I'm saying that rather than respect other possible view points, you want to force your viewpoint on others and vilify anyone who doesn't accept it. That is intolerence.

That's why I've argued for the voucher system.

intolerance of intolerance. Hmm. Isn't that like killing murderers in a state respected, non-violent, non-painful way? Don't two negatives make a positive? Is that how you think?

Please lets not have the bait and switch game. There are some position on homosexuality that should not be tolerated in a public school or any other public place. There are others, that may differ from your's or mine, that should.

Besides that, we're throwing around the wrong word. It isn't tolerance you guys are demanding.

Isn't that the money assigned to pupil stuff like we have it here?

Public shouldn't pay for non public schools, if you want "different" education pay for yourself, "decide with your purse" (the saying you used several times)


Still I thinks it's immoral to brainwash children so they fit your personal taste.

Give them every education there is and let them decide for themselves.

That's pretty much all I'm saying. Second graders can learn to read write and do math without indoctrination regarding social issues of the day.

I have no problem with the book itself, and anyone who feels that it would be good for their child should buy it and read it to them.

The social issues of the day are exactly that. If there were never issues and if they never got resolved we would never move foreward!

Well then, no, that's not my position at all. There is unfortunately a limited paradox in the idea of tolerance, summed up in 2 words a couple of posts back ... "tolerating intolerance". But this is a theoretical point and to my mind does not take away from the basic premise that people have a right to be individuals.

As a society we do have to make decisions about what will be tolerated and what won't. Neither end of the spectrum (i.e. tolerate everything, or tolerate nothing) is even vaguely sane. And whenever a balance has to be found for the whole society, there will be widespread difference of opinion. The topic of this thread is an excellent example. My question is "where do we draw the lines", not "will we tolerate everything, or nothing". I'm sure there is that fraction of a percent who believe that pedophilia is cool (NAMBLA et al) - that doesn't mean I think that should be tolerated and taught as an option in schools for kids to make their own minds up on. Similarly, there are those who think it should be OK to shoot jews or black people (or white people proably for that matter) etc for fun - that doesn't mean we should tolerate it.

Back on topic too, I would point out that nobody is suggesting that they should be telling the kids that they should be like the same sex couple in the book. The issue is more about not denying the use of the book based simply on it containing a portrayal of same sex couple. You were the one who then suggested that the same principle should be applied and we should therefore break out the gay porn. On that issue, which is totally irrelevant and a separate issue, my answer would be "if you are going to show them straight porn - which seems unlikely - there would be no reason not to show gay porn". Personally I think educating a kid on sexual matters should be done by parents - but unfortunately most parents don't do this. As it happens I also feel like parenting should be a privilege, not a right (though obviously that is a fantasy not a serious proposition).

agreeing with the person above me...

Well, to keep my opinion short.

If you teach them social stuff, tell them about all of the stuff, homosexuality, heterosexuality, beastiality, geekhood, black history, white history, green history

Or just teach them only maths and grammar.

But don't teach them only one side of the medal.

also agreeing

Just the other day we did our studies on religion. I was very excited, that is one of my favorite subjects. Needless to say all we talked about was Catholosism(not christianity), orthadox Judiasm and not very much on Islam. I knew more than my teacher did! Is was so sad because I don't even know all that much.

Agreed. Personally, I'd go with just math and grammar. But yeah, you gotta teach it all if you're going to teach it.

The point of that was the same as yours - that everyone draws a line somewhere. Many parents, for a variety of reasons don't want that book read to their children. The shool doesn't need to read that book to accomplish what its there for. The book shouldn't be read.

I think it should be the parents too. Its their call to make.

Like BNS said, stick to the math and grammer. They don't do well enough at that as it is. None of the rest needs mention in a second grade class.

by saying that, you are saying that they must all be straight. That's just as bad as what you think were saying!

Huh?

When you reply to people could you take a few seconds to quote them, and then be a little less vague about what you are saying?

You can't talk about Christianity if you're not talking about Catholicism, for 1,500 years there was nothing other.

You can read about this guy if you want to:

Martin Luther - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Excellent post!

OK, this is my take on it (and I may have missed the boat, seeing as there hasn't been a new post in awhile).

While it is important to teach equality in schools, you do not need to use gays as a specific example to do this. You can read "The Ugly Duckling," which has the same effect without all that nasty controversy.

As for the controversy, I simply believe that social issues should not be taught in public school, especailly at that age. Now, once you get later into Middle School and into High School, then you can start to have intelligent discussions, instead of reading some seven-year-old a book about a gay fairy.

So, lets recap--you could have chosen a similar book about equality, except without the whole...gay...thing.

Social issues should only be taught later in public schools, when the child can make an informed decision and not be swayed by shiny things or candy.

Ooooo, shiny.....

It mystifies me why everyone thinks they can be an expert on what's best to teach children.

We should leave that job to the professionals.