Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by obeygiant, May 13, 2007.
I'm not sure what educational value that movie has to a class of 8th graders.
"It is very important to me that my children not be exposed to this," said Kenneth Richardson
and why is this being shown to 8th graders?
Also, bum sex.
I would hope that if this is true then that substitute never is able to come back. Why would the teacher be showing it especially to 8th graders?
that could have been the proverbial 'my children', although I think there was only one of his kids in class. who knows.
The real thing is that the bit of the Bible which says it's wrong to be gay also states that you cannot eat bacon (and probably pork too), sleep with a woman within one week of her period and wear clothes with a wool-linen mix (among other things).
Anyone who follows the anti-gay bit, but not the rest of the passage is clearly picking and choosing, which simply makes them a homophobe.
Personally I believe that the bible was written over 2000 years ago and times have moved on, in 2007 this kind of behaviour isn't acceptable anymore.
Though if it's being shown to 12 year olds and has too high a rating, then it probably shouldn't be shown.
To turn them gay, of course.
I bet it was actually this that was shown. I'd complain if I had to watch it, too.
Still, it is a little weird to show that movie in class.
LOL, great reference! That movie takes me back.
And are classes long enough nowadays to show a 134 minute long movie?
waste of public resource. the richardsons should have known better that their "faith" has no place in our public school system. perhaps the 12 year-old should have been sent to a "faith" school.
diversity? acceptance? tolerance?
Well, wool-linen does sound kind of itchy.
There are not a lot of facts here, especially as to why this movie was being shown. It may be no more sinister than to teach tolerance. Regardless, if someone is so traumatized by the depiction of a normal, and very real part of their world, it would seem that the parents are the ones guilty. However, I suspect this is just an attempt to get a payday for mom and dad.
What kind of 12 year old is in 8th grade?
Isn't that more like 6th or 7th grade...?
R rated film + 12 year old = bad idea, whether it be about gay sex or Arnold shooting up everything in sight. It's rated R for a reason.
There must be better movies than Brokeback Mountain to teach 12 years olds those lessons.
You don't show an R-rated movie to a class of 8th grade students.
Agreed. Making this about homophobia is missing the point. Maybe that's what's driving the Richardsons, and maybe not. Either way, you shouldn't be showing R films to 12 year olds in school.
That said, $500,000? Gimme an f'in' break. I believe that the grandparents are legitimately upset, but I also believe that they're trying to turn their distress in to a huge, undeserved pay day. What they should get is the cost of any counseling the girl went to (And seriously? If she needed counseling over this she needs to be a lot less sheltered.) and an apology.
"better" is ambiguous, the movie did win a few awards here and there apparently.
there might be alternatives, but it all depended on what subject the class was discussing.
the average teens nowadays may be less naive than we'd like to believe. besides, i trust the teacher that she would provide guidance when necessary.
People that sue are for the most part just plan lazy douche bags. Really, metal distress? Yeah, I think not. Yes children should be educated on excepting others' life chooses, but yeah don't show that to a class room of people under 15. Suing though is stupid. Yell at the district, whom in turn will yell at and most likely fire the sub. Those grand parents saw an opportunity to steal money from our already under budgeted school system. That is why people hate us.
These people seem to not care about the fact that they are pulling half a million from a school system with other children in it. If those other children get lesser of an education because of lack of school funding or if a school has to shut down making class sizes bigger, they wont care, even if their grand daughter gets lesser of an education its ok, all they want is money and the lottery is not working for them.
Mmmm... there are parts of this that sound suspicious, like the "what goes in ... stays in..." part, and the idea that anyone would seek out psychotherapy to address having seen an R-rated movie, even at 12 years old. At the very least, I've never had a patient referral that nutty! Could be real... could also very well be an attempt to exploit the system.
Anyway, though, certainly, I was exposed to nudity and sexual content in movies shown when I was that age... doesn't make it right. If the law says that the movie is not to be shown to those under 16 without consent of their guardians, then there is no reason for a teacher to be showing it in the classroom.
I though R was 17 under wasn't allowed to see it without a guardian?
I have mixed feelings on this, don't get me wrong I think showing the movie in class was wrong and deserves punishment but a $500k lawsuit?
On the other hand I had a 9th grade teacher who sexually harassed me after I contacted the schools administration when she had left me behind on a field trip that she didn't have permission to go on. The worst part was I had to cross a highway in my wheelchair to get back to my school. Because she had tenure we almost had to sue the school to get her fired.
The movie was given a 14A rating here in Canada I believe.
That means it can be shown in High School.
And if you can't show movies like this how come I had to watch - to kill a mockingbird, Hamlet, Clockwork Orange etc?
If you dont want your kid exposed to thoughts and ideas you dont agree with send them to a private school.
Its a bloody public school. It makes up the spectrum of society. and guess what not everyone is the same as you... * end rant*
Yes, sorry, you're right. The school shouldn't be acting as a guardian in this capacity without consent, though.