Same-sex video is pulled in Evesham ...(school to show to fourth graders, instead of third graders)

Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | Fri, Aug. 31, 2007 | Troy Graham

[Hat-Trick]

A more basic question is this - why do schools believe it is their responsibility to teach anything about families at all? They’ve already got their hands full trying to teach the 3 R’s. Many teach history as some type of revisionist social studies, as opposed to just teaching history. IMO, public schools should stay away from teaching anything about families and family structure. That teaching should come from the family or the church.

[metmom]

Jeanne Smith, a spokeswoman for the board, said: "The opinions expressed by members of the board against the video dealt with their worry that the video had become so divisive that it would continue to inflame the district and that there would be no healing."

Can't not show it because it's wrong, now could we?

Reacting to last night's vote, Steven Goldstein, chairman of the gay civil rights group Garden State Equality, said: "It's very likely that we in the civil rights community will take legal action to have the committee's recommendation to show this film enforced. We believe the board's actions are illegal."

We in the civil rights community? What a not so subtle slam against everyone who disagrees with them. The clear implication is that *breeders* do not believe in civil rights but oppression.

They may believe that the actions are illegal, but too bad, it doesn't mean they are. They may not like it but that doesn't mean they're illegal.

So now they're threatening the school district with a lawsuit to force them to capitulate because they cannot afford the financial hit defending themselves would cost.

[stm]

Now that’s funny, I don’t care who you are, that’s a funny joke there!

[metmom]

Yeah, “nearly half” could be 30/70 in liberalland.

[Quix]

thx for your kind reply . . .

I understand . . . but I wish we could scuttle the term like the infanticiders transformed infanticide into CHOICE

[Neoliberalnot]

“I understand . . . but I wish we could scuttle the term like the infanticiders transformed infanticide into CHOICE”

It is called liberalspeak. Evil shall be called Good.

[GlennBeck08]

Wow. Sometimes words don’t do an article any justice and this is one of those times.

[Quix]

YUP . . . for a season.

[lowbridge]

Steven Goldstein, chairman of the gay civil rights group Garden State Equality, said: "It's very likely that we in the civil rights community will take legal action to have the committee's recommendation to show this film enforced. We believe the board's actions are illegal."

Didn't know there's a "civil right" to force third graders to watch same sex propoganda. And any attempt to prevent that is illegal. /s

[stevio]

Now that statement is a keeper.

[BearCub]

...and the fags wonder why so many people hate them. It’s not because they’re sexual deviants - most of us can put up with that. It’s because they are trying to indoctrinate kids and brainwash them into thinking that their sick, dangerous, disease-spreading lifestyles are somehow normal.

[SoftballMominVA]

I read both. I disagree with you that showing same sex couples as heads of families is in and of itself pornography. If that were true, then showing male/female couples as heads of families would also be pornography as each picture depicts a couple, and in each picture there is certainly implied that the couples would attempt some form of procreation (or a semblance thereof). If I read the article correctly, I would expect there to be dialog along the lines of "This is my mom and dad; this is my grandmother; this is my dad and dad; this is my aunt and uncle; this is my mom and mom.....they are my family and I love them." These words are not pornography, nor is the depiction of a same sex couple and a child pornography.

I also posted that I disagreed with the video and would not have shown it to my 10 year old and in fact neither of my 2 children were ever shown any video in school concerning Family Life when they were in school from K-10.

Do not take this to mean I support the gay and lesbian lifestyle. I do not. Nor do I support same sex marriages or same sex adoptions. I'm just saying that pictures of 2 women (or two men) and a child is not porn. The relationship is abhorent and far from my beliefs, but it does not rise to the level of pornography.

[SoftballMominVA]

A more basic question is this - why do schools believe it is their responsibility to teach anything about families at all?

I agree with you to the nth degree. In VA, parents are allowed to opt their children out of FLE (or family life education). Mine never attended once as I felt it was my job to decide when it was proper for them to hear about the 'birds and the bees.'

[metmom]

And the point of the picture is?

[SoftballMominVA]

All I see is the dreaded red X

[metmom]

That’s what I suspected. Sometimes pictures without words can be taken more than one way.

[Tired of Taxes]

Whew! Is that what the picture meant? Glad to know. I thought it was a picture of two male roaches raising baby roaches together. I’ve been on this forum too long.

[metmom]

I agree. That kind of social education is best left to the parents.

Like someone else asked, why not just teach them reading, writing, and ‘rithmetic?