I made no assumptions and can perceive your posts in multiple interpretations. Three questions were asked. You posted by answering none. Is it your intent to be vague? Three questions. The only assuming was by you. If you don't want to answer three questions, then just say so.

Jordon, please explain to me one valid justification as to why you think seven-year-olds should not be exposed to the existance of homosexuality? I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm not confronting you, I am genuinely curious. Why do you think that?

So your position is "based on decency" and therefor those who disagree must be espousing "indecency". Kinda lame, don'cha think?

Either admit it's religious, or offer support for the contrary view--a simple unsupported assertion isn't going to cut it. Your "simple human decency" looks awfully close to "intelligent design"; as in "what we call the religion when it's tactically inconveniant to call it religion".

You're equating "admiting that men can love men and women can love women" to "exposing children to homosexuality", as if we were building bleachers in somebody's bedroom for them to sit and watch.

There's a difference between admiting that *relationships*--same sex *or* hetero--exist and trotting out pornos--of either stripe-- for kids to watch. If you haven't the intellectual honesty to acknowlege that, if your entire argment hangs on conflating the two, then there's little point in debating with you, you'll just keep marching around in the same tight little circle.

Jordan is playing a little game with us, pretending to be open minded when he is anything but. Living in Boulder has given him a chance to pick up politically correct double speak, but he gives himself away with the following statement:

What is indecent about a person being attracted to members of the same sex? Why is it "decent" to be attracted to members of the opposite sex? Why should a seven year old be concerned about being sexually attracted to ANYONE?

Please define "decency," Jordan.

Please define what it is to be moral.

Please define the difference between "agape" and "eros" and please explain the differences between the way gays experience these feelings versus the way straights do.

Please explain to us how your posts have shown evidence of "agape" on your part.

I'm sure you'll explain all these things any moment now. Any time... Yup, in just another minute, you'll enlighten us all. :eyebrow:

For the second time, this is not true. Feel free to quote me to the contrary.

Simple. Human. Decency.
:dedhors2: :dedhors2: :dedhors2:

Are you waiting for me to reveal myself to be a Fundamentalist Christian? Ain't gonna happen, pal. I'm not a Christian. You certainly have a fetish for cubbyholing anyone who disagrees with you into convenient stereotypes. People can actually hold moral views that have nothing to do with religion. Seven year olds shouldn't be exposed to homosexual propaganda. It's really that simple.

It's "should have been a cowgirl," genius. The only thing agape in your life is your cavernous anus, and the detritus is soiling your posts.
:donut: :turd: :turd: :turd:

What is considered decent or indecent is largely fashion. Early part of last century, "indecent" would include racial intermarriage, skirts above the knee, the word "swell", women in the workplace, etc.

A great deal has changed and much for the better. So as long as what is specifically considered "indecent" is not encoded into law, I'm in agreement here.

We shall not teach the children "indecent" things.

We shall decide on what is "indecent" by vote of representative school boards, elected in free and open elections.

I'm down with that. Done and done.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I rest my case. You're not worth the time of day and you obviously don't listen to C/W. Everybody loves to correct me on that "of" and its already been discussed here at length on other threads.

You didn't answer a single one of my points because you CAN'T.

Should of known what you're talking about. :rolleyes:

Sounds like "I think it's yucky" to me.

Please explain why the two princes are indecent, while Rapunzel isn't.

You want to teach seven year olds about "racial" marriage:p? Fine. Skirts above the knee? Swell. Women in the workplace? :shocking: Well, ok. Homosexuality? I don't think so. Again, it's interesting how you all think you know what's better for a child than their own parents.

What is c/w, cunt wailing? I'll pass.

Any time now. Any minute. Just you wait and see. Jordan will brilliantly explain what he's talking about. Any second... :right:

You still haven't responded to Happy Monkey's request to

I agree with Happy Monkey and Torrere, please explain how showing and telling about love between two men are indecent and despicable, but showing and telling about love between a man and a woman is fine and dandy.

For that matter, explain how showing love between two men is worse than showing hatred between anybody.

OK, then it's not a religious belief, it just happens to be indistinguishable from what fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims believe.

It's your own personal, independantly-held secular belief--an opinion--which still gives it no standing that would support your use of the government to impose it on others.
"Man can love men and women can love women" isn't propaganda, it's just fact--supportable by direct observation of the world and the people in it.

Your claim that it's "immoral" or "indecent" is still arbitrary and without support other than your own copious "it's that simple" and "everybody knows" handwaving about how obvious it is.

You're still talking in circles. You might benefit from a review of fallacies of argumentation that are common and obvious enough to have already been given names. Try this one for example.

I declare that all mention of anything involving violence or malicious intent should be removed from all schools. I can't have my (potential) children exposed to the thought of someone wanting to hurt someone else! History may no longer make any mention of wars, assassinations, fights, or anything. It's just not decent for my child to know people kill other people! (/mockery)

Simple human decency is when one answers questions in a discussion group. You did not even define "this". Which of so many possible "this" are you refering to?

Simple questions that an honest man has no problem answering because honest men understand simple human decency:

First legal marriage requirements. Are you saying that laws should make no distinction between same sex and opposite sex marriages? And obviously why or why not?

Second, religion. You stated that sacraments should be denied to same sex marriages. Is that correct (of course, reasons why are included)?

Third, education. You insist that children should never even be told that homosexual couples exist? It is simple human decency to not lie. Therefore will can defined simple human decency quantitatively with numbers or examples.

Meanwhile, Denny Crane (William Shatner) and Alan Short (James Spader) in Boston legal demonstrate strong love between two men. You would call those characters indecent and despicable?

Let's see. Love between a man and a woman is normal. Love between two men is...Abby something.:D

So are you prejudiced againt everything that isn't normal, or just certain things?

Obviously Jordon's learned his debating chops in other, easier fora where everyone agrees with him. :-)

So what? The question was why is one less decent, not whether one is more common.

*sigh* I love trolls.

Just because you can use what you learned on the High School debate team to prove that your clit is a dick, doesn't make it true, even if it makes you smug in your delusion.

There's no point in even trying to debate when you openly lie. For the THIRD TIME, I never said that. Read the thread again.

Again, I never said that. I said that seven year olds should not be exposed to it. You are so eager to portray yourself as a victim, you are fabricating imaginary arguments to fit your agenda.

I haven't seen that show, but then we arent' talking about brotherly love, are we? We're talking about homosexuality.

?

Jordon, for the third (or is it fourth?) time, please answer me LOGICALLY and REASONABLY.

Seven. Year. Olds. Do. Not. Need. To. Know. About. Homosexuality.

"Despicable" is your word. I never said it.:right:

Extra. Periods. Don't. Substitute. For. A. Reason.

Seven year olds don't need to know about heterosexuality either, which is why nobody has sex in fairy tales. Why would two men not having sex be worse than a man and a woman not having sex?

My 6 year old daughter has a classmate with a lesbian mother. The kids are in Brownies together and the mom is one of the leaders. The mom and her partner are both very nice and are great with kids. My daughter just thinks her friend has two moms. She seems to not even notice that their family is different from ours. She's not thinking "well, I know my Dad puts his penis inside my Mom, so what do these two moms do for fun?" She's just playing with her friend.

I would say that kids younger than 7 need to know about all the different types of families out there. Doesn't mean they have to learn all the sexual stuff. It's about love. Not sex.

Obsession on the sexual act is the fault of the obsessor.

"Ad hominem"....see fallacies page.

I see no point in trying to engage you in "debate" you any further, because you clearly have no intention of debating. That's probably a wise move on your part, since your debate isn't even up to high school quality.

As for "smug", that's a pretty comical accusation coming from you, given that your basic theory seems to be "I'm right, why can't you see that?"

Others beat me to it, but I'm going to say it anyway:

Seven. Year. Olds. Don't. Need. To. Know. About. Heterosexuals. Any. More. Than. They. Do. Homosexuals.



15-year-olds don't need to know that the volume of a right pyramid is 1/3Bh but they teach it anyway. Because it is good to know, because it is true, and because ignorance has killed more people than anything else. Okay, maybe not knowing how to find the volume of a pyramid won't kill you, but not being taught that homosexuals (or people of any other sexual orientation) are people too, that they are no different than anyone else in any other respect, that they are just as 'normal' as any other person on the planet CAN get someone killed.

Since this is my first post here, I'll probably be called a troll :rolleyes: . But I've been enjoying reading everything on this site and this topic is the first one that is compelling me to respond.

First, a little about me. I am a heterosexual and mother of three children. These children attend public schools. I attended private and public schools as a child. I despise bigotry, because it teaches intolerance and hatred. Anyone that is 'different' is ostracised and feared when bigotry is in play. Children need to be taught that different is not WRONG, its just different.

I agree with the Lexington School systems decision. Educating your children about the different kind of people, cultures, and religions in the world will not harm them or cause them to become 'gay'.

Did you know that it is estimated that five percent to nine percent of all children currently in school will grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual? There is also an increasing number of children of gay and lesbian parents in school. It is estimated that six percent to 11 percent of schoolchildren have a gay or lesbian parent or sibling.

Is age seven too young? Is any child too young to learn consideration and tolerance? It's certainly not too young for them to learn discrimination, prejudice and violence!! Very young children already have heard many things about gay men and lesbians. Negative name-calling begins as early as first grade, and even though these children may not yet understand what it means to be gay or lesbian, they know that using these words is a way to put someone down. Schools aren’t introducing these topics. Rather, they are addressing a topic young children are increasingly familiar with and creating a safe environment for children to ask questions, receive information and learn more about the different types of people that they will encounter throughout their lives.

Of COURSE it’s not appropriate for schools to teach young children about sex. But learning about gay men and lesbians isn’t the same thing as learning about gay sex. In school, children learn about mommies and daddies, families and marriage without talking about sex. In the same way, children can learn that there are gay and lesbian people, and can be taught about the literature they have written, the families they have formed, and the gay and lesbian civil rights issues that are part of the current political debate.

If your religion is against homosexuality, then teach them that at home and in church. Keep your religious beliefs out of the school system my taxes pay for. There is an excellent reason for the separation of church and state in the US. Not everyone agrees about homosexuality. But schools are obliged to create a safe environment and to show respect for all students, including students who are gay or lesbian and students who may have parents or siblings who are gay or lesbian.

Providing children with information and a forum for discussion doesn’t “make” anyone gay. If that were true, then most children who grow up with gay or lesbian parents would turn out to be gay, but they don’t. Most grow up to be heterosexual. According to studies by groups such as the Child Welfare League of America and the American Psychological Association, teaching children about gay issues won't “make” them gay, but it might make them less likely to insult someone they think is gay or to allow a friend to be ostracized for having a lesbian mom or a gay dad. And unless you are a prejudiced bigot and teaching your children to be bigots, you won't want them to learn to treat their fellow citizens with anything less than common courtesy and decency.

To prevent violence, it is critical that teachers and parents teach respect for all members of our communities. And that is impossible to do if we pretend an entire segment of the community doesn't exist.

My children know that there are 'families' of all kinds. Traditional, step-families, blended families, extended families, single parent families, adoptive families, foster families and OMG!! even some with same-sex parents.

And thats ok.

Stormie

And so are you.

Welcome to the Cellar.

That's some simple. human. decency. right there ain't it?

Where did sex come into it? Some men like men, most men like women, most women like men but some women like women, it is that scary?

What are you going to tell your kids if they see two men kissing in the street? Or are you going to go up and abuse them for defiling your children instead?

it looks like no one is promoting anything. its a book that simply describes something that exists.

why are so many people afraid of the truth? i say, if you don't want this book read to your child, or this concept known to your child, consider home-schooling, or educate your child in a private, christian school. that way they can be as closed off to the truth as you want them to be.

it exists, and ignoring it, or hating it won't make it go away. don't you want to be accepted and even loved? give that same to others. its what the bible tells you to do, and my guess is the people who are against this book being read, claim to be christians.

Now who's telling fairy tales? The reality is that a child only has one mother and one father. Anything else is revisionist biology or a quaint lie.

For the record, I'm Pagan; but it's pretting damning that you immediately assume that I'm a Christian because it fits your prejudice. Who's the bigot now?:lol:

jordon, i was not refering to you at all. i was speaking about the parents at the school, sort of generalizing and getting "preachy" about those judgmental types, which may be a fault of mine. but i can't resist. they really ask for it, most of them.

you almost sound a little paranoid there jordon.

don't worry buddy. i wasn't attacking you. its all good.

Biology does not make a "parent" any more than donating sperm or an egg makes one part of a "family".

right on stormie.

i like the things you've been saying here.......

There are moms and dads, and there are biological parents. Biological parents are a male-female pair. For moms and dads, there could be two moms, a a mom and a dad, or two dads, and zero, one, or two of them could also be biological parents.

Mom and Dad being biological parents is the easiest and most common route, but it's not the only one.

Let's get back to the issue.

Several parents are upset because the school curriculum apparently includes books (plural, this isn't the first time this happened) regarding homosexuality. These books are written for an elementary school grade level.

These parents are upset, regardless of YOUR PERSONAL OPINION on the issue, because THEIR children were exposed to material that THEY AS PARENTS OF THEIR CHILDREN consider inappropriate.

The parents want to be informed when the teacher is going to read inappropriate (to them) material, so they can remove their child from class.

I don't feel that ANY sexuality needs to be taught in elementary school. I have not read the book, so I don't know what it says. But if my 9 year old came home and told me that they read a book about two daddies, or two mommies, I'd be justifiably concerned about the curriculum. I don't mind, as a parent, if a book like that is available in the library, and my child checks that book out on her own, but I DO have a problem with my child effectively being forced to listen to what I consider inappropriate material.

(rhetorical question)
Why is it ok to read a book about homosexuality to 7 year olds in school, but read a book to the same kids in the same school about Jesus and that's an OUTRAGE!!!
(/rhetorical question)

For those who say "If you don't like it, put your child into private school", have you looked at the prices of private school? The CHEAPEST private school here (which is founded from a local Christian Church) is $300 per month, YEAR ROUND. Now, not only do I have to pay that, but I STILL HAVE TO PAY FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL INSTRUCTION, because I don't have an option to not pay taxes.

So since I'm paying for it either way, my public schools should reflect the values of my community, which should be enforced by the elected Board of Education.

(By the way..there is a lawsuit against my local Board of Education pending, and if you think any of them are getting relected this year, think again, because the parents are PISSED.)

If Susie lives with two daddies and Todd lives with two mommies and Jamal lives with a traditional set of parents, that knowledge and discussion is perfectly acceptable at their ages, in the course of normal social interaction.

Homosexualiy DOES exist, it IS part of the world. But does NOT make that subject matter appropriate for a CAPTIVE audience of 7 year olds, any more than terrorist activities or discussion of the Holocaust is appropriate for that age group.

(BTW, It is Holocaust Remembrance Day today. Go hug a Jew.)

wow...... kinda wordy......

teach the truth, and let the chips fall where they may.

public schools cannot give preference to any religion. this is not a theocracy. don't like it. move to theocracy, like iraq, or afghanistan.

get over it, and just let people be themsleves. love them. god will do the judging, not us.

Right, and that's why the "Cinderella" story doesn't follow the newlyweds on their honemoon.Exactly. And if there is any sex in the book, then that's a problem. But since Jordon seems incapable, perhaps you can give an answer to this:

If there is precisely the same amount of romance (some), and precisely the same amount of sex (none) in the princes book and Cinderella, what makes the former indecent and not the latter?

This book isn't actually teaching sexuality though. It's a book about a prince that has to find a mate. That mate, in this book, ends up being another man...So yes, it introduces an alternative kind of family, but it doesn't really say... hey...these are two guys and theyre gonna go at it like your mommy and daddy do....

And in this particular school, there are kids with two mommies or two daddies.... especially in a diverse place like this do the children need to have those doors of communication opened early... My co - worker has two kids in a school where a lot of the kids have gay parents... his kids are 9 and 6... they understand what it is... there is nothing wrong with kids knowing that sometimes a man loves a man or a woman loves a woman. They don't need to know the sexy details yet...just like they dont need to know the sexy details of a hetero relationship.

Look how quickly the hatemongers race to spew their vitriol and profanity simply because I suggested that a father should have a say in what his child is taught in public school:

"I hate people.

ESPECIALLY bigoted, prejudicial, discriminatory, twisted people. Which someone would HAVE to be to discriminate like that against ANYONE for ANY reason, whether it be sexual orientation, race, creed, or anything else."

"Children can adapt,.... if a hetro feeling little kid can make friends with another hetro feeling kid with gay/lesbian parents./// what the fuck.

Should a white kid not make friends, or happen across literature that talks about some mixed married kid having white superior parent fucking and being in love with a member of the lowsome minority race?"

"The fact is that recent studies show that homophobia is based in repressed homosexual tendencies.

Please don't infect kids with your sickness."

"If somebody thinks their kids shouldn't be exposed to the public, maybe they shouldn't be in a public school. There's plenty of "Christian" "academies" founded on creationism, homophobia and other equally wholesome precepts.

Just don't ask me to pay for it."

"If the christian parent has a bias against islam let them talk about it
... will they?
Fuck no. The parent has an agenda... MY WAY or the HIWAY."

"and no, you fuckface bigots, it doesn't mean Im gay"

"There is no non-bigoted reason to oppose gay marriage."

All this on just the first three pages. Hypocrisy much?

huh?

your values preach hate, and I seem to hear "hatred" akin to the KKK

If a father wants to protest,.... cool, I think McCarthy did the same thing.

Fucking red herrings...

Hopefully some sane people might squash the biggoted "scapegoat" emotionalisms that have gone on far too long.

A statement like that is easy to disprove with counterexample... hint hint.

Another ad hominem, introduced as a red herring

The problem is that you clearly want to control what everybody is taught in public school. Once again, I suggest you place your kids in a private school that shares your views.

But do you actually have any kids? Because your inability to distinguish between "a book about relationships" and "teaching children about physical intimacy" makes me wonder what life must be like for your partner...if you have one.

Anybody Interested in getting rid of the athiest evil anti-christ Republicans that blew up the Twin Towers, and missled the Pentagon section that was blown apart.... JUST so Americans could hate the Islams that the Anti-Christ USA Administration pitched us up against>


How about that Xtian Boy, Wake the fuck up... STOP being such a "TOOL"

I'm glad jordan always addresses the issues and debates rationally about the points raised instead of resorting the vitrol and profanity of an agape cavernous anus.

Jordon is one of those people who while holding a good mixed bag of the usual prejudices deep down, knows they're not acceptable and so attempts to wrap them up in various ways to make them less ugly, like putting a piece of dog shit in Christmas paper. This can be summed up in something like 'I'm all for gay marriage, just don't like the fucking fags near my kids' or 'it's simple human decency to not expose 7 year olds to love between people of the same gender'.

Also, I may be wrong on this but my understanding is it is now scientifically possible to take the DNA(or S, or C) from an egg, put it in a sperm and use it to impregnate an egg, meaning that one can in fact, have two mothers. Furthermore this I believe, I'll check later, is the 21st century, we've moved beyond defining gender roles by sexuality, catch up.

By the way, can you point me to the vitrol and profanity in "There is no non-bigoted reason to oppose gay marriage.", I keep looking but end up back an agape anus.

Hiya Jag. :-)

Cool...I didn't know you could take the DNS from an egg. I didn't even know they had IP addys.

Must be an IPV6 thing. :-)

LMFAO :lol:

hahahah, is that "back" or "black" angus apes

It's the DNS name you want, otherwise they have really bland personalities. It also helps finding them when it comes to implant time.

Damn, i just finished Brave New World, and John Savage only ends up hanging around.

Is Cinderella actually read loud in schools?

And I never said the princes book was indecent, so I can't answer your question, HM. I haven't read it, so I don't know if it is or not.

My point remains that it is up to the majority of each individual community to decide what is best for that community's school curriculum. (curriculi?). And I don't think that my kids should have to be forced to listen to a book that I as the parent feel is inappropriate.

If this ends up a case of "majority rules", and the people of that community decide that the book is inappropriate, then I'm sure they'll be labelled as "bigots", "intolerant", "fundies", whatever by the people who disagree. But you know what they say, "If you don't like it, leave."

And again, Maggie, you keep touting "go to private school". Well, that's great, I'd love to, but then give me an option to stop paying the educational portion of my taxes. If my kids aren't in the public school system, why should I have to pay for it?