Homosexodus! Students flee forced 'gay' agenda

B

BlaznFattyz

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,589
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Parents in California have started reacting to the state's newly mandated homosexual indoctrination program by pulling their children out of classes, and state Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell is warning districts they'll lose money if that happens...

..."With the passing of SB 777, a Christian parent cannot, in good conscience, send their child to a public school where their child will be taught or coerced into a lifestyle or belief system that is contrary to the faith they hold dear," Kanter told WND...

..."We hope our resources will encourage Christians to focus on the importance of not leaving Christ out of a child's education," she said...CONT'D
 
BlaznFattyz said:
Parents in California have started reacting to the state's newly mandated homosexual indoctrination program by pulling their children out of classes, and state Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell is warning districts they'll lose money if that happens...

..."With the passing of SB 777, a Christian parent cannot, in good conscience, send their child to a public school where their child will be taught or coerced into a lifestyle or belief system that is contrary to the faith they hold dear," Kanter told WND...

..."We hope our resources will encourage Christians to focus on the importance of not leaving Christ out of a child's education," she said...CONT'D
Click to expand...
This will be a story to follow, I suppose we'll need to redefine exodus to mean something similar to a trickle, less than 1% will leave is my guess.
 
The notion that children might be taught to treat us like we were people is just too much for you, huh?
 
Oh, brother. Is it better to have kids not educated about human sexuality and then find out in random ways through friends in their early teen years?

I taught for a little while at a Baptist U and they had no problem discussing human sexuality, including homosexuality, in classes. Most of my students in the class I taught that included discussions on sexuality were parents and also Baptist, and most were firmly for teaching their children about homosexuality. Most of them believed their children should learn that even if it is a sin, we all sin, and homosexuals are therefore just like the rest of us and deserve the same kindness, respect, and love that all people do.

I don't expect to see very many parents yanking kids out of the public schools over this except in very small communities of ultra-fundamentalists.

What gets me is that there are so many problems with our public school system in terms of how subjects are taught, performance, respect by students for each other and teachers, and on and on... yet THIS is the issue that people have to take their kids out of school?! Strangeness...
 
bob x said:
The notion that children might be taught to treat us like we were people is just too much for you, huh?
Click to expand...

Mummy/Mommy/Daddy to child: This is something you'll understand when you're a bit older, honey.:D
 
Yes, it's always a problem when the media appeals to the 'mob instinct' in people ... we have a case in the UK of a paedeotrican who was attacked because the mob could not read the difference between paedeotrician and paedophile, in one instance where the media had been at work inciting fear and trembling for the safety of 'our children'.

There's an interesting article here from which I have extracted the following:

"Homosexuals have the right to expect of the rest of us decent and respectful treatment as human beings and citizens. They have no right to insist that we surrender our fundamental moral beliefs in order that they might feel comfortable with their sexual behavior."

Sadly, I doubt many of our media pundits possess the intellect to discern the argument.

Thomas
 
Thomas said:
"Homosexuals have the right to expect of the rest of us decent and respectful treatment as human beings and citizens. They have no right to insist that we surrender our fundamental moral beliefs in order that they might feel comfortable with their sexual behavior."
Click to expand...

What an excellent quote Thomas. That says quite succinctly what I have struggled to say for about two months now. Strange how some people only see half of this equation...the half they wish to see. They ignore the rest, and thereby become the monster they wish to vanquish.
 
I agree wholeheartedly, Thomas. I think what may be at debate for many is what "decent and respectful treatment" is. How much can (and should) we enforce our moral beliefs on others through law? That's a tough question to answer... and obviously the overall answer can't be all or nothing.
 
wil said:
This will be a story to follow, I suppose we'll need to redefine exodus to mean something similar to a trickle, less than 1% will leave is my guess.
Click to expand...

I think the issue here, is not the teaching of sexuality and lifestyles so much as the "mandated" part. When I was stationed in LA back in the nineties, my children went to the schools there, and were given the opportunity to learn about the varying aspects of human sexuality. I say "given" the opportunity, because the schools notified the parents and asked for permission to do so, with the option of the parent to decline any part of the education offered, (thus the child would be sent to study hall during any unacceptable part or all of the sex education as requested by the parent/s).

By making the education "mandatory", the authority of the parent is circumvented.

Wil, you may think 1% is not much and nothing to sweat over, but if a school of 5,000 loses 1% of it's students @ $12,000 a year per student...that is over half a million dollars lost to that school's ability to provide decent education to the students. Now consider 1% of the entire California school body leaving the public school system for private education... (estimated @ 10,000,000), the state board of education has a potentially serious problem on their hands. ($1,200,000,000.00 in lost educational funds). Even if half of the kids are not subject to sex education due to age, that is still over $600,000,000 taken from the education coffers.

California could find a deep dent in its education pocket book...

v/r

Q
 
Quahom1 said:
By making the education "mandatory", the authority of the parent is circumvented.

Wil, you may think 1% is not much and nothing to sweat over, but if a school of 5,000 loses 1% of it's students @ $12,000 a year per student...that is over half a million dollars lost to that school's ability to provide decent education to the students. Now consider 1% of the entire California school body leaving the public school system for private education... (estimated @ 10,000,000), the state board of education has a potentially serious problem on their hands. ($1,200,000,000.00 in lost educational funds). Even if half of the kids are not subject to sex education due to age, that is still over $600,000,000 taken from the education coffers.

California could find a deep dent in its education pocket book...
Click to expand...
Same argument was used on drug ed, sex ed, science (evolution), the parent still has its ability to counter whatever is taught at home, this is proved in racism, which isn't taught by teachers or schools, quite the opposite, but taught very well in homes across this country.

California schools are overcrowded, but we'd have a hard time finding a school of 5,000 students as the norm even in LA. Despite that minor issue, the fact is if the school system has 1, 2 or 10% less students to teach the cost of educating the remainder goes down. This is normal in all schools across our country, influx and change of school populations. In the city I went to school in were recently less than half the students there were when I was there. Now it is building back up, but will never achieve the numbers which it originally had. Schools, like any industry have to deal with budget changes.

Your argument is the same one used against vouchers, which has also been shown to be untrue.
 
wil said:
Same argument was used on drug ed, sex ed, science (evolution), the parent still has its ability to counter whatever is taught at home, this is proved in racism, which isn't taught by teachers or schools, quite the opposite, but taught very well in homes across this country.

California schools are overcrowded, but we'd have a hard time finding a school of 5,000 students as the norm even in LA. Despite that minor issue, the fact is if the school system has 1, 2 or 10% less students to teach the cost of educating the remainder goes down. This is normal in all schools across our country, influx and change of school populations. In the city I went to school in were recently less than half the students there were when I was there. Now it is building back up, but will never achieve the numbers which it originally had. Schools, like any industry have to deal with budget changes.

Your argument is the same one used against vouchers, which has also been shown to be untrue.
Click to expand...

Fordson highschool in Dearborn/Detroit has 5000 students...california has four times the population of Michigan, and LA has 24 times to population of the Suburbs of Detroit...

And it is difficult to keep a big school budget going without the revenue to do it, no matter how many students are there. The cost of education continuously rises, regardless of how many students are there...

And this actually has nothing to do with the parents making a strong statement by pulling their kids out of public school. Even half a percent leaving will affect the education system in California, significantly.

The fact that any significant number of kids might leave the public education system for cause is the warning...one which seems to be lost here.
 
They have no right to insist that we surrender our fundamental moral beliefs
Click to expand...
Your need to express contempt for people who are doing you no wrong is "fundamental" to your morality? That says nothing good about you.

And nobody is even asking, let alone "insisting", on any such thing. Here is the provision that has caused all this uproar: "No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that reflects adversely upon persons because of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity,religion, sexual orientation". This does not even tell teachers to rebuke or act against students who engage in queer-bashing; it just says that teachers should not engage in queer-bashing themselves. This is not even a new provision: it has been in the Department of Education regulations for many years, but is simply now being encoded in the statutes. However, the good Christians are promulgating hysterical falsehoods about the effects, since anything that calls for us to be treated fairly requires a knee-jerk opposition from Christians.
 
bob x said:
Here is the provision that has caused all this uproar: "No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that reflects adversely upon persons because of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity,religion, sexual orientation".
Click to expand...
The gall, I'm pulling my kids out, I'm starting a petition, unacceptable, appalling, next thing you know they'll want more than ketchup and french fries for their two servings of veggies.

Q, seriously if half the kids leave it should cost them half as much to teach them, if it weren't for the bureaucratic nightmares these school districts get themselves in that is. I've seen the ghastly inside of inner city school systems, like all 187 schools in the district, walked every hallway, read every budget, saw all the waste, and the schools that excelled, eye opener it was. My report was never made public, it was heavily edited and sanitized (youse guys know why) and even that was shelved and hidden for three years until someone leaked it to the press and then they finally started closing and upgrading.
 
wil said:
Q, seriously if half the kids leave it should cost them half as much to teach them, if it weren't for the bureaucratic nightmares these school districts get themselves in that is. I've seen the ghastly inside of inner city school systems, like all 187 schools in the district, walked every hallway, read every budget, saw all the waste, and the schools that excelled, eye opener it was. My report was never made public, it was heavily edited and sanitized (youse guys know why) and even that was shelved and hidden for three years until someone leaked it to the press and then they finally started closing and upgrading.
Click to expand...

But like a Behemoth, once achieving a particular size, must feed at the voracious rate, in order to maintain that size (and teachers' salaries, and extracurricular activities, and of course union dues...), the school system is loathe to downsize...

And hitting 'em in the pocket book is the quickest way to get their attention (as is most anyone else dependent on tax dollars, to operate at the status quo)...

v/r

Q
 
When you've gotten their attention, what exactly are you demanding?
Should teachers be encouraged, or required, to denigrate gay students? Should they also be required to denigrate students of other races and religions? Do you also demand that teachers mock cripples? Or is it only us that you demand they attack?
 
bob x said:
When you've gotten their attention, what exactly are you demanding?
Should teachers be encouraged, or required, to denigrate gay students? Should they also be required to denigrate students of other races and religions? Do you also demand that teachers mock cripples? Or is it only us that you demand they attack?
Click to expand...
No Bob, they are telling the teachers not to force a particular agenda on their children. In this case it is homosexuality and anything to do with homosexuality.

Now, are you saying that homosexuals should be treated like disabled people? Like there is something wrong with homosexuals and they need special consideration and compensation? Is that what you just said?
 
Quahom1 said:
Now, are you saying that homosexuals should be treated like disabled people? Like there is something wrong with homosexuals and they need special consideration and compensation? Is that what you just said?
Click to expand...
um, er, Q, there are no disabled people, there are people with disabilities. Everyone is a person first. Prior to labeling their skin color, disability, religion, sexual orientation, you recognize the person.

This is the issue inherent in bigotry of all flavors.

"Give instruction that affects adversely" Q. What issues do you have with that statement?

Bob was nice enough to look it up and provide us the exact words and issue that so many homophobes are up in arms about. Why should anyone have issue with that regulation is the question.
 
"Now, are you saying that homosexuals should be treated like disabled people? "
We, like disabled people, ought to be treated like *people* is what I am saying. Apparently you have a problem with that. The law which you are protesting says that teachers should not mock students who have disabilities, and should not make disparaging remarks about their race or religion, and so on-- are you against all that? Or is there only one group which you think teachers should be required to insult?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top