(10-22-2019 08:54 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 07:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Drew, you clearly have an issue with the author and that is fine......

But you repeatedly ignore the content of the article in order to focus on the apparent (to you) opinions of the author

The subject matter is age inappropriate. To you it’s about LGBTQ. To parents, it’s about age appropriate discussions

You can ignore it all you want, but speaking to a child about trans-genderism will undeniably involve talking about things that preschoolers would be completely oblivious to.

Kids don’t see gender or sexual orientation. They just don’t. They don’t know that mr Johnson has a husband or that mr Johnson used to be mrs Johnson, and they don’t care. You present as a woman, you’re like mommu or grand mommy or aunt Millie. You present like a man, you’re like daddy or grandpa or uncle joe.

Elementary school aged kids definitely have a concept of both gender and sexual orientation. While they might not know the terms or the biological differences, kids can definitely tell who in their class is a boy and who is a girl. Also while they won't know what sexual orientation or sex is, they have a concept of romantic relationships. They know that Prince Charming loves Cinderella and their parents love each other and that Man+Woman=Family. The whole point of the curriculum is to let them know that for some people Man+Man=Family and Woman+Woman=Family and that's okay. If you don't like that your child has to learn about other people in school, withdraw them.

Also, the best part of your post above is that you claim that we can't teach children about things like trans people without diving into non-age appropriate topics and then right after, you explain what a trans person is without going into non-age appropriate topics. You can't make this stuff up. lol

therefore, if'n they don't understand the biological difference, they can easily be manipulated......like a fk'n dog.....

what a dipshite....

puppies that go 'woofy fk'n woof' in the howze....

(10-22-2019 09:06 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 08:54 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 07:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Drew, you clearly have an issue with the author and that is fine......

But you repeatedly ignore the content of the article in order to focus on the apparent (to you) opinions of the author

The subject matter is age inappropriate. To you it’s about LGBTQ. To parents, it’s about age appropriate discussions

You can ignore it all you want, but speaking to a child about trans-genderism will undeniably involve talking about things that preschoolers would be completely oblivious to.

Kids don’t see gender or sexual orientation. They just don’t. They don’t know that mr Johnson has a husband or that mr Johnson used to be mrs Johnson, and they don’t care. You present as a woman, you’re like mommu or grand mommy or aunt Millie. You present like a man, you’re like daddy or grandpa or uncle joe.

Elementary school aged kids definitely have a concept of both gender and sexual orientation. While they might not know the terms or the biological differences, kids can definitely tell who in their class is a boy and who is a girl. Also while they won't know what sexual orientation or sex is, they have a concept of romantic relationships. They know that Prince Charming loves Cinderella and their parents love each other and that Man+Woman=Family. The whole point of the curriculum is to let them know that for some people Man+Man=Family and Woman+Woman=Family and that's okay. If you don't like that your child has to learn about other people in school, withdraw them.

Also, the best part of your post above is that you claim that we can't teach children about things like trans people without diving into non-age appropriate topics and then right after, you explain what a trans person is without going into non-age appropriate topics. You can't make this stuff up. lol

therefore, if'n they don't understand the biological difference, they can easily be manipulated......like a fk'n dog.....

what a dipshite....

puppies that go 'woofy fk'n woof' in the howze....

Somehow he went from pre-schoolers to elementary school kids. Big difference between a 4 year old and a 5th grader.

(10-22-2019 09:08 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 09:06 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 08:54 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 07:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Drew, you clearly have an issue with the author and that is fine......

But you repeatedly ignore the content of the article in order to focus on the apparent (to you) opinions of the author

The subject matter is age inappropriate. To you it’s about LGBTQ. To parents, it’s about age appropriate discussions

You can ignore it all you want, but speaking to a child about trans-genderism will undeniably involve talking about things that preschoolers would be completely oblivious to.

Kids don’t see gender or sexual orientation. They just don’t. They don’t know that mr Johnson has a husband or that mr Johnson used to be mrs Johnson, and they don’t care. You present as a woman, you’re like mommu or grand mommy or aunt Millie. You present like a man, you’re like daddy or grandpa or uncle joe.

Elementary school aged kids definitely have a concept of both gender and sexual orientation. While they might not know the terms or the biological differences, kids can definitely tell who in their class is a boy and who is a girl. Also while they won't know what sexual orientation or sex is, they have a concept of romantic relationships. They know that Prince Charming loves Cinderella and their parents love each other and that Man+Woman=Family. The whole point of the curriculum is to let them know that for some people Man+Man=Family and Woman+Woman=Family and that's okay. If you don't like that your child has to learn about other people in school, withdraw them.

Also, the best part of your post above is that you claim that we can't teach children about things like trans people without diving into non-age appropriate topics and then right after, you explain what a trans person is without going into non-age appropriate topics. You can't make this stuff up. lol

therefore, if'n they don't understand the biological difference, they can easily be manipulated......like a fk'n dog.....

what a dipshite....

puppies that go 'woofy fk'n woof' in the howze....

Somehow he went from pre-schoolers to elementary school kids. Big difference between a 4 year old and a 5th grader.

Do your research. The article is about a week-long curriculum that goes from pre-k to 8th grade which includes elementary and middle school-aged kids. In most of the country, including this district in Illinois, pre-k is part of elementary school. The author uses the incorrect word "preschool" in her title in order to gaslight her audience.

(10-22-2019 09:15 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 09:08 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 09:06 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 08:54 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 07:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Drew, you clearly have an issue with the author and that is fine......

But you repeatedly ignore the content of the article in order to focus on the apparent (to you) opinions of the author

The subject matter is age inappropriate. To you it’s about LGBTQ. To parents, it’s about age appropriate discussions

You can ignore it all you want, but speaking to a child about trans-genderism will undeniably involve talking about things that preschoolers would be completely oblivious to.

Kids don’t see gender or sexual orientation. They just don’t. They don’t know that mr Johnson has a husband or that mr Johnson used to be mrs Johnson, and they don’t care. You present as a woman, you’re like mommu or grand mommy or aunt Millie. You present like a man, you’re like daddy or grandpa or uncle joe.

Elementary school aged kids definitely have a concept of both gender and sexual orientation. While they might not know the terms or the biological differences, kids can definitely tell who in their class is a boy and who is a girl. Also while they won't know what sexual orientation or sex is, they have a concept of romantic relationships. They know that Prince Charming loves Cinderella and their parents love each other and that Man+Woman=Family. The whole point of the curriculum is to let them know that for some people Man+Man=Family and Woman+Woman=Family and that's okay. If you don't like that your child has to learn about other people in school, withdraw them.

Also, the best part of your post above is that you claim that we can't teach children about things like trans people without diving into non-age appropriate topics and then right after, you explain what a trans person is without going into non-age appropriate topics. You can't make this stuff up. lol

therefore, if'n they don't understand the biological difference, they can easily be manipulated......like a fk'n dog.....

what a dipshite....

puppies that go 'woofy fk'n woof' in the howze....

Somehow he went from pre-schoolers to elementary school kids. Big difference between a 4 year old and a 5th grader.

Do your research. The article is about a week-long curriculum that goes from pre-k to 8th grade which includes elementary and middle school-aged kids. In most of the country, including this district in Illinois, pre-k is part of elementary school. The author uses the incorrect word "preschool" in her title in order to gaslight her audience.

No need for research. The simple fact the school board tried to hide this from parents tells me all I need to know.

This is about indoctrinating children, we all know it is. Drew and the other LGBTQ'ers can deny and double talk all they want but it doesn't change the simple and obvious fact.

No matter how you spin it its totally unnecessary.

I think this new curriculum will result in an increase in homeschooling, particularly in the downstate region.

Last week, the cashier at Home Depot asked my daughter what school she went to. When my daughter she was homeschooled, he looked at me and said, "you're giving her a priceless gift, especially with the politics in the schools these days."

Illinois is one of the least restrictive states for homeschoolers. Parents don't even have to register or notify anyone that they're homeschooling their kids, and there's zero testing requirements.

I wonder how long it will be before the Democrats realize that people are using homeschooling as a way to avoid their indoctrination. It's already happened in California, which changed from one of the least restrictive homeschooling states in 2000 to one of the most restrictive by 2016.

(10-22-2019 09:08 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 09:06 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 08:54 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 07:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Drew, you clearly have an issue with the author and that is fine......

But you repeatedly ignore the content of the article in order to focus on the apparent (to you) opinions of the author

The subject matter is age inappropriate. To you it’s about LGBTQ. To parents, it’s about age appropriate discussions

You can ignore it all you want, but speaking to a child about trans-genderism will undeniably involve talking about things that preschoolers would be completely oblivious to.

Kids don’t see gender or sexual orientation. They just don’t. They don’t know that mr Johnson has a husband or that mr Johnson used to be mrs Johnson, and they don’t care. You present as a woman, you’re like mommu or grand mommy or aunt Millie. You present like a man, you’re like daddy or grandpa or uncle joe.

Elementary school aged kids definitely have a concept of both gender and sexual orientation. While they might not know the terms or the biological differences, kids can definitely tell who in their class is a boy and who is a girl. Also while they won't know what sexual orientation or sex is, they have a concept of romantic relationships. They know that Prince Charming loves Cinderella and their parents love each other and that Man+Woman=Family. The whole point of the curriculum is to let them know that for some people Man+Man=Family and Woman+Woman=Family and that's okay. If you don't like that your child has to learn about other people in school, withdraw them.

Also, the best part of your post above is that you claim that we can't teach children about things like trans people without diving into non-age appropriate topics and then right after, you explain what a trans person is without going into non-age appropriate topics. You can't make this stuff up. lol

therefore, if'n they don't understand the biological difference, they can easily be manipulated......like a fk'n dog.....

what a dipshite....

puppies that go 'woofy fk'n woof' in the howze....

Somehow he went from pre-schoolers to elementary school kids. Big difference between a 4 year old and a 5th grader.

XACLY!

(10-22-2019 10:42 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  I think this new curriculum will result in an increase in homeschooling, particularly in the downstate region.

Last week, the cashier at Home Depot asked my daughter what school she went to. When my daughter she was homeschooled, he looked at me and said, "you're giving her a priceless gift, especially with the politics in the schools these days."

Illinois is one of the least restrictive states for homeschoolers. Parents don't even have to register or notify anyone that they're homeschooling their kids, and there's zero testing requirements.

I wonder how long it will be before the Democrats realize that people are using homeschooling as a way to avoid their indoctrination. It's already happened in California, which changed from one of the least restrictive homeschooling states in 2000 to one of the most restrictive by 2016.

As soon as enough parents start to homeschool their kids the D's will try to abolish homeschooling. It's inevitable.

(10-22-2019 09:15 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 09:08 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 09:06 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 08:54 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 07:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Drew, you clearly have an issue with the author and that is fine......

But you repeatedly ignore the content of the article in order to focus on the apparent (to you) opinions of the author

The subject matter is age inappropriate. To you it’s about LGBTQ. To parents, it’s about age appropriate discussions

You can ignore it all you want, but speaking to a child about trans-genderism will undeniably involve talking about things that preschoolers would be completely oblivious to.

Kids don’t see gender or sexual orientation. They just don’t. They don’t know that mr Johnson has a husband or that mr Johnson used to be mrs Johnson, and they don’t care. You present as a woman, you’re like mommu or grand mommy or aunt Millie. You present like a man, you’re like daddy or grandpa or uncle joe.

Elementary school aged kids definitely have a concept of both gender and sexual orientation. While they might not know the terms or the biological differences, kids can definitely tell who in their class is a boy and who is a girl. Also while they won't know what sexual orientation or sex is, they have a concept of romantic relationships. They know that Prince Charming loves Cinderella and their parents love each other and that Man+Woman=Family. The whole point of the curriculum is to let them know that for some people Man+Man=Family and Woman+Woman=Family and that's okay. If you don't like that your child has to learn about other people in school, withdraw them.

Also, the best part of your post above is that you claim that we can't teach children about things like trans people without diving into non-age appropriate topics and then right after, you explain what a trans person is without going into non-age appropriate topics. You can't make this stuff up. lol

therefore, if'n they don't understand the biological difference, they can easily be manipulated......like a fk'n dog.....

what a dipshite....

puppies that go 'woofy fk'n woof' in the howze....

Somehow he went from pre-schoolers to elementary school kids. Big difference between a 4 year old and a 5th grader.

Do your research. The article is about a week-long curriculum that goes from pre-k to 8th grade which includes elementary and middle school-aged kids. In most of the country, including this district in Illinois, pre-k is part of elementary school. The author uses the incorrect word "preschool" in her title in order to gaslight her audience.

I'm curious....how does, "fk off as I poundcake that passive rhetoric into the dirt...."

disclaimer: my first (and not last) roomies were gay. .

#whackjobbers

#theIntolerant are dirt

(10-22-2019 10:43 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 10:42 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  I think this new curriculum will result in an increase in homeschooling, particularly in the downstate region.

Last week, the cashier at Home Depot asked my daughter what school she went to. When my daughter she was homeschooled, he looked at me and said, "you're giving her a priceless gift, especially with the politics in the schools these days."

Illinois is one of the least restrictive states for homeschoolers. Parents don't even have to register or notify anyone that they're homeschooling their kids, and there's zero testing requirements.

I wonder how long it will be before the Democrats realize that people are using homeschooling as a way to avoid their indoctrination. It's already happened in California, which changed from one of the least restrictive homeschooling states in 2000 to one of the most restrictive by 2016.

As soon as enough parents start to homeschool their kids the D's will try to abolish homeschooling. It's inevitable.

#plausible

(10-22-2019 09:06 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 08:54 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 07:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Drew, you clearly have an issue with the author and that is fine......

But you repeatedly ignore the content of the article in order to focus on the apparent (to you) opinions of the author

The subject matter is age inappropriate. To you it’s about LGBTQ. To parents, it’s about age appropriate discussions

You can ignore it all you want, but speaking to a child about trans-genderism will undeniably involve talking about things that preschoolers would be completely oblivious to.

Kids don’t see gender or sexual orientation. They just don’t. They don’t know that mr Johnson has a husband or that mr Johnson used to be mrs Johnson, and they don’t care. You present as a woman, you’re like mommu or grand mommy or aunt Millie. You present like a man, you’re like daddy or grandpa or uncle joe.

Elementary school aged kids definitely have a concept of both gender and sexual orientation. While they might not know the terms or the biological differences, kids can definitely tell who in their class is a boy and who is a girl. Also while they won't know what sexual orientation or sex is, they have a concept of romantic relationships. They know that Prince Charming loves Cinderella and their parents love each other and that Man+Woman=Family. The whole point of the curriculum is to let them know that for some people Man+Man=Family and Woman+Woman=Family and that's okay. If you don't like that your child has to learn about other people in school, withdraw them.

Also, the best part of your post above is that you claim that we can't teach children about things like trans people without diving into non-age appropriate topics and then right after, you explain what a trans person is without going into non-age appropriate topics. You can't make this stuff up. lol

therefore, if'n they don't understand the biological difference, they can easily be manipulated......like a fk'n dog.....

what a dipshite....

puppies that go 'woofy fk'n woof' in the howze....

I agree with the earlier poster. He can't possibly have kids, can he? He sure doesn't have a clue about their thinking at that age.

(10-22-2019 10:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 09:06 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 08:54 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 07:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Drew, you clearly have an issue with the author and that is fine......

But you repeatedly ignore the content of the article in order to focus on the apparent (to you) opinions of the author

The subject matter is age inappropriate. To you it’s about LGBTQ. To parents, it’s about age appropriate discussions

You can ignore it all you want, but speaking to a child about trans-genderism will undeniably involve talking about things that preschoolers would be completely oblivious to.

Kids don’t see gender or sexual orientation. They just don’t. They don’t know that mr Johnson has a husband or that mr Johnson used to be mrs Johnson, and they don’t care. You present as a woman, you’re like mommu or grand mommy or aunt Millie. You present like a man, you’re like daddy or grandpa or uncle joe.

Elementary school aged kids definitely have a concept of both gender and sexual orientation. While they might not know the terms or the biological differences, kids can definitely tell who in their class is a boy and who is a girl. Also while they won't know what sexual orientation or sex is, they have a concept of romantic relationships. They know that Prince Charming loves Cinderella and their parents love each other and that Man+Woman=Family. The whole point of the curriculum is to let them know that for some people Man+Man=Family and Woman+Woman=Family and that's okay. If you don't like that your child has to learn about other people in school, withdraw them.

Also, the best part of your post above is that you claim that we can't teach children about things like trans people without diving into non-age appropriate topics and then right after, you explain what a trans person is without going into non-age appropriate topics. You can't make this stuff up. lol

therefore, if'n they don't understand the biological difference, they can easily be manipulated......like a fk'n dog.....

what a dipshite....

puppies that go 'woofy fk'n woof' in the howze....

I agree with the earlier poster. He can't possibly have kids, can he? He sure doesn't have a clue about their thinking at that age.

it's the crux of the cucks..

(10-22-2019 09:15 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  The article is about a week-long curriculum that goes from pre-k to 8th grade which includes elementary and middle school-aged kids. In most of the country, including this district in Illinois, pre-k is part of elementary school. The author uses the incorrect word "preschool" in her title in order to gaslight her audience.

and gaslighting is exactly what you are doing as well.

In your opinion.......
She's acting like it's only being taught to pre-schoolers... which is ridiculous. It makes no sense that you would teach this to pre-schoolers and not have any follow up or if it's a new program... teach it to older kids as well... I guess the others would just be grandfathered out of the class in your opinion? Of course not.

It seems obvious that the concern from the author as well as posters on here is with this being taught to pre-schoolers. You don't deny that this is happening, you just act like the concern over teaching this to preschoolers is moot, and it's not.

"we're not teaching this to pre-schoolers, we're teaching it to Pre-8".... which of course admits that you're teaching it to pre-schoolers, but in your 'distinction without a difference' community, it allows you to try and act as if the concern is wrong-headed and 'gaslit' as opposed to being the absolutely rational concern that it is.

I don't claim to be enough of an expert to know when such education is appropriate, but I'd guess its 5th grade or later. It isn't pre-k, or k, or 1st or even 2nd.

(10-22-2019 08:54 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  Elementary school aged kids definitely have a concept of both gender and sexual orientation. While they might not know the terms or the biological differences, kids can definitely tell who in their class is a boy and who is a girl. Also while they won't know what sexual orientation or sex is, they have a concept of romantic relationships. They know that Prince Charming loves Cinderella and their parents love each other and that Man+Woman=Family. The whole point of the curriculum is to let them know that for some people Man+Man=Family and Woman+Woman=Family and that's okay. If you don't like that your child has to learn about other people in school, withdraw them.

Yes sir, elementary aged kids and even younger have a concept of gender and sexual orientation, but it is NOT taught to them in school.

The cirriculum has no place in elementary schools at any level. Families are different, but we don't spend a week teaching elementary school kids how their brother who is in prison is really a good person, or that some mommies are divorced 6 times and that's ok, or that some daddies like to wear dresses, or any number of other "alternatives" to the traditional family construct.

It's not the school's place to teach social mores, at least until the student has a class on sociology.

If the school had a week long class on S&M would you be ok with that? I mean for some people leather & chains = love

(10-22-2019 11:28 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I don't claim to be enough of an expert to know when such education is appropriate, but I'd guess its 5th grade or later. It isn't pre-k, or k, or 1st or even 2nd.

I'll make that claim.

Keep leftist view of morality out of the classroom. It's not their job to overrule what I teach my children.

(10-22-2019 12:18 PM)Oman Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 08:54 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  Elementary school aged kids definitely have a concept of both gender and sexual orientation. While they might not know the terms or the biological differences, kids can definitely tell who in their class is a boy and who is a girl. Also while they won't know what sexual orientation or sex is, they have a concept of romantic relationships. They know that Prince Charming loves Cinderella and their parents love each other and that Man+Woman=Family. The whole point of the curriculum is to let them know that for some people Man+Man=Family and Woman+Woman=Family and that's okay. If you don't like that your child has to learn about other people in school, withdraw them.

Yes sir, elementary aged kids and even younger have a concept of gender and sexual orientation, but it is NOT taught to them in school.

The cirriculum has no place in elementary schools at any level. Families are different, but we don't spend a week teaching elementary school kids how their brother who is in prison is really a good person, or that some mommies are divorced 6 times and that's ok, or that some daddies like to wear dresses, or any number of other "alternatives" to the traditional family construct.

It's not the school's place to teach social mores, at least until the student has a class on sociology.

If the school had a week long class on S&M would you be ok with that? I mean for some people leather & chains = love

Again, you're oversexualizing gay relationships by trying to equate it to a sexual fetish. That is false. If a heterosexual couple incorporates "leather & chains" into their sex life, does that suddenly make them not heterosexual? In the same stance, a gay man can be attracted to men and still have never had sex with a man. One is a sexual act while the other is a formally recognized type of relationship. If you can't separate the two in your mind, then you're not equipped to be a part of this conversation.

(10-23-2019 07:17 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 12:18 PM)Oman Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 08:54 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  Elementary school aged kids definitely have a concept of both gender and sexual orientation. While they might not know the terms or the biological differences, kids can definitely tell who in their class is a boy and who is a girl. Also while they won't know what sexual orientation or sex is, they have a concept of romantic relationships. They know that Prince Charming loves Cinderella and their parents love each other and that Man+Woman=Family. The whole point of the curriculum is to let them know that for some people Man+Man=Family and Woman+Woman=Family and that's okay. If you don't like that your child has to learn about other people in school, withdraw them.

Yes sir, elementary aged kids and even younger have a concept of gender and sexual orientation, but it is NOT taught to them in school.

The cirriculum has no place in elementary schools at any level. Families are different, but we don't spend a week teaching elementary school kids how their brother who is in prison is really a good person, or that some mommies are divorced 6 times and that's ok, or that some daddies like to wear dresses, or any number of other "alternatives" to the traditional family construct.

It's not the school's place to teach social mores, at least until the student has a class on sociology.

If the school had a week long class on S&M would you be ok with that? I mean for some people leather & chains = love

Again, you're oversexualizing gay relationships by trying to equate it to a sexual fetish. That is false. If a heterosexual couple incorporates "leather & chains" into their sex life, does that suddenly make them not heterosexual? In the same stance, a gay man can be attracted to men and still have never had sex with a man. One is a sexual act while the other is a formally recognized type of relationship. If you can't separate the two in your mind, then you're not equipped to be a part of this conversation.

as a hetero and having had multiple roomies during my college days that were gay/lesbo, I can attest there was a mutual respect for all POVs during that tenure....

what I've seen change over the last few decades is the increased rage from the 'minimal chromosomal exchange'....

you can't fix that with rationale....

#suchIs

(10-22-2019 09:32 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  This is about indoctrinating children, we all know it is. Drew and the other LGBTQ'ers can deny and double talk all they want but it doesn't change the simple and obvious fact.

No matter how you spin it its totally unnecessary.

Exactly, if I were of a more sinister mindset - oh wait, I am, nevermind - I'd think it's a clear first step toward grooming our children. It's insidious.

(10-23-2019 07:24 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 07:17 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 12:18 PM)Oman Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 08:54 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  Elementary school aged kids definitely have a concept of both gender and sexual orientation. While they might not know the terms or the biological differences, kids can definitely tell who in their class is a boy and who is a girl. Also while they won't know what sexual orientation or sex is, they have a concept of romantic relationships. They know that Prince Charming loves Cinderella and their parents love each other and that Man+Woman=Family. The whole point of the curriculum is to let them know that for some people Man+Man=Family and Woman+Woman=Family and that's okay. If you don't like that your child has to learn about other people in school, withdraw them.

Yes sir, elementary aged kids and even younger have a concept of gender and sexual orientation, but it is NOT taught to them in school.

The cirriculum has no place in elementary schools at any level. Families are different, but we don't spend a week teaching elementary school kids how their brother who is in prison is really a good person, or that some mommies are divorced 6 times and that's ok, or that some daddies like to wear dresses, or any number of other "alternatives" to the traditional family construct.

It's not the school's place to teach social mores, at least until the student has a class on sociology.

If the school had a week long class on S&M would you be ok with that? I mean for some people leather & chains = love

Again, you're oversexualizing gay relationships by trying to equate it to a sexual fetish. That is false. If a heterosexual couple incorporates "leather & chains" into their sex life, does that suddenly make them not heterosexual? In the same stance, a gay man can be attracted to men and still have never had sex with a man. One is a sexual act while the other is a formally recognized type of relationship. If you can't separate the two in your mind, then you're not equipped to be a part of this conversation.

as a hetero and having had multiple roomies during my college days that were gay/lesbo, I can attest there was a mutual respect for all POVs during that tenure....

what I've seen change over the last few decades is the increased rage from the 'minimal chromosomal exchange'....

you can't fix that with rationale....

#suchIs

I've long said that such movement's don't exist to obtain equal rights, they exist to create special classes who then demand special treatments putting them above that to which they wished to elevate. Their MO to that end is to increasingly ratchet up the outrage machine to 160 db so they can simply drown out opposing voices.

(10-21-2019 10:46 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 10:34 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  how dare a school teach kids that they're going to meet gay and transgendered people over the course of their life...

I'm 40 years old and have never met a transgendered person over the course of my life.

Same. I am almost 45, never personally met a transgender. Might have seen one in passing, but no one I would know or associate with. Also, could count on one hand the # of gay people I know and could count on 0 fingers the # of gay people I associate with. Its possible to get along just fine in life without that nonsense around.