Imagine the homework (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257748,00.html)assignments.






Freshman ‘Orientation’ on Gay Experiences Angers Parents in IllinoisHigh School



Some parents of anIllinois public high school have accused it of promoting a homosexual agenda during a mandatory freshman orientation class that includes gay students talking about their own experiences.
In classrooms this week, panel sessions at Deerfield High School geared toward helping students adjust to high school will include speakers from a school club, Straight and Gay Alliance, who will openly talk about topics such as being bullied for being gay and being a friend of a homosexual person.
The class is mandatory, but parents can choose to remove their child on days the lessons concern them, school officials said. Some parents are pulling their children out of the program, The Chicago Tribune reported.
The newspaper reported that many parents are upset over the homosexuality discussion, saying it denounces religions that believe homosexual relations to be wrong or immoral.

*****


At what point are the parents going to remove the school boards that take it upon themselves to mandate these types of classes? What is it about the homosexual lifestyle that causes these individuals to feel the need to announce their behavior to everyone? A great many are quite uncomfortable with the strides homosexuals have taken out of their closets and are more than ready to shove them back into the shadows.

What is it about the homosexual lifestyle that causes these individuals to feel the need to announce their behavior to everyone?
What is it about homosexuality that Faux news feel the need to create its own highlighted catagory?

It's not only been on Fox. They got it from the Chicago Tribune

What I don't get is how you have mandatory classes which parents can excuse their kid from, doesn't make sense to me. The kid doesn't have a say in whether s/he goes to this controversial class, but his/her parents do.

What I don't get is how you have mandatory classes which parents can excuse their kid from, doesn't make sense to me. The kid doesn't have a say in whether s/he goes to this controversial class, but his/her parents do.

The child may have a discussion with their parents regarding the mandatory classes, but as minors, it is up to the parent to excuse them from any class. The same as having a child excused for the day. The child cannot excuse themself.

With all of the funding cuts in other areas - sports programs and the like, I find it unacceptable that any school administrative staff approve such a controversial program.

The child may have a discussion with their parents regarding the mandatory classes, but as minors, it is up to the parent to excuse them from any class. The same as having a child excused for the day. The child cannot excuse themself.

I understand that completely. They can however make the class optional to students as well. If there's an issue over whether the class is controversial or not, the student should have a say as well, not just the parent.

Homosexuals are trying to have it both ways - they're wanting to be treated if they're as normal as anyone else, yet want to be seen as special because their sexual orientation is different from normal.

The class is mandatory, but parents can choose to remove their child on days the lessons concern them, school officials said. Some parents are pulling their children out of the program, The Chicago Tribune reported.

Wow, there's a fucking shocker.

Parents who think homosexuality is "sinful" or "evil" (IOW, parents who are superstitious twits) are making their kids avoid the classes, and doing everything they can to shield their 14 year olds from the real world; they are decisively cutting them off from comprehending or understanding about homosexuality. (All in the name of religion and the homophobia and prejudice it preaches, no doubt).

Just because these parents keep little Chad or little Brittany away from the "evil" homosexuals does not mean that homosexuality is going away.

It just means that there will be yet another generation of narrow-minded homophobic ignoramuses who think that if enough people ignore homosexuality, it will cease to exist and cease to be something all of us will be dealing with in our everyday lives.

What is it about the homosexual lifestyle that causes these individuals to feel the need to announce their behavior to everyone? A great many are quite uncomfortable with the strides homosexuals have taken out of their closets and are more than ready to shove them back into the shadows.
All through school I have been expected to show a working knowledge of some Bible stories or characters, and attributes of the religion of Christianity.

What is it about the Christian mindset that cause these individuals to feel the need to thrust their beliefs upon everyone in public schools?

What I don't get is how you have mandatory classes which parents can excuse their kid from, doesn't make sense to me. The kid doesn't have a say in whether s/he goes to this controversial class, but his/her parents do.

It's because someone thought minors, which most laws define to be under 18 years of age, are not capable of making sound/informed decisions. LOL, what does age have to do with maturity level anyway?

I have read bits and pieces of American history and such. I would hardly be considered an expert but, correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the colonies founded by Puritans who escaped persecution in Europe? Isn't the United States of America founded on Christian precepts and beliefs? What is it about modern American society that has cahnged all that? One thing I am quite sure of though. I looked at a dollar bill at the bank today. It still bears the inscription "In God we Trust". I think that says a lot about America, as conceived by the founders..

I have read bits and pieces of American history and such. I would hardly be considered an expert but, correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the colonies founded by Puritans who escaped persecution in Europe?
And corporations from England and Belgium or the Netherlands. Prison colonies, various other religious minorities (not just Puritans), standard citizenry from the streets of England, and more.
Isn't the United States of America founded on Christian precepts and beliefs?
No.
It still bears the inscription "In God we Trust". I think that says a lot about America, as conceived by the founders..
That phrase was not placed on the currency until the Cold War. It was made the national motto.

I prefer "E Pluribus Unum."

It still bears the inscription "In God we Trust". I think that says a lot about America, as conceived by the founders..
Sure, if by "Founders" you mean "Congress in 1956"...

Homosexuals are trying to have it both ways - they're wanting to be treated if they're as normal as anyone else, yet want to be seen as special because their sexual orientation is different from normal.

I think the message these particular people are trying to get out is:

"In classrooms this week, panel sessions at Deerfield High School geared toward helping students adjust to high school will include speakers from a school club, Straight and Gay Alliance, who will openly talk about topics such as being bullied for being gay and being a friend of a homosexual person."

I don't know, but that doesn't sound terribly insidious to me. Maybe the schools are just trying to keep the "fag-bashing" to a minimum.

Are there special classes to keep "fatty bashing" or "nerd bashing" or "dealing with dumb jocks" as the subject matter? Not hardly. Combine it all into one class under the title of RREO (race relations & equal opportunity) and perhaps it would receive better press. As presented, it's easy to view it in a negative fashion.

Are there special classes to keep "fatty bashing" or "nerd bashing" or "dealing with dumb jocks" as the subject matter? Not hardly. Combine it all into one class under the title of RREO (race relations & equal opportunity) and perhaps it would receive better press. As presented, it's easy to view it in a negative fashion.

This may be because gays often enough end up being murdered for their gayness. That potential does put in a slightly different category.

Are there special classes to keep "fatty bashing" or "nerd bashing" or "dealing with dumb jocks" as the subject matter? Not hardly. Combine it all into one class under the title of RREO (race relations & equal opportunity) and perhaps it would receive better press. As presented, it's easy to view it in a negative fashion.

The current pop-culture buzzword is 'Celebrating Cultural Diversity'.
Such seminars are being offered to industry on a daily basis, am surprised they haven't made their way onto the campus.

I sat in on one presentation by Dr. Samuel Betances just a couple of years ago. It was interesting, HIGHLY entertaining, and most importantly perhaps, it 'checked the block' for the organization who paid to bring him in to speak.

Did it change the way the audience viewed each other, and did it promote tolerance and understanding?

Eh, maybe.

Are there special classes to keep "fatty bashing" or "nerd bashing" or "dealing with dumb jocks" as the subject matter? Not hardly.

Perhaps those aren't perceived as problems to the extent that gay-bashing is. It may be that the incidents of those occurring is lower and less violent, or maybe the "fatties" and "nerds" etc. just need a better press agent.


Combine it all into one class under the title of RREO (race relations & equal opportunity) and perhaps it would receive better press. As presented, it's easy to view it in a negative fashion.

I didn't see the the article you posted as "bad press". The article stated that the school brought these peolple in to discuss the effect of bullying and how to show friendship towards gay people. It's hard for me to understand how anyone could "easily" take this in a negative light unless they were looking for something to be negative about.

Did it change the way the audience viewed each other, and did it promote tolerance and understanding?

Eh, maybe.

I think "maybe" is all you can hope for with this type of educational program. A little over 25 years ago I was in college (briefly) and I had just "come out" as the saying goes, so I joined the relatively new gay student group on campus. Our group was contacted by the Psychology department and asked to provide a male and female speaker to visit a freshman class and talk about "being gay". It was an interesting experience and it seemed to me to be beneficial in the sense that it seemed most of the people in the class hadn't actually met a "real" gay person face-to-face. It seemed there were quite a few people in the class who expected someone a little different than what they got. I suspect they'd have been more comfortable if I was the flamboyant type, but they seemed a little baffled that I appeared to be just another guy. I think that experience would be an educational one for people who have a strongly stereotypical view of what gay people are like.

I think ES makes a good point about the problem with this. There is a similar problem in New York City with languages.
At one time all signs were in English. Now they are in English and Spanish.
When the Chinese complained, many appeared in Chinese. Guess what happened next. The Koreans complained.

Now as you travel through NYC, signs are in English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Urdu, Hindi, etc. This will continue until we run out of languages because no one at the beginning was brave enough to say no to the first request of signs in Spanish.

There are many people in High School who have particular challenges. Many are much more difficult than being gay. Will they each get their own assembly and lectures? Who decides?

There are many people in High School who have particular challenges. Many are much more difficult than being gay.

That's probably true, but how many of them are physically threatened by other students based on that "challenge"?


Will they each get their own assembly and lectures?

If enough problems arise, I suspect they will.


Who decides?

The people who decide such matters. School administrators.

Sure, "nerds" get picked on a lot, but they don't have to stay "in the closet" and pretend they're not nerds to avoid being assaulted and even murdered... That's why gays get a tolerance lecture and nerds don't.

Take, as an example, a student with a learning disability who is in a mainstreamed or an inclusion-based classroom.
Depending on their disability, they can be badly distracted or disturbed by something as simple as a slamming locker.
If students are made aware of people such as this, it will help a growing segment of the population while in school, and make people more sensitive to it later in life.

I admit I'm partial to this because of my family situation. Unfortunately it makes me less sympathetic toward the problem of being gay or a minority when I think of others who can't talk, may never have a real friend or fall in love, need help to engage in the most basic functions in society and may never be independent.

I know these other groups have problems (and they do deserve these sensitivity classes) but they are far outnumbered and far out-challenged by people with disabilities.
But that's not a lecture or a class in which schools are interested.

Take, as an example, a student with a learning disability who is in a mainstreamed or an inclusion-based classroom.
Depending on their disability, they can be badly distracted or disturbed by something as simple as a slamming locker.
If students are made aware of people such as this, it will help a growing segment of the population while in school, and make people more sensitive to it later in life.

I admit I'm partial to this because of my family situation. Unfortunately it makes me less sympathetic toward the problem of being gay or a minority when I think of others who can't talk, may never have a real friend or fall in love, need help to engage in the most basic functions in society and may never be independent.

I know these other groups have problems (and they do deserve these sensitivity classes) but they are far outnumbered and far out-challenged by people with disabilities.
But that's not a lecture or a class in which schools are interested.

I think you're completely right about this, and I'm sorry for your situation Brooks. It's a shame that real people are hurt due to our screwed up priorities, and doubly tragic that it's often those deserving of our compassion that get forgotten.

Take, as an example, a student with a learning disability who is in a mainstreamed or an inclusion-based classroom.
Depending on their disability, they can be badly distracted or disturbed by something as simple as a slamming locker.
A learning disability is a whole other issue Brooks. Depending on the ailment, they can have these issues dealt with by careful handling from the school faculty, changes in their behavior, even a therapeutic session course to help them, maybe even medication.

This orientation was "In classrooms this week, panel sessions at Deerfield High School geared toward helping students adjust to high school", notice the article focused on the fact that parents complained about some people not "promoting homosexuality," but promoting messages related to homosexuals (being bullied for sexual orientation or being friends with a gay person).

Is it a problem to have a school meeting where they discuss issues pertinent to the social aspect of the school? Such as cliques, racism, sexism, homophobia, and other things that potentially could be discussed in this setting? No, it isn't a problem.
I know these other groups have problems (and they do deserve these sensitivity classes) but they are far outnumbered and far out-challenged by people with disabilities.
Is that an issue where people attack the cognitively delayed due to religious reasons?

Why don't we have a mandatory christianity class and see how much these people who are moaning about kids not taking the gay class feel about that... should that class be mandatory too?

LMAO

Why don't we have a mandatory christianity class and see how much these people who are moaning about kids not taking the gay class feel about that... should that class be mandatory too?
Oh yes Decka, absolutely.

That's probably true, but how many of them are physically threatened by other students based on that "challenge"?

all of them. have you forgotten how cruel children are?

It stll appears to be special treatment toward a group claiming to be "normal". The homosexuals aren't handicapped, ADDHD, or racially apart any more than - and in some cases less than- any other group. Sometimes reality really sux, but that's life. Deal with it. The rest of us do.

I have read bits and pieces of American history and such. I would hardly be considered an expert but, correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the colonies founded by Puritans who escaped persecution in Europe?

Basically, yes. Unfortunately, what the Puritans wanted was to be free from religious intolerance so that they could be religiously intolerant towards others. I don't think Puritans understood hypocracy.

I would hardly be considered an expert but, correct me if I'm wrong but........Isn't the United States of America founded on Christian precepts and beliefs?

No.

Consider yourself corrected.

_____________________________

""...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.""

No. Consider yourself corrected.
""...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.""

OK, here comes a lecture. On this one we are in complete agreement.

The "Founding Fathers," except for Patrick Henry and maybe a couple others, were not Christians the way people think. They were an elite group--a "landed aristocracy" of people educated in and imbued with the ideals of the movement we call "the Enlightenment."

This was not exactly anti-Christian (although some, such as John Adams and certainly Tom Paine can be said to have been anti-Christian) as much as it was anti-clerical and refused dogmatism. There is no way these men could have been called Christians.

They were theists--read their documents--references to God are abundant--but you find expressions not found in Christianity, such as "nature's God."

The name of their religious belief is now called "Deism." It is a special form of theism that posits the existence of a benevolent god, but not a meddling god--a watchmaker god who creates nature and then stands aside, so that nature and mankind can be free.

Jefferson is no doubt the most eloquent exponent of this thinking, rhapsodizing about the harmony of nature forcing him to believe in God, but detesting the narrow sectarianism of the churches around him and decrying the superstition and myth of much of Christianity.

Jefferson found much good in the Gospels, and even tried to publish his own "Gospel," taking what he likes of Jesus (the love and peace and forgiveness) and removing the ugly parts (the hate and vengeance and power bits).

Washington attended Episcopalian services, but always left before the Eucharist. He felt a "gentleman" should go to church, regardless of personal belief, and generally refused to discuss religious matters.

Franklin was in favor of anything that did good, and could always be counted on to contribute to any church charity. However he never went, except sometimes to hear a famous preacher who might be in town. He also subsidized the Philadelphia "Friends" quite heavily, and spoke positively of their behavior, although not of their beliefs.

Deism has become rare nowadays, I think because Darwinian evolution removed its raison d'etre. Perhaps the last prominent Deist in American history was Abraham Lincoln, although sadly fundamentalists have confused the truth here with some unfortunate and false claims.

The Founding Fathers could have been Bible-thumping, born-again evangelists and it still wouldn't mean that they founded the country on Christian beliefs or principles.

It stll appears to be special treatment toward a group claiming to be "normal".

Appearances can be deceiving. These programs aren't for gays, but rather those who would do them harm for being gay.


The homosexuals aren't handicapped, ADDHD, or racially apart any more than - and in some cases less than- any other group.

Absolutely true, but again, these programs aren't meant to address the behavior of homosexuals, they are to address the behavior of others.


Sometimes reality really sux, but that's life. Deal with it. The rest of us do.

No doubt the parents of Matthew Sheppard would find those words comforting.

Appearances can be deceiving. These programs aren't for gays, but rather those who would do them harm for being gay.

Absolutely true, but again, these programs aren't meant to address the behavior of homosexuals, they are to address the behavior of others.

If so, then special treatment for homosexuals is being advocated - while such should not be the case.

No doubt the parents of Matthew Sheppard would find those words comforting.

For every one kid you can name that's been harmed one way or another, either for being homosexual or suspected of homosexuality, ten others can be named who have been harmed for lunch money, articles of clothing, or just "because".

If so, then special treatment for homosexuals is being advocated - while such should not be the case.

The "special" treatment isn't for homosexuals.


For every one kid you can name that's been harmed one way or another, either for being homosexual or suspected of homosexuality, ten others can be named who have been harmed for lunch money, articles of clothing, or just "because".

So we should just let it continue?

If so, then special treatment for homosexuals is being advocated - while such should not be the case.

For every one kid you can name that's been harmed one way or another, either for being homosexual or suspected of homosexuality, ten others can be named who have been harmed for lunch money, articles of clothing, or just "because".

If the harm to homosexuals can be prevented this way, then you have no business bringing up other wrongs. That is a strange way to think--I can help one starving child but should not because this would not be fair to all the other starving children. It sounds to me more like an excuse for prejudice.

Besides, it seems to me young gays have a far worse problem than the occasional bully. It is like the case for affirmative action (which I would bet you probably would also oppose--why should African-Americans get special treatment--right?). Also, of course, there already exist very many programs to address the issues you mention, so it is no argument against helping gays.

Justice often requires offsets--if your negligence results in someone being maimed, you are going to pay through the nose if you don't have insurance. I see the past history of African-Americans, Native Americans, gays, and others, as needing recompense via proactive activity to undo past prejudice and to reduce present prejudice.

My wife tells me that bigotry can be scaled on a Bell curve, with most people rather prejudiced, a few quite free of it and another few being real assholes. It may be that this sort of thinking is wired in our genes, but I would like to hope not.

To a degree it's just another way to blame gays for the fact that some people want to harrass them or worse. When gays try to solve the problem by educating others on the effects of such treatment they are told they are demanding "special" treatment. The truth is they are trying to eliminate the "special" treatment inflicted on them by others, and it's the height of cynicism and cruelty to blame gays for the fact that others are intolerant.

To a degree it's just another way to blame gays for the fact that some people want to harrass them or worse. When gays try to solve the problem by educating others on the effects of such treatment they are told they are demanding "special" treatment. The truth is they are trying to eliminate the "special" treatment inflicted on them by others, and it's the height of cynicism and cruelty to blame gays for the fact that others are intolerant.

Like someone said earlier... are we going to have classes for fat kids too? Hell in today's society its ALOT better to be gay then fat... being fat is taboo.

Like someone said earlier... are we going to have classes for fat kids too? Hell in today's society its ALOT better to be gay then fat... being fat is taboo.

And like someone else said, what the hell is your point? You seem to be saying that since we can't solve all problems, we should attempt to solve none.

Are there special classes to keep "fatty bashing" or "nerd bashing" or "dealing with dumb jocks" as the subject matter? Not hardly. Combine it all into one class under the title of RREO (race relations & equal opportunity) and perhaps it would receive better press. As presented, it's easy to view it in a negative fashion.


Call it RREO, and it would get NO PRESS.

Well, es does have a point. More kids are 'harmed' because they are fat than because they are gay. If the issue is preventing harm, then shouldn't there be a required class regarding fat kids before there's one on homosexuals?

And like someone else said, what the hell is your point? You seem to be saying that since we can't solve all problems, we should attempt to solve none.

I would be fine with not addressing either gay OR fat kids...

but the fact that they are addressing gay kids means they don't care as much about gay kids as fat kids... supposedly.

Now i know thats not true.. but come one, minority rights people have been doing this for years. If someone gets something, and its not them.. they CRY HAVOC AND UNLEASH THE DOGS OF WAR until enough media jerks them off and they get what they want.

The "special" treatment isn't for homosexuals.

How can you say that & keep a straight face? A club at that school has gotten permission from the board to have a mandatory class where presenters ” …will openly talk about topics such as being bullied for being gay and being a friend of a homosexual person …’ If that isn't calling for speical treatment, then what is?

It is like the case for affirmative action (which I would bet you probably would also oppose--why should African-Americans get special treatment--right?).

What did we gain from Affirmative Action? A lot of people in jobs they didn’t belong in – placed beyond their capabilities just to please those making a case for quotas. AA was America’s apology for slavery, right along with LBJ’s Great Society.

To a degree it's just another way to blame gays for the fact that some people want to harass them or worse. When gays try to solve the problem by educating others on the effects of such treatment they are told they are demanding "special" treatment. The truth is they are trying to eliminate the "special" treatment inflicted on them by others, and it's the height of cynicism and cruelty to blame gays for the fact that others are intolerant.

Sounds to me like you’re saying “tough shit” to all the other trodden on groups, as long as the gays have their say. Homosexuals make up a miniscule portion of the population, yet with all their noise they tend to believe they’re bigger than what they are.

Identifying all the members of the club at that particular school may have a backlash they’d not counted upon.

No.

Consider yourself corrected.

_____________________________

""...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.""
then what were they?

then what were they?

full-pledged athiests who burned crosses and hated God.

full-pledged athiests who burned crosses and hated God.
wouldn't that make them Satanists? you have to acknowledge something exists to be able to hate it.http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/teufel/devil-smiley-024.gif

Well.. in their defense... just because anyone would "hate God" does not mean they "love satan".. they could be neutral, or hate them both.

A club at that school has gotten permission from the board to have a mandatory class where presenters ” …will openly talk about topics such as being bullied for being gay and being a friend of a homosexual person …’ If that isn't calling for speical treatment, then what is?

Isn't it in effect calling for the opposite?.......calling for homosexuals to not be singled out and treated differently (i.e., derisively) than everyone else........?

Isn't it in effect calling for the opposite?.......calling for homosexuals to not be singled out and treated differently (i.e., derisively) than everyone else........?

Apparently that type of "special" treatment is ok. If you single out the problems of homosexuals and attempt to address them, that "special" treatment is out-of-line.

As long as a majority of the population views their behavior as both unnantural and perverted, it would seem that even more homosexuals are going to suffer the wrath of the "un-indoctinated" as they expose themselves.

As long as a majority of the population views their behavior as both unnantural and perverted, it would seem that even more homosexuals are going to suffer the wrath of the "un-indoctinated" as they expose themselves.

An excellent argument for education.

Well, es does have a point. More kids are 'harmed' because they are fat than because they are gay. If the issue is preventing harm, then shouldn't there be a required class regarding fat kids before there's one on homosexuals?
You can lose weight, you cannot shed being homosexual.

You can lose weight, you cannot shed being homosexual.
if you didn't want to be one, you wouldn't be one.

An excellent argument for education.

So, push the issues of homosexuals to the forefront while ignoring the issues of others? No, that's still special treatment for a minority group that does not warrant such.

So, push the issues of homosexuals to the forefront while ignoring the issues of others? No, that's still special treatment for a minority group that does not warrant such.

It's also putting words in my mouth. I'm not in favor of ignoring any problems, including those experienced by gays. If you want to address other problems, be my guest, but don't deny gays the help they need because there are other unsolved problems. Are you pissed because the gays are well-organized and have a better press agent?

if you didn't want to be one, you wouldn't be one.

Care to elaborate?

It's also putting words in my mouth. I'm not in favor of ignoring any problems, including those experienced by gays. If you want to address other problems, be my guest, but don't deny gays the help they need because there are other unsolved problems. Are you pissed because the gays are well-organized and have a better press agent?

I don't support using school property, time and tax dollars to make kids who've already enough on their minds with schoolwork aware of the imagined plight of a miniscule portion of the population who bring a variety of problems upon themselves.

Originally Posted by Evakian
You can lose weight, you cannot shed being homosexual.

if you didn't want to be one, you wouldn't be one.

By that logic mikezila, you would be able to *choose* to be a homosexual if you wanted to.

NOW ---after you have taken a moment to reflect, and to recognize that you are not able to "choose" what gender you're attracted to-- do you see how wrong your thinking is on this?