OT: The "Radical" Gay Agenda in California Public Schools

User Forum Topic
Submitted by paramount on November 13, 2013 - 11:28pm

Let me say right up front, I am not homophobic at all. I am not gay either.

My daughter is still in her early years of elementary school, and yet I have been shocked and angered that the public schools in California are introducing my impressionable daughter to homosexuality. Or any sexuality for that matter.

It sickens me.

And it is done so in very subtle yet powerful and influential ways: in reading assignments, homework assignments, etc...

One example: A reading assignment about how Mary and Kate adopt a child.

This is yet another reason I want school vouchers - let me have the choice of where I want to send my children and my tax dollars.

The California Teachers Union disgusts me - and they are undermining parents throughout California.

Submitted by abell on November 14, 2013 - 1:27am.

And starting Jan 1, 2014, AB1266 goes into effect in CA. Transgender students (k-12 at public schools) can decide which restrooms they use and which sports teams they want to play on.

Submitted by NotCranky on November 14, 2013 - 7:57am.

A story about adoption isn't particularly sexual. The same story could be told about a man and a woman and it just isn't even in the realm of sex. I have read at least a few stories of adopted kids to my children and I didn't see sex in it.

I don't think there is anything to worry about , I even let my kids listen to KPBS radio! OMG! I think they say "same sex" and "gay and lesbian" at least 10 times and hour. I do cringe sometimes , but it's in pop music , TV and movies...it's going to be everywhere. Well raised kids can deal with it.

What bothers me is when the kids bring sexually explicit conversation, including homophobic stuff, into the classroom from home. Other kids pick it up and it spreads. Some of the first and second graders do this. I think there should be an intervention into their home life to put a stop to it. I guess often times there is some sort or warning or discipline.

Submitted by spdrun on November 14, 2013 - 7:58am.

Don't worry -- it won't turn 'em gay or bi, not if they weren't born that way :)

Submitted by jeff303 on November 14, 2013 - 8:00am.

This entire concern is predicated on a false assumption, namely that sexual orientation is something consciously "chosen" or subconsciously "adopted" based on society. All current scientific evidence points to it being biological and set from birth.

Submitted by UCGal on November 14, 2013 - 9:29am.

I'm with Rustico on this one.

A story of adoption is the exact opposite of sexual - no mention of how babies are made.

Are you offended because, in the story, a same sex couple is adopting and they're not being run out of town as sinners or heathens? Would you approve of the story if the story then showed them being humiliated and harassed for adopting a child when they were a same sex couple?

Hiding your head in the sand and pretending gay people aren't part of our world doesn't make them *poof* disappear. The bible preaches love, tolerance, and turning the other cheek. It teaches that it's not for man to judge, but that judgement is God's job. (I'm not particularly religious - but have done a bit of bible study.) Are you saying you're in the position to judge other people's sins?

Submitted by Rich Toscano on November 14, 2013 - 10:01am.

Passing mention of a same-sex couple = "radical gay agenda"

Submitted by sdduuuude on November 14, 2013 - 11:13am.

I think you are all missing his point.

The point is not against homosexuals.

The point is that the school is forcing discussions of sexuality earlier than he is comfortable with.

It's a good point.

Submitted by spdrun on November 14, 2013 - 11:17am.

We had health-ed in the 5th or 6th grade, maybe earlier, and this was in the early 90ies. Nothing new. Sexuality is a natural part of life. No shame in learning about it before the age where one starts to actually experience attraction.

Better that kids who experience homosexual attraction know that it's normal and OK and not hide it and get driven to suicide or worse...

Submitted by Rich Toscano on November 14, 2013 - 11:16am.

sdduuuude wrote:

The point is not against homosexuals.

Title of the post:

OT: The "Radical" Gay Agenda in California Public Schools

Submitted by njtosd on November 14, 2013 - 11:26am.

The adoption story does raise a question that some parents may justifiably wish to leave until a child gets older. Most children don't think about who's married to who, until something is raised that is outside of their zone of assumptions.

Would the other commenters here be ok with a story of Jack and his wives Jane and jean? If everyone in jack's family is ok with it - shouldn't it be ok to have in a book? And before someone says "that's not legal" remember that gay marriage isn't legal everywhere. Note: I'm not in favor of polygamy- just making a point.

Submitted by sdduuuude on November 14, 2013 - 11:36am.

Rich Toscano wrote:
sdduuuude wrote:

The point is not against homosexuals.

Title of the post:

OT: The "Radical" Gay Agenda in California Public Schools

What he actually said:

paramount wrote:

I have been shocked and angered that the public schools in California are introducing my impressionable daughter to homosexuality. Or any sexuality for that matter.

Just because he thinks they are radical doesn't mean he is anti-homosexuals.

Submitted by sdduuuude on November 14, 2013 - 11:38am.

njtosd wrote:
The adoption story does raise a question that some parents may justifiably wish to leave until a child gets older.

Ya - that's all I'm sayin'.

Of course, you have no control over the fact that in our school, we actually have a kid w/ 2 moms. So, life may force the discussion before the curricula anyway.

Submitted by sdduuuude on November 14, 2013 - 11:41am.

jeff303 wrote:
This entire concern is predicated on a false assumption, namely that sexual orientation is something consciously "chosen" or subconsciously "adopted" based on society. All current scientific evidence points to it being biological and set from birth.

You, in particular, are missing the point. The entire concern has nothing do do with this predication.

The entire concern is that some parents don't want to start explaining sex to their kids until they reach a certain age.

Submitted by spdrun on November 14, 2013 - 11:44am.

So they're rather have sex "explained" to them by another kid of the appropriate gender, then cry when they end up prego, hurt, or with an incurable VD. Orthodox $BOOK thumpers confusicate me.

Submitted by sdduuuude on November 14, 2013 - 11:45am.

sdduuuude wrote:
Just because he thinks they are radical doesn't mean he is anti-homosexuals.

Well, maybe against the radical ones with an agenda, which is likely not very many.

Submitted by no_such_reality on November 14, 2013 - 12:01pm.

What's the underlying concern again?

the OP will need to explain if their child ask why the child in the story has two mommies or two daddies instead of a mommy and daddy like them?

or the Op will need to explain why the child in the story needs to be adopted? What's adoption?

or the OP will need to explain why the parents in the story are adopting?

Submitted by Coronita on November 14, 2013 - 12:01pm.

Meh, it doesn't bother me...

But I would rather have preferred our educators to have have created math assignments that read something like:

"If Joe maxes out and borrows $20000 on a credit card, and makes $20 a payment each month, how many months will it take Joe to pay off his credit card debt, assuming he doesn't borrow any more money from it and there is no interest charges?"

Of course, I have a feeling that sort of math question wouldn't be allowed, because it would be flagged as borderline "family values" that shouldn't be taught in a public school math class...

Submitted by sdduuuude on November 14, 2013 - 12:01pm.

flu wrote:
Meh, it doesn't bother me...

But I would rather have preferred our educators to have have created math assignments that read something like:

If Joe maxes out and borrows $20000 on a credit card, and makes $20 a payment each month, how many months will it take Joe to pay off his credit card debt, assuming he doesn't borrow any more money from it?

Of course, I have a feeling that sort of math question wouldn't be allowed, because it would be flagged as borderline "family values" that shouldn't be taught in a public school math class...

Post of the month nominee !

Submitted by Coronita on November 14, 2013 - 12:15pm.

sdduuuude wrote:
flu wrote:
Meh, it doesn't bother me...

But I would rather have preferred our educators to have have created math assignments that read something like:

If Joe maxes out and borrows $20000 on a credit card, and makes $20 a payment each month, how many months will it take Joe to pay off his credit card debt, assuming he doesn't borrow any more money from it?

Of course, I have a feeling that sort of math question wouldn't be allowed, because it would be flagged as borderline "family values" that shouldn't be taught in a public school math class...

Post of the month nominee !

The irony of it, isn't it???

On one hand, some have stated "how are the uninformed/uneducated suppose to understand/learn better money management skills and teach their kids those skills if they didn't learn themselves?".... But on the other hand, who is going to teach those money management skills, if money management skills can't be taught in a public school?

Oh well, not my problem and not my kid's problem I guess.

Submitted by Rich Toscano on November 14, 2013 - 12:18pm.

sdduuuude wrote:

Well, maybe against the radical ones with an agenda, which is likely not very many.

That's my point -- there is no "radical gay agenda" here.

Here's what happened: a reading assignment mentioned, in passing, 2 women adopting a child together. Where exactly is the "radical agenda?" I don't see it.

OP's takeaway: "Radical gay agenda! It sickens me!"

You are giving him a pass by saying it's not about the gays, that it's about early discussion of sexuality.

First, there's nothing radical about that. I remember getting sex education in 5th grade. That was in 1981. And it was way more explicit than this, which is really just about two women adopting a child together (you could probably skirt the sex part pretty easily if the child asks about it).

Second, if it's just about any mention of sexuality, why is the title The "Radical" Gay Agenda in California Public Schools? Why isn't it The Radical Early Sex Education Agenda?

So, like I said (more succinctly) in my first post:

oblique mention to a youngster of two women adopting a child ==
an "agenda", and also, "sickening"

Sounds pretty anti-gay to me.

Submitted by spdrun on November 14, 2013 - 12:24pm.

"If Joe maxes out and borrows $20000 on a credit card, and makes $20 a payment each month, how many months will it take Joe to pay off his credit card debt, assuming he doesn't borrow any more money from it and there is no interest charges?"

Of course, I have a feeling that sort of math question wouldn't be allowed, because it would be flagged as borderline "family values" that shouldn't be taught in a public school math class...

I can't speak to the People's Republic of CA, but when I went to public HS in small-town NJ in the 90s, we had interest-amortization and things like that in high school calculus. Or maybe it was our economics class, can't remember, but no one objected...

We also had shop, home-ec, and basic electronic theory classes, the latter taught by a retired radio engineer from Bell Labs, so the school was big on "life skills" as well as hard sciences and math up to calculus.

Submitted by Coronita on November 14, 2013 - 12:30pm.

spdrun wrote:

"If Joe maxes out and borrows $20000 on a credit card, and makes $20 a payment each month, how many months will it take Joe to pay off his credit card debt, assuming he doesn't borrow any more money from it and there is no interest charges?"

Of course, I have a feeling that sort of math question wouldn't be allowed, because it would be flagged as borderline "family values" that shouldn't be taught in a public school math class...

I can't speak to the People's Republic of CA, but when I went to HS in small-town NJ in the 90s, we had interest-amortization and things like that in high school calculus. Or maybe it was our economics class, can't remember, but no one objected...

We also had shop, home-ec, and basic electronic theory classes, the latter taught by a retired radio engineer from Bell Labs.

Um, I'm not even really worried about Calculus or amortization, or heck even compound interest.

How just about a very simple lesson that if you Borrow $X to buy crap that doesn't generate income, and make $X/1000 payments each month, you become a debt slave bitch-boy for Y years until it's paid off....

Simple elementary school math, that could be taught to just about any elementary school kid, from honors level to remedial and might actually help out when Joe is old enough to use his credit card....

Again, I'm all gay rights, adoptions, etc,etc. And that's all fine and dandy. But look at the way a lot of people in this country handle their finances. Heck, look at how our government handles its finances.. You think *maybe* our educators would get a clue on what sort education crisis we have in this country? Or is the truth, they aren't qualified to teach it because they suck at managing their own finances as well?

Submitted by spdrun on November 14, 2013 - 12:35pm.

My point was that such things ARE taught in (at least some) schools. Political correctness in the sense of not teaching "family values" is not at issue here.

Submitted by Coronita on November 14, 2013 - 12:50pm.

spdrun wrote:
My point was that such things ARE taught in (at least some) schools. Political correctness in the sense of not teaching "family values" is not at issue here.

It's taught in 6 states... NJ and NY happen to be one of them..And even as you admit, it's only taught in the upper honors classes, which means it's not taught to most people. Most people in high school aren't necessarily taking calculus.

There is no federal standard. And some distance back one district I remember attempted that in CA and it was shot down.

Submitted by spdrun on November 14, 2013 - 12:51pm.

I'd say that probably 80-90% of students went on to take at least pre-calc (derivatives) if not Calculus (integration).

Our of curiosity, is your 6 out of (50?) states a real number or is it an attempt at humor? I'd actually be interested in seeing stats as to what is required reading in which state.

Submitted by Coronita on November 14, 2013 - 1:28pm.

spdrun wrote:
I'd say that probably 80-90% of students went on to take at least pre-calc (derivatives) if not Calculus (integration).

Our of curiosity, is your 6 out of (50?) states a real number or is it an attempt at humor? I'd actually be interested in seeing stats as to what is required reading in which state.

The majority of high school students ARENT taking calculus or for that matter pre-calc. And again, teaching 1-2 weeks of compound interest and amortization the last year before college is hardly an effective way to instill any sort of money management skills for someone that has none. Especially the way it is taught in school being a theory of exercises, and very rarely even touch reality of "real world money management problems"....

You're taking this for granted because you were either raised with money management skills or you had significant exposure to it from someone else.

WRTO the 6 states...It was the number out of one of the included articles, though it was dated back to 2005/6... I think there was another article floating around dating back to 2010 that indicated it getting worse, especially with the education cuts. Correction the number is higher. most offer some sort of basic economics, but few offer personal finance as a curriculum.

http://business.time.com/2012/03/27/in-a...

"Meanwhile, states that require a personal finance class fell to 14 from 15."

Submitted by spdrun on November 14, 2013 - 1:28pm.

Regardless, it is taught in some US places and political correctness doesn't come into it.

Submitted by Coronita on November 14, 2013 - 1:30pm.

spdrun wrote:
Regardless, it is taught in some US places and political correctness doesn't come into it.

http://business.time.com/2012/03/27/in-a...

14 states.

Submitted by Coronita on November 14, 2013 - 1:33pm.

spdrun wrote:
Regardless, it is taught in some US places and political correctness doesn't come into it.

As long as it's NOT a mandatory requirement as part of a broad sweeping federal education program, and as long as it is elective per state/district/county, it IS about political correctness.

The only way you FIX people who have money management problems is if you FORCE people to take a course on it across the country, no different than ensuring any any sort of minimum level of education about any other sort of topic in a public school.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.