I can’t teach about homosexuality in schools? “Give Me A Break!”

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Teacher:  I can’t teach about homosexuality in schools? “Give Me A Break!”

In a teacher’s own words!  Can there be any question what will happen in our schools?  Don’t let it happen!  Get involved!  and then Vote Yes on 1!

Firefly Dove

See this from Stand for Marriage Maine:

National Public Radio interviewed Deb Allen, a Massachusetts sex education teacher, on the topic of how some teachers have responded to the teaching of sex education following the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts. The content is chilling and should be a wake up call to all those who believe our opponents lies that gay marriage won’t be taught in Maine simply because it is not expressly required in LD 1020.

The NPR reporter tells listeners that when Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, homosexual activists went right to work developing a, “gay friendly curriculum for kindergarten and up.” The reporter notes that Allen “says the debate around gay marriage is prompting kids to ask a lot more questions like what is gay sex which Allen answers thoroughly and explicitly with a chart.”  But the most alarming quote in our ad is from Ms. Allen herself:

“I know that, OK, this is legal now. If somebody wants to challenge me I say give me a break.” — Deb Allen, Teacher

The ad actually does not tell the full extent that this teacher instructs 8th graders on gay sex. The news story shockingly reveals that students learn in detail about various ways lesbians engage in sex.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

WARNING: Graphic Contents

The full NPR story is available  here.

We entrust our young children to teachers every day that we send them to school. But because marriage has always been understood as being between a man and a woman, we have not had to worry about a trusted teacher teaching our sons and daughters about a new version of marriage and all that it entails. Yet all of that could change, as it has in other states, if we do not prevail on November 3rd.

Please help us get the word to Mainers that there are real consequences if Question 1 fails.  We have been working hard to explain to Mainers that there are significant, negative consequences to legalizing same-sex marriage that reach far beyond the boundaries of the two people who simply want to “marry”. We have laid bare the fact that legal scholars from across the country including those who support gay marriage predict a new flood of lawsuits against individuals, small businesses and religious organizations who may conscientiously object to providing their services to gay couples. We have shown proof that in other states where gay marriage is legal, it is taught to young children in school. We have made it abundantly clear that such instruction is, in fact, a part of public school curriculum. We have further established and the state Department of Education is on record agreeing with us that there is absolutely nothing in LD 1020 that prevents such instruction from taking place.

Time is of the essence to make sure that all Mainers know the very real, very serious, and very negative consequences to society should Question 1 fail on November 3rd. We are counting on your continued support.

CLICK HERE TO DONATE

Advertisements

23 Comments

  1. Phil said,

    October 18, 2009 at 1:51 pm

    I’m curious, Beetle Blogger: what do you think that gay and lesbian students should learn about sex?

  2. beetlebabee said,

    October 19, 2009 at 11:39 am

    “what do you think that gay and lesbian students should learn about sex?”

    I think everyone ought to have a good healthy understanding of how babies are made. Do I think we need to go into deviant behaviors some people find pleasurable? No. Why? Because the purpose of sex education is education, not pleasure seeking. We don’t teach positions, sex tips or anything of the sort because it’s not relevant. We’re not teaching how to have sex, we’re teaching how the body works and how life is created so people can have a healthy understanding about themselves and the ability we each have to create life.

  3. beetlebabee said,

    October 19, 2009 at 11:44 am

    To further answer your question, I disagree that young kids who have only begun to experience life should be labeled as “gay” or “lesbian”. I have a deep distrust for the gay community’s ability to differentiate between feelings we all experience and the creation of identities. I believe that we are more than the sum of our desires. That’s what makes man different than animals. We can choose how we act and what we become.

  4. mlabot said,

    October 20, 2009 at 2:57 pm

    Youtube took down the original videos from the Maine campaign. Sounds like NPR is a little embarrassed about their audio being used.

    I found the new videos on blip tv. You can post them on wordpress using vodpod. Maine’s ad is this code: Vodpod videos no longer available. and NPR’s full audio is this code: Vodpod videos no longer available.

  5. Phil said,

    October 24, 2009 at 5:17 pm

    Beetlebabee,

    I agree that everyone should have a good, healthy understanding of how babies are made. I don’t think that students should be labeled as “gay” or “lesbian”–I also don’t think that they should be labeled “straight” or “heterosexual” or “homosexual,” etc. But certainly, before they graduate from high school, most students begin to develop attractions, and that’s to be expected.

    The fact that we ought not label students in the eighth grade doesn’t mean that the eighth graders lack orientations. Most eighth graders are heterosexual, and a smaller portion are homosexual. The research is still not conclusive, but it’s possible that some are bisexual or asexual.

    Perhaps we both agree that sex ed classes should be primarily informative, not persuasive? There was a time when people would expect a sex ed class to try to persuade students not to be gay. We now know better.

    There was a time when grade school students were punished for being left-handed. We now know better.

    It’s true that people are more than the sum of their desires. But a public school has no more place opining about the morality of homosexuality than it does about the morality of left-handedness.

  6. Euripides said,

    October 25, 2009 at 9:19 pm

    Phil:

    Your comparison between left-handedness and sexual desire, both as moral questions, shows the vacuousness of your moral thought. If this is your true feeling on the subject, then you are particularly unqualified to speak about morality since you obviously wouldn’t recognize it if it hit you in the face.

  7. Phil said,

    October 26, 2009 at 1:19 am

    Euripides,
    Your response is what is known as an “ad hominem” attack, since you suggest that I am biased or unqualified without offering any argument about the substance of my claims.

    I asserted that schools should not express opinions about the morality of homosexuality. It’s possible that you agree with this, since you clearly don’t think that schools should be proponents of homosexuality.

    Instead, you responded with an insult, revealing much more about your own character than you seem to believe about mine.

  8. beetlebabee said,

    October 26, 2009 at 2:24 pm

    Phil, do you support teaching homosexuality in schools?

  9. Phil said,

    October 26, 2009 at 2:35 pm

    Beetlebabee,
    In order to answer that question, I would have to know what you mean by “teaching homosexuality in schools.”

    In general, I think that public schools should treat sexual orientation the way they treat religion. In those cases, for example, schools should not ignore the fact that many different religions exist in our society. And when it’s relevant to the subject matter of a course, a school should not be prohibited from teaching _about_ a religion. But there’s a difference between “teaching about the Hindu faith” and “teaching Hinduism.”

    Schools, of course, should be clear that students should not attack other students on the basis of their religions. But schools should not persuade students that they should join a religion.

  10. Phil said,

    October 26, 2009 at 2:49 pm

    Euripides,

    I do want to make myself clear: in my view, homosexuality can absolutely be moral behavior. My religious beliefs are that neither heterosexual nor homosexual behavior is more virtuous. Certainly, I think it’s immoral for gay men to lie to themselves or to lie to women. It seems pretty obvious to me that it’s better for society for gay men to be in committed relationships with other gay men, not with women. Would you really want your daughter to marry a gay man?

    On the other hand, like most people on the planet, I think that most other people’s religious beliefs are wrong. I suspect that you think my religious beliefs are wrong. I am uninterested in arguing about your religious beliefs.

    I just want to make sure i don’t give the wrong impression: I responded to the logic of your comment, but not its substance. I don’t want to give the impression that I condone the condemnation of homosexuality. In fact, I view it as a moral par with left-handedness: both are preferences (in a scientific sense), both have a biological basis, and neither one really matters to anyone except the individual involved.

  11. beetlebabee said,

    October 26, 2009 at 3:22 pm

    Phil, I am against teaching homosexuality and I’m also against teaching about homosexuality in schools. Who you decide to pair up with and how is a moral decision. Teaching morality of that magnitude is clearly in the realm of parental responsibility and right.

  12. beetlebabee said,

    October 26, 2009 at 3:23 pm

    “Certainly, I think it’s immoral for gay men to lie to themselves or to lie to women.”

    You’re setting up a false set of options here. You don’t have to lie to women in order to avoid being sexually immoral.

  13. beetlebabee said,

    October 26, 2009 at 3:24 pm

    “I am uninterested in arguing about your religious beliefs.”

    agreed. Who is arguing religious beliefs? Are you making assumptions?

  14. Phil said,

    October 26, 2009 at 4:55 pm

    “You’re setting up a false set of options here. You don’t have to lie to women in order to avoid being sexually immoral.”

    I think we can both cling to our false dichotomies. You don’t have to mate exclusively with someone of the opposite gender in order to be sexually moral.

    “Who you decide to pair up with and how is a moral decision. Teaching morality of that magnitude is clearly in the realm of parental responsibility and right.”

    Would you say, then, that sexual orientation is comparable to religion, in terms of how it should be treated by schools? Schools are instructed to take a “hands-off” approach to religion, and I think we can both agree that we don’t want public schools teaching children that they ought to be Muslim, just as we can both agree that we don’t want public schools teaching children that the Muslim faith is bad.

    “agreed. Who is arguing religious beliefs? Are you making assumptions?”

    Nope, just making a statement of fact, in the event that my explanation of my beliefs seemed like a solicitation for critiquing.

  15. beetlebabee said,

    October 26, 2009 at 5:17 pm

    “You don’t have to mate exclusively with someone of the opposite gender in order to be sexually moral.”

    Phil, who you choose to mate with is a moral decision. You do not get to decide what I think is moral. However, what I said is true. You do not have to lie to a woman in order to live a moral life as traditionally defined.

  16. beetlebabee said,

    October 26, 2009 at 5:21 pm

    “Would you say, then, that sexual orientation is comparable to religion, in terms of how it should be treated by schools? Schools are instructed to take a “hands-off” approach to religion, and I think we can both agree that we don’t want public schools teaching children that they ought to be Muslim, just as we can both agree that we don’t want public schools teaching children that the Muslim faith is bad.”

    Homosexuality is as much a political issue as it is a moral one. My opinion is that it should be taught at home. I don’t trust those who are running things to be able to keep their personal opinions out of it. Most people I talk with who support homosexuality do not even accept the delineation between who you are and what you do. Those who are pushing for homosexuality to be taught in the schools are also pushing for a positive spin on it. That’s not acceptable. It clearly crosses the line from neutral territory to propaganda, and at ages where kids are too young and immature in their thinking to be able to distinguish the rhetorical nuances, I just think it’s inappropriate.

    It is too much of a hot button issue to be entrusted to others to teach. Leave that right to the parents.

  17. Phil said,

    October 26, 2009 at 6:30 pm

    “You do not get to decide what I think is moral.”

    I understand that, and by way of illustrating it, I asserted what _I_ think is moral. We disagree. Your view about what is moral is not universal. (It’s also inaccurate, in my opinion, but that’s the point- we both think the other is wrong about morality.)

    “It is too much of a hot button issue to be entrusted to others to teach. Leave that right to the parents.”

    So, is the religion comparison a good one? You didn’t answer the question. Do you think that religion should be taught in schools?

    I would agree with a statement which read something like, “Learning about sexual orientation, like learning about religion, is best left to parents.”

  18. Phil said,

    October 26, 2009 at 6:31 pm

    “Those who are pushing for homosexuality to be taught in the schools are also pushing for a positive spin on it. ”

    I’m curious: do you believe that “not putting a negative spin on it” is the same as “putting a positive spin on it?” Because that seems to be the unspoken claim here.

  19. beetlebabee said,

    October 28, 2009 at 12:41 pm

    Phil, what I’m saying is that it’s possible to put zero spin on the issue, but that is not what is being put on the table. Is GLSEN a zero spin entity in your view?

  20. Ross said,

    October 28, 2009 at 8:04 pm

    It’s impossible to put zero spin on anything, beetle. Everything has a spin cause everything comes from a human mouth and every human has an opinion. But oh yeah, I forgot, you live in fantasy land where everything is neutral and every kid has a loving caring perfect mother and father. Riiiiight

  21. Phil said,

    October 29, 2009 at 4:27 pm

    Beetlebabee,
    I don’t have familiarity with GLSEN at the public school level, since I graduated almost two decades ago and haven’t been back to a public school.

    But on their web site, they state that their mission is “GLSEN, or the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, is a national education organization working to ensure safe schools for ALL students, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity.”

    So it sounds like their mission is both laudable and also zero-spin: they work to ensure safe schools not just for gay and lesbian students, but for all. Now, how that works out in practice, I don’t have examples.

  22. Cynthia said,

    December 3, 2009 at 10:09 am

    My 19-year-old son recently shared with me his experience dating three women. All of these young women also admitted to him that they slept with other women their age. They weren’t sure if they were gay or not. They were attracted to men but told him that they had learned that exploration of sexuality was fine, that sex is healthy and normal, that sex with anyone is healthy and normal. And so, that’s what they are doing. Our heterosexual women are now engaging in gay sex. Interestingly enough, my son has not had sex and stopped seeing these women. He was raised in a private Catholic school within an active Catholic family. His conversation with me was about how shocking it is to him to see the lack of importance that people place on the sex act. It’s more like a handshake. Our schools should expect respect for all but to advance a curriculum that ultimately causes all students to think they can have sex with each other regardless of their gender, well, I think that’s wrong.

  23. beetlebabee said,

    December 3, 2009 at 3:10 pm

    Cynthia,

    We had very similar circumstances here at a highschool that has been very sexually open, the new “edge” thing to do is experiment with same sex coupling. It’s got nothing to do with same sex attraction, and everything to do with hyped up, souped up teens who are floundering for truth. They’ve been told this behavior is just like any other, and who is going to tell them differently at a developmental stage where teachers many times matter more than parents? Kids are impressionable and easily led. That is what makes them such prime targets. These are the future leaders. If they can be co-opted, an entire movement can gain power seemingly overnight. These same activists go after developing countries for the same reasons. Hit them, influence them, even bully them into submission while they are weak and pliable, and you will win the culture war with comparatively little effort.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: