Litmus
Verified User
Oh crikey, you're the one wanting to usurp the right of parents to educate their children as THEY, not you, see fit.
The Gay Debate
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Oh crikey, you're the one wanting to usurp the right of parents to educate their children as THEY, not you, see fit.
Again, that is bull. Read the thread, your assertion is baseless, you have been embarrassed. Homeschool your children if you are afraid that they'll teach your kid that they can catch AIDS from such activity without teaching the morality. They assume you will teach the morality, they just teach the science.
Your baseless assertions aside, your fear that they will teach the consequences of such activity without your approved moral background is not enough to change the fact that you can opt out, that if they do it without your permission there is a way to get legal satisfaction, and the weakness of your position all hold that your emotive interpretation of teaching without the moral factor of "wrong" associated with it is just getting it all sticky with fear rather than actually basing your premise on fact.
We expect you to either teach the morality at home or to opt out of the education if it is your intention to keep your children in the dark.
Litmus
Verified User
I've read the thread. you trust opt out, I don't. I think they're radicalized liars who believe lies in the pursuit of a higher goal are justified.
No. I'll exert my influence as an individual to assert parental rights over KNOW IT ALL radicalized academics.
Do so, take responsibility for your child's education. There are myriad other options than the public schools, take one.
Litmus
Verified User
No. I'll stick with the public schools and my right to influence their functioning, which is equal to your right.
It is. And amazingly more agree with me than with you so it will continue in the same direction regardless of emotive reasoning based on "They might try to be gay!"
Litmus
Verified User
So I guess whatever the majority think is right? Is that your final answer?
In the case of local school politics, yes.
Are you really so disingenuous as to pretend you have never taken a civics course now? It is how the government works at that level.
Litmus
Verified User
No. Not owned.
What if a local juriisdiction wanted to put blacks in a worse facility, as a matter of policy. Would that therefore be acceptable? No. It wouldn't. I put the right of the parents to shape their childs sexual education at the same level of importance.
Of course not, the courts ruled on that one long ago. Now you are being even more disingenuous. The courts have also ruled on this one, the opt-out portion is enough and it is the reason why you could sue if they decided to go there without your permission.
Your weak position has been to promote your moral agenda using force of law, when there are avenues to ensure your moral agenda is taught appropriately and to "protect" your children from finding out the dangers of such activity. It is up to your personal responsibility, right where it should be.
LOL. There is nothing about "homo" or "hetero" in my argument, only in yours. Most people who participate in the activity are hetero.
The fear of all things that can be related to homosexual activity creates a weakness in your argument as it is based solely on the morality, which should be taught at home.
Litmus
Verified User
opt out is not adequate with liars who don't respect parents..
Actually, since there are major disagreements on sexual morality in the society, the issue should be handled in the family, by parents, instead of a one size fits all policy shoved up the butt of the unwilling.
It is why there is no morality attached to the science of it. They teach only the consequences and dangers of the activity. The morality of the action is expected to be taught in the home.
Litmus
Verified User
You see no morality issue in discussing it. Some people don't want their kids exposed to it. Your inability to tolerate a difference of opinion on the issue says a lot about you, nothing about me.
There is recourse if you don't want your children exposed to it, just as there is if you don't want them to be taught evolution. You only weaken your position when you base it solely in the morality and pretend you have no recourse when even you admit that there is a way to opt out of it, even if you find it "inadequate" because you heard some anecdotal story somewhere.
There is even a way that is 100% effective, you can home school your kid.
It is not prevalent because they know they will be sued by some religion politics type that prefers to keep their children in the dark on the physical dangers of the activity.
Litmus
Verified User
And there is a recourse for you if you wish to educate your children in the matter. Do it at home. For some reason you seem to think the advice you give me doesn't apply to you.
It does, if I felt that their teaching was inadequate I would certainly do that. However, when teaching health sciences, teaching about STDs and the dangers of certain activity is part of that. If I wish my children not to be taught about it I will opt out and present my own form of the education in my house. Why can't you?
DigitalDave
Sexy Beast!
I think they should have a couple come in and demonstrate sexual intercourse. Show all the boys where the clitoris is and have all the girls understand that touching underneath the ballsac is quite enjoyable. They should also make sure they demonstrate just how much lube is required for anal sex.