3yr-olds to be taught about gay relationships

Started by selkie, Jul 22, 2006, 11:06 PM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

CaptDMO

Quote
Children as young as three should be taught about same-sex relationships in a bid to stamp out homophobia in schools, it was claimed yesterday

Yeppers, because, you see, homosexuals that are not content to live their lives as a private matter must garner political traction to impose their
crap on as many folks as possible.
Apparently, as homosexuals (for whatever reason) cannot seem to impress
the majority of the population of the age of reason, and they cannot procreate without artificial means (adoption, insemination, hetrosex) marriage must be "allowed" as the next step toward justified adoption.

But to think that public acceptance of of a young  impressionable captive audience, vulnerable to indoctorination,  will get the same free pass as the
imaginary homosexul "rights" issue is inane. I think this has been shown time and time again with the response to homosexual pedophile preditors luring
children into a NAMBLA "lifestyle".

But here comes the teachers union.
Well, the nicest I can be at this time with THAT is-"and their allies".
I certainly do not speak for all teachers, yet I am of the ilk that maintains those that desire the forbidden fruits tend to gravitate to the orchard.

BRIAN

Why is it called homophobia? I find homosexuality distastefull, I don't personally lean that way and I don't like to have it shoved down my throat but I don't fear it. And as others have pointed out it is an issue of indoctrination that goes hand and hand with the agenda the FEMS have had in destroying the family and the roles of men as fathers. I personally don't like the sexualization that has been forced on younger children. Let them be children for a while before we force them to grow up.
You may sleep soundly at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence upon those who seek to harm you.

jaketk

Quote
Children as young as three should be taught about same-sex relationships in a bid to stamp out homophobia in schools, it was claimed yesterday


My brother is gay and the most my six-year-old godson understands is that my brother "likes boys." Three-year-olds barely understand the difference between a boy and a girl, so what exactly do they plan on teaching them? I can understand gay parents not wanting their children targeted for bigotry from the faculty, but I do not know 3-year-olds were prone to "homophobia."

rph3664

Are you sure this story isn't from The Onion or some other parody or satire site?  When I saw the acronym "NUT", that tipped me off.

An aside:  A few years ago, The Onion had a story about 8- and 9-year-olds who had renounced Christianity and embraced satanism because of Harry Potter.  One youngster had even killed the family dog as a sacrifice.

Okay, it gets better.  Shortly afterwards, someone wrote an anti-Harry letter to my local newspaper AND QUOTED FROM THAT ARTICLE! :shock:  The editor either didn't know or didn't care that The Onion is 100% satire.

And a while back, The Onion had a story about chewable birth control pills, for sexually active pre-teens.  A lot of people believed that story as well.  As a pharmacist, I know it isn't true.

Johnny

the National Union of Teachers.......lmao
Openly Straight.

typhonblue

I have to shake my head over this one.

It causes me agony how mislead homosexuals have been by the feminist agenda.

They are insisting on tolerance and acceptance when these things are something that are *earned*, not a right. And the more you insist on them, the less you get.

Homophobia cannot be combated this way. It isn't as simple as racism; kids just need to be exposed to people who are different. It's an expression of very complex internal preassures... that's obvious when you realize that much homophobic violence occures *after* the homophobe has engaged in consensual sexual activity with another man.

And homosexuals pushing, and pushing and pushing this issue will only make it worse.

Just once I wish they'd stop pushing and turn around to see the smug grins of the feminists supporting them.

strangedisk

Quote from: "ghost"
Does that mean you agree that 3 year olds should be taught about gays and lesbians and two mom families?


Nope, it means that the sole purpose of the article is to left-bash, regardless of whatever sense or non-sense the approach makes.  And has nothing at all to do with men's issues.  

That's what I mean.  And I couldn't have possibly made it any clearer.

strangedisk

Quote from: "TheManOnTheStreet"
Also, Strangedisk, what is your problem?


Glad you asked.  My problem is that many, many of the threads on this board are here to parade whatever the most extreme ideas of the left -- for the sole purpose of bashing the left.  Originally, it irked me, but now I think it's more -- it interferes with the purpose of this board (as I see it).  Noise to signal ratio and all that.

Quote
As men, and fathers we SHOULD be concerned about our children being brainwashed as early as 3 fucking years old.  Left, right, who cares?  It's a parent issue!  Amazingly, MEN are parents too!


And for that matter, we make up half the human population, so every single issue that effects humans (every single issue that is discussed in any news source, in other words) effects men.  But isn't necessiarly a men's rights issue, or even a men's issue.  For example, say a father is concerned about his child's education including teaching about the existance of homosexuality.  How is that different than a mother being concerned?  What makes it a father's issue, in particular?

strangedisk

Quote from: "CaptDMO"
Quote from: "strangedisk"
Hey look!  Another left-bashing, hate-by-any-possible-justification-at-all thread with no bearing whatsoever on men's rights (except in the sense of being anti-male, if the male happens to be gay)!  Wow, who would have thunk it!

Hey look, another impotent attempt at shaming  without measured address to the subject matter at hand.

Is there something you have to offer, pro or con, to the subject of homosexual overview of K-12  indoctrination to the GLBT(and their allies)
agenda, by folks that seem to have no credentials or qualification other than
they are queer?

Or will a traditional ad hominem of "big poopy head" response prevail yet again? If so, you may consider "alas".

EDIT to add: Damn, should have read the rest of the thread before I obligated myself to immediately stamp on silliness when I see it. Sorry I flailed the dead horse.


It's a complaint about the board itself, so in short, no I have nothing at all to add to the subject of K-12 education (or indoctrination) about homosexuality in schools.

I do have something to offer on the subject of topics in general, and that is, "boy, I wish there was less left-bashing and more actual discussion of real men's rights and father's rights issues on Stand Your Ground."

"ad hominem's" require that I attack a person, which I haven't.

TheManOnTheStreet

"For example, say a father is concerned about his child's education including teaching about the existance of homosexuality. How is that different than a mother being concerned? What makes it a father's issue, in particular?"

First off, don't twist my words.  There is a big difference between "teaching the existance" and teaching that it is normal or indoctrination style "exploration of one's sexuality".  A big fucking difference.

Secondly, I believe it is a fathers issue because fathers usually don't have a say in what goes on in their childs school.  If said school says that little Johhny needs Ritelin, mommy does it.  Without consulting dad.  It happens all the time.  That is what makes it a fathers issue.

When our children were younger, the teachers would send home permission slips to watch a particular movie.  For example; Lets say, for exteme purposes, the Vagina Monologues.  Mommy dearest will sign, for the most part.  Does daddy have a say in whether or not he wants his son seeing such garbage?  No.  Again, fathers issue.

TMOTS
The Man On The Street is on the street for a reason.......
_________________________________
It's not illegal to be male.....yet.

BRIAN

Quote from: "TheManOnTheStreet"
First off, don't twist my words.  There is a big difference between "teaching the existance" and teaching that it is normal or indoctrination style "exploration of one's sexuality".  A big fucking difference.

TMOTS


To add to that I want to say this: When my Daughter was three we did not teach her about anthing sexual because she was a child and it wasn't right to FORCE sexuality on her at such a young age. My Son turned three yesterday and we are not teaching him anything about sexuality for the same reason. Any attempt to FORCE sexuality on a person this young is not education it is indoctrination. As a father I have a vested interest in protecting my children from indoctrination and letting them stay children for as long as normal developement takes. I have a RIGHT as a father to keep them from being indoctinated.

Strangedisk,

Nobody is bashing the left here. We are criticising the worst most absurd and egregious things the FEMS are doing. It just so happens that the political left is by and large a willing accomplice to 99% of the FEMS agenda. Perhaps if you don't like that you should re-evaluate your political philosophy and party affiliation.
You may sleep soundly at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence upon those who seek to harm you.

jaketk

Quote from: "strangedisk"
And for that matter, we make up half the human population, so every single issue that effects humans (every single issue that is discussed in any news source, in other words) effects men.  But isn't necessiarly a men's rights issue, or even a men's issue.  For example, say a father is concerned about his child's education including teaching about the existance of homosexuality.  How is that different than a mother being concerned?  What makes it a father's issue, in particular?


Two things.

One, I think you mistakingly think every issue brought up on this board must have a men's issue angle. While this is a men's issue forum, it is not exclusive to only those issues.

Two, many of the men here, like BRIAN, are fathers, so that is one reason why they are concerned. The other is because of the tactics used by gay organizations, as TB mentioned, that are strikingly similar to the tactics commonly used by feminists.

Denis

The gay agenda is really a stealth feminist and anti-heterosexual male agenda. They have power because major news organizations such as the New York Times and Boston Globe are aggressively pushing their agenda.
Gay marriage was forced upon the citizens of Massachusetts against their will. 80% of MA residents support marriage as one man + one woman only. It is the lesbians who are pushing it and not gay men. It is another battle front by feminists against heterosexual men.

One of the consequences of same-sex marriage in MA has been a VERY AGGRESSIVE push to indoctrinate students at a very young age about homosexuality.

Go to:

http://www.article8.org/docs/news_events/glsen_043005/conference.htm

and

also:

http://www.article8.org/docs/news_events/glsen_043005/black_book/black_book_inside.htm

A conference put on by the GLSEN (Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network) was held at a public highschool with both students and teachers attending (some students were as young as 14 y/o) discussing and promoting homosexual issues. A taxpayer funded "Little Black Book", a "how to" book was handed out to all students.

Funding for the conference was provided by:

Staples
Harvard Pilgrim Health Care
Bank of America
Sun Microsystems
Jordan's Furniture
The Boston Teachers Union (full-page ad in conference program

The Little Black book was funded by taxpayers and contributions from:

American Cancer Society
American Diabetes Association
Ben and Jerry's
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mass.
Boston Public Health Commission
Citizens Bank Foundation
Eaton Vance Managed Investments
Enterprise Rent-A-Car
Harvard Medical School
Harvard Pilgrim Health Care
Ira Motor Group
Jesuit Urban Center
Liberty Travel
Mayor & Mrs. Thomas Menino
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Partners HealthCare
Pioneer Investments
Regis College
Shreve, Crump & Low
Tufts Health Plan
Tufts Univ. School of Dental Medicine
Tufts Univ. School of Medicine
United Liquors
United Way (ANOTHER reason not to donate to them!)
WCVB TV - Channel 5
WFNX
Whole Foods Market

Topics covered in this book include:

"Fuckin"

"Suckin"

"Spit or swallow'

"Rimming (licin' butt)"

"Watersports (piss play)"

"Fisting"

"Toys"

"Mutual Jerk Off"

I'm NOT making this stuff up.

This book also lists adult gay clubs that the vast majority of these students would be legally too young to even get into.

A father by the name of David Parker in Lexington Massachusetts objected to homosexual issues being part of his 6 y/o boys schooling. He emailed, called, and wrote the superintendant of the school (a woman) requesting that he be notified when this topic was to be covered. Parker wanted to take his son out of school that day. When they declined to do this and when he came to take his son out on the day this topic was covered Parker was arrested and thrown in jail. A restraining order was placed on him. He could not even pick up his son at school after this.

There are many other instances of lesbian teachers discussing lesbian sexual activities, use of "toys" etc. to minors. The superintendents always make the claim that this is a legitimate topic (and outside parental authority) since the state has gay marriage now.

Over 170,000 residents of MA signed a petition that would start the process for amending the state constitution to require marriage be defined as one man + one woman. The legislature is doing gymnastics to not address this (which they are required to by law).

The woman who forced gay marriage on MA is the Supreme Court Justice Margaret Marshall. Prior to her ruling she spoke at the MA Gay Bar Association and predicted that MA would have gay marriage.

Elites are forcing this on America and are circumventing the democratic process at every turn.

CaptDMO

Quote from: "strangedisk"
"ad hominem's" require that I attack a person, which I haven't.

I humbly beg to differ as apparently the private school I attended used a different dictionary and caliber of instruction.

Ad hominem is when one appeals to an emotional response rather than the actual topic at hand, ergo, rather than a reasond response to the subject you attempt to divert the subject into a "you big poopyheads" conversation for
lack of reason, and as a cheap device to attach some unmerited emotional shame to critics of the extreem left (and their allies).

In the future, please consider the curtesy to avoid redefining issue, phrase, and word. Any college level dictionary of the English language should help you with any further questions.

If this is unagreeable to you,  perhaps THIS SITE would be more to your understanding.

the sad geek

I'm very sorry, but I have to share the irritation by strangedisk about all the Left-bashing on this board.

We don't want all men to be judged by the Charles Mansons of this world, do we? So why use the extremes of the Left against all of the Left?

Is the Right so virtuous then, don't they have faults?

I would like you all to perform a little thought-experiment: Try to imagine a world without what you think are the three main Left-inspired accomplishments. See if you can find anything positive in Left-thinking. Ask a Leftie if need be.
Alles van waarde is weerloos - Everything valuable is defenseless. (Lucebert)

Go Up