(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.