(10-23-2019 07:17 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 12:18 PM)Oman Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 08:54 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  Elementary school aged kids definitely have a concept of both gender and sexual orientation. While they might not know the terms or the biological differences, kids can definitely tell who in their class is a boy and who is a girl. Also while they won't know what sexual orientation or sex is, they have a concept of romantic relationships. They know that Prince Charming loves Cinderella and their parents love each other and that Man+Woman=Family. The whole point of the curriculum is to let them know that for some people Man+Man=Family and Woman+Woman=Family and that's okay. If you don't like that your child has to learn about other people in school, withdraw them.

Yes sir, elementary aged kids and even younger have a concept of gender and sexual orientation, but it is NOT taught to them in school.

The cirriculum has no place in elementary schools at any level. Families are different, but we don't spend a week teaching elementary school kids how their brother who is in prison is really a good person, or that some mommies are divorced 6 times and that's ok, or that some daddies like to wear dresses, or any number of other "alternatives" to the traditional family construct.

It's not the school's place to teach social mores, at least until the student has a class on sociology.

If the school had a week long class on S&M would you be ok with that? I mean for some people leather & chains = love

Again, you're oversexualizing gay relationships by trying to equate it to a sexual fetish. That is false. If a heterosexual couple incorporates "leather & chains" into their sex life, does that suddenly make them not heterosexual? In the same stance, a gay man can be attracted to men and still have never had sex with a man. One is a sexual act while the other is a formally recognized type of relationship. If you can't separate the two in your mind, then you're not equipped to be a part of this conversation.

But the nature of the male-male relationship is different than the nature of the male-female relationship.

What it comes down to is trying to state that alternate relationships are just as valid as traditional relationships.

And if that is indeed the case then this is really a discussion of morality. Why are alternate relationships moral or not moral?

(10-23-2019 07:17 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 12:18 PM)Oman Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 08:54 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  Elementary school aged kids definitely have a concept of both gender and sexual orientation. While they might not know the terms or the biological differences, kids can definitely tell who in their class is a boy and who is a girl. Also while they won't know what sexual orientation or sex is, they have a concept of romantic relationships. They know that Prince Charming loves Cinderella and their parents love each other and that Man+Woman=Family. The whole point of the curriculum is to let them know that for some people Man+Man=Family and Woman+Woman=Family and that's okay. If you don't like that your child has to learn about other people in school, withdraw them.

Yes sir, elementary aged kids and even younger have a concept of gender and sexual orientation, but it is NOT taught to them in school.

The cirriculum has no place in elementary schools at any level. Families are different, but we don't spend a week teaching elementary school kids how their brother who is in prison is really a good person, or that some mommies are divorced 6 times and that's ok, or that some daddies like to wear dresses, or any number of other "alternatives" to the traditional family construct.

It's not the school's place to teach social mores, at least until the student has a class on sociology.

If the school had a week long class on S&M would you be ok with that? I mean for some people leather & chains = love

Again, you're oversexualizing gay relationships by trying to equate it to a sexual fetish. That is false. If a heterosexual couple incorporates "leather & chains" into their sex life, does that suddenly make them not heterosexual? In the same stance, a gay man can be attracted to men and still have never had sex with a man. One is a sexual act while the other is a formally recognized type of relationship. If you can't separate the two in your mind, then you're not equipped to be a part of this conversation.

no, i'm saying it's not the school's place at all. I used one example, by choice an extreme one. I understand perfectly the separation of the sexual vs non, and that a physical attraction can exist without the act.

That's not the point. The issue is the introduction and indoctrination of social choices involving VERY complex and mature matters into elementary school education that by definition involve inter-related values and mores that vary widely from person to person, and cannot be taught without the inclusion of bias and opinion.

"just withdraw them" in a dodge. The "progressives" had a come apart over the inclusion of judeo-christian values into elementary schools, and those values that a small minority found offensive have been removed from the classroom. Now the same small (very small) minority wants to replace the them with a social view that most find troubling. The answer it NOT to tell the majority to leave, the answer is to teach fundamentals in elementary school, and introduce these types of topics much later in sociology type studies.