California School District Approves So-Called Gay Curriculum

re: California School District Approves So-Called Gay Curriculum

Lisa — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:23:20 GMT

Lauryn you logic is flawed when you say that you can't make morals into law when we live in a free country.

Oh yes we can. That's like saying I think it is morally wrong to molest a child, but why take away that free will from someone else. That doesn't make sense and neither does your "logic". Morals are the fabric of what keeps a civilization "civil".

re: California School District Approves So-Called Gay Curriculum

Lisa — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:24:15 GMT

To Lauryn:

You said we "can't make morals into law when we live in a "free country".

Then I shouldn't have to pay for it with my tax money.

re: California School District Approves So-Called Gay Curriculum

Lauryn — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:25:32 GMT

One additional note for Lisa:

Being Pro-choice doesn't mean you are "Pro-abortion." I think it's rare to find a person who thinks getting an abortion is as pleasant as a walk in the park, and from the few people I do know who have had abortions, it is a life changing decision and an extremely hard and emotional one that follows them the rest of their life.

But as the people here spout out this is a "free country" so they should be able to opt their kids out of a tolerance curriculum, then why can't someone have a choice as to what to do with their bodies? Even God gives us free will to do what we want. Do you think you're above God to take away that free will of someone else? That's the difference between the Pro-life and Pro-choice camps. Even though I support Pro-Choice, I would never have an abortion. I think it's morally wrong. But those are MY morals, and I can only try to convince you to see that, not make you live by it. You can't make morals into law when we live in a "free country."

re: California School District Approves So-Called Gay Curriculum

Lauryn — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:58:22 GMT

I love the way this particular post was written. The snarky sarcasm for the FOX report gave me a good laugh this morning.

These comments, however, are no laughing matter.

I haven't read the book to know if it actually deals with bullying, so I can't make the judgement call that this book will help the situation. It does look like it is a nice story that opens up the conversation for a discussion about homosexuality which parents should decide when they should breech the topic with their children. But the longer you wait, the more information your child will learn, not just from the schools, but from TV and peers. It is like sex education (or any education for that matter), if you don't bring it up, someone else will and teach it in a way you may not be pleased. My parent's waited to discuss sex with me until I had already asked questions to another adult I trusted. Even then, the topic was short and constrained, and what I didn't get from them, I learned from TV and peers. That usually spells disaster, but lucky for them (and me) I had a life event in Middle School that prompted me to wait.

I say all that to say - no child lives in a bubble. Even though it's the parent's choice, opting out does not stop the discussion. Not even having this curriculum will not stop the discussion. It's just a discussion that needs to be had over time across multiple parties. My parents taught me about AIDS at an early age (through children's books!) because of misinformation I was given when I was five when an older lady told me and my sister not to let people kiss us on the lips because they might have AIDS. We live in a world of misinformation and hysteria, and as parents, you can choose to be pro-active about what your kids learn or reactive.

Last point - All of this "us" and "them" mentality is where acceptance ends (not tolerance). I always tolerated gays, it didn't affect me. It was their business. I'm Christian, and I assumed they would just do their thing and we wouldn't have much to talk about. They were still nice people, they just chose that lifestyle. I never bullied someone for being gay (maybe your haircut or clothes or socio-economic status or lack of superior IQ - but then again, bullying is a destructive circle of childhood cruelty in an effort to cover ones own insecurities), but I did use it as a way to put down others (like calling a straight guy gay to emasculate him in the same way peers would call me white for getting good grades). Then it became personal in high school, and I learned acceptance in the form of a close friend who refused to tell me she was a lesbian (although everyone else in our circle of friends knew), not because I was ever mean to her (quite the opposite, I was always standing up for her, especially against teachers) but because of my Christian background and the fact that I'm a Preacher's Daughter. She seriously thought I would condem her to Hell and walk away from our friendship. She accepted me, religious upbringing and all, even though she was atheist at the time (apparently her Grandmother's church did a number on her when she was younger - but then I agreed that Southern Baptist were a bit scary anyways). How could I not do the same? My religion teaches me to love, not hate or fear or persecute. It is the outlining message of Jesus that we love what God loves, and despite all the hollaring about being gay is an abomination to God, it's a sin like sex outside of marriage is a sin or lying is a sin (Thou shalt not bear false witness... remember that little commandment?) and if God loves me even when I lie, then he sure as hell loves my lesbian friend, so why shouldn't I show that same love and RESPECT and ACCEPTANCE she has always shown me? To this day, my current best friend (who is also a Lesbian, go figure) thanks my high school friend for teaching me about true acceptance. Tolerance and Acceptance are lessons that can be taught in school - not by curriculums or books necessarily, but by growing and being in the same space as different people. It's the parents' job to make sure their children are open to the experiences to actually learn something from it.

Okay - I'll get off my high horse/soap box now.

re: California School District Approves So-Called Gay Curriculum

Paulette — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:28:43 GMT

I am a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, and for me, all of these opinions are valid, however I feel as if the point is being missed. Adopting a child into a loving, caring RELATIONSHIP is wonderful, and children will "come in contact" with other children who are adopted. Kindergarten children do not understand what being gay is, but they DO understand when a parent loves a child.

What if the story was about 2 penguins, a male and female, who were not married,but adopted a baby? Would that be easier to "talk about" with young children? Or what if it was 2 female penguins? Or a single parent?

My point is that everyone is entitled to their opinions, and if you, as a parent, cannot have honest discussions with your children, then that is one of the reasons children come and talk to someone like me. Just because you discuss gay couples, single parent homes, or "common law marriages", that doesn't mean you condone, accept, or support any of those relationships. It simply means you live in a world where this is reality, and why not show your children that all the world is not a cookie-cutter, every one exactly the same, kind of world? Don't we owe that to our next generation of leaders?

re: California School District Approves So-Called Gay Curriculum

Natch — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 05:13:48 GMT

Advocates for gay rights are operating under the radical notion that homosexuals are people.

re: California School District Approves So-Called Gay Curriculum

Kels — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 02:55:54 GMT

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention - I find this blog/article to be very poorly written. The logical fallacies are glossed over by a forced writing style, for the argument is so dang faulty. Thoughts?

re: California School District Approves So-Called Gay Curriculum

Lisa — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:57:04 GMT

You know what I find interesting with all this "love everybody" and "respect everyone's lifestyle" is that most of you (I don't know for certain) probably are pro-abortion too. Well, where's all the "love" for those who don't have a voice then? You see, you all are about God's love and peace and harmony, but when it comes to protecting the unborn, you're all alike. You're hypocrites! If you're going to stand up for the rights of one group then stand up for all rights or shut up!

re: California School District Approves So-Called Gay Curriculum

Danimal — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 00:52:53 GMT

Oh, those 'sinful' penguins. Those amoral bonobos. So sad to think that because they haven't read the bible, they will now go to hell for their 'choices.'

So, since this book depicts a real, live pair of mated male chinstrap penguins, do the dissenters here disapprove of the animals themselves, the author for choosing to document a natural phenomenon, or the schools for including this book about two sweet penguins who were "so desperate to incubate an egg together that they put a rock in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in the folds of their abdomens"?

People, except for our selective ideology, that is the stuff of Disney movies! Can you imagine wanting a child so badly that you adopted a ROCK? Finally, apparently, the zookeeper gave them a viable egg and they "did a great job" raising her, "keeping her warm and feeding her food from their beaks until she could go out into the world on her own." That's right, this philosophical 'Tango' creature is an actual, breathing penguin chick -- not a gray area subject to our interpretation and judgement.

Here's the deal: that story is awesome and heartwarming and REAL any way you look at it. If you need to try so darn hard to find something objectionable about that story, and how it can be applied toward greater happiness and love within our own species, you maybe need to take a look at your own ideology.

What actually happened: two breeding-challenged chinstrap penguins fell in love, committed to each other, miraculously beat the odds, and successfully raised a child.

What the opponents are saying: "Yeah, but they're gay."

You tell me. Who is the one who needs help and guidance about what God's all about in this scenario?

re: California School District Approves So-Called Gay Curriculum

BioLogic — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 00:19:55 GMT

One thing that is being consistently left out of this discussion is the actual, real life penguins on whom the book was based, and to which the article refers: Roy and Silo, chinstrap penguins (that's a breed, not a social category) live in the Central Park Zoo, and are only one of many examples of animals who choose same-gendered mates. These penguins have of their own accord chosen each other as mates and were "so desperate to incubate an egg together that they put a rock in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in the folds of their abdomens." Eventually, their keeper gave them a viable egg, and the baby, 'Tango' (also a real live chinstrap penguin) was born, and "[f]or the next 2 1/2 months they raised Tango, keeping her warm and feeding her food from their beaks until she could go out into the world on her own."

These penguins cannot read the book about them which has caused such scandal. Nor have they been exposed to other indoctrinating texts, teachings, or acceptance programs; nor are they unique in the animal kingdom. Those of you who persist in calling homosexuality a 'lifestyle choice' - where do animals, who supposedly lack the intellect to make such choices, fall on your spectrum? Wouldn't the evidence -- the living, breathing, biological examples that exist in nature -- suggest that this is just how a certain percentage of organisms relate? Are you going to suggest that these penguins are going to hell for their abominations? Do you presume to *disapprove* of these penguins, who are God's creatures?

I think someone could make the allegory that all kinds of things happen in nature of which we, as humans, would not approve (e.g., female mantises biting off the heads of male mantises, mammals eating their own young). However, I think the distinction here is in the assessment of positivity versus harm. When two people of any race, gender, ability, etc., get together to commit to and support one another, this is about love, which is a positive thing, and harms precisely no one.

Net Outcome of Harm Equation:

So, let's look at the equation so far: homosexuality (homo-love-actuality?) exists in nature, is based in love, and harms no one.

Disapproval, bullying, denial of rights -- ALL of these are harmful. There is no question here. So the net outcome of the situation equals harm.

The majority of people who proclaim their right to disapprove of how and whom other people love usually cite the bible, and God's wishes, as their source and reference. In my understanding, this subject is touched on rarely and somewhat ambiguously in the bible, whereas love, acceptance, charity, and generosity are belabored points. Wasn't that the heart of Jesus' teaching? Can you imagine Christ himself sitting off to the side of such a discussion and snidely saying he just didn't approve? Based on the bible's accounts of his life and teachings, if he were here today, he would most like be at the forefront of an acceptance and equality movement -- and people would probably somehow still find a way to get around this and discredit him.

So, what I am proposing is a rational approach. Since the bible has so little coverage of the issue -- really, if it were such a big deal, wouldn't there be, like, a whole chapter devoted to it? With no room for interpretation?-- and what people are doing is mainly a lot of interpretation on God's intentions, why can't we let natural evidence and my 'net outcome of harm' equation to decide how we will proceed as a modern society?

Oh, and by the way -- I'm straight, and female, look forward to raising children who help heal and unify the world, not further divide it!

re: California School District Approves So-Called Gay Curriculum

Barbara Bourque — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 23:30:36 GMT

Teddie,

At the risk of sounding cliche, I hear the pain of your life in your story. I attended a Catholic school from K-12 and there were many bullies and mean girls. But there was the same at the public school as well. Children are children. Parents teach but when the child applies what is taught or if they apply it all is not guranteed. Unfortunately, meanness, pettiness, jealousy, violence are a universal condition of mankind.

I am a Christian and I abhor hatred of any kind toward people. My heart breaks when I hear of children being bullied for any reason. But this doesn't change my beliefs that homosexuality is wrong and I will not accept it. Tolerance, acceptance are different and they are being interchanged in many of these remarks. YEs, Jesus taught to love one another as thyself but the bible also teaches that homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle. I didn't write it but I believe it.

re: California School District Approves So-Called Gay Curriculum

Second-Class Citizen — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 23:26:50 GMT

Since many of the opponents of this program are arguing that they should be allowed to pull their children out of the classroom because they don't believe in this, why don't we just take it a step further?

Feel free to take your child out of any of the numerous racial tolerance teachings (including pretty much all of february), any lessons about holidays that aren't what you observe, any science class (these children should not be allowed to learn how things in this world work and function), or anything else your mind disagrees with. God forbid we actually TEACH our generation anything.

I won't be surprised when your children grow up and can't function in our society. I wish that the adults nowadays had been taught such tolerance and acceptance when they were at such a young age (here, sex education is taught beginning in 3rd or 4th grade). You can't blame religion on your own close-mindedness.

[Oh yeah, I'm a Junior in high school by the way. And also one of those lesbian heathans.]

re: California School District Approves So-Called Gay Curriculum

Dunadan — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 22:14:35 GMT

I don't have a definite opinion on the main issue yet, but I feel I should clear some things up in regards to the Christian teaching on homosexuality (taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church):

Note: Before anyone intolerantly tirades against my opinion, claiming it is intolerant, please reread 2358. The gist of the articles is that homosexuals should NOT be discriminated against, but that homosexual acts are still intrinsically wrong. Homosexuals, can, should they choose, live a single life; it is not impossible, no more impossible than for a heterosexual to live singly.

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

re: California School District Approves So-Called Gay Curriculum

Kels — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 21:42:02 GMT

From the comments I read about the book itself, And Tango Makes Three does not make a case against bullying, it concerns acceptance. There are two different arguments here that I believe some of you have mixed up.

"Tolerating my intolerance" is a huge misconception of what people like Lisa are trying to say. As stated - tolerance and acceptance are not the same thing. People can tolerate another's orientation (or choice, depending on outlook), but they do not have to accept it as okay or right. It is an issue of tolerance going BOTH WAYS and not of one side converting the other. If someone begs tolerance but won't accept another opinion, that is hypocrisy - no matter the issue.

re: California School District Approves So-Called Gay Curriculum

Devyn — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 21:33:28 GMT

Yeah, we can't teach children about gay people. That would be crazier than a talking snake and a jealous, douchebag God masquerading as a saint.

Come on guys, grow up.

re: California School District Approves So-Called Gay Curriculum

Prometheus — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 21:02:59 GMT

Well.... Lifestyle choice or not, religion or not. Those are a few of the issues that society en masse has to deal with.

From my point of view...

I grew up in a farming community. We knew what "tits" were before any of the girls had them... the cows had them and we certainly knew what those were for. Sex was easily explained by our parents after we saw the neighbor's dog "trying to climb on" our own. Reproductive anatomy wasn't complicated and wasn't something miraculously mysterious that only is divulged to people at the far-off age of 18.

Bear in mind, this was all BEFORE entering elementary school at the age of 6. These questions DO OCCUR to children of tender years. "What's Bosco doing to Ginger?"... so I got a straight-up answer. No whitewash, no hooey. This is what happens, and that's what happened. No mystery, no problems. No big deal. So that's what it's for besides peeing... ok. When people make it mysterious and secretive that's when youngsters start asking more questions because they do want to be "grown up", and if that's something grownups do, then they've GOT to know about it to act grown up, right?

As far as hetersexuality being a choice... I'm straight, my brother's gay. It's no more a choice for him than the difference between him liking chocolate ice cream and me preferring strawberry. Or my other brother being attracted to women with pert breasts and me being more attracted to a lady's derriere. Different tastes/prefernces are not really choices but are just different tastes or preferences. Their causation doesn't really matter, does it? To me it doesn't.

As far as acceptance/tolerance of homoseuality.... Teach your kids its out there. Explain to them why YOU don't think it's right (if you can... I know a lot of people find it exceptionally difficult to explain or reason why they do/act/prefer what they do) or DO think it's alright, and then let your child make up their mind for themselves what THEY believe/think/prefer... within reason.

A child not wanting to go do the doctor when seriously ill would certainly be detrimental to their health to allow them their way without "pulling rank" as a parent. Them wanting to be friends with Jimmy anyway even though his parents are both men.... that should certainly be allowed to be the child's decision. To actively DISCOURAGE friendship with Jimmy does indeed do an immense disservice to your child by teaching bigotry and hate.

Yes, it's hate. You can cloud it by terms like "intolerance" or "disapproval" but... let's face it... it's just hate/contempt/dislike. Pick your setting and your word but it all boils down to the same emotional concept, regardless of intensity of feeling.

And for those of you that cling to the word of God in matters like this, I try to live by one verse for it makes the most sense to me...

"Judge not lest ye be judged, for by which measure ye mete, so shall ye be meted."

And just to note... as far as I'm aware the KJV doesn't contain the word "marriage" anywhere in the entire book. Love between two people predates the concept of socially codifying for legal purposes the cohabitation and social union of two people. Traditionally it's been a man and woman in codified marriage, but that's only due to social stygma seeping into the written law.

And as for those that cite the biblical concept of "be fruitful and multiply"... I don't know about the population of the globe at even 33 AD, but I'd wager that there's a whole lot more humans on the planet now than then. Do we really need to only have procrative intercourse in these modern times? Somehow the extinction of mankind isn't an overwhemling fear, but the extinction of logical, rational, introspective and comptent thought seems to be far more prevalent. Or at least is from my self-educated perspective.

As far as home-schooling. I am a proponent of home-schooling but mostly because public schools seem to be derelict in promoting independent thought and study and instead promote cookie-cutter concepts that cater more to the lowest common denominator and the least apt among society rather than truly prompting learning and study of whatever strikes a child's fancy. I do not enjoy that the most vocal proponents are individuals that seem to endeavor to quash the individual exploration of everything that's out and about in the world (even socities/groups/lifestyles that are different from one's own) even moreso than the public schools "political correctness" already stymies individual thought and actual truth.

Juse because a child learns about an "alternative lifestyle" or a different way of thinking does not mean that they will inherently adopt it as their own. Secondarily, there should not be "opt out" rubbish if you're in a public school setting, without some physical reason for doing so - as in if your child can't swim, it'd be rather folly to not be able to get a pass for that phy-ed segment. But one should never be allowed to "opt out" of rote learning - at any age.

Imagine how silly it would sound if you chose to tell the teacher "I don't want my child learning the letter Q or any words with that letter in them. We think it's wrong."

That would sound pretty silly, right? Admittedly, homosexuality is far more complex and far less definitive than a simple letter, but... just like the letter Q, it exists.

And just to note to those thatcommented about homosexuality being about sex...it's not. It's about depth of love. I have people I would lay down my life for - and have stood the line. I don't "love" them in the same manner I love my girlfriend. Love is not just intimacy, nor is it just camraderie or social bonding on the "foxhole buddies" level... it's a very diffuse and varied concept, but love for my girlfriend is like how my brother loves his boyfriend. It's not about the sex (if it is Love), it's about the deep feeling of attraction - socially, emotionally, and sexually - that is far different than the bond with most other beings, including members of one's family. So - homosexuality is about far more than sex, though the primary taboo difference IS that sexual activity.

But... to my mind, in a manner similar to how I, and millions of others like me, learned about sex, it is beneficial to answer the question about it succinctly and completely accurately when asked, and allow the opportunity for the child to ask... to my way of thinking that's far better than them experimenting with each other to figure out for themselves the great mystery about "that part of their bodies" at the ripe ol' age of 13 and 14, and then have a third of the middle school girls pregnant by age 16.

But that's just how I see things. Beyond which... this is quibbling about a BOOK. Be grateful if your kids are competent enough to read by 3rd or 4th grade... many children aren't!

re: California School District Approves So-Called Gay Curriculum

Jusrin — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 20:11:33 GMT

We teach children not to be touched in inappropriate places…I suppose that pedophilia is not sexual education, but learning that people of the same gender loving each other is? One could argue that pedophilia is an immediate danger, but so is bullying, and bullying only gets worse over time if unchecked.

Teddie: I agree with you wholeheartedly. Up through high school, I had a medical condition called autism. It wasn’t a major problem, but I got hell for it every day. I suppose that was a lifestyle choice, according to some, because people “aren’t born gay”. Perhaps children shouldn’t learn about autism either. It might give them ideas about science existing, which could get them into a fad called “medicine” that some denominations think should not be used.

Diane: Your God commanded overpopulation, then? He is omniscient, after all. He should’ve seen it coming.

Kenny: I agree that parents should be able to co-opt out of the book, if only because in this free country, you have to take the good with the bad. I do not apologize, however, for living in an “ungodly nation”, which has some of the most militant, conservative Christians out there, or for thinking that minorities, such Gays, Blacks, and “Mexicians” are not evil. I do not apologize for not believing that marriage was created by your deity, who I do not believe in, and that was marriage was originally for “a MAN and a Woman.” Originally, in many cultures, it was between a man and his so-called property, or between a man, a woman, and a variety of harem maids. That’s my opinion, and I disagree with yours. If that is evil, then I am evil, and proud of it.

re: California School District Approves So-Called Gay Curriculum

Teddie — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 19:01:06 GMT

I'm no parent. But I'm the eldest daughter of my mother's two children, and almost out of high school. So, I have watched my little sister grow up in our society today. So after reading everyone's opinion, I can see where everyone is coming from.

But the only person I can find myself agreeing with is Alex.

This isn't a question of accepting homosexuals. It's a quedtion of teaching all of our children that bullying is wrong. You know, reading this story made me happy. Growing up, Iwas bullied horribly for my home life. Terribly. Because I came from a middle class home, because I had no father at the time, because my grandparents were gone when everyone else had grandparents, because I was fat, because I was sensitive, because I had different ideals. Even my teachers frowned upon my home life, because my mother was a free spirit. I came home everyday crying, because nobody could tolerant who I was, or where I came from enough to even treat me like a human.

It got worse in middle school. That was when I met my friend, who was openly bisexual. I accepted her for that. In middle school, there is no such thing as tolerance, and those with tolerance, or acceptance, were prosecuted harshly. I was thrown to locker room floors, dragged around, cussed at, and one time, a girl my own age, 12, tried to stab me with a pencil, just because my friend had her arm around me. I switched over to a private Christian school, thinking things would be different. Nope. They preached Christian values in church. Then the kids in my class would laugh at me, because I read books about Japan, and because I spoke another language. When I stood up for myself, a boy in my class stood up and told me to go kill myself. To go KILL MYSELF. And I was only a child.

Now, in High school, I am surrounded by people who see me, and not the life I come from. I now sit and listen to the kids who are now the age I once was. They throw around racial slurrs, all I hear is "That's so gay!" "That guy is such a fag!" and just hurtful, disgusting things. And I'm hearing it from 4th and 5th graders too! I once shared a class with a boy, who was in 4th grade, who watched Familly Guy.

And you people think a damn book about penguins is bad? Looking back at my childhood, if people had taught not to bully because of your home life, or who you are, I think I would've had a happier childhood. I wouldn't have spent most of it in my room, curled up crying, wondering if I was even a person of society.

So get off your "Oh this is teaching us to accept a lifestyle I don't condone" high horses ladies! Becase it's NOT. This is about bullying period. This isn't about just how lesbians and gays are treated. This is how children are treated PERIOD. So if you want your children to be those little assholes who throw dirt on little girls, and gang up on her, and laugh at her while she cries her eyes out, just because she's different and alone, then by all means, pull your kids out of the program.

But don't preach that it's against your Christian Values when you're not even teaching them what Jesus taught: Love thy neighbor. Cause last I checked, Jesus didn't pick on his friends, even when they were sinners.

re: California School District Approves So-Called Gay Curriculum

James — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 18:21:23 GMT

The problem is that it is a godly nation. with so many people blindly believing in Galactic. Omnipotent. Dictator. Otherwise known as God. They learn its OK to hate what daddy says its OK to hate. Reasoned morality is not on their mind Blind faith in rules is how they feel safe from daddy's spankings.Its ok for people to feel pain as long as its not them.

re: California School District Approves So-Called Gay Curriculum

Diane — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 17:40:41 GMT

It is because of schools like this one, that I am home-schooling my children. I am sorry, but I am not going to have my children made to read stories about a lifestyle choice (and yes it IS a choice. God is NOT the author of confusion, and the Bible is quite clear that man is for woman so that the natural order of being fruitful and multiplying can be fullfilled)

re: California School District Approves So-Called Gay Curriculum

Franklin — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 15:49:41 GMT

I think the only person in here who can hit the nail on the head is Lula. Most of you seem to think that homosexuality is a choose, which it isn't

And what's with the "how dare you not tolerate my intolerance" nonsense?

re: California School District Approves So-Called Gay Curriculum

david — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 13:58:49 GMT

Sorry Morgan My post should have been toward Kenny my appologies totally for the mistake.

re: California School District Approves So-Called Gay Curriculum

david — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 13:57:31 GMT

Morgan youare right that this is a Free Country and that you should be able to say what you want you children to learn. But I do not see you railing against you rchildren being taught that it is wrong to kill, I do not hear you saying that they should not be taught it is ok to rape. These are basic societial rules that we accept and have no problem with. You are right that this is an UNGODLY nation, and we have a long history of intolerance to prove it. The giving of blankets infested with small pox to native people because we did not like who they were or their lifestyle, the internment of the Japanese in camps during the war because of their nationality, the enslavement of the Black people for the white peoples gain.

Further more what is so damnable about anatomically correct dolls. As a child I only learned that I had a medical problem because of the transparancies in the Encycolpedia that later needed surgery to correct. How dare the publishers put those things in there even though they may have saved my life.

I also find it a great leap to go from teaching tolerance with the use of books(although the age may be a bit young)

to connecting that with abortion. A bit of a stretch there, I my self do nt LIke children but do not think abortion is an appropriate method of birth control, though I also think there are times when it is needed.

As for your strong hold to the words of god, I hope you yourself have never eaten shrimp, clams or crabs. Because if I remember correctly in the Bible it is against the laws of god to do so. Better make sure you are free of all sins before you point your finger like the great reverend Phelps and his shining example of Christian tolerance the web page wher ehe was counting down the days Matthew Shepard has burned in hell.

Do we need to teach our children and adults tolerance HELL yes we do, do we need to do it at such a young age yes. JUst like we teach them that it is inappropriate for an adult to touch them inthe places the afore mentioned Doll should not have.

re: California School District Approves So-Called Gay Curriculum

Dan — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 13:31:52 GMT

Dear furious,

You are a complete moron. your logic presents that everyone who is a virgin is sexually ambiguous. You dumbass. So if the difference between a person being gay or not is sex than the same should hold true for heterosexual people. So no matter how much you date someone from the opposite sex, until you have intercourse you are not straight? Great logic Einstein!

re: California School District Approves So-Called Gay Curriculum

Alex — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:54:44 GMT

Oh, no. Let's protect the kids from gay penguins, totally. This is the stupidest argument I've ever heard. Preventing bullying of ANY kind should be a priority for all schools. It's not a question of pro-gay or anti-gay; it's a question of being FOR kids getting beat up and verbally abused every day of their lives, or being against it.