Gov/public school: social engineering?

[applesanity]

Some of the major things in my public school education that have stuck on me as examples of indoctrination (by the school itself, the local/state regulations, or by the teacher - or any combination) were:

• Corporations are destrying the environment and exploiting poor people
• White men have been oppressing the world since forever
• Black people are victims and white people need to accommodate accordingly.
• White men fought the Civil war to free black people
• Thomas Jefferson owned a slave named Dirty Sally. She was 'Dirty' because....
• The Soviets were misunderstood.
• Drugs are bad, mm'kay?

(note the incongruity between the 2nd and 4th examples.)

By the implications of half the posts in this thread, I should be a bleeding-heart pinko commie flag-burning (drug-free) hippie treehugger, with a giant OBAMA = CHANGE bumper sticker next to the Howard Dean sticker on my Prius.

But I'm not. The point is, if young American children are stupid enough to believe in the above crap, then so be it.

 

[Unregistered]

No matter how many times you say there is no gay agenda you will never convince me. Of course there is a gay agenda, just like there is a pro-gun agenda, or a black agenda, or a women's rights agenda. Any group that organizes and attempts to influence other people has an agenda.

To say otherwise is silly. If there was no agenda, then there would not be gay groups trying to influence Congress and the rest of the country.

 

[Redworm]

To say there's a gay agenda implies that all gays have the same ideals, goals and opinions on these matters. Just like not all pro-gun people have the same agenda, not all blacks have the same agenda and not all women have the same agenda the same holds true for gays.

This book wasn't written and put on the shelves by some secret cabal of gay ninjas. Doesn't really matter whether or not I convince you because your opinion doesn't change the fact that not all gays think alike and thus there can be no one, all encompassing "gay agenda".

Regardless of whether or not you believe in "the gay agenda", to deny children the truth that this book brings is dishonest. There are certain things that the states should not allow and if they do then the federal government should step in. It may not be the most appealing solution but it's a hell of a lot better than a state encouraging discrimination and intolerance.

 

[Unregistered]

That argument is senseless, unless you also claim that no groups have agendas.

 

[Redworm]

Individual groups have agendas but that doesn't mean that all gays have the same agenda or that all blacks have the same agenda. GLAAD may have its own agenda but not all gays agree with it. The NAACP may have its own agenda but it's ridiculous to claim that all blacks agree with it.

And going back to the original point, agenda or no this is justified. Just like the federal government has been justified numerous times when it came to children's educational rights above the supposed rights of the people to discriminate.

 

[zukiphile]

To say there's a gay agenda implies that all gays have the same ideals, goals and opinions on these matters.

I don't believe that is what anyone else thought the term meant.

That homosexuality is a natural occurrence. It's teaching kids to be tolerant of people different from them, to avoid the prejudice that is often instilled into them by parents and other sources.

That is a metaphysical issue, not a scientific one. Making decisions about the ethics, morals and philosophy into which children are to be introduced is not a matter on which a parent should reliquish control to government.

That's not even considering the fact that the opposing view is one of intolerance akin to racism.

Let's not even consider that, since it is mistaken. Choosing to engage in a quasi-sexual behaviour is not analogous to being born with black skin.


Lots of things may be "natural" to one degree or another. Sadism, cannibalism, or poor table manners may all be observed outside a child's noraml environment. This does not mean that we need to coarsen a child's senses or teach him that these things are normal.

 

[Musketeer]

Same population of children (disadvantage, inner city family, mostly single parent) can be taught to learn at much more cost effective basis (at fraction of public school cost) if vouchers are used here like it's done in Europe.

The reason children who have vouchers available and take advantage of them is because they and their parents are motivated to focus on education, not because of the existence of vouchers.

The problem is not public vs. private, vouchers or none, but in focus on the value of education. Those elements in our society doing poorly are also the same elements which put the lowest focus on the value of an education. Giving someone who doesn't care anything about education to begin with a voucher to buy education with is meaningless.

 

[Musketeer]

Making decisions about the ethics, morals and philosophy into which children are to be introduced is not a matter on which a parent should reliquish control to government.

Ethics, morals and philosophy are subjects that were long debated well before the current religions which are in style existed. I would argue it most certainly is the business of the gov't to try to instill the basic morals and ethics on which this nation was founded. Concepts such as freedom and everything it entails. Sorry but if we leave such teachings completely up to the parents all you wind up with is 47 generations of clan members.

 

[Redworm]

That is a metaphysical issue, not a scientific one. Making decisions about the ethics, morals and philosophy into which children are to be introduced is not a matter on which a parent should reliquish control to government.

It's not about morals and ethics any more than suggesting people with blonde hair are immoral or dwarves are immoral.

Let's not even consider that, since it is mistaken. Choosing to engage in a quasi-sexual behaviour is not analogous to being born with black skin.

It's not mistaken because homosexuality is not a choice. It never has been and it never will be.

Lots of things may be "natural" to one degree or another. Sadism, cannibalism, or poor table manners may all be observed outside a child's noraml environment. This does not mean that we need to coarsen a child's senses or teach him that these things are normal.

None of those are biological. Homosexuality is.


The understanding that such things are biological differences in people - as is height, skin color, eye color, facial structure, bone density and a variety of other things - is not something that should be totally up to the parents because many of those parents are intolerant against people that aren't like them and will pass those "values" onto their children, fostering an environment of bigotry that America does not need.

 

[BoringAccountant]

It's not mistaken because homosexuality is not a choice. It never has been and it never will be.

None of those are biological. Homosexuality is.

I assume you have proof to back this up...scientific evidence tracing it to specific genes, studies showing gay offspring born from gay parents, something more concrete than a statement?

 

[BoringAccountant]

The understanding that such things are biological differences in people - as is height, skin color, eye color, facial structure, bone density and a variety of other things - is not something that should be totally up to the parents because many of those parents are intolerant against people that aren't like them and will pass those "values" onto their children, fostering an environment of bigotry that America does not need.

So we now are supposed to trust the state and federal governments to do it for them?

 

[Redworm]

I assume you have proof to back this up...scientific evidence tracing it to specific genes, studies showing gay offspring born from gay parents, something more concrete than a statement?

There is plenty. How technical do you want it to be?

Now you should understand that a genetic cause for something does not mean that gay offspring has to come from gay parents. Just because something is genetic does not mean it has to be hereditary.

Nor does it mean that it has to be pinpointed to a specific gene. While some have tried to find that one "gay gene" it's as farcical as demanding proof of a "black gene". There are numerous biological factors at play ranging from the genes themselves to prenatal development.

 

[Redworm]

So we now are supposed to trust the state and federal governments to do it for them?

Considering that the people responsible for making these decisions - the researchers, analysts, scientists, doctors, educators and other intellectuals - are far better qualified at making such determinations, yes.

The problem is if we leave the decisions solely up to the politicians and take the knowledgeable people out of the equation, which is what this thread is all about. Instead of letting people who actually understand the human body, the human mind, the sociological and anthropological factors at work - the people that have spent their entire professional lives studying childhood development - have the greatest input, parents who have no idea what they're talking about run to their local politicians who also have no idea what they're talking about to change things to fit...what, the "anti-gay agenda"?

 

[JaserST4]

There is plenty. How technical do you want it to be?

Now you should understand that a genetic cause for something does not mean that gay offspring has to come from gay parents. Just because something is genetic does not mean it has to be hereditary.

Nor does it mean that it has to be pinpointed to a specific gene. While some have tried to find that one "gay gene" it's as farcical as demanding proof of a "black gene". There are numerous biological factors at play ranging from the genes themselves to prenatal development.

Absolute nonsense. Spare us the scientific posturing. Scientists are hardly in total agreement on anything let alone something as complex as human sexuality. I don't care what adults do with adults but let's not try to brainwash people. There's examples of ex-gays and identical twins with one gay, one not. You are right in that there's many factors involved, too many for genetics alone to dictate. But the point in the thread is that if parents don't want youngsters indoctrinated before they even understand heterosexual relationships, they have that right. It's discriminatory only to those who share
your minority view. Since when is a free society obligated to be ruled by a minority?

 

[zukiphile]

Red, this is clearly a matter about which you have some passion and interest. That may have pressed you into some implausible assertions.

Quote:
That is a metaphysical issue, not a scientific one. Making decisions about the ethics, morals and philosophy into which children are to be introduced is not a matter on which a parent should reliquish control to government.

It's not about morals and ethics any more than suggesting people with blonde hair are immoral or dwarves are immoral.

Except that people are born with blonde hair, but not engaging in quasi-sexual behaviour with people of the same sex, so the two are clearly distinguishable. That ethics and morals are not implicated in sexual conduct is somehting I doubt you believe.

Quote:
Let's not even consider that, since it is mistaken. Choosing to engage in a quasi-sexual behaviour is not analogous to being born with black skin.

It's not mistaken because homosexuality is not a choice. It never has been and it never will be.

That is an assertion that is not even accepted amongst homosexuals. Homosexuality resulting from prison rape is a well documented phenomenon.

In any event, in a person a conscious act involves a choice. People who engage in seudo-sexual contact with ppeopleof their own sex make a choice. This is the choice that a parent might object to a school portraying as acceptable.

Quote:
Lots of things may be "natural" to one degree or another. Sadism, cannibalism, or poor table manners may all be observed outside a child's noraml environment. This does not mean that we need to coarsen a child's senses or teach him that these things are normal.
None of those are biological. Homosexuality is.


The understanding that such things are biological differences in people - as is height, skin color, eye color, facial structure, bone density and a variety of other things - is not something that should be totally up to the parents because many of those parents are intolerant against people that aren't like them and will pass those "values" onto their children, fostering an environment of bigotry that America does not need.

Deciding what ideas "America does not need" and labelling contrary opinion as intolerant and bigotry lacks the open-minded sort of acceptance you demand of parents and students. You may have aptly illustrated the "gay agenda" you denied existed.

 

[Redworm]

Except that people are born with blonde hair, but not engaging in quasi-sexual behaviour with people of the same sex, so the two are clearly distinguishable. That ethics and morals are not implicated in sexual conduct is somehting I doubt you believe.

Yes, they are. People do not choose to be gay. People do not choose to be straight. People do not choose to be bisexual. They are born with it. Gender and sexual preference are not choices.

 

[Musketeer]

There's examples of ex-gays and identical twins with one gay, one not. You are right in that there's many factors involved, too many for genetics alone to dictate.

and there are twins where one gets cancer and the other doesn't.

Just because the answer is complex does not mean it is simply a matter of gays choosing to be so. Having family and friends who are I have yet to find any who believe they chose to be gay. There are plenty of people "converted" into a straight lifestyle though through religious guilt and hate. That doesn't mean they are straight, just that they have been beaten into submission to deny their inner desires.

Certainly there are some who may choose such a life or experiment with it but all of the lifetime gay people I have met are pretty much in agreement on the matter that they were born that way. How many have you spoken with?

Teaching children not to persecute others because their families are different is in no way a BAD thing. There is a big difference between showing that gays can be a part of a loving nurturing family (what the school was trying to do) and saying "Let's all be gay!" Given that we have kids in school who are from gay families when do you parents plan on addressing the situation or are you simply going to remain mute on the issue. Roll this back 40 years and replace Gay with Black. Many white children never associated with any blacks. Were schools wrong to teach tolerance there?

 

[zukiphile]

Quote:
Except that people are born with blonde hair, but not engaging in quasi-sexual behaviour with people of the same sex, so the two are clearly distinguishable. That ethics and morals are not implicated in sexual conduct is somehting I doubt you believe.

Yes, they are. People do not choose to be gay. People do not choose to be straight. People do not choose to be bisexual. They are born with it. Gender and sexual preference are not choices.

Did you really mean that people are born engaging in quasi-sexual behaviour with people of the same sex?

 

[Redworm]

Did you really mean that people are born engaging in quasi-sexual behaviour with people of the same sex?

People are born with the desire to do so just like other people are born with the desire to engage in the same behavior with people of the opposite sex.

Heterosexuals do not choose to be straight.

 

[zukiphile]

Quote:
Did you really mean that people are born engaging in quasi-sexual behaviour with people of the same sex?

People are born with the desire...

That is clearly not what was asked.

Quote:
Except that people are born with blonde hair, but not engaging in quasi-sexual behaviour with people of the same sex, so the two are clearly distinguishable. That ethics and morals are not implicated in sexual conduct is somehting I doubt you believe.

Yes, they are. People do not choose to be gay. People do not choose to be straight. People do not choose to be bisexual. They are born with it. Gender and sexual preference are not choices.

If you have to evade a clear question in order to maintain your position, the position merits re-evaluation.


So, when a male whose sole desires and conduct are exclusively heterosexual goes to prison and is brutally gang raped, thereafter exhibiting desires and conduct that are homosexual, was he a born homosexual?