Tuesday, May 26, 2009

"Homosexuality won't be taught in public schools"

One of the main arguments for Prop 8 was that with out it Homosexuality would be taught in schools to children, with out the parents having any say in their child's education. Those against Prop.8 said Judeo/Christians were paranoid. Looks like they weren't paranoid enough.

California doesn't need Gay Marriage to indoctrinate kindergartners with homosexuality

17 comments:

Emmy said...

One parent told FOXNews.com an “overwhelming” majority of parents spoke out against LGBT instruction at one of the meetings, but that public opinion had little impact.

“The chairman of the school board repeatedly claimed to the audience that the curriculum is evenly supported and opposed,” said a parent named David, who asked that his last name be withheld.

“I am beginning to lose confidence of the board, as it seems to have a preconceived political agenda and not truly represent their constituent’s opposition to the curriculum,” he said.


That quote from the article you posted a link to says it all. Makes me sick!

davers said...

Looks like it's another time for another ballot initiative.

I used to be against ballot initiatives because they are often so poorly understood by the general public that the public is often fooled into voting for something they'd not do if they understood it better. Also often the outcomes are more subject to campaign dollars than the usual law making process. In fact, Prop 8 was almost lost precisely because so much more money was spent to fight it than promote it (even after Mormon money was added).

This however is one issue that is so black and white that I can't see how such a ballot initiative should possibly loose.

Thing is ... it was already passed in Prop 8, yes? Time to sue.

Allie said...

It sounds to me that the focus would be teaching children about not bullying.

I don't like the idea of not being allowed to take my child out of class if there were something I felt my child wasn't ready for, so I sympathize with the parents there. (What does that mean anyway, that the schools won't tell parents when those lessons will be taught? I can't imagine a school not allowing me to take my child out of school if I chose to.)

My kids often point out people doing things that we have taught them that we don't do. Tattoos, smoking, etc... we've tried really hard to teach them that people with tattoos or people who smoke aren't bad people, but all people believe different things and this is what we believe.

I don't think I would want to remove my children from school if we lived in california- I would want to come to class and listen to what they were learning so we could talk about it at home.

Allie said...

Also might be time to get a new school board.

Steve said...

First of all, this is a LOCAL issue. ONE school. And Allie says it best, you just vote in a new school board next time around. And 45 minutes a year teaching kids not to use "fag" or bully homosexuals isn't going to be harmful to anyone, even 5 year olds. This could EASILY happen just as much in Utah or Virginia as California. Prop 8 has NOTHING to do with this and if you think so, than you ARE paranoid. FoxNews and this post are making something out of nothing. Why not complain about how crappy the PE equipment is, unhealthy the school lunch or how the teacher gave your kid the stink-eye instead?!?!?

Salt H2O said...

Steve,
You perfectly quantify how the far left feels about conservative values: "GET OVER IT, PE equipment is more important"

I will teach my children about sexuality when I deem it approprate, not when some school board does, some judge decides or a teacher that thinks because she got a few years of elementry education under her belt she knows what's better for my children than I do.

To you and everyone else on the far left, this issue seems trite- to the parents that are loosing their rights to decide how morality is taught and when to their children it's a big issue.

Moreso I posted this to point out that YES, there is a homosexual agenda (note it's only HOMOSEXUAL tollerance that is being taught) in public education, and if you think this is an isolated event that won't be repeated, then you are dillusional.

I'm curious, at what point do you think should conservatives protect their parental rights?

Really, there's no connection between homosexual marriage and the homosexual agenda in public education?

Do you think they're having this conversation in Texas? Kentucky? There's no way it would happen in Utah.

Melissa said...

I agree with Allie. The thing that gets me about this is that you can't elect out. If you can elect out of the puberty talk, you should be able to elect out of the LGBT talk. Bullying is important to address, I totally see that, but I don't see for sure that is the reason for this.

I have 3 school aged kids. We have pulled one of them out to homeschool, it is tempting to pull the others out when I hear about constant foul language in the lunch room and other things... Parenting is tough.

Steve said...

Salty, you solution is to do what Melissa did, and home school, or move to another school district if the people you elected don't represent your views. There is no reason that newly elected PTA or school boards couldn't overturn it. This is exactly what happened in PA regarding the outlawing of evolution in favor of intelligent design. They were voted out and new ones came in and reversed the decision. THIS is democracy at it's most primitive and effective.

Salt H2O said...

If this is democracy at it's most primative and effective, is proposition 8 any different?

adamf said...

I am not sure if I like sexuality of any kind being taught to my first-grade kid(s) by an adult other than myself or my wife.

Also, since Steve mentioned it, I don't think Intelligent Design belongs anywhere other than a religion or philosophy class. Certainly not in biology.

Despite those two points, I agree with Allie and Melissa in that parenting is tough, and we as parents are responsible to teach our kids. Frankly I don't plan on completely trusting school, church, or any other source of education. Parents need to be involved in all of it.

Steve said...

Salty - Re Prop 8, that is absolutely the same thing. And it will be voted on again, and again, and again. No matter the outcome. That is why the proposition and rule by majority doesn't work for policy decisions! I actually agree with the CA Supreme Court's ruling yesterday, b/c they based it on CA law, that is that majority/mob rule is how CA works. It is also why CA is so messed up as we have discussed in previous posts. No matter the outcome of the original Prop 8 vote, yesterday or the next Prop 8 vote, until CA does away with the Prop ballot initiative, this issue will NEVER die b/c people on both sides won't be happy with the outcome. There is a reason our founding fathers created a Representative democracy, not full democracy. It doesn't work and they didn't want this public bickering to deride and slow down the governmental process, which it IS doing in CA, not to mention costing taxpayers there tons and tons of money.

Salt H2O said...

Steve,
I absolutely agree. As long as it's elected policy makers and not appointed judges making policy.
This whole Prop business is a collosial waste of money.

Steve said...

I'm still waiting to see when and where any judge has "MADE" policy. They rule on their interpretation of the law. Sure, you may disagree, as interpretations can differ, but that is the beauty of being a judge, who ARE selected by elected officials; no one can rule against your opinion, until it goes to the higher level. For instance, abortion is the favorite topic regarding judges. If 5-4 of the Supreme Court views that it is this way or that, then that is their interpretation. Doesn't make it any righter or wronger. Sorry for the poor grammar, but it proves my point. The law is the law until it is crossed out by a judge or a new law takes its place.

davers said...

According to President Obama's Sonia Sotomayor let it slip "court of appeals is where policy is made". Then she admitted she wasn't supposed to say that on tape and that they "don't make laws" or that at least she didn't "advocate that [making policy in the appeals court]".

Now I don't think she said anything wrong there ... she was stating the obvious and that she didn't advocate it. For example, where there is lack of precedent (and often when there is) decisions are made in appellate court upon which successive decisions in future trials are based. In other words the precedent becomes policy.

Now, Steve, you say making interpretations is not the same as making policy, but lazy judges in the presence of clever lawyers do make decisions based on precedent and sometimes thereby ignore the law or portions of it ... this is what Sotomayor meant when she said "I don't advocate that." It's done all the time (even on TV shows) because it's easier to say the case is identical to a previous case and rubber stamp the outcome rather than try it on it's own laurels when the law may be vague.

Melissa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sherpa said...

They're not supposed to have opinions ... at least one's that bias their rulings. If they do, then it is NOT considered a thing of "beauty", but rather a pock mark on their objectivity.Uh, one of the definitions of opinion is, "A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the legal reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court."
http://www.answers.com/topic/opinion

davers said...

Right Sherpa ... I meant to say "personal opinions".