Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are only two types of parents: mothers and fathers. Their relationships can be in any combination, and in this case, talk about those relationships led to their daughter asking about her father's sexual orientation.
Why you refuse to acknowledge that, I don't know. Talking about definitions of "mommy" and "daddy" alone wouldn't lead to talks about sexual preferences. Talking about relationships would. Relationships. Types of love. Same thing.
So it's back to my question...
Is 4 too young to learn about hetero and homosexual relationships? If no, please show me the academic studies showing 4 year olds are capable of understanding that. If yes, you agree with me, and we can move on.
Let's see the studies.
4 is too young to learn about parents? Seriously?
They are not teaching about sexual relationships to 4 year olds. Children do not jump from mommy and daddy to sex or sexual preference.
I guess you have no plans on backing up your claims from pages ago regarding parents starting the gender reassignment process on 3-5 year olds.
I understand that you can't back up your own claims. It's ok.
The OP's article reminds me of the woman whose child came home with more questions then answers. An ex-prostitute had visited her class. Filled the little kids in on the facts of her life. How she had sex with men on the street, how she got into drugs and got wasted.
And this is education? Facts of life folks. Why you are at it why not tell the kids about divorce or how uncle Clyde can be an alcoholic and beat up his wife and kids on occasion.
Actually, the info in divorce could be more needed with all the divorces now. I bet the kids have more friends whose parents are divorced than same sex.
The OP's article reminds me of the woman whose child came home with more questions then answers. An ex-prostitute had visited her class. Filled the little kids in on the facts of her life. How she had sex with men on the street, how she got into drugs and got wasted.
And this is education? Facts of life folks. Why you are at it why not tell the kids about divorce or how uncle Clyde can be an alcoholic and beat up his wife and kids on occasion.
Actually, the info in divorce could be more needed with all the divorces now. I bet the kids have more friends whose parents are divorced than same sex.
4 is too young to learn about parents? Seriously?
They are not teaching about sexual relationships to 4 year olds. Children do not jump from mommy and daddy to sex or sexual preference.
I guess you have no plans on backing up your claims from pages ago regarding parents starting the gender reassignment process on 3-5 year olds.
I understand that you can't back up your own claims. It's ok.
You keep quoting me and then responding to something I never said.
4 isn't too young to learn the definition "mommy" or "daddy". 4 is too young to learn about homosexual vs heterosexual relationships. There's a difference. I've cited academic evidence, you have not. Sorry I'm not letting you change the subject, that must be uncomfortable for you.
If you could show me your evidence for the first topic as a sign of good faith, we could start a new discussion on the second. Thus far you haven't given me any indication that you can support your assertions.
It was in the article, and the precursor to Sinclair questioning the curriculum.
From the article:
"One day, Sinclair said her daughter came home worried that her dad might no longer like girls."
There are lots of ways that statement could be interpreted. It is highly unlikely that a pre-K child was questioning her father's sexual orientation or even understand enough about sexual orientation to question it.
"One day, Sinclair said her daughter came home worried that her dad might no longer like girls."
There are lots of ways that statement could be interpreted. It is highly unlikely that a pre-K child was questioning her father's sexual orientation or even understand enough about sexual orientation to question it.
Context is crucial for understanding that quote. Do you think the authors of that article were being intentionally disingenuous by talking about same sex parenting, then using a phrase like that with a different meaning?
You keep quoting me and then responding to something I never said.
4 isn't too young to learn the definition "mommy" or "daddy". 4 is too young to learn about homosexual vs heterosexual relationships. There's a difference. I've cited academic evidence, you have not. Sorry I'm not letting you change the subject, that must be uncomfortable for you.
If you could show me your evidence for the first topic as a sign of good faith, we could start a new discussion on the second. Thus far you haven't given me any indication that you can support your assertions.
They are not teaching about adult relationships, they are teaching about parent child relationships.
They are not teaching heterosexual nor homosexual relationships, they are teaching parent child relationships.
They teach that blue is a color, but they do not teach that blue is the only color they teach that red, green, and yellow are also colors.
They teach that 1 is a number but there are other numbers too.
Just like they teach that some parents are mom and dad, but there are other types of parents too. That does not require teaching about heterosexual nor homosexual relationships.
It's basic common sense. Teaching that Bobby has two dads does not require teaching anything about the adult relationship between the parents. Just like teaching numbers does not mean that they are teaching algebra.
I'm done with this topic with you since you can not manage to discuss the claims that you made pages ago.
They are not teaching about adult relationships, they are teaching about parent child relationships.
They are not teaching heterosexual nor homosexual relationships, they are teaching parent child relationships.
They teach that blue is a color, but they do not teach that blue is the only color they teach that red, green, and yellow are also colors.
They teach that 1 is a number but there are other numbers too.
Just like they teach that some parents are mom and dad, but there are other types of parents too. That does not require teaching about heterosexual nor homosexual relationships.
It's basic common sense. Teaching that Bobby has two dads does not require teaching anything about the adult relationship between the parents. Just like teaching numbers does not mean that they are teaching algebra.
I'm done with this topic with you since you can not manage to discuss the claims that you made pages ago.
Have a good weekend.
Colors and numbers aren't complex controversial topics. That's common sense. Good try though.
I hope you find some evidence this weekend, or you get a chance to review mine.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
