Lesbian teacher: How I convince kids to accept gay marriage, starting at 4-years-oldl

How has explanation of reality become bashing?

I always thought we referred to it as education.

Do you also explain Hindu, Islam, Buddhism...etc...when showing your child how to pray?

 

I don't know what you're saying exactly. I'm under no obligation as a parent to teach Islam while I teach my (personal) child about Christianity and then let them think it's ok to choose Islam at 8 yo


If, at 18, , jr decides he'd rather go to Zen's church of Buddhism and interdenominational faith..... i may not approve... but it's his choice.


I don't think 8 y.o.'s have the capability to make that decision..... as they get older, the bar slides and their opinions are given increasingly more and more weight....

do you want to join the youth group, or not......

notice, choice to say "no, I don't want to go to your church" isn't there still.... but I also don't let my child determine his bed time either. Of course, as he gets older, he gets more and more control as things like sports interfere with a set in stone bed time..... but that's still not Jr saying "I'm staying up playing videogames until 3am on a schoolnight"

 

They can learn about it from their parents, and decide what they believe later in life. It is not the schools place to sway them one way or the other.

 

Are you referring to Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein or Idi Amin ?

 

Here in the US

"Oral sex, masturbation and orgasms need to be taught in education. The only way to combat heterosexism and gender conformity is comprehensive sex education. Gender identity expression and sexual orientation are a spectrum and those opposed to homosexuality are stuck in a binary box that religion and family create" NEA spokeswoman Diane Schneider.

With almost all of the children being raised in a family with heterosexual parents, too many kids get the idea that this is the way it is supposed to be. She calls it heterosexism but its just heteronormativity with emphasis on the NORM, that they want to eliminate.

 

And what about the child's freedom of choice? What is so desirable about indoctrinating (brainwashing), a child-who is too young to understand what religion is-with the parent's belief system?

 

They all fit my description.

 

Yes, so I won't bring up hypocrisy-sorry, I just did. So you want to brainwash your children into your belief system, whether they like it or not? Isn't that exactly what this teacher is being accused of?

 

Of course-as part of a general theology class, not a dogma-laden sermon. Do you think a Christian parent home-schooling a young child is going to teach them anything else but Christianity-in effect brainwashing?

 

I would claim that teaching the wonders of freedom should be emphasized more in our school system.

 

It would be interesting to see what institutional learning objectives are established for that school. Most likely those include promoting tolerance for and understanding of minority lifestyles and cultures.

Teachers are responsible (as in it's their job) to not only address the course learning objectives, the departmental learning objectives, but also any institutional learning objectives that can be worked into their courses.





​

 

If kids were educated properly in relation to "morals" there would be no need to get into details about same sex relations. But we don't.

From an early age children are capable of learning the most basis and fundamental moral code. The code that is foundation of the Rule of Law, Our Constitution.

This moral code is the Golden Rule "do unto others". If you do not want others hurting you then you have a moral obligation not to hurt others.

If you do not want someone telling you who to marry, then you have a moral obligation not to do the same to others.

If you do not want someone forcing you to do things that you do not like, then you a have a moral obligation not to force others to do things they do not like.

This is the glue that binds the social contract by which the powers of government are legitimized.

Once that concept is clear, then you can start to discuss individual rights and freedoms.

By the time a kid is through 12 years of school that kid should understand the above concepts so well that there would be no argument that some stupid adult could make in relation to restricting basic rights and freedoms that the kid can not defeat.

School should never even have to bring up the topic of SSM other than in passing or in a list of other freedoms. The most explanation that would need to be given would be this is when a person chooses to marry a person of the same gender and that's it and it would not even need to happen until the kids are in later grades.

The fact of the matter is that we do not teach our kids about individual rights and freedoms. School teaches to "OBEY" and not question in relation to authority, and when they look at the authority "The State" what they see is the state not respecting individual rights and freedoms.

If "Society" is teaching that individual rights and freedoms are not worthy of respect in general, then it is no surprise that we have to get into specifics with children about why they should respect "these particular rights and freedoms".

 

No one is born straight or gay. They become so as a result of their early influences. This is why gay teachers place so much emphasis on brain-washing young people.

 

It's not the teacher's place.


I will differentiate, the lines are getting blurred in our debate here.

As a parent, I'm under no obligation to teach my child about the Islam faith or to give other faiths equal playing time. I don't personally believe religion is a "choose your own adventure" or a salad bar where you pick and choose the parts you like best.


As a teacher.... my role is completely different. Whenever I taught about religins in World History.... I was careful not to use it as a platform to bash the religions I don't personally believe.

And tying this back into the gay debate (not religious that we've digressed into), when it came to social issues that I had to teach about in US history, I did delve into such topics as racial civil rights, and the opposition's point of view. Same with gay.


It's funny, most of my classes were conservative so I would find myself arguing the liberal side of the coin concerning most things. It would stimulate debate. I didn't agree with anything I said, but I would challenge them.


As a teacher, I find it reprehensible that these teachers are using their platform to indoctrinate. I would also be upset if person used their platform as a teacher, to preach Christianity under the guise of "Religions class"

 

4 graders that's like 9-year olds which is pre-puberty, that's one. And two, sex ed does not belong in the math class, in the same manner that religion does not belong in a science class. That someone tried this or that does not make the other one right. Moreover, the problem also concerns sex education curriculum for elementary schools in Ontario which was designed by a fella who is now in court for child pornography. So get sex ed out of the math classes and pedophiles out of the sex ed.

 

the lines, again, get blurred. As a parent, they can teach them Scientology as a religion all they want.... but when it comes to the "3-R's", There is a standard they must pass.

 

Instead of math, geography, English, chemistry, astronomy? No (*)(*)(*)(*)ing way! You do not have to teach something that flows from the force, especially when today's skrul kids cannot tell Lima from lama and Burundi from Burgundy! Stupid kids by definition cannot be free.

 

which is what she was doing, equal rights for all of us.... not just the ones you approve of

 

no one wants to end heterosexuality, they just want to be treated as equals, much like the races what to be treated as equals

 

I have to say, (and it is rare that I do), I agree with OP.

IN That, Teachers should not be teaching subversively, subjects that they are not a part of their curriculum. If your a math teacher, it is your job to teach Math. Not create discussions about Social and Societal subjects.

That said, I think there should be classes that teach and create atmospheres of discussion on subjects that are considered 'sensitive'. Gay Marriage, Religious Extremism, Political discourse, that kind of thing.

Kids will always have questions, and should have outlets. I understand that some parents don't want their kids learning about this stuff, and while I fully and vehemently disagree with that notion, it has to be respected in a govt funded institution like public school.

 

from what we've seen, to this "teacher", religious extremism would be Christianity as we are against homosexual marriage/homosexual-sex as we view it as a sin.

Subjectivity has its place in a classroom as long as all sides are represented equally. Example- if you want to show the Gore film, then also show actual facts which contradict almost the entire movie.

 

Looks like she is taking advantage of the fact that if you raise kid from baby to 6 or 7 years old, you can condition that child to be what you want him to be, when it comes to beliefs and world view. The Jesuits made this fact known a long time ago.

There has been a tremendous push to condition young humans to see homosexuality as beneficial for a human society as heterosexuality, and it has been perhaps successful. For we are all conditioned beings. Of course homosexuality is in no way as beneficial for any human society as heterosexuality, but that is the lie being perpetrated. We should be conditioned with facts, and also conditioned to never mistreat a homosexual, but just to tolerate them, for they cannot help that something went wrong in brain development, and nature gave us an anomaly. But we should not try to structure society by lying to people that this lifestyle is as beneficial to society in the same way heterosexuality is. And we should be working hard on curing the anomaly, so that these people can delight in heterosexuality which is from whence LIFE comes and continues.

The two primary drives that nature gives us is first to survive, and second to procreate. Anything that rejects either one of these mandates is an anomaly, and destructive of life itself. That is just factual common sense, that even the village idiot can grasp. If you cannot grasp that fundamental truth, get your brain checked. For it's incoherent. And cannot operate at the optimum, which might endanger other human beings in some way, at some point in time.

 

I agree that hiding curriculum from parents is wrong, they should be informed via a syllabus - but I am perfectly fine with teachers teaching acceptance and tolerance.

Do you think the children are being harmed by being taught that gay people exist and can wed? What about if the child asks. I am not talking about graphic descriptions but instead of general information.

And whether or not you want to acknowledge it, homosexuality has always occured in human sexuality. Denying it does not make it any less true.

 

due to the age, I was thinking this was more like teaching about sharing and getting along with those that are different then you, ect... 4 to 5 year olds your not gonna get more in depth then that or your gonna lose them anyways

 

Get ya a dictionary. Heteronormativity, a belief that heterosexuality is the norm. THATS what they want to end. Something that's instilled by example in all the kids being raised by heterosexual couples.