Home > Children, Gay and Lesbian, Homosexuality > Parental rights, decency out the window

Parental rights, decency out the window

June 7th, 2011

by Becky Yeh

A California pro-family group says lawmakers’ decision to create a holiday in honor of an openly homosexual politician has dealt a detrimental blow to the state’s school children.

In an email to SaveCalifornia.com, Deanna Aguire of Moreno Valley told the pro-family organization that her daughter and students at Moreno Valley High School were forced to attend a Gay-Straight Alliance rally in honor of the late San Francisco politician, Harvey Milk. Aguire’s daughter told the teacher she did not want to go to the rally, and only after persistence did the teacher allow her to opt out.

Randy ThomassonRandy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, tells OneNewsNow that parental rights and decency are “meaningless” in public schools.

“Wake up, parents. Public schools are no longer for the public,” he says. “They’re government institutions that think that you’re children are their children — and they are going to turn them into homosexual, bisexual, transsexual political activists.”

Days before Harvey Milk Day, Aguire’s daughter was asked by the teacher to read out loud from a biography honoring Milk. Her teacher also reportedly showed clips of the film Milk, including a scene that showed two homosexual men in bed together.

“Just wait now until Harvey Milk is on a weekday next year, and it’s going to be what? Anything goes,” Thomasson laments. “It could be gay pride parades on campus; it could be mock gay weddings on campus; it could be essays, mandatory homework saying why Harvey Milk, a bad guy, was a great guy. I mean, this is in-your-face stuff.”

The family advocate adds that children in California’s public schools are being hit with a “tsunami of perversity” and homosexual indoctrination. He cites another example in which first-graders were read a homosexual book in honor of Milk.

My Uncle's Wedding (book)Around 40 elementary schools students in San Francisco were read author Eric Ross’ new children’s book My Uncle’s Wedding as part of Harvey Milk Day. California adopted an official holiday honoring Milk, who was the first openly homosexual elected into office in the state.

Thomasson argues Harvey Milk Day is being used to push the homosexual agenda in public schools — just like the Day of Silence. “Now Harvey Milk Day is taking hold, and again, first-graders who don’t even know about sexuality [are] being taught unnatural sexuality.”

Keep reading.

Print Friendly
Be Sociable, Share!
  1. John Noe
    June 7th, 2011 at 16:31 | #1

    Parents be aware, and also check out the crap they are pushing in regards to gender identity. See the NOM website.

  2. June 7th, 2011 at 19:36 | #2

    Detrimental? Really? It’s so bad for our children to know about Harvey Milk?

  3. Heidi
    June 8th, 2011 at 06:55 | #3

    Emma, didn’t you know that learning about gay people or about gay rights makes children gay? I mean, according to Thomasson, public schools are “government institutions that think that you’re [sic] children are their children — and they are going to turn them into homosexual, bisexual, transsexual political activists.”

    What, you don’t buy that foolish nonsense? Neither do I. Hey, my own daughter has seen the WHOLE movie about Milk (GREAT movie, by the way) and she’s still straight. AND she has a bisexual mom and a lesbian stepmom, but she’s still straight. I guess our attempts at indoctrination and pushing “the homosexual agenda” while working, paying taxes, and raising a family have failed.

    I wonder if racist parents are up-in-arms when the kids learn about MLK. Do the teachers let them opt out if they or their parents don’t believe in equality of the races?

    This whole article screams of false hysteria and homophobia. God forbid that our children learn about historical figures who fought against the rabid discrimination of their times.

  4. June 8th, 2011 at 08:09 | #4

    @Emma Why do they need to know about Harvey Milk? What special thing has he done for the state or the nation to make him worthy of historical recognition? Recognizing someone just because they were homophile has one purpose – to push homosexuality on the kids.

  5. Betsy
    June 8th, 2011 at 12:21 | #5

    I do agree that the article was little over the top. But I also think that if a student wants to opt of something, he or she should be allowed to without a ton of flack.

  6. Fred
    June 8th, 2011 at 14:45 | #6

    Why do the kids have to learn about Milk’s sexuality? If he had some great accomplishment (as Glenn asks — doubtful) — fine. Learn about his achievements and leave his sexuality out of it. This is just a thinly-veiled attempt at casting homosexual behavior as morally acceptable and even laudable. When children learn about Pres Clinton, do they read a books about adultery in the same vein as “My Uncle’s Wedding?” Ridiculous.

  7. Sean
    June 8th, 2011 at 15:08 | #7

    “But I also think that if a student wants to opt of something, he or she should be allowed to without a ton of flack.”

    Hmm…I wonder if Atheist kids should be allowed to opt out when the topic is Christianity, or white kids should be able to opt out when the topic is black people. “Opting out” is nothing more than an expression of disapproval. I don’t think disapproval of someone is a good enough reason to “opt out.”

  8. Sean
    June 8th, 2011 at 15:12 | #8

    “Why do the kids have to learn about Milk’s sexuality?”

    Because, like Blacks and women, Milk accomplished something (First head of a city council, I believe) in spite of severe social animosity toward members of his group (in his case, gay people). That’s why gay and lesbian people deserve to be studied: it’s inspiring and instructive to learn that someone can achieve great things in spite of extreme social disadvantages. Isn’t that why we teach our children the accomplishments of women and blacks?

  9. Heidi
    June 10th, 2011 at 07:05 | #9

    The reason that the kids need to know about Mr. Milk’s sexual orientation is that it was the very fact of his sexual orientation that made his success so meaningful. At a time when it was still criminal in many states to even be gay and the cruel treatment and public hatred of gay people was spread throughout this country, Mr. Milk became the first openly gay politician to be elected to office in California. He was responsible for helping to pass a gay rights ordinance in San Francisco, an achievement unheard of in the vast majority of the states at the time, and in many states still today. He was also posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2009. He became a national symbol of hope for the gay community at a time when the vicious and slanderous verbal assaults of people like Anita Bryant were lobbed at them. His vision of freedom and equality for all is weaved into the very fabric of America and he was yet another powerful voice in the long historical and continuing march to a day when all American citizens can participate in the promise of liberty and equal protection of the laws guaranteed by our forebears.

    Listen, had I been the teacher, I likely would have made attendance at the rally optional. It sounds like something that should be an extracurricular activity anyway. I mean, we don’t make kids attend football games or theater productions or events put on by the Key Club. Ultimately, this story is a non-issue because the teacher did allow the teenager to miss the rally. However, I would not have allowed any student to “opt out” of ANY part of the educational curriculum, and that includes learning about important historical figures in the battle for equal civil rights for all Americans. We’re talking about high school students here. The struggle for gay rights in America is part of our shared history, and to avoid teaching students, especially high school students, about this part of our history, and the people like Harvey Milk who were pioneers in that struggle, is to do a real disservice to their education.

    I am sure that these kids learn about opposing viewpoints, many probably from their own families and churches. Is it a terrible thing to provide teenagers with the perspectives of different voices and allow them to think for themselves about the issues? Isn’t the very purpose of education in a democratic society to train our youth to be participants in the marketplace of ideas? We fail to fulfill that mission when we omit portions of our history simply because of the ideology of those who would prefer that gay people remained in the closet, especially the famous ones.

  10. June 10th, 2011 at 09:53 | #10

    @Fred

    Why do we have to learn about anyone’s sexuality? We are taught as children that George Washington was married to a woman named Martha — how come that’s okay, but learning that he had a husband would not be okay?

    It’s not like acknowledging and honoring Harvey Milk entails explicit sex talk. What do you think teachers would do, talk about the sex he had with his partner? Do we talk about the sex GW had with Martha?

  11. June 10th, 2011 at 13:17 | #11

    @Sean Opting out of topics of sexual immorality are much different than religious philosophy and skin color. If you can’t see the difference, that’s your problem.

  12. June 10th, 2011 at 13:20 | #12

    @Sean We teach about people who did historical things. It is indeed silly to make specific attention to gender and skin color, because neither one is significant unless it is about the equal rights of women and blacks. But skin color and gender are morally neutral. Sexual proclivities are not. Even if Milk did something to promote sexual perversion, that is not something we need to study in history. Unless of course you also want to study the promoters of pedophilia and other sexual deviations.

  13. June 10th, 2011 at 13:23 | #13

    @Heidi and @ Emma. It is normal for people to be married to a member of the opposite sex. It is abnormal and deviant to be joined with a member of the same sex. Discussing whether one is married is just part of who they are in a normal sense. Discussing someone’s sexual deviancy is NOT normal. It wasn’t Milk’s homosexuality that got him where he ended up, it was his intellect, etc. It had nothing to do with him being perverted in his sexual proclivities. The whole point is that we should never, ever celebrate sexual deviance and certainly should never promote it as something right and proper in the public school system.

  14. bman
    June 10th, 2011 at 14:03 | #14

    @Heidi

    The reason that the kids need to know about Mr. Milk’s sexual orientation is that it was the very fact of his sexual orientation that made his success so meaningful.

    Most likely that is a trojan horse for the true motivation.

    Here is what a gay columinist says about homosexual “achievement” classes:

    “Recruiting children? You bet we are,” he said. “Why would we push…classes that teach kids about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal?”

    The fill article is at: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-journalist-lets-face-it-we-want-to-indoctrinate-children

  15. Sean
    June 10th, 2011 at 15:21 | #15

    “But skin color and gender are morally neutral. Sexual proclivities are not.”

    There’s nothing immoral about sexual orientation, straight or gay.

  16. Fred
    June 10th, 2011 at 19:23 | #16

    Heidi, Emma & Sean,

    Do you approve of elementary students reading “My Uncle’s Wedding” as part of this event?

  17. Ruth
    June 10th, 2011 at 20:02 | #17

    @Sean
    What do you mean by “orientation”, proclivities or activities?

  18. John Noe
    June 10th, 2011 at 22:44 | #18

    The above posts from those who support Milk show why we are in this fight. We are trying to teach our children morals and what is right and wrong. This includes the parental right to opt their students out of classes on behavior that we find perverted.
    It is an attempt on the part of the homosexual activists to promote their conduct and ram it down our children’s throat. It is part of the agenda to convert your children into homosexuals.

  19. June 11th, 2011 at 05:48 | #19

    @Sean You always say that Sean, but the whole world for thousands of years disagree with you. Homosexuality, like adultery, fornication, bestiality, incest, etc are all immoral sexual behaviors. But then, you must have an objective moral standard to measure against. Since you have none, you can’t claim anything to be immoral or moral.

  20. June 11th, 2011 at 11:10 | #20

    John Noe :
    The above posts from those who support Milk show why we are in this fight. We are trying to teach our children morals and what is right and wrong. This includes the parental right to opt their students out of classes on behavior that we find perverted.
    It is an attempt on the part of the homosexual activists to promote their conduct and ram it down our children’s throat. It is part of the agenda to convert your children into homosexuals.

    Don’t be ridiculous. If children were that susceptible to being forced into a specific sexuality, don’t you think all those kids who grew up to be gay would have grown up to be straight instead? People are what they are — learning about the accomplishments of Harvey Milk will in NO way change that. And the only person talking about ramming things down children’s throats is YOU, I might point out.

  21. Sean
    June 11th, 2011 at 16:01 | #21

    “What do you mean by “orientation”, proclivities or activities?”

    Inclination. Or activities. Both are fine.

    “We are trying to teach our children morals and what is right and wrong.”

    How would teaching kids that gay people are bad fall into the “right” side of the ledger?

    “Homosexuality, like adultery, fornication, bestiality, incest, etc are all immoral sexual behaviors.”

    There’s nothing immoral about homosexuality. If you think there is, feel free to abstain. But creating second-class citizenship status for gay and lesbian Americans is highly immoral.

  22. June 12th, 2011 at 06:39 | #22

    @Sean No one is teaching that homophile people are bad, but normal people teach that homosexuality is immoral and perverse and harmful to people.

    There is EVERYTHING immoral about homosexual behavior, and you have been given ample proof in post after post. You keep denying it because it is against what you want. It is not making 2nd class citizens out of homophiles to say they cannot redefine marriage. WHat is immoral is their demands to do so.

  23. John Noe
    June 14th, 2011 at 16:40 | #23

    Emma: It is you the homosexual advocates who want to ram homosexuality down our children’s throats. No need to learn about Harvey Milk because he accomplished nothing. The only thing he claimed to do was sodomy. Big deal. That makes as much sense as creating holidays for swingers and adulterers.
    I am not being ridiculous. The homosexual advocates like the tobacco industry is targeting kids to convert them into their deathstyle. Just like no sensible person would chose smoking freely on their own, no child would chose homosexuality unless some adult encouraged them to become one.
    Any parent who does not want their child converted to this deathstyle would be opposed to the advocates shoving their adenda down their throats.

  24. June 15th, 2011 at 07:25 | #24

    Fred :
    Heidi, Emma & Sean,
    Do you approve of elementary students reading “My Uncle’s Wedding” as part of this event?

    The United States is moving in the direction of giving full and equal rights to our gay citizens, including marriage rights. Eventually same-sex marriage will be the law of the land. If a school curriculum wants to employ children’s books to portray that, I have no problem with it. I will leave it up to our education system to educate my children in school. I can always supplement or complement that teaching at home.

    My own state, New York, is one vote away from passing same-sex marriage legislation — and y’all won’t be able to make the argument that “activist judges” are ramming anything down anyone’s throat. And I will be so very proud of my state legislators. Finally.

  25. June 16th, 2011 at 07:54 | #25

    @Emma Homophiles already have equal rights. They just want to be more equal than everyone else – have rights no one else has, including the right to redefine marriage.

Comments are closed.