Eske Esquire wrote:
What makes this reasonable? What were you trying to say there? It's reasonable because it just pertains to curriculum?
Maybe it'll help if I rewrite the statement I made?
Lots of parents don't want their kids exposed to this stuff at an early age, so let's leave it out of the curriculum until after 8th grade
I think it's very very reasonable for parents to ask that material which they believe might be too mature or controversial for grade and middle school children to be left out of the public school curriculum until a later age. Why wouldn't that be the case? You're trying to test this with examples that don't fit what I'm saying. Try testing with those that do instead.
Can't say I agree at all. What makes this reasonable, is if there's reason involved. Logic. Rationality. All of which are irrelevant of the scale of the proposition. It could be about what can and can't be discussed in school, or it could be about what skin color is allowed to attend.
But that's *not* what we're talking about. We're talking about what is included in the curriculum. That's it. Stop expanding the issue into other areas. We could similarly say that it's wrong to shoot kids in the head in school assembly, but I'm not talking about that either.
The way you test is to take a less controversial issue and test the principle I'm espousing. The principle is: If sufficient parents object to proposed curriculum in public school based on the mature or controversial nature of the subject, then the school should not include it, or should include it at a later grade level. That's what I'm saying. For this to be false, then there can't be a case where it's quite obviously true:
So. Here's a test. I'm a school administrator and I'm a big fan of live donkey *** shows. So, I'm proposing that we show live donkey *** shows to middle school kids in my school in order to educate them about the wonders of man/donkey love. Can parents reasonable object to this being included in the curriculum on the grounds that it's too mature and controversial? Absolutely, they can.
Ah you say. But that's a live demonstration. No one's talking about having *** people perform *** acts in front of the kids. That's not fair! Ok. How about including a section in the curriculum about bestiality? I think that bestiality gets a bad wrap and want kids to be exposed to the positive aspects of bestiality at an early age before society has a chance to convince them otherwise. Can parents complain about that? I hope we all agree that they can.
So. Regardless of your own opinions about homosexuality (and really sexual orientation in general, since I've stated that the exception for heterosexuality makes the TN law wrong), it's not your kids in that class. Parents absolutely should have some say about what their kids are taught or not taught. We're not talking about math, or science, or language here. We're talking purely about the inclusion of curriculum solely designed to increase acceptance of what is absolutely a mature and controversial subject. Kids don't need to be taught in school about sexual orientation that early. It can wait.
IMO, that's perfectly reasonable. The principle is reasonable, the only issue is the specifics in this case. And how we apply the specifics really ought to be up to the parents, right? It's their children and their choice. If they want to teach their kids about different sexual orientations on their own, they're free to do so. It's not like by barring said discussion from school curriculum that it bars the parents from teaching it to their children themselves. It just means that parents who don't want their kids learning about that stuff at such an early age aren't having their children forced to anyway.
Segregation is not reasonable because it is illogical. It's fear-based, and it's unfair. So again, what makes barring the discussion of homosexuality reasonable? It isn't. I'm asserting that you made a completely unsubstantiated statement.
But we're not talking about segregation. Why do you keep bringing this up?