Just teach "no bullying" PERIOD and leave the lifestyle crap out of it.
Posted By: IMPEACH OBAMA NOW on 2009-05-22
In Reply to: I hardly think that teaching kids...(sm) - Just the big bad
I'm sorry, but you're very naive about what these children are actually being taught - i.e., that one family is "just like another" (there's a cute little song they sing about this), etc.
You want to teach kids not to be physically violent toward any other kids - fine. You go beyond that and start preaching the gospel of lifestyle equivalency and you're wandering off into the parents' domain.
Oh, yeah - I almost forgot. Get back to T E A C H I N G!!
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old. To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Agreed. Teach no bullying or violence, period.
"Lifestyle acceptance" doesn't have to come into it at all. I don't have to accept anyone's lifestyle in order to learn that bullying and violence are not acceptable ways of expressing my disagreement with them.
You see, there's a conflation between the principle of "nonviolence" and "acceptance of lifestyles" going on here, and it's very, very calculated and it's very, very deliberate.
In fact, "acceptance" is really an inadequate basis for nonviolence - if you stop for a moment to think about it - because I am obliged to be nonviolent toward people whose lifestyles not even you would suggest that that I (or my children) should EVER "accept".
Tired of choosing between crap and crap?
I posted "over there" and so I figured I'd post over here, too. Anyone else tired of party wars and sheep mentality and more interested in the Constitutional Republic that made us what we are now?
I am not bullying anyone into my way of thinking....
simply presenting the other side. That is what democracy is about. If you are saying women should not involve themselves in politics, I could not disagree more. Decisions affect us, just like they affect men.
Of course I don't know everything...I just give research due diligence because I don't accept anything from either side at face value. The whole basis of our political system is that there are two sides to everything and you choose whichever side most closely meets what you think is best for the country.
What is wrong with defending someone if you believe that person is right? The other side defends Obama just as aggressively, if not more so.
Actually, the beatitude says the meek shall inherit the earth, not the weak. In my interpretation, "meek" does not mean "weak."
No bullying would be too easy........they have to push
---
What is your problem with just teaching no bullying
There is no need to point out homosexuals as being people they should not pick on. Why pick out any single type of kid?
Did you ever hear of just teaching your child to be nice to people, to not name call, bully or pick on anyone? That would just about wrap it up wouldn't it?
There are many young children in elementary school that do not even know the term "homosexual", so I certainly don't believe it is the school's job to bring that to the attention of a child. That is the parent's responsibility to explain what homosexuality is, if they so choose.
You think for a minute if a school starts talking about tolerance of homosexuals that questions wouldn't arise about what they do, what that means, why they do that, and every other question they could possibly imagine? I sure as heck don't care for the school system to educate my child on gays or their lifestyle, thank you very much!
Teaching a child about not making fun of a child with disabilities is NOT the same as teaching a child about homosexuals. You believe homosexuality to be a "disability". Funny you brought up those two things together..........
No sell!
WHy is disagreeing with a position viewed as bullying?
Your response is much more bullying....self-righteous and pompous I think were your words...
It is not MY party. I am not a Republican. This country would be much better off if everyone, both sides, put country first and not the party.
That being said...it were an important issue to debate, it should not have had to have a pregnant 17-year-old girl "spark it." All I am saying is, regardless of that, it is a choice whether to continue to bring into the spotlight a candidate's child for political fodder.
The point is...it was not an issue before 17-year-old pregnant Bristol. But now it is, a way to keep that constantly in the forefront. That is the choice some on the left have made.
All I am saying is...while I am sure you think it is justified, there are many who will not. And that is ALL I am saying.
BTW, I have two sons, but I did teach them about sex
And knowing how teens hormones control them, I realized something could happen, regardless of my value system. But my husband and I did give them all the information they needed, so your argument there does not hold. My son's are now married, no children, and have good careers. At this point in their lives, they reflect our values, whether or not they strayed from them as teens. They came home and are productive, stable citizens who do not look to the govt to solve their problems. When they make a mistake, such as my youngest who has gotten into a lot of debt, they own up to it and learn from it because they were taught there are consequences for every decision, whether good or bad.
Since I have only boys, I wanted to add, I have many conservative friends who have gotten their teen daughters BC, so you're flat wrong. Again, conservatives do not want anymore govt control over their lives. They want to make their own decisions, pay for their own mistakes, and would like others to do the same.
We have had enough years to observe the product of those who have been turned over to the govt to instruct. No thanks.
I don't believe it is a lifestyle CHOICE, but, sm
even if it were, it is none of your business. EVERYONE is entitled to equal rights under the law.
Lifestyle choices
Just wondering where the line should be drawn.
For some people this is a lifestyle
and raising the minimum wage is not going to change anything. Believe me, I understand your point, and I commend you for using the system for the purpose it was intended for, but I know people who have made a career out of collecting welfare and are doing a lot better than I am.
I was a single, struggling mom once (okay, I'm STILL struggling!), and I was grateful there was help available when I needed it most. But what I learned along the way was that making a "decent" living is not incentive enough to work when it's easier and more lucrative to accept free handouts. My husband and I can't afford to help our kids with college, but my girlfriend's kids both got a free ride from the state. We have to decide between paying the electricity bill and buying groceries some months, but she gets foostamps and eats steak five times a week, and her housing and utilites are 95% subsidized. We can't afford medical insurance but she and her kids have always had health coverage. Her kids' daycare was paid for while she went to school (for free) and got a degree that she never put to use in the work world because she was smart enough to realize it wouldn't benefit her in the long run. I think what I resented most through the years was that she got to stay home and spend quality time with her family while I was out working like a fool to make ends meet.
Her story unfortunately isn't the exception to the rule. The welfare system is broken and has been for YEARS. It's not going to change as long as it's comfortable to sit back and have all your needs met by a system that encourages you to do so, no matter what the minimum wage.
Sometimes I think nature has it right when the fledgling is tossed out of the nest and has to learn to fly on his own.
The "gay" lifestyle
is a perversion that most parents do not want for their children and it is dangerous for your health. Parents have no desire to control their children but they want better things for them than that type of "lifestyle." Homosexuality deprives parents of grandchildren and healthy children. You might as well inform your children of the "prostitution lifestyle, drug-induced lifestyle and criminal lifestyle" as well. Those are all just as dangerous as a "homosexual lifestyle." I would much rather have a "bigotted" child than a dead one.
I would prefer to teach my
child about it and explain to them that even though this lifestyle is not acceptable, they are people too and we should not treat them poorly. If parents don't teach their children and they bully gay people, dorks, dweebs, smelly kids, etc........the school has every right to punish them for acting that way whether it be writing sentences over and over, calling the parents, etc. You do not have to single out homosexuality and teach this to children as an example of tolerance.
Besides, I said below that on the news they keep talking about how same sex marriage is more accepted by people.....particularly younger people and yet here you are saying that this should be taught in schools because younger people aren't tolerant? So which is it?
Supports his lifestyle?
So you're saying if he's poor, he won't be gay anymore??? You don't have to have money to be gay. How are you supporting his lifestyle?
Supports his lifestyle?
So you're saying if he's poor, he won't be gay anymore??? You don't have to have money to be gay. How are you supporting his lifestyle?
Maybe Putin can teach her some judo
like he is going to for Sarkozy. Then she can give them a quick karate chop if they are mean to her. Kapow!
Does your Bible also teach you to lie and slander
You are misinformed about Islam and the Quran and the speech you use here is hateful. The Quran does not teach hate....people teach hate. Got it?
Ever consider you and your lifestyle is just 1 or 2 layoffs away from poverty?
What if you're laid off, maybe your jobs are sent out of the country and you can't find another job. Would you be too proud to take a handout from the government in the form of unemployment benefits? Maybe food stamps so you could eat. Judge not...............
Not everyone is looking to have you and your cohorts fork over part of your paycheck so they don't have to work. Think overpaid CEOs. Think companies (also MT companies) who send jobs out of the country so they can bloat their bottom line and put more in THEIR paycheck while taking it out of YOUR paycheck. Isn't that what's being done already? Is your MT pay getting better......or worse?
YOUR almighty lifestyle is what's deviant.
?
You can teach acceptance of people
different than you without talking about homosexuality. I find that story of the penguins to read to 5 year old children particularly upsetting.
If you can't pray in school and share the word of God in schools.....find another way to teach tolerance without bringing the gay issue into it.
Like I said before, how hard is it to tell kids that we should all be kind to each other because we are all different and that is what makes us all special. What else is there to be said? Treat others as you would have them treat you. It is pretty easy to say it and kids get it.
He didn't teach us to be doormats either!
As a Christian, it is as much our responsibility to speak out against homosexuality as the homosexuals believe it is their right to be allowed to married and now have it pushed down the throats of our children in public school!
No way! Being Christian does not mean you let others run all over you either....
You teach your children right from wrong....
because you LOVE them. A Christian who tries to help a person overcome alcoholism, drug addictions or whatever, they do this because they have love for this person as a child of God and as a brother or sister in the eyes of the Lord and they want to HELP them overcome whatever is burdening them to help them be right with the Lord and it is ALL IN LOVE, which is how it should be.
If what you are saying is true and you seriously are concerned about homosexuality on a Christianity level, then take your Bible and WITNESS to people about it. SHOW them where you find it wrong and explain to them that God loves them anyway and YOU love them anyway, but that you just want to make sure that they see the right path to God.
Coming at it from an angle that it is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG and you will NOT tolerate it and such is that, how is that helping anything? How are you being a supportive Christian and making yourself a person that others would want to model after and look up to? How about telling them that despite their sins that God loves them anyway. If you believe it is a sin, according to the Bible, do you also believe that God still loves them, according to the Bible? God does hate the sin, he doesn't hate the person.
We need teachers who teach the facts...(sm)
not their personal opinions. He did not show Obama's inauguration (I would think an essential for a history class -- regardless of who won), and he seems to like to compare Obama to Hitler. That's not a history class....that's a right fringe recruitment tool.
You can't compare race vs. a deviant lifestyle.
x
How is listening to his music exposing her to his lifestyle? nm
x
Listening to his music won't expose her to his lifestyle; however,
purchasing his CDs directly or indirectly supports his lifestyle.
I like Melissa Etheridge's music, but I have never purchased a CD.
They really should add "no responsibility"
to their talking points.
Just like O saying "no earmarks," right? nm
xxx
She could teach a class on it solely based on what she learned
from CONS here. You people provide a wealth of knowledge.
Speak patiently, answer their questions, teach nm
Clowns who teach middle schoolers sex education!
I wonder when the ACLU will get involved....Isn't teaching waiting until marriage to have sex a religious viewpoint and what's it doing in public schools?Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvCvw...erallyi-CLOWNSAs clownish as Dye’s words may sound to you, they are unfortunately not rare ones for young people to hear in classrooms all over the country. Thanks to George W. Bush and a complicit Congress, we currently spend $1.5 billion a year to fund abstinence-only until marriage sex education in our public schools. And yes, that money goes to people like Derek Dye, as he is employed by the Elizabeth New Life Center that received a $800,000 CBAE grant in 2007 to promote abstinence until marriage. His qualifications? A “Bachelor of Fun Arts” from Barnum Bailey Clown College, and an abstinence educator certification that can be purchased for $50. So… what’s wrong with abstinence-only until marriage sex education? Abstinence-only programs censor information about contraception and condoms; make moral judgments students may not share; stigmatize and shame students who have already had sex; and discriminate against GLBTQ students who can’t legally marry. These programs often encourage stereotypical gender roles, use scare tactics, blur religion and science, and contain factual errors, like saying that HIV can be spread through sweat and tears. And using condoms is like juggling machetes… What’s more, abstinence-only programs don’t work – independent study after study has shown that students who receive them don’t have lower pregnancy, HIV, or STI rates. And worse, students who receive abstinence-only programs are less likely to use contraception and condoms when they do have sex. Then again, as one colleague told me today, nothing wants to make her have sex less than a clown… so maybe they’re on to something. So… what can we do to make sure that abstinence-only programs like this one are not funded with our tax dollars? First of all, contact the Obama transition team to make sure that they ZERO OUT these programs in their first budget. Also, ending abstinence-only funding is currently 3rd place on Change.gov's user rankings, so you can go there and vote for it, too. Secondly, we must contact all of our representatives to let them know that we do not want this waste of money being snuck back into the budget through the appropriations process. Send them that message here. For those of you living in Ohio, call or email your Ohio State Senator today and urge them to co-sponsor the Act For Our Children’s Future, a bill to establish standards for comprehensive sexual health education in Ohio’s public schools. LET’S SEND OUT THE CLOWNS!!!
That's rich, isn't it? "No President is above the law..."
Bill Clinton ring a bell?
make that "no way part of what he's about to
So I guess your motto is, "No, I can't".
Let me get this straight. You're saying "no job = no buy"? But....
I didn't think you needed any money to buy stuff like houses and things like that. I thought the only question was "Do you have enough ink in your pen to sign this pack of lies - er, I mean, these loan documents?"
That headline should read, "No it was NOT over 1,000...." nm
nm
"now way". Did you mean "no way"? Yeah,
nm
Didn't Obama say "NO LOBBYISTS"?
There are 12 lobbylists in his administration............but, of course, all Obama lovers will certainly defend them somehow! They always do.
You are just mean period.
You obviously have anger issues. The poster was being respectful while asking questions and you ripped them to shreds. You are a very hateful person. You talk about not judging other people's views and how they live their life, and you judge someone when they just ask you questions. You are very two faced. No wonder this board is not very active. The two or three posters who I see posting here are very mean spirited.
Period.
rasberries
So now with my taxed insuring kids -- I can supervise their lifestyle, eating habits, etc.
Insurance premiums for kids only are not that expensive, adults can go without if they want their children to have insurance. Why should I pay for that. So now, if my tax dollars are going for that, can I go up to an overweight kid and start monitoring their diet, can I watch what they eat, make sure that they get enough exercise, not be exposed to second hand smoke, etc. Because if the government starts to provide everything for these kids, pretty soon they will be telling everyone what to feed, how to exercise, and everything else. Why don't we just hand over our paychecks to the government and they can just take care of us.
think you meant "no incentive", but I totally agree
nm
Obama lied to the country. "No earmarks"
nm
Michelle Malkin has it right.."no honor among thieves" and
x
My solution is to get out, period, now.
and I resent having to come up with a solution to a problem that I did not create, an idea that I found ridiculous, that I opposed, that I petitioned, attended rallies with those blood-thirsty Quakers against, and wrote letters to editors, senators, congressmen about. There is nothing to be gained in Iraq.
here we go again. last time period.
(Chris) Matthews is the one with a "thrill up his leg!"
Yes, I AM real. I don't get that syndrome around members of the opposite sex, or around any politician, for that matter.
You should have stopped at Not Tolerant. Period.
/
Limited government period. nm
z
It is just a sampling of a 3 year period. TI
Actually, no. There was much violence when we left Gaza.
Barack is not a socialist NOT NOT PERIOD sm
get ovah your Fox faux news propaganda. Fair tax cuts do not equal socialism. That's really insane. Any day now, the McCain Bush camp is going to say Barack is a commie. Just wait.
Obama groupies don't think period, let alone think for themselves!
x
and that should have read "NO MORE than being a Republican means," I am typing terrible, migra
nm
|