sarto

I think it depends on the program. If it is a strong feeder system that involves the high school wrestlers in some way (coaches, officials, or just working the meets), the young lads are more likely to catch the fever, but if they never see what they are to become, they will loose interest and play basketball.

What the hell are you talking about?

Alas, as with last week, sick children are preventing me from making the 9 hour road trip. Good luck to all!

I agree that it is ridiculous and laughable. Indeed it is a butchery of the English language to refer to it as 'logic'. I also agree that many movements have started from the ground up. But to imply that a movement is good by virtue of that fact is a stretch, to say the least.

Was this statement intended to somehow logically follow from the one you quoted?

What a tragic and heartwrenching loss. Our prayers will be with Briana, the Shrewsbury/Calanca family and with the CP wrestling community in general. Requiescat in pace.

Exactly. I would add that, while there are certainly a few that are highly favored, there are no guarantees. It will come down to who puts in the work, and other things, some beyond anyone's control.

This article is a few years old, but still relevant to this discussion: http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000049.asp

I am the father of five sons and one girl. I am also a military veteran, Marine Infantry in fact, where females are not allowed to serve and with good reason. With that being said.... None of my sons will wrestle a girl. My daughter will not wrestle. Why? For all the reasons we have stated above which no one wants to address. It is not a matter of fear of losing. It is a matter of principle, as has already been stated. The mere fact that the year happens to be 2011 is completely irrelevant to the discussion. I don't care if it is the year 2011 or the year 3011, or just the year 11, the principle does not change. Why? Because human nature is what it is, always has been and always will be. Weave whatever sophistry you like, it will not change that fact. And by the way, thank you for your service. I sincerely mean that.

That's the one that came to mind for me. VanWinkle stepped it up this year quite a bit this year as well.

The spelling issues notwithstanding, I can only say that I completely agree. I can't even imagine sending my daughter out on the mat to roll around with boy in front of hundreds of people. Nor will I allow my boys to wrestle a girl. It contradicts everything we have taught them.

Congratulations on your State Championship and on a much deserved mental attitude award. Good luck at Purdue.

That's about where I am on this. Just too close to call. Here's to hoping!

Some things are more important than state titles or 6 points. One of the most impressive things about this kid is that he realizes that; a rare trait for a teenage boy.

I used to live in Virginia. The only place I would rather be more than Virginia this weekend is Indy.

Sad day indeed. I planned on being there but making the 9 hour trip with sick kids did not seem like a good idea.

The primary reason your comparison fails to hold water is that you are mixing two different arguments. One (the civil rights movement) was claiming equality on matters where it actually exists, namely an equality of human dignity. Blacks were being deprived of certain things based on nothing more than skin color. Obviously, that is absurd. You are trying to take that argument and use it in this case, which is a discussion of something entirely different. If we were claiming that women were sub-human or some such nonsense, your argument would have merit, but we are claiming no such thing. Just because two people possess an equality in human dignity does not mean that they serve the same role in society, or that they should be doing all of the same things. There are differences between the sexes that go far beyond the physiological. They are wired differently, have different strengths and weakness, and as such, are complimentary. Each has a particular and distinct dignity. In fact, it is precisely due to the dignity of the female sex that I am opposed to them wrestling. It is not a matter of depriving them of something they have an equal right to. It is a matter of protecting their dignity, even in cases where they have chosen to forego that themselves., and protecting our sons from a gradually (or not so gradually) eroding view of women.

It is because I love this sport that I will do no such thing.

Before I answer these, I do want to point out that I have not read this specific bill, and therefore I do not know if I support it. What I am arguing in favor of is the general principal of allowing homeschooled kids to compete in IHSAA sanctioned sports. That said, I move on to the specific objections raised above. 1) They should be. That's easy. While I am generally opposed to compulsive standardized testing, I think I would be fine requiring a test for eligibility, so long as the standard is equally enforced in the public schools (which I suspect it would not be, given the high number of public high school graduates who can barely read and write). 2) It seems to me that some provision could be made to either allow some percentage increase in funding for athletic participation. It would not be the same as if the child was enrolled, but set at some lower percentage. After all, as has been pointed out by others already, homeschoolers still have to pay taxes to support the public schools. The funding question seems relatively easy to solve. Worst case scenario, require a small participation fee. 3) For the purposes of classing, I don't think it would be terribly difficult to include the homeschooled athlete in the numbers for purpose of classing the school?s athletic teams. Did I leave anything out? Or perhaps create more questions?

Parallels? Do tell. As one commentator rightly pointed out (on another site), "Inter-sex wrestling should only be private and only after the wedding."

Hats off to Joel Northrup. I completely agree with his decision and, were I a head coach, would make it a team policy.

Anima eius et animae omnium fidelium defunctorum per Dei misericordiam requiescant in pace. The Friedt family will be in our prayers.

I have not posted on here in quite a while (since the old forum, hence the lack of posts recorded in my sidebar), but this thread spurred me to re-activate my account. It seems to me that there are multiple arguments going on here. One is concerning the merits of the bill. Another is concerning the merits of homeschooling itself. As to the first, all things being equal, what harm can come from opening this most noble sport up to an ever increasing number of highly talented kids? All of the (few) legitimate objections are easily addressed. The remaining objections have more to do with concerns about homeschooling itself than whether or not to allow homeschooled kids to compete. As to the second, in the early days of homeschooling two primary concerns were argued: 1) That the kids would be socially inept. 2) That the kids would be poorly educated. The socialization objection has been discredited and is rarely used anymore, certainly not by anyone who has bothered to look into the question. Anyone who has been around children within any educational model knows that there are plenty of examples of the poorly socialized in each. Walk through any public school and then tell me there is not a 'socialization problem'. And quite frankly, who determines what is 'properly socialized'? As a side note, if this is a concern for anyone, wouldn't we want to open up social activities (sports, etc.) to homeschoolers for their betterment? That is, if we are actually concerned for them. The education objection has been shown to have no merit. On average, homeschooled children consistently out-perform their public and private school counterparts. This has been demonstrated by numerous studies. Colleges and Universities now actively recruit them. Businesses actively recruit them. Why? They have been formed to think rather than being spoon fed a minimum amount of information for testing purposes. I know that I am perhaps painting with too broad a brush and I apologize. I am trying to keep this post short. I would be happy to provide more specific information and evidence or to discuss it further if anyone is interested. The following article addresses some of these points (back by evidence) if anyone is interested in looking further into the question: http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp