Court upholds same-sex teaching to children

Post Reply New Topic

Both religious and private schools perform better with less money.

The public school system is an over unionized mess. I'm not saying there aren't bad parents. But the public schools hardly have a track record of improving performance. Furthermore, this is another example of concentrating on the wrong thing. It is no wonder grade point averages are so poor with the schools spending so much time on social activism.

with regards to racism vs homophobia: it's in no way as extreme as what black people and those who supported black rights faced in the 60's. you can march for gay rights and not worry about disappearing over night. my point was more cultural on that.


though i do see bigotry as bigotry and nothing else. be it biggotry against blacks or gays. i was not equating the two movements. just the government action taken and the cultural and societal stances at the time.


when i say homophobia, i mean this culture of fear with regards to anything gay. and that gayness is an adult only issue or something. i actually agree with what was stated in the last article with regards to normalizing same sex relationships and teaching acceptance thereof. never said they had sex, never gave details of what gay sex is. and the article says 7 year olds....that's at least first grade, if not, second grade....which is definitely old enough for the kids to grasp the concept of calling someone fag (at least in my own personal experience). and yes, i do see opposition to gay marriage as homophobia...mainly because i've yet to see a legitimate reason why gays can't get married or at least have civil unions that result in the same benefits and shared responsibilities as hetero-marriages. it's an illogical opposition to a rule that wouldn't affect most people. it's bigotry...hence: homophobia.



as far as the judge's ruling....judges rule against the standing law all the time. it's called setting precedent. it's how the law evolves and keeps from being an archaic system where witches would still be executed or pot smokers be jailed for 40 years for possession of a dime.


now.....from the stories i've read...the problem the parents have is that there was a story told where the happy ending was a guy ending up with a guy. that's all it was, right? if so, then what is wrong with that....how is that something that anyone could object to?

social activism belongs in the history/social studies classroom. because that's why it's there...to teach the errors of the past and to word towards a better future. history class, when i was in it, was a joke. they taught numbers and events but no context or relation to how that correlates to today's world and why it's important. memorizing that the civil war lasted from 1861-1865 is worthless. reading what the confederate constitution had to say and what it meant and how it compares to our constitution today....that's something important and important in understanding why the war was fought and why the "the civil war was over states' rights" argument is a joke. history is worthless if all you're learning is that jefferson penned the constitution and not what the constitution means or what was going on when it was written.


but i'm all about encouraging intellegence and critical thought. i can't say why kids are doing bad in math classes (i did poorly in math, myself...but that's because i was never motivated and had trouble grasping concepts later on...this was before i was diagnosed with AS).

You and I have a different view on judicial interpretation. In my opinion, if the legislature wants to set pass a law that is perfectly within constitutional muster, then a judge has no authority to overturn it. Now, if a state or the U.S. congress attempted to pass something like say, "The Burn All Witches Act," that simply said in a Middle-Ages way that "All Witches Must Be Found and Burned Now!! !" that would violate the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 14th amendment to the United States Constitution.

Judge's do far more then set precedent. The judicial is merely one part of a three-pronged system, the others being the legislative and the executive. There role is clearly defined, and clearly limited in the Constitution. But when a judge steps outside his prescribed role he is acting no less tyrannically then a President that violates the Constitution. In fact, if anything, he is acting more dangerously, since it is all the more difficult to revoke a judges action. Presidents who proudly ignore the Constitution are likely to face impeachment hearings, but a judge is merely engaged in a different "matter of interpretation." Those who support the end goals of a judge are willing to look beyond the cutting up of articles and sections of the countries most binding document.

You seem to be a smart guy, skafather84. I'll give you credit. You are keeping me interested.

Hmm...And what are the errors of the past? See this is where the subjective element takes hold. I would see Johnson's Great Society (although not "The Civil Rights Act") as a error. I would see Welfare Reform as a great success. I would see Reagan's economic policies as as success, and FDR's policies as counterproductive.

Now, in terms of teaching history that includes the social activism that occurred. Why yes, absolutely. Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, ERA, the counter ERA movement, ect...



Well, we agree there.



The context yes. I may have had different text books they you did. Some of them did try to correlate them with today's world and I did not like them. The obsession with racism, sexism, and class in every chapter (moreover the way they separated those things into separate little units). The launching of fairly unimportant people as super important alongside Washington, Grant, and King.



I don't know if I agree. You should know it was fought in the 19th century however.



It would be smarter to read it and compare it to the US constitution of 1861, or perhaps the constitution after the Reconstruction Amendments were passed. But, yes, that is a good idea. Interesting fact: The CSA debated and rejected an amendment to specifically allow for succession.



Hmm...Madison (the "father of the Constitution") did not believe in the right to succeed, although he was President at the time he said that. I wonder what he would have said when he was younger. Slavery was absolutely the most important factor in the decision for the Southern states to leave the Union. Technically, the war was a failed war of independence, although you could qualify it as a civil war in the border states at various times. I call it variously "The Civil War" and "The War Between the States."



Agreed.



Good for you. Critical thinking is not about ideology. It is not taught enough in schools anymore.

one thing about me is that i support the empirical. with johnson's great society...which parts was he able to do achieve? which parts was he not able to? what was the effect both in the short term and long term of the various points.

obviously such depth would be something more to be covered in a university...but it could easily be be condensed into something high school sized. you know?



as far as different text books....i'm from the suburbs of new orleans. i'm sure that the text books and education i got was inferior to yours in philly.....that's part of the civil war....the south got screwed over in the end (afterall, it's not a coincidence that some of the more impoverished and poorly funded states are the ones from the confederacy).


edit: sorry this is being cut short...internet in my new place is a commodity...if i can get my wireless working, i'll try and finish my thoughts here.

let me know when bush is impeached....time's running short for it.