Pirates! Man your Women! » Blog Archive » Yet Another Reason to Home School Children

Yet Another Reason to Home School Children

terribly early in the morning on Tuesday, the 14th of October 2008 by Katie

A first grade field trip to their teacher’s lesbian wedding.

What ever happened to reading, writing and ‘rithmatic? Maybe that is why the quality of most public schools is in the toilet.

But, this class of 6 year olds was bussed to city hall to watch their female teacher marry a woman. What is the educational value of that? Is it just another blatant attempt to indoctrinate our children? Has the government (in this case in CA) decided, yet again, that they are better than the parents of these children. That, while the parents might have reservations about “gay marriage”, the state will indoctrinate their children to accept “gay marriage”?

To be honest, I want teachers to be examples for children. I want them to have to follow a morals clause. It is funny, districts “got it” when they stopped allowing teachers to smoke on campuses. They understood that the smoking behavior of teachers influenced the students’ perceptions of smoking. I my world, single teachers should not become pregnant, they should not have tattoos that show, and they should dress appropriately (not like they are about to go clubbing).

Most importantly, I think the teachers need to keep their private lives private. Frankly, I don’t care who the teacher is sleeping with (as long as they are adults), I just don’t want their students to know about it.

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading ...

View Technorati blog reactions.

Oh, Cry Me a River

Not With My Daughter, You Don’t

New School Set up: k-8

Responsible Parents?

Poll

Are people dumber now than before?

mdebusk Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 9:09 am Add karma

I’m not understanding this. At the beginning, you essentially equate a lesbian wedding with immorality, and that’s why the kids shouldn’t have gone, and at the end you imply that they shouldn’t have gone because there’s no educational value in attending a wedding. So I don’t get it; are you against lesbian weddings, or are you against children attending weddings (even heterosexual ones) as part of school?

If it’s the former, you don’t have a leg to stand on, because it appears that lesbian weddings are legal there and there is no evidence that marriage is immoral. If it’s the latter, you don’t have a leg to stand on, because marriage is a social institution, and — last I checked — “Social Studies” is an important part of any school’s curriculum.

Inviting a bunch of six-year-olds to a wedding is unorthodox to the point of weirdness, but I think the worst thing that could result from it is a room-full of extremely bored kids.

Tina Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 10:19 am Add karma

i believe Katie’s main issue is how public schools are force-feeding children to “accept” homosexuality.

This has been the current practice in several states that are embracing homosexuality.

there is no reason for kids, especially age of 6 to have the gay lifestyle forced on them.. as well the boredom and confusion of any wedding…

this case is no doubt was not intended to educate kids on weddings but to force acceptance of homosexuality.

Katie Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 2:57 pm Add karma

Let’s put it one way, there is no way that a couple of judges will change my definition of marriage. Sorry, that is the way it is. Looking at the dictionary that I had as a child (1970′s Webster), marriage was between a man and a woman. I realize that Webster’s has recently changed the definition, but that doesn’t change my definition.

And, I do not want my children to be raised with views different than my own. I have the right to raise my children as I see fit.

Do I have a “problem” with gay people? Actually, no. They just can’t be married to each other. They can have a legal union. They can have a life-long partnership. Heck, they can even have a one night stand. They just can’t be married.

I do prefer when people keep their personal life personal. I can’t stand public displays of affection. All I can think is “get a room”. And this goes for heteros as much as anyone.

But, I do think that it is an incredible waste of time to send kids to this wedding. If some parents had chosen to let their children attend a Saturday nuptuals, that would have been their business. But not during school (and tax payer) time. They aren’t even teaching the basics well, and maybe that is what they should concentrate on.

mdebusk Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 8:27 pm Add karma

Last I checked, kids had to have a permission slip before going on a field trip. The school never forced to go on one.

As far as “accepting” homosexuality, it seems to me that it’s part of reality and doing anything other than accepting it makes no sense. Nobody was asking the kids to watch or participate in gay sex (which is the only difference between the “gay lifestyle” and any other); they invited them to a wedding.

And Katie, your definition of marriage is your business and yours alone. Demanding that people alter their lives to suit your personal rules is exactly what you’re criticizing them for doing. If you don’t want your kids attending the wedding, don’t sign the permission slip.

I definitely think a teacher inviting her students to her wedding was weird, by the way. I’d think so if she’d married a guy. Professionals need boundaries between home and work. Imagine me inviting a random selection of drunks and drug addicts to my wedding.

Katie Says:
October 15th, 2008 at 3:27 am Add karma

“Demanding that people alter their lives” – but, don’t you see, that is exactly what a couple of judges are doing for a vast number of people. They are demanding that people change their long-held views of marriage.

Historically speaking, marriage has been between two sexes. Yes, sometimes they have been more than 2 people involved. And sometimes children (well, our view of children) were involved. But it was between two sexes.

And now a couple of judges, and some other groups, are trying to shove their views down other people’s throats.

I’m not asking people to change. Heck, I’ve made enough mistakes in my life, that I wouldn’t go pointing (and shaking) fingers at other people.

I do want teachers to keep their personal life personal. I know that it is not possible sometimes to do that (my students twice caught me going to a Metallica concerts in club wear, but at least it was off school hours and I didn’t invite the students to the concerts). But, I don’t think that teachers should purposely cross the line and invite the students in to their personal lives…

mdebusk Says:
October 15th, 2008 at 9:53 am Add karma

You and I are in agreement regarding whether or not the students should have been invited to the wedding. I think maybe you agree that it was unprofessional, too. So we have some common ground.

I think the root of our disagreement is this: You aren’t differentiating between the moral, ethical, or pragmatic and the legal. I think that whether or not someone SHOULD DO something is a completely different issue from whether or not they SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO DO that thing.

(I bet you can think of at least one heterosexual marriage that should never have taken place but that it would have been plain wrong to have had the law prevent.)

I don’t believe tradition has the power you’re giving it, either. To tell two people who want to marry that they can’t, “well, because we’ve always done it that way,” is just mean. The law must apply to everyone equally. Think of one way in which you and your husband are exactly alike, and imagine how you’d feel if you’d been told you couldn’t marry him because of that. It’s simply unfair, and we all want the law to be fair, do we not?

So nobody’s asking you to change your view of what marriage should be. No law can require you to think a certain thought or hold a certain belief. Those judges are allowing two people who love one another to get married, and they aren’t considering anyone’s personal opinion or how it’s always been done. They’re fairly applying the law. Wouldn’t it be great if every judge did that?

Katie Says:
October 15th, 2008 at 2:23 pm Add karma

The law is changing the basic definition of a word. And our courts were not created to legislate, but they seem to do it at an alarming rate.

The law does apply to everyone evenly. It does not say that a person can’t marry. The person just can’t marry some one of the same sex.

For me it is the word. Just the word. No morality, no nothing else. Just the word. If the state would come up with some legal alternative (and if it would pass a vote), then they can have at.

And traditions mean alot. It is what binds our country. It is what binds together society.

But, at this point, I’m going to respectfully disagree. I see your arguments. And you make great points. But, I will never agree with you, in this one case. But I thank you for your thought provoking statements.

mdebusk Says:
October 15th, 2008 at 10:58 pm Add karma

The government cannot change the meaning of a word. It can only define what the court means when it uses that word. And while I fully agree that the courts should not legislate, that is not what they’re doing in this case.

Treating everyone equally badly is still bad. No law should ever apply to one person differently from another. Saying a man cannot marry a man ONLY because he is a man is sex discrimination, plain and simple, and sex discrimination has no business codified into law.

It can’t be “just” the word, because words have no meaning in and of themselves. They’re symbols; they represent something to the person who uses it. To you, it means “a man and a woman”. To me, it’s a bitter memory. So I’ll suggest to you that you never marry a woman, and I’ll suggest to myself that I be a lot more careful next time. And while we’re both free to express our opinions, neither of us are free to impose our wills.

Since both of us agree that civil unions are a more workable option, there’s no point in going there right now. I AM glad you support them, though, because the idea needs strong support from people who are willing to speak out. If more people got that, the idea of gay marriage would probably go away AND the divorce rate might go down too.

To your assertion that tradition means a lot and binds us together, I’ll offer: “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?”; “The Bachelor”; “The Bachelorette”; “Beauty and the Geek”; “Average Joe”; “The Littlest Groom”; cohabitation increased 72% between 1990 and 2000; one divorce for every two weddings, year in and year out; and more and more people are delaying marriage or opting out altogether. Seems to me that the only time anyone calls marriage “sacred” is when denying it to same-sex couples; the rest of the time, it’s just cheap entertainment.

It seems you’ve decided to end the discussion. I think it’s a shame. Thank you for wrestling with me for a time, and for doing it so respectfully, too. Most who feel the way you do would not have been so.

Katie Says:
October 16th, 2008 at 3:21 am Add karma

mdebusk – I’ve enjoyed the exchange. It has been fun. I just am rather busy. And I probably like to talk about way too many things.

I do also agree with your point regarding tradition, currently. I think that society, in general, has become a disposable society, almost. Nothing seems to be entered into for the long term. Marriages, houses, whatever. Many people do not seem to want to put the effort to fix things, they would rather just throw things away.

Well, got to go. Need to catch up on the news.

Yet Another Reason to Home School Children

Related Posts

9 Responses to “Yet Another Reason to Home School Children”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Poll

Search

Captain's Logs

The Sites

Syndication

Stats