Maryland: State's Right Supercedes Parent's Rights

[2ndAmendment]

...but you don't get to choose, right? All you can do is the best you can do and live with your choices, right? I think you're pretty safe.

As far as Nebraska, I'll take hell over Nebraska in January.

You might want to rethink that. January is only 31 days a year. Hell is forever.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...but you don't get to choose, right? All you can do is the best you can do and live with your choices, right? I think you're pretty safe.

Oh. Yes you do. That is the only eternal choice we have to make; our eternal destination, heaven or hell. God's way or satan's.

 

[This_person]

Public schools do not teach anything about whether or not a religion is wrong, hateful, and immoral. Religion is neither supported or discredited. If you want your child to learn religious morals, teach them at home, church, or private school. Do not expect public schools to teach that something is a sin according to the bible. The only laws that we are required to uphold are those found in the constitution and the state. They may need to go back and fix whatever policy they made about including homosexuality in the curriculum and make it optional. I have yet to find a lesson plan that explains what is to be taught, but I hardly believe the class will be called Fudge Packing and Carpet Munching 101. I would also be suprised to find that they are forcing students to attend these classes. If they are to be included in the sex ed programs, then there is no reason why parents can opt for the student not to participate. But there are parents who do not have a problem with their students learning about other types of lifestyles, and if they support the school board's decision, then we have to accomodate them. That way, we support everyone's moral teachings, religious or not.

This is a topic that can be argued for days on end. Why not come up with a way to accomodate the wants and needs of both parties? Those that don't want it taught and those that do. Make it a win-win situation and not a "I'm right, you're wrong and you're going to burn in hell" arguement.

Actually, the state believes you DON'T have to accomodate both parties:

The local board has decided that the three additional lessons transmit community valvues concerning tolerance of sexual diversity. In doing so, the school board necessarily discriminates amonth viewpoints it wishes to convey. The Supreme Court has accepted that result recognizing that school curricula are not subject to viewpoint-neutrality analyses: "Much like a university selecting a commencement speaker, a public institution selecting speakers for a lecture series, or a public school prescribing its curriculum, a broadcaster by its nature will facilitate the expression of some viewpoints instead of others."

As the local board explains, there is good reason for not requiring viewpoint neutrality or the inclusion of all viewpoints in a school curriculum. "Doing so necessarily requires a school board to make normative decisions all the time - whether in deciding to teach the history of the Holocaust without lending credence to those who deny it or extolling the virtues of democratic rule in civic class without giving equal time to the 'virtues' of fascism. A viewpoint-neutrality requirement would force the County Board into a Hobson's choice: either abandon any lessons on the Holocaust or else address the horrors of that event, but be forced to turn around and tell students that perhaps the Holocaust never happened...."

So, there you go, Mont. County; your school board equates NOT believing homosexuals deserve respect for their actions with not believing in the Holocaust.

 

[Midnightrider]

It's a physical handicap, in my opinion. Why? Because you can't procreate. Does that mean all non-procreation sex is bad? Well, that's just a stupid question, in my opinion. Of course not.


But, having the school take 45 minutes out of it's day five times (for three lessons ) to teach something that equates a religious teaching with negative effects, and teaches a need to provide respect for something so many people find abhorant is not in the state's duty. It's an agenda of social conditioning to a specific ideology.

You know back in the old days these were likely the same arguments that segragationists used......

Considering we currently have a school system that doesn't allow religion in the class room, i dont see where teaching tolerance has anything to do with religion. If you are intolerant because of your religion, thats your religions problem, and you are welcome to continue to teach your children hate in the name of God. but it shouldn't be endorsed by the public education system.

 

[Larry Gude]

Ever been to...

You might want to rethink that. January is only 31 days a year. Hell is forever.

....Nebraska in winter?

 

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

If homosexual behavior is promulgated as being normal to the children and more and more people become homosexual and heterosexual sex becomes the abnormal in the eyes of society (fat used to be pretty and trim ugly on women) and the society passes laws against heterosexual behavior. How long does the species last? One generation? Two if there is lots of illegal heterosexual activity going on?

...we'll put you down as words make people gay.


Got it.

 

[kmw1123]

So basically the point of the three lessons is to teach that discrimination based on homosexuality is wrong, how to put on a condom and use birth control, and that abstinence is the best way to prevent disease and pregnancy. Doesn't sound like such a big deal considering how many notes I've confiscated and conversations I've overheard concerning sex in middle school.

 

[Midnightrider]

...we'll put you down as words make people gay.


Got it.

besides, its a big jump from, its ok to be who you are, to "it is now the law that everyone have homosexual sex exclusively"

 

[Midnightrider]

So basically the point of the three lessons is to teach that discrimination based on homosexuality is wrong, how to put on a condom and use birth control, and that abstinence is the best way to prevent disease and pregnancy. Doesn't sound like such a big deal considering how many notes I've confiscated and conversations I've overheard concerning sex in middle school.

i am totally outraged

 

[This_person]

You know back in the old days these were likely the same arguments that segragationists used......

Considering we currently have a school system that doesn't allow religion in the class room, i dont see where teaching tolerance has anything to do with religion. If you are intolerant because of your religion, thats your religions problem, and you are welcome to continue to teach your children hate in the name of God. but it shouldn't be endorsed by the public education system.

It may be the same arguments as segragationists, but the substance is far different, so that doesn't really much matter, does it? Believing someone is better than someone else based solely on skin pigmentation is just stupid.

If you read it again, you'll notice that I didn't highlight the "tolerance" portion. I don't have a problem with that. As I said in numerous previous posts, the problem is that the school doesn't know the difference between tolerance and acceptance. We are all sinners, in my opinion. I've yet to meet a perfect person. So, I fully believe we need to tolerate everyone else's sins. But, I don't need to respect the person's act as equal to heterosexuality. I need to tolerate them, and not directly discriminate or harass. That's just common sense, in my opinion.

As for teaching hate, I'd never do that for any reason. There are actions I hate, but you can't hate people. And, you don't have to accept the actions and repect them as equal actions with others. I, personally, teach NOT to hate, for (virtually) any reason. Hate is, for lack of a better word to someone whose morals may not come from the same beliefs as mine, wrong.

 

[Larry Gude]

Well...

besides, its a big jump from, its ok to be who you are, to "it is now the law that everyone have homosexual sex exclusively"

...there's that.

I mean, how many people 'became gay' over the years long before school boards got into the act? How can that be?

 

[This_person]

So basically the point of the three lessons is to teach that discrimination based on homosexuality is wrong, how to put on a condom and use birth control, and that abstinence is the best way to prevent disease and pregnancy. Doesn't sound like such a big deal considering how many notes I've confiscated and conversations I've overheard concerning sex in middle school.

Not what I got out of it. The point of the three (or, five if you use that "new math") lessons is to teach respect for homosexuality is the only right way to act, and to believe anything else is "negative stereotyping".

Also, how to put on a condom and use birth control is incredibly wrong of a school to teach. Think about that - HOW to PUT ON a CONDOM. If just thinking about what message that sends (along with birth control lessons) doesn't send shivers down your spine as a future parent (congratulations on your NON-religious wedding coming up, by the way), I fear for our future.

"Hey kids, here's ways 98% assured not to let you get pregnant. Here's how to get the prescription, here's how to buy and use a condom. Let's demonstrate it for you! Now, if anyone like your parents, grandparents, or pastor tells you that pre-marital and/or homosexual sex is wrong, that's just harassment. Oh, and by the way, if you have no sex you won't have kids, either.

 

[bcp]

So basically the point of the three lessons is to teach that discrimination based on homosexuality is wrong, how to put on a condom and use birth control, and that abstinence is the best way to prevent disease and pregnancy. Doesn't sound like such a big deal considering how many notes I've confiscated and conversations I've overheard concerning sex in middle school.

depends on what they are teaching is discrimination also doesnt it?

as far as the conversations about sex in the middle school goes, Im sure that teaching the kids how to do it without getting caught is really going to reduce those conversations.

the school is overstepping its boundries here.

and, dont be surprised when certain students explain to the teacher that Yes, homosexuality is a choice that is not acceptable.

until there is some proof that it is not a choice, I tend to think it is a choice.

 

[kmw1123]

Not what I got out of it. The point of the three (or, five if you use that "new math") lessons is to teach respect for homosexuality is the only right way to act, and to believe anything else is "negative stereotyping".

Also, how to put on a condom and use birth control is incredibly wrong of a school to teach. Think about that - HOW to PUT ON a CONDOM. If just thinking about what message that sends (along with birth control lessons) doesn't send shivers down your spine as a future parent (congratulations on your NON-religious wedding coming up, by the way), I fear for our future.

"Hey kids, here's ways 98% assured not to let you get pregnant. Here's how to get the prescription, here's how to buy and use a condom. Let's demonstrate it for you! Now, if anyone like your parents, grandparents, or pastor tells you that pre-maritial and/or homosexual sex is wrong, that's just harassment. Oh, and by the way, if you have no sex you won't have kids, either.

Thank you for the congratulations, even if it was dripping with sarcasm. I wish I could be like you and think that we live in a perfect world where everyone waits to have sex until marriage and that children wouldn't even dream of having sex. But, alas, we don't live in a perfect world. More and more children are having sex whether their parents are teaching them religious morals or not. And the ages keep getting younger. I wish I could stop it, I really do. I just recently listened to a twelve year old talk about how she would rather have oral sex with people she didnt know instead of her "boyfriend" because it wouldn't matter if she was good at it. She just wanted to practice. It turns my stomach because at that age, I was still playing with Barbies. But we have to face reality. In no way do I see telling students how to use protection and where it is available as a way of giving them the go-ahead to have sex. It just gives them the information for whenever they decide to use it, whether it be at the age of 14 or 24. Abstinence is highly stressed in sex ed classes. Students are taught that it is the only true way to stay safe from disease and early pregnancy. Studies have shown that kids who have open relationships with their parents and can freely talk about sex are more likely to wait to have sex and make more informed choices about protecting themselves. Parents who do not want their kids to be exposed to sex ed are allowed to have the students not participate, especially because of religious reasons. The same should be allowed for these lessons as well. But the majority of parents allow their children to participate in sex ed and for good reason. As far as teaching tolerance for homosexuals, believing it is wrong is fine, but discrimination for whatever reason is against the law and thats the whole point of the lesson.

 

[Midnightrider]

It may be the same arguments as segragationists, but the substance is far different, so that doesn't really much matter, does it? Believing someone is better than someone else based solely on their sexual orientation is just stupid.

If you read it again, you'll notice that I didn't highlight the "tolerance" portion. I don't have a problem with that. As I said in numerous previous posts, the problem is that the school doesn't know the difference between tolerance and acceptance. We are all sinners, in my opinion. I've yet to meet a perfect person. So, I fully believe we need to tolerate everyone else's sins. But, I don't need to respect the person's act as equal to heterosexuality. I need to tolerate them, and not directly discriminate or harass. That's just common sense, in my opinion.

As for teaching hate, I'd never do that for any reason. There are actions I hate, but you can't hate people. And, you don't have to accept the actions and repect them as equal actions with others. I, personally, teach NOT to hate, for (virtually) any reason. Hate is, for lack of a better word to someone whose morals may not come from the same beliefs as mine, wrong.

as for teaching them to use birth control, thats alreay been happening. Like i said, a tenth grader already has all the equipment and all the urges necessary to get knocked up, i dont see any reason to keep this information from them. If you have a religious objection to birth control, then teach your kids that birthcontrol is not right for them......

 

[2ndAmendment]

....Nebraska in winter?

Yes. Went to college in Nebraska.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...we'll put you down as words make people gay.


Got it.

Huh?

 

[This_person]

Thank you for the congratulations, even if it was dripping with sarcasm.

Actually, it was heartfelt congratulations. If I'd wanted to be sarcastic, I would have gone into my whole tirade about non-religious weddings (what's the point? If you're not pledging in front of God, why not just grab your tax advantage/benefits entitlement paperwork on just some average Tuesday?), but I didn't. I just wish you a happy marriage.

I wish I could be like you and think that we live in a perfect world where everyone waits to have sex until marriage and that children wouldn't even dream of having sex. But, alas, we don't live in a perfect world.

Although, with statements like this, you make it very hard not to be sarcastic. "Really, the world's not perfect?"

More and more children are having sex whether their parents are teaching them religious morals or not. And the ages keep getting younger.

This is a serious question: why do you think this is? Do you think that a society that teaches acceptance of different sexual practices to eigth graders MAY have something to do with it? Not everything, by a long shot. Certainly the virtually non-existant standards of television, movies, and radio have a lot to do with it, as does a culture that requires both parents to work just to make enough money to be middle class, thus leaving no one at home with the kids but Britney/Christina/Rihanna/et al. Certainly having incredibly easy access to porn on your home encycopedia (internet) has something to do with it. Taking eigth graders' time to discuss the relative merits of respecting homosexuals and empathizing with their plight against those that have moral objections to their sex acts I think, also, has something to do with it.

I wish I could stop it, I really do. I just recently listened to a twelve year old talk about how she would rather have oral sex with people she didnt know instead of her "boyfriend" because it wouldn't matter if she was good at it. She just wanted to practice. It turns my stomach because at that age, I was still playing with Barbies.

It IS sad, no doubt. Where do you think she learned about something like that. I have a 12 year old, she has no idea what oral sex is.

But we have to face reality. In no way do I see telling students how to use protection and where it is available as a way of giving them the go-ahead to have sex. It just gives them the information for whenever they decide to use it, whether it be at the age of 14 or 24.

In my opinion, you contradicted yourself there. "...whether it be at 14"? This is kind of like teaching a kid how a car works, how to drive it, where the keys are, and telling them that the law requires their parents never find out if they get caught driving without a license. Then, tell 'em that they can't drive without a license. And, say that doesn't encourage driving without a license. Of course kids want sex, talk about sex, think about sex, fantasize about sex, write about sex....... let's not say "and, here are the keys"

Abstinence is highly stressed in sex ed classes. Students are taught that it is the only true way to stay safe from disease and early pregnancy.

Parents who do not want their kids to be exposed to sex ed are allowed to have the students not participate, especially because of religious reasons.

And, I'll bet those kids aren't ridiculed AT ALL.

The same should be allowed for these lessons as well. But the majority of parents allow their children to participate in sex ed and for good reason.

You spoke of good parents and open communication. That's where this should come in, not from their teacher.

As far as teaching tolerance for homosexuals, believing it is wrong is fine, but discrimination for whatever reason is against the law and thats the whole point of the lesson.

If it were the whole point, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Do you have little "discrimination in the workplace" training sessions like the bulk of us do? If Montgomery County wanted to have discrimination education, they'd follow that format and no one would have heard anything about it. "Positive Effects of Respect and Empathy" for homosexuals training, that's a little different.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...there's that.

I mean, how many people 'became gay' over the years long before school boards got into the act? How can that be?

It is not as far fetched as it may initially sound. Let's take adultery. It used to be punishable by death and that was not just by the Jews. Now it is a misdemeanor with a five dollar fine (I think) in Maryland. It used to be accepted as self defense to kill someone who was attacking you. In Maryland, you might be prosecuted for murder. The laws of man are in constant flux. What was lawful isn't and what wasn't is.

 

[This_person]

as for teaching them to use birth control, thats alreay been happening. Like i said, a tenth grader already has all the equipment and all the urges necessary to get knocked up, i dont see any reason to keep this information from them. If you have a religious objection to birth control, then teach your kids that birthcontrol is not right for them......

And meanwhile pay to have the opposite taught to them at school? Doesn't make much sense, does it?

As for your "fix" of my quote, I disagree with you on several levels:
A) If "sexual orientation" implies being a homosexual is a choice, then there's a huge difference between being born with a certain skin pigmentation and choosing how to act, don't you think?
B) If "sexual orientation" implies a birth condition like skin pigmentation, then you're closer to having a point, but still not really. Now, we take it a little further back in the sentence to "someone is better than someone else". I don't believe I'm better than anyone else, but I do see a difference in my actions. Again, as I said in an earlier post, if I were born a cleptomaniac, that's a condition of my birth, and I can't change those innate desires to steal. But, I certainly wouldn't expect a class of the "positive effects of respect and empathy" for theives. We're still discussing actions here, not hair color, skin color, height, etc.

A tenth grader also has all the equipment and urges to do a lot of things (drink alcohol, drive under age, beat the crap out of people they don't like, etc). Telling them "here's something to help cover your breath so you won't smell like you've been drinking, and here's where you can go get alcohol regardless of your maturity level (age), and if you just do it when your parents or the cops aren't around you'll probably (98-99%) not get in any trouble" would not be right. Neither would handing them tools for sexual relations before they're mature enough. There's a time and a place for everything. Delayed gratification has it's advantages.