know, for a fact, that I do not want my kid learning what gay is, and what a pedophile is, and what bestiality is from a second grade fucking teacher. This is a talk for me to have with my children. After a child grows up a bit and learns what gay actually is, then you teach them tolerance.

All people are saying is to simply tell children that a child with two moms or two dads is just as normal as you. I seriously don't see how anyone could be against that.

Because it's not that simple. Kids will ask why they have two daddies, and why they don't have a mommy, and that is simply not information a child should be getting from a teacher. Are you smart enough to move past step one of a conversation?

Yes, this is exactly what I said. You just have kind of a skewed opinion on when the "right times" come.

You don't want kids to have a childhood. You seem to think they should have to be ready to protest at any moment.

Kids can certainly be kids. Some people just want them to be nice kids. Shocking, I know. Seriously, I know you're Joe America and have the good 'ol "if it 'aint broke, don't fix it" mentality but times change and right now it "is broke" and needs "to be fixed".

The only thing broken is your ability to reason. Please, show me where this second grade gay bashing is a problem. Give me a news story. Tell me where there is an epidemic of ostrasization of the kids with gay parents nationwide in kindergarten. I don't understand why a teacher can't just say be nice to everyone, without having to teach kids human sexuality.

Children are growing up faster and faster nowadays and education has to change with the times. Nobody is going to "point out the child with gay parents". Hell, gay parents are still very rare at this time but telling kids it's ok if they come across it is necessary.

Children are growing up faster because people like you are speeding up their indoctrinating into everything. Kids don't want to know that shit. They just want to know where the legos are and what time cartoons come on. How does telling them what gay is help them at all? Let parents teach them that, when they feel the time is right, and then at an appropriate age, teach them tolerance and gay rights. Seven years old is too young to have to worry about that.

Thank you for proving my point.

This is the reaction lots of people have when these subjects are brought up. And that's why, like I said there is no possible way for a school to please everyone.

Seriously, thanks again.

Somebody had to, because you are incapable. But, alas, no one proved your point. I'm not even sure what your point was. I guess it was that there is no such thing as facts. If that's your way of thinking, at least it explains why you are such a terrible poster.

I completely agree. I'm confused on what point you're trying to make though...

You said seven is the age of reason. You took that statement out of context. You assumed that kids had fully developed reasoning skills. At that age, kids are just starting to be able to reason, and this issue is too complex for their developing brains. You know, you haven't given any reasons why six is a better age than 13 for this kind of education. Your whole argument is that we need to teach kids to be nice. How does saying, "Be nice," not solve this problem without having to go into an explanation of what gay is, to a child, who probably is at an age when they don't like girls.

Are you saying it's "all or nothing"? That's...an odd way to think. I'd have to say I disagree.

No, I said to a small child that it's all or nothing. Way to fail to read for meaning again.

I think people should certainly continue to go through stages in life. When a baby starts to crawl, I don't think the mother should give it the keys to the mini van...I would have to frown upon that parenting style. But I do think a parent should teach a third grader right and wrong. And I really wouldn't encourage smoking and war at any age. You don't have kids do you? *crosses fingers*

OK, so it's wrong to pick on people, any people. Why does it have to go past that. Hey, don't pick on the kid with gay parents. Go ahead and pick on the fat kid over there. It is far worse to point out differences to kids that age, because they don't understand. Just teaching them be tolerant of everyone is a much better solution. Furthermore, do you think it stops at be nice to gay people. You don't think a teacher will be put in the position of having to explain what gay is? You don't think that any parents would be offended that a teacher taught their child that? You don't think that it would open schools up to lawsuits? If you answer no to any of these questions, you're completely wrong.

There is nothing right or wrong about "being gay". But there is "right or wrong" about picking on others.

Right, so generalize the lesson, and it stops there. If you make it specific, you open up a can of worms that can put the teacher, parent, school district, and system as a whole in a very vulnerable and uncomfortable situation.

Wow. lol.

I know, WOW, you got beaten pretty badly here.

 

[X]

Let me ask you something FTS: do you choose to like your favorite food? Do you choose to like certain music or movies? No. These things are out of your control. I'm not going to get into the genetic argument because as you said last night "everybody can find an expert online". Trust me FTS...it's not a fucking choice. And quite frankly I thought it was pretty ridiculous for you to say that being openly gay with a child is a choice, as though since they chose to not be ashamed of themselves, that means our children shouldn't be educated about homosexuality. What is the god damn problem here? Did you not all receive sex education around the 5th grade? We did here. How is educating children about what homosexuality is a bad idea, in any shape, way, or form?

 

[FromTheSouth]

I know that being gay is not necessarily a choice. But adopting is a choice. Living an open relationship is a choice. No, I don't think that people should have live ashamed of who they are either.

I just think that kids should be allowed to be kids. This is the same argument I used in the thread about the school field trip to the gay wedding. There is a time and a place for all kinds of education. Call me a traditionalist if you want, I just don't think that elementary school is the right place. I think that children have developing brains, and at that age, it is best to regulate the amount of information they are given.

And, what about all the points about parents being allowed to make some decisions for their kids. I think that this is one instance where we should give the parents a chance to decide when their children learn about homosexuality. Just because it's out there, doesn't mean we have to force it down every child's throat. Let them be kids. Most seven year olds wouldn't even notice that someone has two daddies, those that do wouldn't question it, and if they did, they would go to their parents. There is no need to teach that kind of information to young children. You can teach tolerance in a general manner, without having to go in depth about the differences.

We had sexual education, of a sort, in fifth grade. They put us in a room and told us why our bodies did what they do. In middle school they taught us the next level and a bit about girls bodies. In high school, we got the whole shabang. You can apply the same levels in tolerance training. General in elementary, specific in middle school, and workplace diversity in high school.

 

[blood and thunder]

And, what about all the points about parents being allowed to make some decisions for their kids. I think that this is one instance where we should give the parents a chance to decide when their children learn about homosexuality. Just because it's out there, doesn't mean we have to force it down every child's throat.

This argument is kind of shabby - I see where you're coming from, and I kind of agree with your overall point about a time for everything, but what about other things - where do you draw the line? Do we not teach kids about religion until they reach a certain age? Even further, what about the argument "it's the parent's right to choose?" - does that mean schools shouldn't promote racial equality? What if a parent wants to teach his son that 2+2=5? There comes a time when you have to let schools teach.

 

[FromTheSouth]

You guys are assuming the worst of parents and the best of the schools.

I have little faith in the American Education system. It fails to graduate nearly a third of its students. Children come out of high school unable to write and read for meaning.

All of these "what if parents...." arguments are a little bit weak. Parents have the best interest of their kids in mind when they teach a child something.

As far as the idea that we need to let the schools teach, well, maybe they should. Look around at most of the posters on this board. They can't spell, their grammar is terrible, and the way they structure an argument is laughable. These are the basics of communication, and if the schools fail to teach these things, I have little faith in their ability to teach complex social issues.

But, I never said that I didn't want the schools to teach tolerance at all. I just said we should wait until later. Even if a parent does teach that gays are bad people, at the age of 13-14, a little bit of education mixed with a little bit exposure will shoot holes in the parent's message. If you try to do this at too young of an age, you shatter a child's image of their parents, and probably make them less likely to submit to authority, which is an essential part of education.

 

[X]

You do realize FTS that your argument is virtually the same one that's used to argue against sex education and in favor of abstinence-only education, right? It's the same argument. Parents do have a right to what their children learn, but when it comes to things like equality, I think that's a pretty blatantly obvious thing that every child should be taught. I mean damn they taught us about Martin Luther King and loving every race when I was in the FIRST GRADE and we understood that pretty clearly. I fail to see how this is any different. We're not talking about sitting kids down and making them watch a Gay Pride parade and read Perez Hilton's blog, we're talking about just educating them about a culture, and how that culture shouldn't be discriminated against.

Your argument is pretty poor on this one FTS. Basically it comes down to you thinking that parents should have the right to teach their children about equality. Let's just scrap ever talking about MLK or Gandhi then while we're at it, and the Civil Rights movement? Never heard of it!

Children are not so feeble minded as you think FTS. They understand the differences between race and gender and why it's wrong to hate someone for that.

 

[FromTheSouth]

You do realize FTS that your argument is virtually the same one that's used to argue against sex education and in favor of abstinence-only education, right? It's the same argument. Parents do have a right to what their children learn, but when it comes to things like equality, I think that's a pretty blatantly obvious thing that every child should be taught. I mean damn they taught us about Martin Luther King and loving every race when I was in the FIRST GRADE and we understood that pretty clearly. I fail to see how this is any different. We're not talking about sitting kids down and making them watch a Gay Pride parade and read Perez Hilton's blog, we're talking about just educating them about a culture, and how that culture shouldn't be discriminated against.

It's completely different. Kids can see race and gender. They can't see gay. This is an argument that is too advanced. Furthermore, I find it offensive that people think that kids need to know about homosexuality at that early of an age. Are you going to exclude polygamy? It seems a bit hypocritical of me to say that we should teach YOUR alternative lifestyle, and not someone else's. OK, well some men want women, some men want men, some men want both, and some men want lots of women. Where is the line? Where do we stop. All I am saying is that we wait until the children are older. It's a lot easier to change someone's preconceived notions if they, you know, have some.

Your argument is pretty poor on this one FTS.

Sorry. I disagree. There is no reason to teach a seven year old what gay is. Let parents do it.

Basically it comes down to you thinking that parents should have the right to teach their children about equality. Let's just scrap ever talking about MLK or Gandhi then while we're at it, and the Civil Rights movement? Never heard of it!

Sorry again, but you're wrong here too. The civil rights movement of the 60's is a bigger deal It is the basis from which the women's movement and the gay and lesbian movement have been launched. It's precedent setting is its draw. It's legacy is protected. The women's movement is a mess, so it's a three minute section in a history class. The gay rights movement is new. I know it's important to you. That's great, it should be, but it doesn't have the cultural signifigance, YET, that the civil rights movement does. Give it a few years, and this is a nonissue. I know, you're going to hate me for that. If you do, you're taking it wrong. I'm not diminishing the need for rights, I'm diminishing the need to teach the issue to young children. What does teaching a six year old about gays accomplish that teaching them to be nice to EVERYONE does not? Nothing at all. At the age of 13-14, there can be intelligent discourse. All I know is that if I had a seven year old, and he came home telling me about gays, I would be up at that school asking the teacher why my child wasn't learning math. I will tell my children about sex, death, and human sexuality when I feel it is appropriate. It is not the job of the government to tell my child how fast to grow up. It is mine.

Children are not so feeble minded as you think FTS. They understand the differences between race and gender and why it's wrong to hate someone for that.

Again, they can see race and gender. You can easily enough identify the differences between black and white and male and female without having to go in depth into sleeping arrangements. The issue in the thread has been about teaching tolerance to gays. I argue that gays are encompassed in the conversation when you say be nice to everyone. That is equality. What you are asking is special treatment. Be nice to everyone, and the gays!!!!!! I argue that that isn't where it stops. Kids will ask what gay is. I do not want a teacher answering this question for my children. I feel this is a question I can answer on my own.

 

[SSJPhenom]

I'm not so sure that this is a bad thing, although I can see the points of both side.

It really would be better for children at this age to learn about the gay community from their parents, but that is assuming that their parents are good enough parents or even care enough to teach them. Parents are the reason that alot of racism exists in this world. I am so sick of hearing, "that's how I was raised," as an arguement for racism. So if you look at it from this point of view then children should learn tolerance and equality in schools. Maybe save the LGBT talk for later though.

I think that is no harm no foul done in teaching children this at a young age but I do think that it would be better comprehended at a later age. Middle school would be perfect because children are still impressionable at this point in there life, but they are old enough to understand it.

 

[X]

It's completely different. Kids can see race and gender. They can't see gay.

What's your point? They can't see Jewish or Methodist or Baptist either, this isn't different in any way.

This is an argument that is too advanced. Furthermore, I find it offensive that people think that kids need to know about homosexuality at that early of an age.

How could that possibly offend you, in any way? 4-6th grade is the perfect time for sex education, and that's why its taught around those grades in most places.

Are you going to exclude polygamy?

You really didn't just pull that bullshit argument out did you? What, is 0.00000000000001% of the American population comprised of Polygamists? Compared to the MILLIONS in the LBGT community. I can't believe you'd possibly pull that terrible, terrible argument up. Next your going to say should we teach them about bestiality too, right? That's usually where this incredibly flawed argument goes next.

It seems a bit hypocritical of me to say that we should teach YOUR alternative lifestyle

Right, and using that logic I hope you're firmly against any education to our children about African American culture. That's an "alternative lifestyle" just as much as homosexuality is.

I'm begging you FTS, please stop this bullshit about homosexuality being an "alternative lifestyle" like it's something that they choose to do. I'm begging you, stop this nonsense.

OK, well some men want women, some men want men, some men want both, and some men want lots of women. Where is the line? Where do we stop. All I am saying is that we wait until the children are older. It's a lot easier to change someone's preconceived notions if they, you know, have some.

Again with this bullshit "Where is the line?" argument you pull at every time we discuss homosexuality on any topic. HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ACCEPTED PART OF AMERICAN CULTURE, THERE ARE LAWS AGAINST DISCRIMINATING AND PERSECUTING THEM. We aren't talking about the fucking Union of Sheep Fuckers here, we're talking about millions and millions of people on this Earth.

Sorry. I disagree. There is no reason to teach a seven year old what gay is. Let parents do it.

Then I sure hope you're opposed to any sexual education whatsoever. Because it's the same exact argument.

Sorry again, but you're wrong here too. The civil rights movement of the 60's is a bigger deal It is the basis from which the women's movement and the gay and lesbian movement have been launched.

So, just so I've got this straight, it's okay to learn about the civil rights movement, but not about the gay & lesbian movement. Gotcha. That makes perfect sense

It's precedent setting is its draw. It's legacy is protected. The women's movement is a mess, so it's a three minute section in a history class. The gay rights movement is new. I know it's important to you. That's great, it should be, but it doesn't have the cultural signifigance, YET, that the civil rights movement does. Give it a few years, and this is a nonissue. I know, you're going to hate me for that. If you do, you're taking it wrong. I'm not diminishing the need for rights, I'm diminishing the need to teach the issue to young children. What does teaching a six year old about gays accomplish that teaching them to be nice to EVERYONE does not? Nothing at all. At the age of 13-14, there can be intelligent discourse. All I know is that if I had a seven year old, and he came home telling me about gays, I would be up at that school asking the teacher why my child wasn't learning math. I will tell my children about sex, death, and human sexuality when I feel it is appropriate. It is not the job of the government to tell my child how fast to grow up. It is mine.

So it's okay for your child to learn about death and war in elementary school, but any talk of sexuality and that's crossing the line? That makes sense.

"Today kids we're going to teach you about how thousands of Americans were murdered at Pearl Harbor!"

That's fine, but sexuality, THAT'S taboo...gotcha.

We need to stop being so fucking ashamed of human sexuality. It's a perfectly natural thing. Children as young as six years old can have sexual feelings FTS, did you never play doctor as a kid? You never had a case of puppy love? Children know what sexuality is, it's not like they reach the 7th grade and all of a sudden see a Playboy cover and say "WHAT ARE THOSE WONDERFUL FLESH BUMPS ON HER CHEST?!?!?!"

Again, they can see race and gender. You can easily enough identify the differences between black and white and male and female without having to go in depth into sleeping arrangements. The issue in the thread has been about teaching tolerance to gays. I argue that gays are encompassed in the conversation when you say be nice to everyone. That is equality. What you are asking is special treatment. Be nice to everyone, and the gays!!!!!! I argue that that isn't where it stops. Kids will ask what gay is. I do not want a teacher answering this question for my children. I feel this is a question I can answer on my own.

That's nice FTS. For you. But what about the parents who will refuse to teach their children this? We should just say "Oh, it's okay, they have that right!" By that logic I sure hope you support this:

​

Those kids don't have to learn about equality if their parent's don't want them to!

 

[Slyfox696]

I'm sure there are some great arguments going on in here, but I'm not going to read them. I'm just going to post my piece and go on with it.

I don't see the problem with educating children that homosexuality exists. Because, frankly, it does exist and it will always exist. I think educating children to understand that not all families are going to consist of a mother and father parent is important. There are single parent families, families where grandparents are the guardians, families where aunts and uncles take care of children...and families with two parents of the same gender.

I don't think there is any problem with teaching kids that homosexuality exists. Furthermore, I don't think there is a problem with teaching children to treat everyone as they wish to be treated (the so-called Golden Rule). However, I would not have children taught whether homosexuality is right or wrong. I don't believe that is a school's place to step in. Just like with religion and politics, a school's job is to inform what is out there, not try to influence in one direction or another.

So, I say let children know that homosexuality, just like people of different gender, race etc. exist, but not try to teach tolerance to homosexuals specifically...just tolerance for people.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I knew I was going to catch shit from you as soon as I clicked post. I know you don't see me as a bigot, just a conservative, right? Right?

What's your point? They can't see Jewish or Methodist or Baptist either, this isn't different in any way.

The only time Judaism was ever addressed in elementary was when we read Anne Frank. Baptist and Methodist weren't taught. All they even said about Judaism was that there was a different understanding of the Bible. The teacher then asked if I wanted to say anything to the class. We talked about yarmulkes and dreidels. In middle school, when we read the same book, I had to talk about the differences. What the teacher asked from me was all age appropriate.

How could that possibly offend you, in any way? 4-6th grade is the perfect time for sex education, and that's why its taught around those grades in most places.

But 4th-6th grade is different from what all of these posts have been about. I am more in favor of 6th grade, but a lot of these posts have centered around seven year olds. That is quite a difference. Maybe it would be OK in fourth grade, which is still elementary, but such a vast difference from second grade, that it is worth debating. So, I will grant you that by fourth grade, maybe it's a little more appropriate, I am just more in favor of waiting till middle school. I don't see why that is so offensive to you. I never said to ignore that homosexuals exist, or to persecute them. All I said was if we wait for this talk until kids are a little older you are attempting to change opinions that they might have picked up over the years instead of just giving them one. I think that is a more effective use of the education system. You and I may be open minded and accepting of homosexuality, but I would venture to say that a smaller segment of the population is gay than the segment that is homophobic. It's not anyone's job to legislate morality. I feel that including tolerance class after recess is legislating morality. Give the parents a chance first, and later in school either reinforce the positive messages or destroy the negative ones.

You really didn't just pull that bullshit argument out did you? What, is 0.00000000000001% of the American population comprised of Polygamists? Compared to the MILLIONS in the LBGT community. I can't believe you'd possibly pull that terrible, terrible argument up. Next your going to say should we teach them about bestiality too, right? That's usually where this incredibly flawed argument goes next.

I pulled that one already. But are you not saying that LGBT is not a nontraditional lifestyle? I think it is. I also think that there is a reason someone advances through school with the same age group. It is so the appropriate level of information is given to the appropriate age. Once again, I never said it shouldn't be taught. I just think seven is too young. Maybe you're right, maybe ten is the appropriate age. But we can both agree that 13-14 is definitely an age where students can comprehend the complexity of the information. At that age, you can teach human sexuality, tolerance, equality, and rights in one concise class where all the information is covered, all the stereotypes debunked, and all of the issues from Matthew Sheperd on explained in a fair and reasoned tone. At the age of seven you can only teach so much, and if kids take it the wrong way, I feel it can do more harm that good. If you want to teach that everyone is equal, why would you want to teach how people are different? To a young child, that could be awfully confusing.

Right, and using that logic I hope you're firmly against any education to our children about African American culture. That's an "alternative lifestyle" just as much as homosexuality is.

Racist. I don't think you believe that.

I'm begging you FTS, please stop this bullshit about homosexuality being an "alternative lifestyle" like it's something that they choose to do. I'm begging you, stop this nonsense.

It's offensive to me that you keep implying that I am a homophobe because I think it is. I never said alternative automatically equaled bad. It's different. Is it not different? If I said "different lifestyle" would that be better? Have I changed my tone toward you at all since I found out? No. I still chat with you in your thread. I still value your opinion and friendship. With NorCal gone, there is no more tie at the top of my list. You are my favorite poster and best friend on here. We just have a different view of age appropriate on this one topic. After all of our arguments and debates on here, it's come down to this one contentious point, where I am a bit more cautious in the way I tread into these waters. I think kids should be kids, and then worry about complex social matters a little bit later. If we don't tell kids that someone is different, then they won't treat anyone differently. I think that tolerance should be about tolerating and loving everyone at a young age, and then a little bit later they should find out why.

Again with this bullshit "Where is the line?" argument you pull at every time we discuss homosexuality on any topic. HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ACCEPTED PART OF AMERICAN CULTURE, THERE ARE LAWS AGAINST DISCRIMINATING AND PERSECUTING THEM. We aren't talking about the fucking Union of Sheep Fuckers here, we're talking about millions and millions of people on this Earth.

That made me laugh. That might be millions of people too. What's the population of West Virginia?

Anyway, I hold my ground here. You act as if I am not part of a persecuted minority group too. Holocaust ring a bell? European anti-semitism still exists. I know how it feels to be treated differently because of something you can't help. I just feel that telling a child "that guy is different, so treat him the same" is a bit confusing, and is a lesson best saved for an age when the child can understand the differences and understand the pain that is caused by persecution. Where is there an epidemic of gay bashing cub scout packs that this such a big concern?

Then I sure hope you're opposed to any sexual education whatsoever. Because it's the same exact argument.

I am not opposed to LGBT education. You're taking what I am saying out of context. I just feel that general tolerance for everyone is best taught in elementary, and that learning about the differences and debunking myths is best left until the child is older. Please, tell me how you would teach a second grade class about LGBT people and not go further than is appropriate for the age. If you can convince me that children won't keep asking why until a teacher has to say "because it is" or even worse, condemn the lifestyle, which is the worst case scenario, then I will relent. I just want to wait a bit. Why is that so offensive to you? Why do you see that as homophobic.

So, just so I've got this straight, it's okay to learn about the civil rights movement, but not about the gay & lesbian movement. Gotcha. That makes perfect sense

I'm sorry. I think it does. This is where you call me an idiot. Go ahead. Got it out of your system now? Do you not think that teaching the Civil Rights movement forms a basis for an education on the Gay Rights movement a little bit later. It gives the kids something to draw on a couple of years later when the differences aren't so apparent, and the injustices a little different.

So it's okay for your child to learn about death and war in elementary school, but any talk of sexuality and that's crossing the line? That makes sense.

Look at TV. It's the same way. This is what the South Park movie was about. Violence is acceptable in America, foul language is not. I'm not saying that's right, but I don't think that elementary school is an appropriate venue for social change. That is indoctrination, and that is wrong.

"Today kids we're going to teach you about how thousands of Americans were murdered at Pearl Harbor!"

Because that's how they teach history to kids. When I was in elementary, we didn't even learn history. Our class was called social studies. It was a mixture of history, very basic history, combined with geography and cultural studies. We learned that Texas won independence from Mexico (the bloody war was left out), Mexico is to the south of us, they speak Spanish. We lost the battle at the Alamo, but Sam Houston rallied the troops to win at San Jacinto. We weren't given body counts or shown skulls with bullet holes in them. It was a general history of events and cultures without the details. If we use the same train of though on tolerance, we would learn to not discriminate against people that may be different, that every person deserves to be loved and treated with respect. Every person. That includes LGBT people.

That's fine, but sexuality, THAT'S taboo...gotcha.

When the class takes a break for snack time, yes.

We need to stop being so fucking ashamed of human sexuality. It's a perfectly natural thing. Children as young as six years old can have sexual feelings FTS, did you never play doctor as a kid? You never had a case of puppy love? Children know what sexuality is, it's not like they reach the 7th grade and all of a sudden see a Playboy cover and say "WHAT ARE THOSE WONDERFUL FLESH BUMPS ON HER CHEST?!?!?!"

But we learned at the pace we were comfortable with. There is a huge jump between what the body parts are and the interesting ways they can be used.

That's nice FTS. For you. But what about the parents who will refuse to teach their children this? We should just say "Oh, it's okay, they have that right!" By that logic I sure hope you support this:

Then those kids will learn on their own, be confused, and when an adult sits them down at the age of 13, they will have so many questions they want answered that you can get some intelligent discourse in a classroom setting. What does it accomplish at the age of seven?

Those kids don't have to learn about equality if their parent's don't want them to!

Come on man, in all reality, we're jsut talking about a couple of years of developments difference. I think those couple of years will make for a more constructive conversation in the matter. Does that make me a bad person?

I'm sure there are some great arguments going on in here, but I'm not going to read them. I'm just going to post my piece and go on with it.

And, we're keeping it more civil this week than we did last week. Aren't you proud boss?

I don't see the problem with educating children that homosexuality exists. Because, frankly, it does exist and it will always exist. I think educating children to understand that not all families are going to exist of a mother and father parent is important. There are single parent families, families where grandparents are the guardians, families where aunts and uncles take care of children...and families with two parents of the same gender.

This is the best argument I have heard up to date. But, if the child asks "Why" on any of those except the last one, there is an age appropriate answer. On the last one, it gets a little bit trickier, especially if there aren't any gay parents of the kids in the classroom.

I don't think there is any problem with teaching kids that homosexuality exists. Furthermore, I don't think there is a problem with teaching children to treat everyone as they wish to be treated (the so-called Golden Rule). However, I would not have children taught whether homosexuality is right or wrong. I don't believe that is a school's place to step in. Just like with religion and politics, a school's job is to inform what is out there, not try to influence in one direction or another.

I don't trust the schools to just explain what is out there. Do you think that the lesson would be different in California than it would be in Iowa. Addition is the same everywhere, geography is the same everywhere. When you get into subjective arguments, would you agree that an older child is better equipped to handle the information and process it more appropriately?

So, I say let children know that homosexuality, just like people of different gender, race etc. exist, but not try to teach tolerance to homosexuals specifically...just tolerance for people.

See, now I've done gone and agreed with Sly. Look at what you did X.

 

[Slyfox696]

And, we're keeping it more civil this week than we did last week. Aren't you proud boss?

I prefer the knock down, drag out fights...

This is the best argument I have heard up to date. But, if the child asks "Why" on any of those except the last one, there is an age appropriate answer. On the last one, it gets a little bit trickier, especially if there aren't any gay parents of the kids in the classroom.

It's not hard at all. "Why? Because they wish to be together.".

Not hard at all.

I don't trust the schools to just explain what is out there.

I trust schools much more than parents. At least at schools, MOST of the adults care...can't always say that about parents.

Do you think that the lesson would be different in California than it would be in Iowa.

Of course, as is the discussion of politics, religion, or anything subjective.

When you get into subjective arguments, would you agree that an older child is better equipped to handle the information and process it more appropriately?

Not really. Perhaps they have the mental awareness to better handle it, but at that point, they've also developed their own biases as well, which clouds objective thinking, especially once they get to be over the age of 12 or so.

But we're not talking about a subjective argument, we're talking very black and white. Some people live together and are of the same gender. Really nothing more needs to be said.

See, now I've done gone and agreed with Sly. Look at what you did X.

The bastard.

 

[SSJPhenom]

I'm sorry X, but I am going to have to agree with the ladder on this one.

I do believe that tolerance should be taught at a young age, but it shouldn't be made specific the differences in people until a later age. I really don't think that a child in the 2nd grade can understand why one child's parents are male and female and why another child's parents are male and male or female and female. Like FTS said, the question of why would come up and Sly says that you can answer it with, "Because they choose to be together," but what if the child comes back with, "But why?"

I think that parents should be given a chance to teach their children right and wrong on everything. I know that when I have kids, I want to be the one that tells them this is wrong to do or that isn't what is supposed to be done. I want to be the one that says, "You shouldn't hate a person because of what they look like, where they are from, who their parents are, or who they might be attracted to." I will say that, however, not all parents are going to care enough to teach their child these things, but it still isn't a public teacher's responsability to teach a child morals. I just think that LBGT issues would be better taught at an older age. It would be easier understood.

Just want to say, that I am in no way opposed to the teaching of LBGT issues in public schools. I just think that it should be taught when a child can easier understand it.

 

[Slyfox696]

Like FTS said, the question of why would come up and Sly says that you can answer it with, "Because they choose to be together," but what if the child comes back with, "But why?"

"Because they want to."

Why is that so hard to understand?

I think that parents should be given a chance to teach their children right and wrong on everything.

I don't. I think the majority of the time parents have TERRIBLE taste on the whole right/wrong thing.

I will say that, however, not all parents are going to care enough to teach their child these things, but it still isn't a public teacher's responsability to teach a child morals.

And yet, people still think it is.

I just think that LBGT issues would be better taught at an older age. It would be easier understood.

Not really. Children are very intelligent, and much more open to learning at younger ages. When they are older, they think they know more than they really do, and are less likely to accept other viewpoints that don't agree with their own.

Such is the nature of human kind.

 

[SSJPhenom]

"Because they want to."

Why is that so hard to understand?

It isn't hard to understand, but my experiences with small children tells me that they will keep asking why. Then the question might even get more specific and they will say something like, "I've never seen a man and another man together, why does it happen to some and not all?" Then you would say, "Because some men choose to be with another man." "But why though?"

Are you just going to keep beating around the bush and say, "Because they want to."

I don't. I think the majority of the time parents have TERRIBLE taste on the whole right/wrong thing.

I wouldn't say that the majority of parents have a bad view on right and wrong, but a lot do. I think that parents should have the chance to teach their children morals first, however.

And yet, people still think it is.

But it isn't. A public school teacher is supposed to teach the facts and nothing else.

Not really. Children are very intelligent, and much more open to learning at younger ages. When they are older, they think they know more than they really do, and are less likely to accept other viewpoints that don't agree with their own.

Such is the nature of human kind.

Yes children are more open to learning things at a young age, but if they don't understand the subject matter how will lthey remember it? I do think that the aspect of, "All people should be treated the same," should be taught, but it shouldn't be made specific of who exactly we are talking about until the child is older.

An older child might have their own viewpoints but isn't that supposed to happen? It would be pretty dull if everyone walked around with the same view points. I am not, by any means saying that is all right for some people to hate others because it make life interesting, I am just saying that in a public school system, a teacher cannot or isn't suppose to force their values onto their students. That is a parents job first.

 

[Goo Punch]

Ok, I'm not going to respond "point" by point anymore because the people arguing with me are either ignoring everything I say because they have no retort or simply too stupid to comprehend anything.

There is nothing right or wrong about "being gay". But there is "right or wrong" about picking on others.

-Yesterday, 04:27 AM

Are you saying that they should be taught that being gay is right? I don't get what the hell you are saying about right and wrong in this situation. Being gay isn't right or wrong, and trying to say otherwise is pretty stupid. But then again, you didn't actually say that, so I'm just going to guess that you inferred it. Either way, you can't teach that being gay is right or wrong. You have to teach that it is acceptable and okay, not that it is right or wrong. There is a difference you see.

-Yesterday, 07:52 AM

Stuff like this just doesn't deserve my time. It makes me feel just as unintelligent as the other side for continuing to try and have a debate with them.

So, all I'll say is that this is really just an issue of a person's own morals. Anyone who supports Gay rights would support this as all it's going to do is help prevent children from getting picked on. But if you don't support Gay rights, you'd probally be against it and use absurd excuses like "children will lose their innocence". It's ridiculous and quite transparent. So it's really no use arguing about it. In 50 years, I'm sure people will look back at this era like they look back at the 50's and not understand how anyone could openly be against equal rights for everyone. Eventually this will be part of a child's education, but that time probally isn't now. It's sad but true.

God Bless America.

 

[CH David]

Ok, I'm not going to respond "point" by point anymore because the people arguing with me are either ignoring everything I say because they have no retort or simply too stupid to comprehend anything.

-Yesterday, 04:27 AM

-Yesterday, 07:52 AM

Stuff like this just doesn't deserve my time. It makes me feel just as unintelligent as the other side for continuing to try and have a debate with them.

So, all I'll say is that this is really just an issue of a person's own morals. Anyone who supports Gay rights would support this as all it's going to do is help prevent children from getting picked on. But if you don't support Gay rights, you'd probally be against it and use absurd excuses like "children will lose their innocence". It's ridiculous and quite transparent. So it's really no use arguing about it. In 50 years, I'm sure people will look back at this era like they look back at the 50's and not understand how anyone could openly be against equal rights for everyone. Eventually this will be part of a child's education, but that time probally isn't now. It's sad but true.

God Bless America.

You are an idiot, I don't respond to posts dealing with other people. I only respond when it is aimed at me, such was the point when I wrote my response. Also, who are you to say anything about deserving time on here? Actually, and I know I have been responding to you, but seriously, who the hell are you?

And thank you right there for saying that I don't support gay rights. Again, you don't know me. This isn't even about gay rights you twat. It is about teaching a child about gay and straight parents. I understand teaching it and saying that it is acceptable and everything. I just don't think that the situation is at an extreme, that as many parents are encouraging duragotory remarks towards children with gay parents or teaching that it is wrong to have gay parents, throughout the country, to warrant such a topic being taught to 7 year olds.

 

[Dexter]

I think what this all comes down to is the right of a kid to be a kid for a while. They've got their entire lives to struggle with moral issues. Why not just let them have their innocence while they can?

There seems to be a tendency among parents lately to overemphasize moral issues with their children. Obviously, it's vital to guide your children into adulthood and teach them to make the right choices and all that, but it's easy to get too wrapped up in that and forget that a parent's #1 responsibility is to give their children a rich, full life to the best of their ability, and sometimes, that means just getting the hell out of the way and letting them be a kid. If you start beating them over the head with these weighty life lessons too early, you're doing them a disservice, regardless of how good your intentions might be.

I mean, look at it. They're teaching children about sexual orientation before they're even teaching them what sex is. How does that even remotely make sense? I don't think anyone would suggest starting sex education that young (sure, you can give them a somewhat vague but honest answer when they ask where babies come from, but they absolutely do NOT need to know the details at that age), so why would you start teaching sexual orientation that young?

People need to stop taking themselves so damned seriously and try to remember what it was like to be a kid. I've found that there's no time in my relationship with my little girl that I'm a better father than when I'm sitting in the floor with her playing with her toys and pretending to be 4 years old myself.