Are they recruiting your children?

[Beemer]

Pro-family groups and conservative students welcomed the voluntary “gay” silence as a respite from homosexual and “transgender” advocacy in schools. “Gay activists have used schools as a recruiting ground for far too long,” said LaBarbera. “If only they had been silent earlier, our children might have been spared exposure to discussions of abnormal sex and unnatural identities in the classroom.”

http://www.lafalce.com/library/famil...-silence.shtml

[f1oored]

If I had children I wouldn't want them learning about any sexual acts at age 7 much less un-natural ones. They should be thinking about recess and skippy peanut butter, not sexual orientation.

Maybe we could have a whole year of silence instead of just a day.

[Beemer]

Originally posted by f1oored
If I had children I wouldn't want them learning about any sexual acts at age 7 much less un-natural ones. They should be thinking about recess and skippy peanut butter, not sexual orientation.

Right on the nose!

[brandon184]

I see the word "recruiting", so I doubt I'll take any of my time tonight to read it. I'll read it in the morning.

I agree with f1oored's skippy peanut butter comment.

- Brandon

[Beemer]

Isn't it the parents responsibility/right to teach about the birds and the bee's in the way they prefer? Or is the gay liberation just a front for removing all sorts of hetorosexual rights in order to gain theirs?

Cheers!

[brandon184]

Yes, it is the right of the parent to teach about the "birds and the bees" in whatever method they prefer. I believe all sex-education programs in Canada (not sure about the U.S.) require parental consent before a student can learn about anything involving sex-ed.

I'd be more concerned about what my child was learning on a day-to-day basis from his or her peers.

- Brandon

[whitebeard21]

Keep them in the dark. Let them learn by themselves . It is much better to have your 13 year old daughter pregnant and your 13 yearold son walking around with aids isn't it. Why them dirty old gay people might do terrible things to them.
That is unless they are taught in a sensible and sane matter the truth about sexual orientation.
I question the real sexual orientation of homophobes.

[tmx468]

On a serious note, I learnt almost exclusively in class, and from the playground about 'the birds and bees'. And in that class the question of homosexuality came up. The teacher, matter of fact, explained things about gays to the class, in a question and answer format.

When the parents found out, the teacher got the sack.

IMO, the teacher was the best you could ask for for a kid to learn from - truthful, not biased, and geniune.

From that class (I am still in contact with the majority), only 1 person is gay - the guy who asked the question.

Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but 1/30 is hardly 'recruiting', and didn't affect our lives - if anything, it made him feel better about himself (not a freak), because he knew others were like him, and it was not something to be ashamed of,

I'm perfectly happy with my education, and would happily put my kids into a sex-ed class that had some basic homosexual information in it.

It ain't a disease, it ain't going to spread, and it ain't wrong. Just different.
And those that are scared, are either afraid of those that are different (like rasicsts), or hiding something

[sao95]

a little off topic, but not too much, what's a homophobe? I thought I knew but I guess I don't. I thought it meant someone who was afraid to come into contact with homosexuals, but the way i hear the word thrown around it seems that anyone who says anything anti-homosexual is a homophobe. Then I also hear it against people who don't say nasty things about homosexuals, but if they simply believe something different. any clarification on this would be helpful, (BTW, websters does have it listed as such: 1) fear of or contempt for lesbians or gay men 2) behavior based on such an attitude or feeling..... hmmm it says actions based on that attitude, doesn't say anything about beliefs or thoughts, of course how could one prove that a thought had contempt behind it. Obviously if it's negative there's an automatic assumption that there are negative feelings behind it, but what if there isn't. Not a very concise word in my opinion, alot like flake, as in "your a flake", never used in accordance with it's given definition it seems. Personally when someone calls me a flake I say "why thank you, that's a very nice thing to say" (after all does anyone really want to be normal?)

[RayH]

The only ones that seem to be doing any recruiting in schools are right wing churches who want everything to be an extension of their church! Sounds like a bunch of Aiyatollahs to me!