Lessons how to be gay for your kids!

[blarg]

I read the article to say something else. Did it really say that she differentiated between SSM and other types of same sex relationships?

what are you talking about?

 

[blarg]

That is always approximately the argument any historical group has used from the beginning of time, when it wants to discriminate against a minority for religious or other reasons. The Romans used it, the Christians used it, you name them, they used it. And now it is the gay rights lobby using it.

um how dose gay rights discriminate against any one?

 

[blarg]

Indoctrination doesn't work well if everything is thrown at you all at once,. It needs to be incremental like a creeping disease.

what did she say that was not true?

 

[joG]

It is. In fact, marriage being a "sacrament", an actual ceremony is a more recent thing than most acknowledge. In Jesus' time, people didn't have to have any documentation or ceremony in reality to be married. They simply could claim they were married, and they were. Their family might be the only ones who could refute this claim if the fathers didn't agree to it. That was about it.

Fact is, that no ceremony nor document is required for a sacrament, to the best of my knowledge. It is also not important, that a third party be involved, when a party to the sacrament breaks the commitment, for say excommunication to set in.

 

[joG]

No. If people don't want their children to learn such things, they are free to homeschool. Otherwise, get over it.

Plus, what would be the alternative? There are no viable options for private schools covering the whole country, and most people do not have the time, knowledge, resources, and or ability to homeschool their children.

Nope. I disagree. If the school were private, you would be right. It is a public school and the government is not free to misuse it and infringe on religious freedom of practice.

 

[blarg]

I do not know that sex is the same in and out of marriage. Though, in Christianity I thought that marriage was a sacrament. But the major moral issue, I would think, is diversion away from a lifestyle that makes procreation less likely for lustful reasons might be the moral clincher.

um how's gay marriage or any gay couple raising kids procreation for lustful reasons?

being gay seems to encourage only reproducing or raising kids after deciding on it rather then by accident because of lust

as the actions involved with lust in that case could not lead to procreation

 

[blarg]

You don't have children do you? You don't discuss sex, other than don't let anyone touch your privates, with 4 year olds, no matter what you agenda is.

Only in this sick, deviant strewn, screwed up world would that even be considered.

Also remember this when we're discussing government controlling your life. WE PAY for those teachers to teach OUR curriculum not their own perverted ideology.

no one discussed sex in the article rather then take it as an age appropriate talk about different kind of family's you say its incremental propaganda

 

[joG]

um how's gay marriage or any gay couple raising kids procreation for lustful reasons?

being gay seems to encourage only reproducing or raising kids after deciding on it rather then by accident because of lust

as the actions involved with lust in that case could not lead to procreation

Thank you. I miss-formulated the sentence. "away from" should have read "towards".

 

[roguenuke]

Nope. I disagree. If the school were private, you would be right. It is a public school and the government is not free to misuse it and infringe on religious freedom of practice.

You're wrong. There are plenty of things taught in school that "infringe" on religious beliefs. Nothing taught in school infringes on their freedom of practice, including teaching about homosexuality and same sex relationships and marriage. Parents are completely free to teach their children that such things are wrong, even if those children are coming to different conclusions given information they receive in school.

 

[roguenuke]

Thank you. I miss-formulated the sentence. "away from" should have read "towards".

Either way just changes the point of view and not the actual case you were trying to make. It doesn't matter if parents would rather not have their children "exposed" to positive information about same sex couples or even marriages and families. They don't have the right to not have their children exposed to those things if they send their children to public school. They only have the right to teach their children that such things are wrong. If, given other information, more positive information, about same sex couples, parented families, and marriages, children draw a different conclusion that is contrary to the parents' teachings, the parents' option is to pull them out of public school and try to change their child's conclusion some other way.

This is the thing. Not once did the teacher say she presented a moral stance on same sex marriages or relationships. She did not say they should not view such relationships as sinful or wrong. She presented them information, positive information, about her relationship and others like hers. The children are drawing conclusions based on that information. What alternative information should children be presented with exactly? Isn't talking about sex with those that young wrong? Isn't it wrong to talk about how religions might view those relationships? Parents are free to tell their children how they view such relationships and even to introduce their children to religions that view such relationships as wrong, but if the children still come to the same conclusion, that they see no difference between same sex relationships and opposite sex relationships, then what?

 

[CLAX1911]

You don't have children do you?

Oh, I can't understand unless I have had children?

don't discuss sex, other than don't let anyone touch your privates, with 4 year olds, no matter what you agenda is.

I corrected where you said that I don't discuss such things with my children. If you choose not to its your business.

Only in this sick, deviant strewn, screwed up world would that even be considered.

Insulting people that don't agree with you isn't a valid argument.

Also remember this when we're discussing government controlling your life. WE PAY for those teachers to teach OUR curriculum not their own perverted ideology.

So does ever other person that owns and rents property in your school district.

 

[CLAX1911]

It's a failing of parenting that a kindergartner is not asking about sex?? Ah..what?

Nice straw man.

No it's failing to parent when you child gets all of his morality from school.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Nowhere did she talk about sex at all. From what was said in that even highly biased piece, no mention of sexual activities of any kind were made. They talked about same sex families, something completely appropriate for even Kinders.

Only in a sick society that has abandoned basic decency could that even be considered anywhere close to appropriate.

 

[blarg]

Only in a sick society that has abandoned basic decency could that even be considered anywhere close to appropriate.

um what principle of basic Decency was violated?

seems to me the gist of this was to tell the kids

that

some people marry some 1 of the same gender and even have family's and that they live pretty much like you do so theirs no need to freak out over it

seems to go along with do unto others as you would have them do unto you

doesn't harm any one or mistreat any one seems to encourage the kids not to in fact

 

[roguenuke]

Only in a sick society that has abandoned basic decency could that even be considered anywhere close to appropriate.

Only to you and those like you, who tend to have a warped sense of what is or isn't decent. It certainly isn't "basic decency" to think this is inappropriate.

 

[mmi]

It certainly isn't "basic decency" to think * is inappropriate.

[sup]*[/sup] hateful bigotry taught as a religious value

 

[NoC_T]

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/lesbian-teacher-how-i-convince-kids-to-accept-gay-marriage-starting-at-4-ye

Well I can say she’s a teacher who’s interested in LGBT issues promotion but not education. Educating is providing knowledge, but this is an act of LGBT propaganda. How would you react if you knew that your child gets first information about same-sex marriages from school teacher?

I wouldn't give a ****. Chances are, they'd be aware of the issues already. If not, they'd certainly be equipped with the tools to process the information. Kids are only as incapable as their parents permit them to be. Whatever reservations exist are merely points of morality, misplaced or otherwise. Precocity is a universal feature of childhood, though it often goes unnoticed. I don't recall experiencing any trauma arising from awareness of sex. Not that I'm able to recall the precise moment, but I didn't grow up and start mutilating prostitutes, so there's that.

 

[Scrabaholic]

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/lesbian-teacher-how-i-convince-kids-to-accept-gay-marriage-starting-at-4-ye



Well I can say she’s a teacher who’s interested in LGBT issues promotion but not education. Educating is providing knowledge, but this is an act of LGBT propaganda. How would you react if you knew that your child gets first information about same-sex marriages from school teacher?

If a child is getting his/her 'first information about same sex marriages from (a) school teacher', then the parents are not doing their job.

I see nothing wrong with what this woman is doing. She IS educating the children. When I was in school, we learned about families and the different types. This is really no different.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

That is always approximately the argument any historical group has used from the beginning of time, when it wants to discriminate against a minority for religious or other reasons. The Romans used it, the Christians used it, you name them, they used it. And now it is the gay rights lobby using it.

And yet it's entirely accurate. If the religious don't want to practice SSM, that's fine. If others do, it's none of their business.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I have children who definitely learned this tripe in school [and brought it home]. I don't want the same situation with my grandchildren.

If you want to deny reality, feel free to. If you don't want your grandchildren to hear about reality, pull them out of school.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

*Possible* means nothing.

No, possible requires preparation.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

You don't have children do you? You don't discuss sex, other than don't let anyone touch your privates, with 4 year olds, no matter what you agenda is.

Only in this sick, deviant strewn, screwed up world would that even be considered.

Also remember this when we're discussing government controlling your life. WE PAY for those teachers to teach OUR curriculum not their own perverted ideology.

Personally, I think it's perverted to consider than discussing relationships is always about sex. Heterosexual relationships are not ALL about sex. Neither are homosexual relationships. If a child hears that two men or two women are married, it is bizarre to consider that the first thing THEY will think about is how those people have sex. You are being completely hypocritical in your comments above and in your presentation.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

No, it's not. Her job involves academics and that is what she is expected to do.

Wrong. Social skills and interacting with others is probably the most important skill that kids learn at school. Without that skill, all of their knowledge is irrelevant. They will be incapable of handling bosses, co-workers, employees, customers, etc...

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Only in a sick society that has abandoned basic decency could that even be considered anywhere close to appropriate.

Only someone who has no understanding of the difference between sex and relationships could not understand that what rogue said was completely correct.

 

[joG]

And yet it's entirely accurate. If the religious don't want to practice SSM, that's fine. If others do, it's none of their business.

That would be absolutely true if it had no impact on health insurance, taxes, social security or other social spending awere not a government institution. As it is structured, however, everyone is forced to participate via government.