Parents say school undermines their authority over kids

[Fuzzy Bear]

 

I suppose that the enlightened Intelligent Design Enthusiasts are now all up in arms about someone messing up their Church teachings in the schools. Homosexual dogma may now be corrupting their ideas about truth. I am wondering how many one parent family members were in the crowd mad as a Billy goat about not teaching family values. Kids should not be told about or try and understand the world around them. They are too dumb to understand what may be happening right in their own homes. We should wait until they get to be 12 and pregnant before we let them in on life's little secrets. We should be teaching a strict code of intolerance, just like our forefathers. fb

 

[CalicoPenn]

Gay's are intolerant of heterosexuals?

 

Where's the stories about gay parents picketing their children's schools demanding that the schools no longer allow Sleeping Beauty or Cinderella be read because they spread the myth that heterosexuality is ok?

 

Where's the stories about gays demading that States stop marrying heterosexuals?

 

Gays aren't intolerant about hetersexuality. They're intolerant about bigotry and intolerance and are telling the bigots that their time is up.

 

Make no mistake - this is all about the fact that this woman's daughter has a gay teacher and that it's going to be very hard for this woman to inculcate her bigotry towards gays to her daughter if her daughter has a positive gay role model.

 

Don't like the curriculum? Run for the school board - or change schools, or homeschool.

 

What's next, a protest against Multiplication, Division, Spelling or Grammar because a parent thinks these are the devil's work?

 

The State has already "undermined" this woman's authority over her children by demanding, under penalty of law, that her kids be schooled to State standards of education. I can just imagine how loudly she would scream if there was some white parent protesting the school for assigning his kids to a black teacher's classroom with a teacher who insists on showing that black people are no different from white people when he is trying to teach his kids at home that blacks are inferior to whites.

 

For those jumping in to insist that tolerance for gays has no place in the curriculum, would you be that quick to defend a white supremecist who insists that tolerance for other races has no place in the school curriculum? Or will you admit to be a hypocrite??

 

CalicoPenn

[DanKroh]

"It [homosexuality] often leads to violence, anti-social behavior, and disease, especially among men."

 

Maybe in your mind and limited experience with real people who are homosexuals. But not in my world.

[Beavah]

For those jumping in to insist that tolerance for gays has no place in the curriculum, would you be that quick to defend a white supremecist who insists that tolerance for other races has no place in the school curriculum? Or will you admit to be a hypocrite??

 

Oh get off it with the emotional labels, eh? One can be a Christian/Muslim/Orthodox Jew/Buddhist and simultaneously oppose both homosexual practice and racism without being hypocritical.

 

All this comes down to the oppressive nature of government-run schools if they insist on venturing into areas where there is no societal consensus. How would you feel if the current Republican majority instituted a history curriculum where all of the successes of America were attributed to the G.O.P.? Government schools, unless we're very careful, are themselves discriminatory means for indoctrination. After all, they got started to indocrinate those pesky Irish Catholic immigrants, eh? Hardly a noble legacy of tolerance.

 

Until we give parents real educational choice, our public schools should exercise extreme tolerance and sensitivity toward different family beliefs. If you're against teachin' da Baptist Bible Camp curriculum in the public schools, yeh should be against teachin' these books for the same reason.

 

I'll stick with the opinions of real scientists, thanks.

 

Yah, right. Except at da moment there's no consensus among the real scientists and only very spotty research, eh? The speculative science right now says no genetic link for female homosexuality, maybe a genetic link that contributes to male homosexuality under some circumstances, if environmental factors allow, and only if it's an X-chromosome gene that makes the women carrying it a lot more fertile. And only on Tuesdays. There's just too little data, eh?

 

You might want to reconsider your pronouncement in the face of genetic diseases that kill before puberty - they can't exist according to your simplistic reasoning.

 

Nah, I don't think so.

 

Genetic diseases that are single-gene Mendelian disorders (like duchenes muscular dystrophy) are likely the result of random transcription error (mutation). They can occur at any time. They necessarily affect a very small portion of the population - much, much smaller than the reputed population of homosexuals.

 

Other types of genetic diseases are related to positive selection influences, like sickle-cell mutations which protect against malaria, or CF which is apparently related to typhoid protection. Here natural selection is playin' a percentage game. Say 20% of da population would die before reproduction from malaria. If 2% die before reproduction because of the sickle cell gene, but only 10% of those with the sickle cell gene die from malaria, then you'll have 88 out of 100 sickle cell gene carriers survive one generation and only 80 out of 100 non-sickle cell carriers. The gene will still be selected for, despite the risk of early onset genetic disease, - but only in populations in parts of the world where malaria is endemic.

 

Yah, dat's how natural selection works, eh? It plays mathematical percentages.

 

But the one-generation survival rate for true homosexuality is zero, eh? Even allowin' for some "closet" gays to live a heterosexual surface life and reproduce, and for speculative theories of kin selection, it'd still be a brutal negative selection effect.

[Gonzo1]

DanKroh,

 

I looked up Loving vs Virginia, seems your judge in 1967 was a bigot and ruled that God did ot intend for racial mixing. In the ruling, the issuing official had to be certain that applicants were of the same race. Says nothing about licnsure. Here's a link to the ruling:

 

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html

 

While pursuit of happiness may include marriage, you still need permission via a license. You and I both have the "right" to practice, but we need 'permission' via a license. If we commit malpractice, we really lose the priviledge - the license (permission) is taken away.

 

Skinner v Oklahoma has to do with "Oklahoma deprives certain individuals of a right which is basic to the perpetuation of a race-the right to have offspring" not marriage. Also, the in question here is Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act. Okl.St.Ann. Tit. 57, 171, et seq.; L.1935, p. 94 et seq. Yeah, that's good.

 

Seem pretty clearly stated, even to this non-lawyer.

I think you missed it.

 

... heard of *any* heterosexual couple that had to actually get "permission" to get married?

Every time someone gets married, they need a license.

 

Gonzo, if you don't want them in "our" society, where exactly are they supposed to go?

I don't care where they are, just quit ramming down our throats. Homosexualtiy doesn't have to be on every TV show, movie etc. We don't need two moomy books, Daddy's roomate, etc.

 

I'm glad you're a Dr too. I don't meaan to sound cruel, but that must be a confusing field. Further comments witheld.

 

 

CalicoPenn,

 

Gay's are intolerant of heterosexuals?

It would be too broad of a statement to say ALL gays are intolerant of heterosexuals. Gays tend to flaunt it with their rainbows, car decals, pride parades, rainbow flags etc as if to say "Hey!, look at me, I'm gay, I'm in your neighborhood and you have to like me...'

 

Should gays demand about stopping Cinderella, et al? because heterosexualtiy is a MYTH?

Duh, take a look at the plumbing, we are made for heterosexualtiy.

 

Bigotry toward gays? I could really care less about a person's private life. Don't come into my house, I won't go in yours. On the other hand, why must gays keep ramming down our throats about being gay? What would happen if we had Straight Day Parade downtown. We know what hapens when there is White Power parades. (I'm not advocating white power parades, I'm using the example) Bigots stink no matter what the bigotry is.

 

I'm already on the school council (not elected official, business owner advisor) and I visit my kids teachers. I do like a commissioner and pop in sometimes.

 

I live in the Bible Belt, we don't teach that here. We have enough trouble with stickers in text books abot evolution.

 

What's next, a protest against Multiplication, Division, Spelling or Grammar because a parent thinks these are the devil's work?

 

What? Are you nuts?

[packsaddle]

Hey, I have a rainbow banner on a pole on the front of my house. I thought the rainbow was God's sign for the new covenant after the flood. Or am I wrong?

 

I guess, regarding genetics and homosexuality, the twin studies have escaped the critical scrutiny of respondents to this thread. Whew!

It is painful to read what I am reading in these posts regarding genetics and to realize that some of you have medical training. Actually it is astounding! And considering the number of medical procedures I have survived, I am feeling a bit lucky.

I am not a geneticist, my specialization is in another field of biology. But as a scientist, I am quick to recognize my limitations in a particular inquiry and to seek the assistance of other specialists (a geneticist, for example) if my research requires it.

I am willing to continue to read this stuff and in no way do I suggest that the respondents should hold back. However, although my knowledge is limited, I suggest that UNLESS you actually understand things such as homeobox genes or HOX clusters and how they work, better yet, have an understanding of evo devo, THEN you are not even qualified for status as a dilettante regarding genetics or developmental biology.

I suggest that we can continue these discussions but we should at least recognize that the actual currency of the discussion is ignorance rather than enlightenment. If I have insulted anyone, I assure you that I am not trying to demonstrate any kind of superiority other than that of realistically knowing my own limits.

As a cautionary note, I refer to other studies that have indicated that the greatest confidence is often found among those who are least knowledgeable of their own (severe) limitations. That said, I am confident that the field of genetics will hardly be advanced here.

Whew, now I feel better. Thanks. Carry on.

[Gonzo1]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

 

Allow me to clarify.

 

Teacher read book about gay parents to the class, parents are outraged. They should be, it shouldn't be part of the curriculum, especially in grade school.

 

Teacher tells the class he's gay. Parents are upset, they should be, the teacher's 'orientation' has NOTHING to do with teaching the students.

 

Teachers should stick to teaching their assigned subjects. School boards should keep the contraversial BS out of the class. Parents should be involved in the classroom.

 

It's not a slippery slope, just teach and go home.

 

I don't care if someone is gay, I really don't. The revelation of it in class is inappropriate.

 

Gays do not belong in BSA. See other threads.

 

G

 

 

[Gonzo1]

Another clarification:

(Packsaddle's comments and mine crossed.)

 

I really am a nice guy and I do not ever intend to offend or insult anyone. I do not intend to go toe-to-toe with anyone on these posts, it kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

 

I think some studies can be (and are) skewed, that's all.

 

If I have offended anyone, please accept my apology.

 

G

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah, your original statement is flatly wrong:

 

But there's no way around the fact that true homosexuality is an

evolutionary dead-end and therefore not genetically transmitted, eh?

 

 

The above is a statement that, since "true homosexuality" (whatever that is) is an evolutionary dead-end, it CANNOT be genetically transmitted.

 

That's faulty reasoning, pure and simple.

 

You tried to backpedal on my example of genetic diseases, but that actually refutes your position. If some genetic diseases can confer benefits under some circumstance (such as the well-known malaria resistance from inheriting one sickle-cell gene), it's quite possible that exactly the SAME sort of situation holds for homosexuality - inheriting one gene confers a benefit, while inheriting both results in homosexuality.

 

But your flat (and unscientific) statement that it CANNOT be genetically transmitted is ridiculous. Like I said, I'll stick with real science.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Gonzo1, DanKroh is right; the Loving decision says that marriage is a civil right, and not merely a priviledge, as you stated. He quoted the part of the opinion that stated that marriage is a civil right, and that's in the link to the decision that you posted.

 

You also don't seem to have read the decision very closely; the bigoted judge(s) were in the lower courts, which uphelp racial restrictions on marriage. The supreme court overturned these lower decisions and held that the lower courts' reasons were invalid, partly BECAUSE marriage is a civil right and cannot be restricted by race.

[Gonzo1]

Now it seems we're getting into the weeds about court rulings and not about the parents and the teachers.

 

Just because a court makes a ruling, doesn't necessarily mean it's correct. In the past, courts have upheld discrimination, is that correct? They have upheld abortion, is that correct? They have even upheld (or refused to hear) cases involving the BSA, is that correct? I'll bet that for every cases any of us finds with one opinion, we could find another with a diferring opinion., could't we? I believe a Supreme Court Justice some time ago was a Klan member, so IS or WAS Senator Byrd or SC. Hmm, that's not right either, is it? I've hear his colleagues in the Senate call him "sheets".

 

I don't personally agree with many of the court's decisions, like abortion, affirmitive action, immigration, granting of 'rights' to enemy combatants, other issues involving BSA. However, I'll support the decision. So, just because a COURT says that getting married is a civil right, I think it's more of a civil opportunity. I think that anyone can sitting where they want to on a bus is a civil right, or to eat at the lunch counter, or get a same job as you or me, these example are civil rights. Marriage is between one man and one woman, how hard is this to grasp? If gays want to live together, let them. In Loving vs. Virginia, the Equal Protection of the Constitution allows anyone who gets married in one state to be married in another, just like getting a driver's license, oops, another license and more permission). We have the right to free speech, right? but we can't yell FIRE!!! in a crowded theater, why should our speech of the word fire be oppresesed? If someone chooses to protest an abortion clinic, why must their "free speech" only take place 50 or 100 feet away?

 

It's not the court's job to grant rights to anybody, it's the U.S. Constitution. Remember the 3 branches of government and the function. The judicial branch interprets laws, not make them.

 

Gays are trying to change the laws, good for them for trying. When their issue in here Georgia has been defeated. The people speak at the ballot box, majority said no.

 

If you can read these threads, thank a teacher, if you can read the in English, thank a veteran.

 

Register to vote, and then vote.

 

[BrentAllen]

Sorry to inform you packsaddle, but gays have taken your flag as their own. Flying it signifies you are homosexual, or a proud (sometimes militant) supporter of Gay Pride.

 

Hey, I know how you feel. I can't fly the Confederate Battle flag without someone assuming I am a member of the KKK. It stinks when someone steals your symbols.

[Beavah]

You tried to backpedal on my example of genetic diseases, but that actually refutes your position. If some genetic diseases can confer benefits under some circumstance (such as the well-known malaria resistance from inheriting one sickle-cell gene), it's quite possible that exactly the SAME sort of situation holds for homosexuality

 

Nah, Mirlyn, yeh just don't get it, eh?

 

True homosexuality (exclusive preference for the same sex) is a nearly 100% negative selector. That's just hard to overcome mathematically with any benefit, eh? And in order to make that claim, you have to find a matching benefit. And then you'd have to explain why the incidence of homosexuality vastly exceeds the incidence of any of the genetic diseases, if they are predicated on the same selection principles and not somethin' else.

 

DanKroh mentions twin studies (a small and badly confounded sample if there ever was one), which nevertheless demonstrate that homosexuality does not have the same congruence as other genetic disorders.

 

As DanKroh says, none of us are genetic, neonatal, socialpsych or psych researchers, eh? So talkin' about mechanism is the blind leadin' the blind. But my original point remains: it's dead wrong to claim that the basis for homosexuality is genetic or physical. At best that is only speculative, and the jury is still way, way out. The research should continue, though. If it turns out you're right, it'd be nice to find a cure.

 

But back to the original question: If it's wrong for the public schools to teach Christianity as part of the curriculum because that would be the state infringin' on the rights of the family to its beliefs, then why is it OK for the public schools to teach homosexuality as a social norm, when that infringes on the rights of the family to its own religious beliefs?

 

Seems like in a polite, diverse, democratic society yeh wouldn't want to introduce that kind of culture clash into the First Grade classroom.

 

 

[DanKroh]

"DanKroh mentions twin studies (a small and badly confounded sample if there ever was one), which nevertheless demonstrate that homosexuality does not have the same congruence as other genetic disorders. As DanKroh says, none of us are genetic, neonatal, socialpsych or psych researchers, eh? So talkin' about mechanism is the blind leadin' the blind."

 

Actually, Beavir, that was packsaddle. However, the congruence of homosexuality among twins is similar to the congruence of many other genetically influenced traits and disorders. If homosexuality is genetically *influenced* (and I do believe it is), I am sure that it is not a Mendelian trait. Very few traits are Mendelian, percentage-wise. Oh, and I have done psych research.

 

"But my original point remains: it's dead wrong to claim that the basis for homosexuality is genetic or physical. At best that is only speculative, and the jury is still way, way out. The research should continue, though. If it turns out you're right, it'd be nice to find a cure."

 

I also never claimed that it was *genetic*. My original statement was that it is *biologically defined*, as in there are anatomical and physiological differences between gay men and straight men that can be measured. I never said they were due to genetics. In fact, current theories point more to developmental factors. I don't know for sure what the mechanism of those biological differences are, but I am reasonably convinced by the research I've read that there *are* biologically differences. I think the only specious argument around here is yours.

 

I am not a geneticist, and even though I have an degree in biology, I also agree with packsaddle that the expression and regulation of genes is beyond my ken. And there are plenty of other things I'd rather see a cure found for. Too bad bigotry won't be one of them, either.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

True homosexuality (exclusive preference for the same sex) is a nearly 100% negative selector. That's just hard to overcome mathematically with any benefit, eh?

 

But you HAVEN'T ruled out any benefit. That's what I've been trying to point out.

 

Having full-blown sickle-cell anemia is negative, but inheriting just one gene from a parent is an advantage in areas with malaria.

 

In the same way, it's quite possible that, since homosexuality has some genetic component, there is some as-yet unknown advantage to having such genes.

 

You are ASSUMING there is no benefit - but you have no basis to make that assumption.

 

You also need to explain why identical twins raised apart show a strong correlation in sexual orientation. If homosexuality has no genetic component, there should be NO correlation.

 

But my original point remains: it's dead wrong to claim that the basis for homosexuality is genetic or physical.

 

Your original point uses faulty logic. It's an invalid argument.