(10-21-2019 02:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 02:39 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 02:29 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 02:23 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 11:26 AM)bullet Wrote:  Rather succinct explanation. In a little more wordy way:

Discussing this with pre-schoolers is 100% not age appropriate. Hiding the timing of the class from the parents is 100% not appropriate. Forcing pre-schoolers to take it against their parent's wishes is 100% not appropriate. And yes, all this stuff is ultimately about sex which the children at that age don't understand.

The Federalist is always very logical. Some people just don't like the opinions and so attack the messenger. That's what people do when they can't justify their argument with logic.

Okay then let’s talk about logic. The author in the article even says herself that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are exactly the same except for how they engage in sex. If you can explain to a child why a man and a woman are together without explaining vaginal sex to them, then you can explain why some men marry men and some women marry women without bringing up sex too. It’s literally that simple.

By the logic in the article, minor boys and girls under the age of 18 shouldn’t be allowed to date or form relationships with people their age since all romantic relationships are strictly sexual and they are under the age of consent. It’s a logical fallacy. This whole article is just homophobic gaslighting and it’s very obvious from the first paragraph.

The bolded statement is not true.

So you disagree with the author?

The author says parents are uncomfortable that their children are taught that.
The author later says that is the only difference between gay and straight individuals. There is a difference between a relationship and an individual. So the author is not saying what you claim.

You call it "gaslighting."

How do you respond to the points?
1) It is not age appropriate
2) Sex education is still sex education (the point about the difference between gay and straight)
3) The belief that religion has nothing to say (a little separate from the other points)
4) Parents were kept in the dark
5) Differences of opinion make people unsafe
6) No opt outs for the parents.

1) It's not age appropriate
I lay this out in my post above. Children are taught from a very early age the concept of love and romantic relationships without having to discuss vaginal intercourse at all. If we are able to do that with heterosexual couples, we can also tack on that some men love men and some women love women without bringing up sexual intercourse. The author gaslights her readers by attempting to draw a line between love and homosexual intercourse, heavily implying that being gay is more of a sexual act than a romantic relationship. She says, "To state what should be obvious, sexual attraction is not the same as love. I don’t know about all of you readers, but I love lots of people whose genitals I never want to touch." Here she is implying that LGBT individuals are not capable of experiencing love and are only interested in sex, intentionally blurring the lines between romantic and platonic relationships in order to make her argument appear logical. That's gaslighting.

2) Sex education is still sex education (the point about the difference between gay and straight)
See number one. Children learn what marriage is and where babies come from well before they learn what sex is. LGBT relationships aren't inherently sexual and can be explained without referencing sex.

3) The belief that religion has nothing to say (a little separate from the other points)
This part of the article was indeed bizarre and didn't seem to fit with the rest of her arguments. Really, I believe the author was just looking for a way to work a jab at Islam into her article. However, to answer your question, this is a public school curriculum. I would recommend that any parent who wants their child's school to stay away from subjects that don't align with their religion to enroll their child in a religious private school or homeschool their kids. Public schools are not bound to any religious doctrine and therefore will teach what their school board tells them too. Parents can also bring their concerns to their democratically elected school board if they so wish.

4) Parents were kept in the dark
If the rule is that it's optional for school's to announce when they teach a subject, then that's the rule. Should schools announce to parents the week they teach fractions too? Concerned parents can always call and ask of course. More on number 6.

5) Differences of opinion make people unsafe
The fact that those in charge of implementing this curriculum are receiving death threats is truly saddening. Here in Georgia during desegregation, there were plenty of death threats and violent rhetoric that would be shame-worthy in today's world. This is what we often call being on the right and wrong side of history. It also only reinforces how important teaching students against hate and bigotry at an early age is.

6) No opt outs for the parents.
The author again attempts to gaslight her audience by calling public school curriculum leftist propaganda and intentionally leaves out quotes from the actual roundtable to further her argument. Below is an actual quote:

"Dr. Beardsley said, though, “In discussions, we agreed that we would let families know what time the instruction was occurring if they were going to pick their child up – in trying to balance time in instruction – if they were not going to have their child participate. Designating ahead an opt-out space was not part of the conversation.”

Dr. Beardsley said, “What we did with this conversation is we have stood by the curriculum, you did a tremendous job in developing it, it is a strong curriculum, there’s nothing in there that overlaps with sexual education that would require any form of opt out that State law requires."

So the schools have agreed to let parents know when instruction was occurring and that they can pick their children up, but that they are not required by the state to provide an alternative assignment because none of the curriculum discusses sex.

Drew, I'm guessing no kids?

(10-21-2019 12:27 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  Here's the bigger question:

Why do schools think it is their duty to socialize children to these issues rather than sticking strictly to "the 3 R's"?

U.S. public schools having been failing to competently educate generations of children. Rather than correcting their failures they believe they should educate children on social issues rather than leaving that to the parents.

Because they have shown that they're almost incapable of teaching kids things that matter like math, reading, science... where they're objectively right/wrong answers and you have to work and apply effort to get better.

Instead they want to shift towards indoctrinating kids because its easier.

Also, because most of the people in charge of making these decisions don't believe in people being able to make decisions for themselves. They fundamentally believe that kids must be 'Taught' the right way to think.

It's the Hitler Youth Program, in progressive clothes. Indoctrinate kids into the 'appoved' way of thinking to push the agenda. They dont care about kids best interests... all they care about is fodder to win their culture war.

Quote:The final stage of any mobilization is the children, the seed corn.

~Taps

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”
Attributed to Adolf Hitler by a 3rd party in his memoirs.

(10-21-2019 10:10 AM)NIUAlum90 Wrote:  Anyone want to buy my house in IL?

napes....that shite is beyond disgusting....

I had a first grade teacher try to lecture me about my daughter and ADHD long ago.....that stupid biatch didn't do it again....

(10-21-2019 02:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 02:26 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 01:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 11:26 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 10:35 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  No, it isn't nearly that complicated. It's simply projecting mental illness onto 3-5 year olds.

Rather succinct explanation. In a little more wordy way:

Discussing this with pre-schoolers is 100% not age appropriate. Hiding the timing of the class from the parents is 100% not appropriate. Forcing pre-schoolers to take it against their parent's wishes is 100% not appropriate. And yes, all this stuff is ultimately about sex which the children at that age don't understand.

The Federalist is always very logical. Some people just don't like the opinions and so attack the messenger. That's what people do when they can't justify their argument with logic.

Bullet, it's all about cramming the kids brains with the social agenda of the world before parents in the nuclear family teach them their values, assuming the parents have any values or not.

IMO, there is no clearer indication of the recruitment to a life style than the pre-conditioning of non sexualized children to receptivity of a lifestyle that many Americans still hold to be unacceptable or immoral. The LGBTQ issue has never been about equal rights. It's always been about access to your children. They have equal rights, the right to same sex marriage, and the other things they claimed made them less than equal. Now they want your children to first think they are normal, and second to be receptive to their message. And the manipulation here is that if you try to prevent it then you are the hater, the oppressor, and the one who is immoral.

There is no way in hell that any kids under the age of 10 need to be learning a thing about sex. Before kids reach puberty the only thing they need to know is to tell somebody they trust when someone tries to touch them inappropriately or when a stranger offers them candy, etc.

Once puberty kicks in and they become aware of their sexuality then biology class can teach them about reproduction, and disease. But even then they don't need anyone telling them what to experiment with or telling them if they don't try the other side that they are homophobic, all of which are current manipulations.

If kids are going to turn out to be gay or lesbian they will know it soon enough and school guidance counselors and parental involvement can take it from there. But we aren't even talking about 1 in 10 children which is why this is really all about recruitment and the recruitment isn't for LGBTQ rights, or even sex. It's about enhancing political power.

So this crap is way off the field of play, let alone way off base.

How did this happen?
The church removed itself from education.
The schools started teaching our kids all of the bad things this country had done rather than the good things, or even both the good and bad.
Parents did nothing.
The schools then started teaching the kids that whites were bad and focused on the positive contributions of minorities while focusing on the past sins of some whites.
Parents did nothing.
Then the schools claimed the right to question your children about their discipline at home and involving Family and Children's services when the school did not approve of home discipline.
Parents did nothing.
Then the schools started pushing the LGBTQ agenda at the High School science level.
Parents did nothing.
Then Heather Has Two Mommies appeared on Elementary school reading lists.
Parents did nothing.
Now they want to precondition your preschoolers to sexual orientations they are not even thinking about.
Just what the hell does it take to wake people up as to the godless, amoral, political agenda of Public Education? We are long past the point of telling these people where to get off!

The sad part is that it isn't really even about the LGBTQ community, or whites, or minorities. These are all core value issues and identity issues and the attack upon them is aimed precisely at overturning capitalism, the religious nature of the core values of the country, and to accomplish it by the preconditioning of our children by socialist adversaries utilizing public education against us. And any defense of our core values becomes a damned hate crime. Hello Gulliver the Communist Liliputians have tied you down with all manner of bureaucratic resolutions and now control your children.

I added 1 item to your list.

Actually LBJ eliminated the Church from education in the mid 50's when tax codes permitting churches to remain tax exempt were altered to state that any church espousing a political agenda from the pulpit could lose its tax exempt status. At that point all mainline denominations refrained from entering the political realm which in the 60's was extended to public education.

Many churches have remained active in education by sponsoring private religious schools.

Now, that said I agree with the gist of what you are saying here. H.W. Bush's 1000 points of Light sought to use churches to distribute social programs paid for by the government. Those who utilized the funds were among the first to lose their voice on LGBTQ issues. When those issues were politicized LBJ's tax exempt status reared its head again as churches were now not allowed to express a traditional Biblical view without risking tax exempt status.

Many on this board may wonder why I think churches should pay taxes. Reason #1 is that if we did pay taxes the voice of the church could rail against many of the current politicized issues which are directly aimed at the core value of families and the nation and the church would once again have a much larger say than we do under the neutering that LBJ gave all us when he was in Congress. Reason #2 is if minimums of expenditures directly into ministry to the widows, orphans, poor and sick were established many denominational churches would do a much more faithful job of actually tending to those requirements left to us by Christ.

So yes too many churches have bowed out, but in most cases it is fear of losing tax exempt status that urged them to do so. After all you cannot serve both God and mammon.

I'm also in that camp for the reasons stated....and I'm an atheist...

great analysis on LBJ....across the board, he's still the worst of all in modern times on my list....

(10-21-2019 04:13 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 02:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 02:39 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 02:29 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 02:23 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  Okay then let’s talk about logic. The author in the article even says herself that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are exactly the same except for how they engage in sex. If you can explain to a child why a man and a woman are together without explaining vaginal sex to them, then you can explain why some men marry men and some women marry women without bringing up sex too. It’s literally that simple.

By the logic in the article, minor boys and girls under the age of 18 shouldn’t be allowed to date or form relationships with people their age since all romantic relationships are strictly sexual and they are under the age of consent. It’s a logical fallacy. This whole article is just homophobic gaslighting and it’s very obvious from the first paragraph.

The bolded statement is not true.

So you disagree with the author?

The author says parents are uncomfortable that their children are taught that.
The author later says that is the only difference between gay and straight individuals. There is a difference between a relationship and an individual. So the author is not saying what you claim.

You call it "gaslighting."

How do you respond to the points?
1) It is not age appropriate
2) Sex education is still sex education (the point about the difference between gay and straight)
3) The belief that religion has nothing to say (a little separate from the other points)
4) Parents were kept in the dark
5) Differences of opinion make people unsafe
6) No opt outs for the parents.

1) It's not age appropriate
I lay this out in my post above. Children are taught from a very early age the concept of love and romantic relationships without having to discuss vaginal intercourse at all. If we are able to do that with heterosexual couples, we can also tack on that some men love men and some women love women without bringing up sexual intercourse. The author gaslights her readers by attempting to draw a line between love and homosexual intercourse, heavily implying that being gay is more of a sexual act than a romantic relationship. She says, "To state what should be obvious, sexual attraction is not the same as love. I don’t know about all of you readers, but I love lots of people whose genitals I never want to touch." Here she is implying that LGBT individuals are not capable of experiencing love and are only interested in sex, intentionally blurring the lines between romantic and platonic relationships in order to make her argument appear logical. That's gaslighting.

2) Sex education is still sex education (the point about the difference between gay and straight)
See number one. Children learn what marriage is and where babies come from well before they learn what sex is. LGBT relationships aren't inherently sexual and can be explained without referencing sex.

3) The belief that religion has nothing to say (a little separate from the other points)
This part of the article was indeed bizarre and didn't seem to fit with the rest of her arguments. Really, I believe the author was just looking for a way to work a jab at Islam into her article. However, to answer your question, this is a public school curriculum. I would recommend that any parent who wants their child's school to stay away from subjects that don't align with their religion to enroll their child in a religious private school or homeschool their kids. Public schools are not bound to any religious doctrine and therefore will teach what their school board tells them too. Parents can also bring their concerns to their democratically elected school board if they so wish.

4) Parents were kept in the dark
If the rule is that it's optional for school's to announce when they teach a subject, then that's the rule. Should schools announce to parents the week they teach fractions too? Concerned parents can always call and ask of course. More on number 6.

5) Differences of opinion make people unsafe
The fact that those in charge of implementing this curriculum are receiving death threats is truly saddening. Here in Georgia during desegregation, there were plenty of death threats and violent rhetoric that would be shame-worthy in today's world. This is what we often call being on the right and wrong side of history. It also only reinforces how important teaching students against hate and bigotry at an early age is.

6) No opt outs for the parents.
The author again attempts to gaslight her audience by calling public school curriculum leftist propaganda and intentionally leaves out quotes from the actual roundtable to further her argument. Below is an actual quote:

"Dr. Beardsley said, though, “In discussions, we agreed that we would let families know what time the instruction was occurring if they were going to pick their child up – in trying to balance time in instruction – if they were not going to have their child participate. Designating ahead an opt-out space was not part of the conversation.”

Dr. Beardsley said, “What we did with this conversation is we have stood by the curriculum, you did a tremendous job in developing it, it is a strong curriculum, there’s nothing in there that overlaps with sexual education that would require any form of opt out that State law requires."

So the schools have agreed to let parents know when instruction was occurring and that they can pick their children up, but that they are not required by the state to provide an alternative assignment because none of the curriculum discusses sex.

It is true that parents can, and probably should, route their children to religious or secular private schools, or homeschool. But you miss the biggest point on the face of the Earth, at least in these United States. Our damn tax dollars whether we have a kid in school or not pay for public education. And if enough voters are concerned they should apply their will through the state legislature to defund as much of public education as they can. They are the consumer because they pay for it. And they have the right to make their money count for something they believe in. And I guarantee you most in the South don't believe in this garbage. And any educator who publicly supports it should be run out of the county they represent, unless of course it is Atlanta.

If the parents want to know how to approach this it is through local and county politics, and during state elections. And without question these issues should be discussed at election time. We elect our school boards in most places and they hire the superintendent. We elect our state representatives and they apportion the education budget. That too can fall under political pressure. And if that doesn't yank a knot in the cord of the average educator attacking the funding of state teacher's pensions sure as hell will.

Drew, you clearly have an issue with the author and that is fine......

But you repeatedly ignore the content of the article in order to focus on the apparent (to you) opinions of the author

The subject matter is age inappropriate. To you it’s about LGBTQ. To parents, it’s about age appropriate discussions

You can ignore it all you want, but speaking to a child about trans-genderism will undeniably involve talking about things that preschoolers would be completely oblivious to.

Kids don’t see gender or sexual orientation. They just don’t. They don’t know that mr Johnson has a husband or that mr Johnson used to be mrs Johnson, and they don’t care. You present as a woman, you’re like mommu or grand mommy or aunt Millie. You present like a man, you’re like daddy or grandpa or uncle joe.

(10-21-2019 07:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Drew, you clearly have an issue with the author and that is fine......

But you repeatedly ignore the content of the article in order to focus on the apparent (to you) opinions of the author

The subject matter is age inappropriate. To you it’s about LGBTQ. To parents, it’s about age appropriate discussions

You can ignore it all you want, but speaking to a child about trans-genderism will undeniably involve talking about things that preschoolers would be completely oblivious to.

Kids don’t see gender or sexual orientation. They just don’t. They don’t know that mr Johnson has a husband or that mr Johnson used to be mrs Johnson, and they don’t care. You present as a woman, you’re like mommu or grand mommy or aunt Millie. You present like a man, you’re like daddy or grandpa or uncle joe.

Exactly. None of what he talks about is age appropriate. This sort of thing just totally confuses the kids.

Its still sex education and age inappropriate. You can't explain it without the sex part.

Schools that aren't trying to hide things notify parents of any controversial subject. I've had notices in HS about "adult" reading in English.

True, the religion bit didn't really fit with the rest of the article. I think he's trying to say that people can have religious objections to this being taught their kids.

Sex education has an opt-out. Its ridiculous that this does not. The principals who allowed it were right.

(10-21-2019 07:05 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 10:10 AM)NIUAlum90 Wrote:  Anyone want to buy my house in IL?

napes....that shite is beyond disgusting....

I had a first grade teacher try to lecture me about my daughter and ADHD long ago.....that stupid biatch didn't do it again....

https://youtu.be/melkbylDIA8

Sometimes you gotta go full Uncle Buck on these dipshite social engineer aholes.

The fact this is even a discussion is a sign of how screwed up things have become.

(10-21-2019 08:12 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 07:05 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 10:10 AM)NIUAlum90 Wrote:  Anyone want to buy my house in IL?

napes....that shite is beyond disgusting....

I had a first grade teacher try to lecture me about my daughter and ADHD long ago.....that stupid biatch didn't do it again....

Sometimes you gotta go full Uncle Buck on these dipshite social engineer aholes.

The fact this is even a discussion is a sign of how screwed up things have become.

ya fk'rs got me 'pegged' on a tee....

(10-21-2019 08:38 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 08:12 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 07:05 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 10:10 AM)NIUAlum90 Wrote:  Anyone want to buy my house in IL?

napes....that shite is beyond disgusting....

I had a first grade teacher try to lecture me about my daughter and ADHD long ago.....that stupid biatch didn't do it again....

Sometimes you gotta go full Uncle Buck on these dipshite social engineer aholes.

The fact this is even a discussion is a sign of how screwed up things have become.

ya fk'rs got me 'pegged' on a tee....

Oh, I've been there too.

(10-21-2019 08:42 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 08:38 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 08:12 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 07:05 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 10:10 AM)NIUAlum90 Wrote:  Anyone want to buy my house in IL?

napes....that shite is beyond disgusting....

I had a first grade teacher try to lecture me about my daughter and ADHD long ago.....that stupid biatch didn't do it again....

Sometimes you gotta go full Uncle Buck on these dipshite social engineer aholes.

The fact this is even a discussion is a sign of how screwed up things have become.

ya fk'rs got me 'pegged' on a tee....

Oh, I've been there too.

#ShereThere

it's beyond annoying dealing with the dippos....

(10-21-2019 07:05 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 10:10 AM)NIUAlum90 Wrote:  Anyone want to buy my house in IL?

napes....that shite is beyond disgusting....

I had a first grade teacher try to lecture me about my daughter and ADHD long ago.....that stupid biatch didn't do it again....

Well we had a 3rd grade teacher say our son was. We didn't believe until the 5th grade teacher said the same thing. And once he got on meds school was night and day better.

(10-21-2019 09:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 07:05 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 10:10 AM)NIUAlum90 Wrote:  Anyone want to buy my house in IL?

napes....that shite is beyond disgusting....

I had a first grade teacher try to lecture me about my daughter and ADHD long ago.....that stupid biatch didn't do it again....

Well we had a 3rd grade teacher say our son was. We didn't believe until the 5th grade teacher said the same thing. And once he got on meds school was night and day better.

I can only say, "well done" in that respect....

I'm ADHD all day long....I learned how to 'embrace' "it"....

my daughter metered out with a boat-load of common sense....(thank god)

(10-21-2019 09:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 07:05 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 10:10 AM)NIUAlum90 Wrote:  Anyone want to buy my house in IL?

napes....that shite is beyond disgusting....

I had a first grade teacher try to lecture me about my daughter and ADHD long ago.....that stupid biatch didn't do it again....

Well we had a 3rd grade teacher say our son was. We didn't believe until the 5th grade teacher said the same thing. And once he got on meds school was night and day better.

One day the government will do it without warning and without your consent. Sorta the point of the whole thread. Heck they might even decide he is the wrong sex.

The State know what's best

(10-21-2019 08:12 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 07:05 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 10:10 AM)NIUAlum90 Wrote:  Anyone want to buy my house in IL?

napes....that shite is beyond disgusting....

I had a first grade teacher try to lecture me about my daughter and ADHD long ago.....that stupid biatch didn't do it again....

https://youtu.be/melkbylDIA8

Sometimes you gotta go full Uncle Buck on these dipshite social engineer aholes.

The fact this is even a discussion is a sign of how screwed up things have become.

It's the incrementalism dynamic at play. 20 years ago someone who tried something like this in any school in the in the country would have been immediately fired and maybe even charged with something criminal. Fast forward 10 years and they've introduced LQBTQ curriculum and have support groups in place for teens who think they are gay. Fast forward to today and it's a full on attack with crap like this for pre-schoolers. next they'll be putting on live demonstrations on how a boy takes it up the ass.

Another factor in all this is the media portraying less than 3% of the population as mainstream/normal when likely at least half the country is still opposed to homosexuality or at least homosexual lifestyles they view as deviant. Many, if not most people are now like me I think - certainly most conservatives - after being repeatedly exposed to the gayness on TV, in movies and other media I've finally reached a point where I no longer care what two adults do in privacy. But that doesn't mean I embrace the differences or the lifestyle one iota, I simply feel that there's no getting away from it any longer. Social engineering insidiousness...

(10-21-2019 07:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 07:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Drew, you clearly have an issue with the author and that is fine......

But you repeatedly ignore the content of the article in order to focus on the apparent (to you) opinions of the author

The subject matter is age inappropriate. To you it’s about LGBTQ. To parents, it’s about age appropriate discussions

You can ignore it all you want, but speaking to a child about trans-genderism will undeniably involve talking about things that preschoolers would be completely oblivious to.

Kids don’t see gender or sexual orientation. They just don’t. They don’t know that mr Johnson has a husband or that mr Johnson used to be mrs Johnson, and they don’t care. You present as a woman, you’re like mommu or grand mommy or aunt Millie. You present like a man, you’re like daddy or grandpa or uncle joe.

Exactly. None of what he talks about is age appropriate. This sort of thing just totally confuses the kids.

Its still sex education and age inappropriate. You can't explain it without the sex part.

Schools that aren't trying to hide things notify parents of any controversial subject. I've had notices in HS about "adult" reading in English.

True, the religion bit didn't really fit with the rest of the article. I think he's trying to say that people can have religious objections to this being taught their kids.

Sex education has an opt-out. Its ridiculous that this does not. The principals who allowed it were right.

I agree. I would feel the same way about teaching pre-schoolers about the holocaust as I do about teaching them about LGBT stuff. It's simply not age appropriate.

(10-22-2019 06:38 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 08:12 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 07:05 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 10:10 AM)NIUAlum90 Wrote:  Anyone want to buy my house in IL?

napes....that shite is beyond disgusting....

I had a first grade teacher try to lecture me about my daughter and ADHD long ago.....that stupid biatch didn't do it again....

https://youtu.be/melkbylDIA8

Sometimes you gotta go full Uncle Buck on these dipshite social engineer aholes.

The fact this is even a discussion is a sign of how screwed up things have become.

It's the incrementalism dynamic at play. 20 years ago someone who tried something like this in any school in the in the country would have been immediately fired and maybe even charged with something criminal. Fast forward 10 years and they've introduced LQBTQ curriculum and have support groups in place for teens who think they are gay. Fast forward to today and it's a full on attack with crap like this for pre-schoolers. next they'll be putting on live demonstrations on how a boy takes it up the ass.

Another factor in all this is the media portraying less than 3% of the population as mainstream/normal when likely at least half the country is still opposed to homosexuality or at least homosexual lifestyles they view as deviant. Many, if not most people are now like me I think - certainly most conservatives - after being repeatedly exposed to the gayness on TV, in movies and other media I've finally reached a point where I no longer care what two adults do in privacy. But that doesn't mean I embrace the differences or the lifestyle one iota, I simply feel that there's no getting away from it any longer. Social engineering insidiousness...

I think its a way to try to create more partners. Bump up the bi population.

(10-21-2019 07:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Drew, you clearly have an issue with the author and that is fine......

But you repeatedly ignore the content of the article in order to focus on the apparent (to you) opinions of the author

The subject matter is age inappropriate. To you it’s about LGBTQ. To parents, it’s about age appropriate discussions

You can ignore it all you want, but speaking to a child about trans-genderism will undeniably involve talking about things that preschoolers would be completely oblivious to.

Kids don’t see gender or sexual orientation. They just don’t. They don’t know that mr Johnson has a husband or that mr Johnson used to be mrs Johnson, and they don’t care. You present as a woman, you’re like mommu or grand mommy or aunt Millie. You present like a man, you’re like daddy or grandpa or uncle joe.

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.

Also, the best part of your post above is that you claim that we can't teach children about things like trans people without diving into non-age appropriate topics and then right after, you explain what a trans person is without going into non-age appropriate topics. You can't make this stuff up. lol