Schwarzenegger mentally corrupting children

[guyser]

To focus on only a select few is to ignore all others by comparison.

Thats true.

But once again, how is that relevant to "ignore all others"?

[guyser]

Bravo I couldn't of said it better myself. Schools are for learning, I have no problem with Sex Education but frankly this sounds like Social Enginering. Sex Education not sexual influence should be thought. Children are children for such a short time. Why force them to deal with issues of sexuality when they are to young to understand what is being tought to them. Teach childen acceptance of all people, regardless of apparence, race, creed or color or size. Why is so much importance placed on alternate life styles in schools these days. It smacks of a minority agenda of pandering and appeasement. Homosexual's and "Others" makeup ( I could be wrong with my stats)12% of the population. Obesity is rampart, racism is still alive and well but schools need to teach that having two Mommies is normal?

Maybe someone didnt read the article.

Changing Text Books to reflect who in history was gay or transgendered, please that's nonsense.

I agree. We should keep lying to them. Sooo much better.

[sharkman]

I agree. We should keep lying to them. Sooo much better.

How is omitting a person's sexual preference lying? Do you overreact ALL of the time?

Someone's sexual preference in history (a guessing game the gay agenda love to make) is immaterial to the historic events they were involved with. By this standard, rewriting school books to include marriage status, how many times divorced, etc., as well as their favorite colour and food should also be added.

Edited October 19, 2007 by sharkman

[bk59]

Why the hell should schools now be forced to portray certain lifestyles in a positive light while ignoring others?

Exactly! Why should all of the story books in the library be about families with a mommy & a daddy and 2.5 kids? (All white, of course.) Why shouldn't some of those story books have single parent families? Why shouldn't some of them have homosexual parents? I am so glad that you have decided it is wrong to ignore certain lifestyles.

Teach childen acceptance of all people, regardless of apparence, race, creed or color or size.

Again, that's pretty much what the law says. Do not discriminate on the basis of appearance, race, colour and disability. Oh yeah... and one other thing too. Sexual orientation.

When California had a law that said you could not discriminate based on race, were any of you crying out about how this meant that children would only be taught to be black? Or only taught asian culture? It really seems like there is a lot of overreaction to this. Particularly given the inflammatory nature of the web site linked in the OP.

Although I must say, it is hilarious when a web site posts a news article claiming that not discriminating against homosexuals is horrible and then has an advertisement leading to a gay fitness web site right beside the article. You just can't pay for that type of entertainment.

[guyser]

How is omitting a person's sexual preference lying? Do you overreact ALL of the time?

No I dont thanks. Perhaps if you read what you posted then you will see it is you who put in something that wasnt there. But hey , thats ok , it is a common trait of the righties.Especially when it is about gays.

If you include a sexual preference then it has to be the correct one. If it is not in the book then no change has to be made. To say that a historical figure was A when in fact he was B is all I am saying. If no mention is made, nio problem exists.

Someone's sexual preference in history (a guessing game the gay agenda love to make) is immaterial to the historic events they were involved with. By this standard, rewriting school books to include marriage status, how many times divorced, etc., as well as their favorite colour and food should also be added.

Nope. Never said it should be either. A guessing game in history books, but all else in that book is gospel ? Wonderful logic.