Heck, MrVisible, by taking you to the priest, maybe the teacher was trying to get you laid! 
And gobear…before you climb on the soapbox you may want to peruse my posts first. I have no problem with the subject matter at all. My issue is age appropriateness. Yes, tolerance and kindness can be taught from toddlerhood, but concepts like transgenderism are beyond the scope of some 11 year olds. And no-one is more fit to judge this than the child’s parents.
That’s my beef right there. You can try to turn it into anything that fits YOUR biased, paranoid, hated filled agenda, but leave me out of it.
Gee, I suppose Catholic bashing is perfectly acceptable to you though gobear. You make Witchie laugh.
which is the only way some of us ever get through adolescence.
Biased, paranoid, and hate-filled, how exactly? Pray elaborate.
You have no idea what year this is, do you? With the Internet, talk shows, and good ol’ playground gossip, your kid, I guarantee, knows more than you could believe possible. Eleven-year-olds are in 6th grade, which is the right time to start teaching about sexual matters because those kids are going to begin puberty in a year or so.
Nice try to shift the subject, there. And no, I was not bashing Catholics, but the hierarchy, but nice try at dishonesty. Mm,. good values you have.
I doubt any 11 year olds who can’t understand the difference between boys and girls would be in a regular public school.
GOBEAR –
The Gideons are not allowed to come to school and talk about religion during class. The Boy Scouts are probably not going to be allowed to take up class time to tout the joys of scouting. If Wingspan had set up an informational table outside the lunch room, or made it known that they were having a presentation on issues of concern to that organization, after hours but on school property, I would not have a problem. As it is, I have several:
-
The teacher did not secure permission to have the speakers come in before scheduling them, as he was apparently supposed to do. Some anonymous “other teacher” says that was not always done, but nevertheless is was apparently school policy. That policy exists for the precise purpose of allowing the school district to evaluate the propriety of exposing children to controversial topics. Like it or not, GLBT is a controversial topic, and like it or not, some parents are not going to want their 11 year olds exposed to it, either at that age, or maybe ever.
-
Some people in this world believe that homosexual behavior or even orientation is wrong. Do I agree with them? No, I do not. Do I respect their beliefs? No, I do not. I do, however, absolutely respect their right to raise their children as they see fit, with the moral values they deem best, because that is precisely what I expect them to allow me to do. Are those of you who are gay truly advocating allowing those who have the “right” position to dictate what all kids are exposed to, in public schools? Because the fundamentalists think they have the right position – homosexuality is wrong and homosexuals are not worthy of respect. Do you want them teaching that to your kids? The parent’s right to parent his or her child must be both sacred and paramount, and it seems to me obvious that it is the best interests of gay people and/or extreme liberals that it remain so – because if the government (through the schools) begins teaching morals and values, it sure as shooting isn’t going to teach them what you want them to hear.
-
IMO, middle school is too soon to talk about complex sexual issues, like “some people like both boys and girls,” and “some men like to wear dresses” and “some girls feel more like boys, and some boys more like girls.” Those of you who may live inside that world may not think that’s all that complex, but I think it’s too sophisticated for kids who are at an age where they are just starting to feel out the concepts of sexuality and attraction. There may be legitimate disagreeement on what degree of “young” is “too young” for such discussions, but that is a decision that should be made by the parents, not the school. The idea that you would presume to replace my judgment with your own infuriates me, and I’m not even a parent.
-
Tolerance ought to be taught in general terms, and it should be taught repeatedly to reinforce it: People should be judged on their own merits. People should not be ridiculed or made fearful (or worse) because they are different. People can be different in many ways, from what color they are to what size they are to how they act or dress. If Wingspan is allowed to come in and do its song-and-dance about tolerance for GLTG, why not another presentation on tolerance of the mentally handicapped? And then another one on tolerance of the overweight? And then another one on tolerance of Jewish people? There is not enough time to give a platform to every person or group that merits tolerance, and granting a platform to one over the many others may seem to imply it is more important to be tolerant of that group (toleration of others optional). That’s another reason why the issue IMO should be discussed more generally, with the specifics left to age-appropriate examples, and the details left until the kids are older than 11 through 13.
-
I’m amused but not surprised by the liberal arrogance that leads so many of you to so confidently know that you would know better than I how to raise my kids, and at what point (and through what medium) they are ready to be exposed to complicated and controversial topics in an area as mysterious (to a child) and important as human sexuality. The only other group of people I’m aware of who are as sure that they are right and those who disagree with them are wrong, are the religious fundamentalists.
Any time the topic edges into morality – and sexual behavior implies morality to a lot of people – a public school is walking a very fine and very dangerous line. That’s why the school district can and should vet any speaker who proposes to speak on any even remotely controversial topic. If the teacher was not smart enough to realize that, then he deserves to be censured.
How about if I, as a parent refuse to allow a PUBLIC school to teach anything except the basic disciplines without a PUBLIC referendum on whether it’s appropriate?
That seems like rather a bright-line test, Gideons, boy-scouts, and any other quasi-public organizations all get the same boot.
Feel free to argue with those points, it’s not bigotry, nor is it a referendum on anyone’s personal struggles, and the pounding on the same points makes one suspect the honesty of the debate.
-Ace
Ya know what? I’d be even more pissy if they let fundies or Republicans in to speak without my permission. I’d lose my fucking mind if Pro-lifers got to come in and do their speil and I didn’t have the option of yanking my kid out. Why is it you people can’t grasp it’s the principle of the thing??
Witch, you want to protect your child from big bad gay folk. How great. But what about the 11 or 12 year old gay kid who is just coming into their own, and all they see about people like them are negative, evil things, and slurs, and bigotry from all sides? Someone has to be there to say “being gay is okay,” just like we tell black kids that “being black is okay,” or Jewish kids that “being Jewish is okay,” and it has to be early on.
Because those are your kids who are going to commit suicide, who are going to curdle into self-loathing, self-destructive teens who are at far greater risk than all the kids lucky enough to be straight.
Is protecting your child worth the potential life of another? Is keeping your child all safe from the ‘evil’ world worth the damage that will be done to the gay children in the class by the pain of realizing that not only are they different, but that the world hates them for it?
Kirk
You know, Gobear, some of us despise you for what comes out of your mouth, not because you like boys. Or men. Or whatever.
Your sexuality is irrelevant to me, however, I am not surprised to find your posts in this thread as objectionable as those you have made in others.
Pot. Kettle.
Gays can be just as bigotted as anyone else. Perhaps we can discuss religious intolerance? No? OK. Wouldn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings.
Hey, if you want to tell lies, do it in another thread.
And I depise you because you are too stupid to tell the difference between criticism of the Catholic hierarchy (for among other things, conflating pedophilia and homosexuality) and religious intolerance.
Take it to another thread, where I will happily explain my position, not that you’re honest enough to listen.
How many special programs do we need for a tiny minority of the population?
Marc
Why not? At an hour per topic you listed, that’s 4 hours out of a 9-month school calendar. Is that excessive?
I’d agree with you if it were a case of a special interest group attempting to prselytize, but that’s not what’s going on. A speaker talked about tolerance for those who are different. If the speaker were handing out dildos and nipple clamps, I’d join you in your outrage, but that’s not what happened.
As usual, right on the money. Garfield226 as well. Sorry for my lack of clarity.
Also probably true - it was mostly a thought experiment rather than a suggestion.
But I do think there are more people in the middle than the polarized debate might lead one to think. I think there is a difference between objecting to what can seem to be proselytizing for the moral purity of homosex, and outright hatred and homophobia. Not everyone in the first case belongs to the second as well.
And I also think - really, really strongly think - that a useful approach to tolerance training would be the one that I (unfairly perhaps) put into the mouth of my theoretical fundamentalist preacher - tolerance for those who are wrong.
How can we get along with those with whom we disagree, especially strongly disagree? Seems harder to me that trivialities like sexual orientation or skin color.
A lesson that I myself, amongst many others, demonstrate all too often that I never picked up in Miss Hadley’s sixth grade social studies class.
Regards,
Shodan
At least 1 I’d say.
Witch,
My contention is not that parents don’t have a right to oversee their child’s education, the do. Actually, they have the duty, something too many parents let lapse.
My point here is that the teacher followed the correct procedure to have the speaker appear before the class. After the fact one member of the school board has objected. Shouldn’t your beef be with the procedures the school system has in place?
Also, and this is just where our viewpoints diverge, I don’t think 11 is too young. Kids today are bombarded by sexual immagry, 6-7th grade is when sexual peer pressure starts, I think this was very apropriate. You, however, have the absolute right to think and do differently for your kids, and I would not presume to tell you otherwise.
Then we really have no difference in philosophy Dave. I agree with everything you have just said.
Parents can teach their kids whatever poisonous, backwards bullshit they want in the privacy of their own trailers. Public schools, OTOH, have absolutely no obligation to HONOR those beliefs. This idea that parents have a right to filter everything that schools teach their kids is complete and utter HORSESHIT. The right does not exist. THE RIGHT DOES NOT EXIST. Schools do not need permission to teach evolution. They do not need permission to teach racial tolerance. They do not need permission to teach your kid not to call other kids “faggot.”
Kids who ARE gay need to be educated in a safe environment in which they are not marginalized, bullied, or in any way discriminated against. Homophobic attitudes are now so casual and commonplace in schools, on playgrounds, and in locker rooms that it is virtually impossible for a gay youth to grow up without emotional scars. These attitudes need to be addressed. They need to be SPECIFICALLY addressed. The prevalence of gay teen suicide DEMANDS that it be addressed.
So-called “religious” objections by parents are not even worthy of consideration.