Book with two moms returns to element...

Book with two moms returns to elementary school library

There are 394 comments on the www.proudparenting.com story from Jan 16, 2013, titled Book with two moms returns to elementary school library. In it, www.proudparenting.com reports that:

The ACLU of Utah defended the book "In Our Mothers' House" by Patricia Polacco, after it was removed from the Davis School District's library shelves...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.proudparenting.com.

straight shooter

Barre, VT

#113 Jan 17, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
big
fat
yawn
They teach comparative religion in public elementary schools now, do they? Wow! Vermont really is progressive, ain't it? I bet they even teach about what muslims believe in Science class, too.
hay shape-shifter, here are YOUR WORDS:
"Creationism isn't taught because SCOTUS says it violates the Constitution."

so, is this you way of admitting you are wrong and back peddling?
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#114 Jan 17, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
You are confusing sex organs with parenting skills.
you are confusing fathers with I dunno what...
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#115 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
it is not resolved, so both sides are working on "faith".
you can't even fathom consistency can you?
I can fathom that you are consistently full of shit. Creationism is NOT science, and that most certainly HAS been resolved.
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#116 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
hay shape-shifter, here are YOUR WORDS:
"Creationism isn't taught because SCOTUS says it violates the Constitution."
so, is this you way of admitting you are wrong and back peddling?
Your desperation is showing. Who is teaching comparative religion classes in public elementary schools? And who, besides you, is talking about comparative religion class? I'm talking science class.
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#117 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
you are confusing fathers with I dunno what...
I do realize that you don't know. You are unteachable.
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#118 Jan 17, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text> Creationism is NOT science, and that most certainly HAS been resolved.
straw manning again I see...

who said it was?

MY point was that its not just the bible thumpers who want things not to be taught about in school, and you as the lovely pawn you are proved that...I told you that you were "useful"...

Creationism IMHO is ludicrous, but so is your idea that two women can be the SAME as a dad.Or that two men is the same as having a mom....

what did you do for GE dude?
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#119 Jan 17, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Your desperation is showing. Who is teaching comparative religion classes in public elementary schools? And who, besides you, is talking about comparative religion class? I'm talking science class.
so go talk about it and stop pretending you are in this conversation....
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#120 Jan 17, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>I do realize that you don't know. You are unteachable.
ooooh get out the cat claws you little kitty...
meow.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#121 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
right, but EVRYONE on your side is saying two mom's is the same as a mom and dad, so someone must be filling the role of DAD or "father"...
No, no one MUST be fulfilling this "role". EVERY mom & dad is different. Every PARENT is different. They all play a different "role". They only need to be compassionate, understanding, loving, disciplined, and principled (the short list). There isn't any MANDATE that one parent must be male, and one must be female. Many children are successfully raised with only ONE parent, or perhaps by a mother and an aunt. The "roles" of male or female are not so important as the competency of the people doing the parenting.
straight shooter wrote:
its my proposition that there is no proven "fact" that gay couples are the same as straights, so that should not be taught on the same logic as your comments on myth...
so the fact they call both parents mom is an inadvertent dodge...
No two couples are the "same", and gay couples are not IDENTICAL to straight couples, but facts exist that show gay couples make competent and capable parents. The grown children say so themselves.

But this isn't about teaching whether gay people SHOULD be parents. When gay kids grow up and become gay adults, if they want to be parents THEN THEY WILL BE, regardless of whether you think they SHOULD. This is about teaching whether gay couples ACTUALLY DO raise children, and lo and behold, THEY ACTUALLY DO. There's nothing wrong with teaching this fact.
straight shooter wrote:
and it also sounds like you think morality is barred fro being faith based as opposed to secular, I find many liberals think this and I wonder on what basis you could even fathom that is true?
You're free to claim that your morals are faith-based if you want. No one is barring you from doing so.
straight shooter wrote:
You can cite to separation of church and state but that would ignore that it protects the religion from govt, not the other way around...
It protects BOTH, actually, but that's beside the point. But schools don't TEACH that morals are faith-based. If you have ANY faith-based beliefs, morals or otherwise, you can teach that as a family. Schools don't teach faith-based ANYTHING.
straight shooter wrote:
but the reading of your comment i have, you would be suggesting the constitution protects govt from US, and that is simply not true, the reverse is!
They are both true. Separation of church and state protects churches AND the state. Your religion is protected because the state is not teaching a different one.
straight shooter wrote:
take away religious, and then we have a consistent point, no one wants OTHER PEOPLE'S BELIEFS taught
what i think you are missing is that things you "know" are facts are just "beliefs" just like the religious...
you know you are the same as straight couples and they know god exists...

the "belief" the gays are the SAME (not better or worse) would be a part of that...
Everyone is different. You are a different kind of parent from your straight neighbors. You are neither better nor worse. This applies to gay couples, too. Your religious beliefs have no bearing on whether gay couples ACTUALLY ARE raising children.
straight shooter wrote:
I of course have no objection to teaching that ALL humans are worthy of respect.
You don't seem to be promoting that respect. You seem to want to contribute to an environment of disdain and stigmatization of gay people.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#122 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
this is clearly a "belief".
why would i claom anyone calls a woman a "father"
You've done it several times already, and you're about to do it again....
straight shooter wrote:
the fact is you are suggesting that two mothers can provide the same as a father....
They can provide the guidance and support a child needs.
straight shooter wrote:
so they must be being the father then!
See? You just did it again. No, no one is "being the father" and no one "MUST BE" being the father. You are forcing that label. No one has voluntarily adopted it.
straight shooter wrote:
The kids could call one spouse aunt for all I care (and do note a few old school gays I know with kids from a prior marriage did just that).
Then this proves that you care more about the TITLE of "father", than you do about the level of competency that any person could provide as a parent.
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#123 Jan 17, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
No, no one MUST be fulfilling this "role". EVERY mom & dad is different. Every PARENT is different. They all play a different "role". They only need to be compassionate, understanding, loving, disciplined, and principled (the short list).
.
says you and your idea that exceptions negate rules...
but I don't follow your BELIEFS...
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>

You don't seem to be promoting that respect. You seem to want to contribute to an environment of disdain and stigmatization of gay people.
and what would you call your comment?
its easy for ANYONE to fall into that trap, no?
and I mean, do you see what that freak Mona spits at me each day, I have just recently started responding in kind...
so, before you accuse me...
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#124 Jan 17, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
No, no one is "being the father" and no one "MUST BE" being the father..
is that what you guys BELIEVE?

I mean, you do know that is not a proven fact and so there is some element of FAITH....

have you heard about the studies showing girls mature earlier (too early) if their biological dad is not present?
surely that has psychological effects, right?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#125 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
the belief in creationism as well as catholicism also EXISTS.(to remind you, I am not a believer in religion, but i am in consistent rules)
yet you are fine with people learning that on the outside right?
so again, can you grasp that this is not consistent?
you want your agenda taught but no one else's...why do you get yours and NO ONE ELSE does?
and yes, the claim of bullying (purely evident on this board) is equally applicable to both as well!
I already said I had no problem with teaching about creationism or catholicism as part of a religious philosophy class.

There is a significant difference in that at one time religion was actually taught in almost every public school, including mandatory prayer whether you beleived in that particular religion or not.

That said, with proper safeguards to ensure they are only teaching ABOUT religion and not actually TEACHING any particular religion, it should be a part of every school curiculum. Children should be educated about ALL aspects of our society, and even though I disagree 100% with their faith, the simple fact is religion IS a significant aspect of our society and can have significant influence on public policy.

Children should be educated about that.

Is that consistent enough for you?
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#126 Jan 17, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I already said I had no problem with teaching about creationism or catholicism as part of a religious philosophy class.

Is that consistent enough for you?
Yes!

As I said elsewhere, i do not think there is much value in creationism, the real point I was speaking to was the claim that the religious are the only ones that want to ban things, and some others here have proven that is simply not true...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#127 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
right, but EVRYONE on your side is saying two mom's is the same as a mom and dad, so someone must be filling the role of DAD or "father"...
its my proposition that there is no proven "fact" that gay couples are the same as straights, so that should not be taught on the same logic as your comments on myth...
so the fact they call both parents mom is an inadvertent dodge...
<quoted text>
.
You're making blanket statements again, and they're not accurate as usual.

Not everyone is saying two moms are the same as a mom and a dad.

SOME people do indeed say that, but neither part is really accurate.

MY own view is that a same-sex couple can raise a child as successfully as an opposite-sex couple. Same-sex couples have been raising kids for a long time, and even without the benefits & legal protections of marriage, our kids turn out about the same as any other kids raised in a 2 parent household.

I'm not aware of any study which shows a significant difference which can be attributed solely to the gender of their parents.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#128 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
this is clearly a "belief".
why would i claom anyone calls a woman a "father", the fact is you are suggesting that two mothers can provide the same as a father....
so they must be being the father then!
The kids could call one spouse aunt for all I care (and do note a few old school gays I know with kids from a prior marriage did just that).
Sounds like you're stuck more on gender roles, than actual parenting skills.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#129 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
the "science" you rely on is more belief than fact.
and most of it doesn't even purport to say what you claim it does.
Show me the study that says gay married couples are the exact same as straight married couples...
I'll wait...
No two couples are exactly the same, regardless of gender.

Show me the study that says left-handed married couples are the exact same as right-handed married couples?

Obvioulsy since same-sex couples have only been getting married since 2004, there isn't a whole lot of studies to compare the how their children turn out compared to children of opposite-sex couples.

We can't make up studies which don't exist. There HAVE been studies of children raised by same-sex parents, but since they weren't married, it wouldn't satifsy your demand.

Of course your presumption that children of married same-sex couples will be somehow disadvantaged, when children of same-sex parents who just lived together turned out just fine, suggests a bias on your part.

I'm sure studies are being done and will be done in the future. The anti-gays will dismiss all the positive results as somehow biased while focusing on only the negatives; the pro-gay side will trumpet every positive result while overlooking any negatives.

And the battle will continue, because same-sex couples will continue to get married and have kids regardless.........

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#130 Jan 17, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
says you and your idea that exceptions negate rules...
but I don't follow your BELIEFS...
Says me? No. Says THEM. Neither you NOR I can run around IMPOSING lables or roles onto the members of OTHER families. They can do that themselves. I will give them the courtesy of addressing them as they choose to be addressed, rather than simply INSISTING that one of them "must be the father".

But speaking of "exceptions negating rules", now you are mixing threads. You're referring to the Topix thread under the headline: "Gay marriage law 'could mean the end of adultery being grounds for divorce'", specifically my post #235 and your reply #241 on page 12 there.

You had been making the argument that the needs of gay couples are not addressed by the institution of marriage (while failing to be specific as to what those needs are, or how CU's would address them any differently). I pointed out that MANY straight marriages mirror gay couples, in that they do not, cannot, or should not have children. You simply wanted ALL those couples to be excepted to your rules, and gay couples ALONE held to your (vague and unspecified) standards.

If you don't think that "exceptions negate the rules" (as I also don't), then you should CONSISTENTLY want any couple that doesn't entirely fulfill your expectations of marriage to be limited to CU's. But you don't. You reserve CU's ONLY to gay couples, and NO ONE ELSE, for reasons that you've yet to specify.
straight shooter wrote:
and what would you call your comment?
I would call it: explaining how you SEEM to me. Which is why I used the word "SEEM".
straight shooter wrote:
its easy for ANYONE to fall into that trap, no?
and I mean, do you see what that freak Mona spits at me each day, I have just recently started responding in kind...
so, before you accuse me...
First of all, your conflicts with specific people are YOUR business, and do not reflect on this issue.

Secondly, how Mona may feel about you will be based on her experiences of YOUR comments and behavior. She isn't simply slandering ALL STRAIGHT PEOPLE, or ALL MALES, or ALL VERMONTERS.

The "trap" that people should avoid falling into is characterizing ENTIRE GROUPS as if they were a single-minded block. People SHOULD be judged INDIVIDUALLY, based on their own behaviors. But you should NOT make SWEEPING JUDGMENTS which claim that "All people of group X behave in Y manner", for example, the idea that gay people automatically are unfit to be parents.

You SEEM to have fallen into this "trap" yourself, by categorizing gay people this way. You should look at the merits of EACH INDIVIDUAL COUPLE and assess THEIR competencies and capabilites to be parents, rather than simply ASSUMING that they (and any and all others like them) will be poor parents no matter what, JUST because of the group they belong to.

And I would add, you don't get any points in saying that you've recently "started responding in kind" to someone whose conversational tactics you condemn. You should exhibit the behaviors that you want to see in others, whether they exhibit them back or not.
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#131 Jan 18, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
and I mean, do you see what that freak Mona spits at me each day, I have just recently started responding in kind...
so, before you accuse me...
Just recently, eh?
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#132 Jan 18, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
have you heard about the studies showing girls mature earlier (too early) if their biological dad is not present?
surely that has psychological effects, right?
You mean this study? http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-stone...

"Surely" you enjoy inventing cause/effect relationships.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Microphone cut after Mormon girl reveals she's ... 46 min Latter Day Taints 2
News Microphone cut after Mormon girl reveals she's ... 48 min Latter Day Taints 2
News Microphone cut after Mormon girl reveals she's ... 56 min Latter Day Taints 2
News Pence visits Focus on Family amid change for re... 58 min cpeter1313 4
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr cpeter1313 6,807
News Madrid hosts- and debates- global gay pride 1 hr Latter Day Taints 1
News Serbia ruling party gathers support for propose... 1 hr Latter Day Taints 2
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr cpeter1313 51,167
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 2 hr Frankie Rizzo 26,364
Mississippi can enforce LGBT religious objecti... 9 hr The Troll Stopper 4
News Minneapolis police asked to limit presence at p... 13 hr Conrad 2
More from around the web