Are you Californians okay with "gender diversity" being taught? (Oakland: school districts, income)

[TimC2462]

Originally Posted by Malloric

Creationism was taught in my freshman science class. I didn't really have a problem with it. There wasn't a whole lot of emphasis on it, but it was part of the standard curriculum.

Darwinism/Evolution was taught in my sophomore biology class and I didn't have a problem with it either. I drew the distinction between evolution and creationism through attending Sunday School during my childhood.

The lesson that I've learned over the years is not to disregard the either -- just that they may be two big missing pieces of puzzles of the larger picture.

[TimC2462]

Originally Posted by RabbitMage

Good news! This course has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

If you are referring to the course being offered in the Oakland school, then may I suggest reading article again.

The problem is that the students will be told that there will be more than two genders while citing animals and people as examples. And the controversy has a lot to do with grey areas and uncertainties about what will be covered without the parents being present.

[yeahthatguy]

Originally Posted by RabbitMage

Good news! This course has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Good News, kids have an amazing ability to put two and two together and have creative minds... During those impressionable stages in which they are trying to form their identity they recall interesting things about a gecko/etc .. and go kissing boys to see how it feels.. oh .. feels just like when you kiss a girl ...
and well, things progress in interesting ways.

All it takes is a seed to be planted during early stages of child development... You'd be surprised at just how little a seed needs to be planted in for a child's psychology to be permanently changed.

[yeahthatguy]

Originally Posted by TimC2462

If you are referring to the course being offered in the Oakland school, then may I suggest reading article again.

The problem is that the student will be told that there will be more than two genders while using animals and people to cite as examples. And the controversy has a lot to do with grey areas and uncertainty about what will be covered without the parents' presence.

Indeed . Just mentioning such a scenario around a little kid you'd be surprised at the kinds of questions that come out of their mouths. I doubt people will want some clown in a public school who feels restricted to answer them vs. being able to guide their kid at home and allow them to address any potential thing that comes up as a result. This whole idea of teaching gender diversity is reckless in the form it takes. Kids are very impressionable and confused as it is during these stages of their childhood.. then someone comes along and plants the seeds that make them even more confused -_-) *sigh .. and the liberals think this is a great idea because they feel it will lead to more people supporting their adult lifestyle choices. How selfish and reckless.

[yeahthatguy]

Originally Posted by RabbitMage

I, um...I don't think you understand what a 'gene' is.

I don't think you understand what a metaphor is ... So, if you can, please define how two males or two female human beings can naturally procreate amongst themselves.

[yeahthatguy]

Originally Posted by Pennsylvanian1

Because the behavior of homosexuality has been evident for a long period of time, is neither a reason to accomodate homosexuals, nor is it acceptable justification to consider the behavior normal. Some of us realize that the obvious trend with homosexual activists has been, that once a foothold is gained in a particular area of society, there are always plans to gain more ground.

Kevin Jennings, a ridiculously poor choice by the Obama administration, under the guise of school safety, has labored feverishly to advance his personal agenda within a short period of time. The fact that he will be leaving that office will likely have little affect on the policies already in place to ensure that schools are pressured into incorporating objectionable material into the public school systems across the country. Even Pediatricians are now being instructed to be prepared for signs of homosexuality.

Homosexuals seem to have conveniently forgotten the fact that homosexuality is still a very controversial issue, and though silver tounged activists and constituent pleasing politicians, are forcing the homosexual's way of life upon American citizens, causing America's moral compass to spin even further out of control, it cannot, and has not, blinded the eyes of most American citizens who are being forced to watch with horror as lady liberty is sacrificed on the alter of homosexual indulgence.

+1 rep point

[TristramShandy]

Originally Posted by Don9

Let me guess ... you don't have children (offspring)

What makes me laugh is you it sound like only liberals and or gays go to college

Nope, I'm one of the parents in the article I posted - - college educated, married, and a father.

Of course liberals and gays aren't the only ones going to college . . . which is the point. If teaching about sexual diversity was undermining tradional morals as some say, why are college graduates - - the ones with the most education - - marrying more?

But if you want to take it towards the political, why are citizens of red states more likely to divorce and have children out of wedlock? Maybe some more public schooling would help them? Or at least they could just go to on-line porn to avoid these social calamities - - like oh-so-conservative Utahns do.

[yeahthatguy]

Originally Posted by TristramShandy

Nope, I'm one of the parents in the article I posted - - college educated, married, and a father.

Of course liberals and gays aren't the only ones going to college . . . which is the point. If teaching about sexual diversity was undermining tradional morals as some say, why are college graduates - - the ones with the most education - - marrying more?

But if you want to take it towards the political, why are citizens of red states more likely to divorce and have children out of wedlock? Maybe some more public schooling would help them? Or at least they could just go to on-line porn to avoid these social calamities - - like oh-so-conservative Utahns do.

*sigh .. I don't understand this branch of discussion on the thread.
At a certain age, you have formed your identity and are less vulnerable to any form of persuasion as to who you are... So, why is teaching about sexual diversity not an issue towards the end of highschool or into college not a problem? Simple, kids are no longer in their impressionable stages .. confused as to what their identity is and you basically aren't going to impact them much at that point by teaching them.. surprise.. those two boys you saw kissing each other in the hallway .. yeah, people do that ... This subject has no business being taught at the age levels they are targeting it and really have no business being taught as a mandatory course in any K-12 educational system. If people want to take such a course, it can be authorized by the parents of that minor (if that individual is not 18) .. and they can pay for it to be done by a private institution .. What people seem to forget is that tax payers pay for public schooling.. and since you draw from that source of income, you have no business teaching such a controversial subject paid for by the majority of people who don't agree it should be taught... Especially when it has no academic value.

[TimC2462]

As someone who is moderate, I have to say that some liberals have got to be the most hypocritical people I've ever come across.

It's OK with a liberal if a school pushes certain agendas -- as long as it fits their views. When it doesn't, for instance religion and creationism, they cry foul.

Schools should only be involved in teaching materials that actually advances a student's education without all the partisan and social issue nonsense.

If one wants to teach gender diversity/homosexuality/religion/whatever -- then parents are free to do so with their kids during after school hours.

[TristramShandy]

Originally Posted by Pennsylvanian1

Homosexuals seem to have conveniently forgotten the fact that homosexuality is still a very controversial issue, and though silver tounged activists and constituent pleasing politicians, are forcing the homosexual's way of life upon American citizens, causing America's moral compass to spin even further out of control, it cannot, and has not, blinded the eyes of most American citizens who are now being forced to watch with horror as lady liberty is sacrificed on the alter of homosexual indulgence.

Just like people in 1967, when those carpetbaggers conveniently forgot the fact that miscegenation was a very controversial issue, and through silver-tongued activists and constituent-pleasing politicians, forced good American people to accept deviants of two races to be allowed to be married if they loved one another. The indulgence of those with jungle fever!

And the homophobes of today will seem as anachronistic as those racists did back then.