posted
So, we allow freedom of religion because, practically, all religion is basically a meaningless concept outside of the abstract? That is, I could be a Muslim or a Hindu or a Mormon, and the effects on society are meaningless?
Edit: Actually, as far as that goes, isn't a person's immortal soul important? If you believe that unless a person follows your religion, they will go go to hell/not achieve heaven, then isn't it important for the state to advocate the best religion, too?
posted
Hmm...I had always thought/hoped that the State wasn't going to give a damn about my immortal soul. But now this guy GW Bush comes along, talking about Manifest Destiny all over again...
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I believe marriage has served society well and I believe it is important to affirm that marriage of a man and woman is ideal, and the job of the president is to drive policy toward the ideal,"
"stand up and say I don't support gay marriage."
"The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society."
"Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress. Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not itself be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage."
"If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America,"
"Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country."
"Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society."
"Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we're to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America,"
Yes, he has nothing to do with the question of gay marriage in America. Nothing at all.
posted
Give me a freakin' break. The thread is about people's attitudes about gay marriage and a means of reconciling two factions in society. Explain again how Bush is relevant to it?
posted
Bush isn't doing very well on the "reconciliation" side, and if people want the civil discourse to be civil, they might find it better not to vote for him this fall.
He's certainly not as random to the discussion as you pretend he is. He's taken it upon himself to push this as far as possible. There's a chance he may well succeed before he leaves office. And that IS relevant.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Dagonee is right. Bush's attitudes towards gay marriage, unless you are using his beliefs to illustrate a point towards the overall discussion we are making, are not relevant.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it's not relevant. We're talking about the philosophy behind people's attitudes here, and ssywak makes a nonsensical comment utterly unrelated to the topic, just to get his mandatory swipe at Bush in.
Since it seems to be the pasttime around here, why don't you start another Bush-bashing thread instead of contaminating what was the most civil discussion this board has had on this contentious topic yet.
And you can mischaracterize the press conference all you like. He said NOTHING about another war for freedom. He talked about policies to encourage freedom.
quote:"We shouldn't have diversity of religion [Non Christian], therefore we shouldn't have diversity in sexuality"
And what the f&^% is this supposed to mean? Who's stated that we shouldn't have diversity of religions on this or any other thread.
posted
Shrug. I honestly don't care much about whether or not this stays derailed.
It was a suggestion that perhaps those who feel that one religion is the only religion may also feel that one sexuality is the only sexuality.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nobody has said that they feel that way. AFAIK, I hvae met nobody in my entire life that feels that way.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I kinda felt the thread was a discussion about the way people like US go at each other over this issue.
Hm.
The Bush-swipe wasn't technically in context of the discussion, but I don't really see the point of getting ticked off at it. Politics is something people discuss at random sometimes. A lot of people who are on the internet to discuss their political views are often using it to vent among their intellectual peers. In a place like Hatrack the comment is politics itself; it's a challenge and a claim and a platform all rolled into one.
It may be possible to have that within the context of other discussions without inciting civil war, I suppose.
But of course the thread was really about how people like us are unable to compromise on this issue, and the temperament of our debates when attempting to reconcile. Hm.
quote: The Bush-swipe wasn't technically in context of the discussion, but I don't really see the point of getting ticked off at it.
Because it's not necessary to talk about Bush within this topic and it just pisses people off because they see that you are bringing it in out of context to make a swipe at Bush.
People are emotionally invested in certain politicians, and the the head of their respective parties in particular. Trotting out Bush during a discussion where it isn't necessary is exactly like trotting out Clinton. It just pisses people off and the disussion then shifts to Bush's views on the subject rather than their own. It encourages partisan rancor rather than some kind of objectivity. In other words, it torpedoes the topic completely.
quote: But of course the thread was really about how people like us are unable to compromise on this issue, and the temperament of our debates when attempting to reconcile. Hm.
I am vastly tempted to roll my eyes at you. You know this isn't true.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
By the way, Keats. I like you. You are my friend. I am totally sympathetic to not liking Bush. I just don't think it adds anything to the discussion in this thread.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Your phrase 'homosexuality is o.k.' is a little confusing to me. Are you saying that our schools will say that it exists and not condemn it, which to you means that they will endorse it? Or are you saying that our schools must, or will, actually advocate it?
I look at it in terms of, say, a Religion 101 class being taught. Sure, in the survey of the religions that are out there, a teacher will say, here's what's out there, people believe these things and do them. The teacher can, and should, teach the class in such a way that no religion is advocated or denounced. Why not the same way for sexuality and gay marriage? If it has to be talked about in schools at all, why can't it be talked about using the same standard that our society used, by and large, regarding religion, or the clothes we wear, or the cars we drive? That is, it's a personal choice.
I think that your second paragraphed explained exactly what will happen. Homosexuality will be viewed as a valid personal choice. This is endorsing it. Why does it have to brought up? Look at Beverly's post.
quote: I want to point out, incidentally, that this whole problem could be avoided if you just had schools tailored to individual groups, rather than schools designed to be unobjectionable to everyone in society.
I'm going to answer, even though it's side tracking the topic. While private schools exist for those that insist upon sepearting their children from mainstream society, I think it would be horrible to make everyone go to their own little groups and never give them the experience of dealing with people who have different views than them. Tolerance and learning to respect others come through experience and are incredibly vital aspects of any education.
quote: I think that your second paragraphed explained exactly what will happen. Homosexuality will be viewed as a valid personal choice. This is endorsing it. Why does it have to brought up? Look at Beverly's post.
No, it will just be listed as a choice some people make. No one will say whether it will be 'valid' or not. There is a distinct difference, I think. For instance, ignoring gay marriage for a second, homosexuality is already being taught in that context. In studies of sexuality, homosexuality is already listed as a choice that some people make. No one makes any value judgements. Are you arguing that rose bushes should be drawn over the behavior to protect society?
quote: While private schools exist for those that insist upon sepearting their children from mainstream society, I think it would be horrible to make everyone go to their own little groups and never give them the experience of dealing with people who have different views than them. Tolerance and learning to respect others come through experience and are an incredibly vital aspect of any education.
Sure. And you get to meet lots of different people outside of school. People still exist within a society, but just as all girl schools aren't detrimental to girls; or all Muslim schools detrimental to Muslims; or all Catholic schools detrimental to Catholics, etc, so schools that are left up to the culture or the family which the person belongs to not detrimental to them. Are you arguing that any of the types of schools I've mentioned are 'bad'?
Let's take it further. Families raise their children to believe particular things without having to refer to any manual or program. Should families give up their children so that the state can raise their children? Aren't parents qualified to raise their children as they see fit? At core, this is the essence of my argument for 'private schools' for everyone. We already follow this model for colleges. Why not all the other schools?
quote: No, it will just be listed as a choice some people make. No one will say whether it will be 'valid' or not. There is a distinct difference, I think. For instance, ignoring gay marriage for a second, homosexuality is already being taught in that context. In studies of sexuality, homosexuality is already listed as a choice that some people make. No one makes any value judgements. Are you arguing that rose bushes should be drawn over the behavior to protect society?
I'm not asking for rose bushes. In fact, I personally have no problems with consenting adults doing whatever they want that doesn't harm anyone else. But you wanted to put sexuality on the same terms as religion. In schools, I believe that all religions are displayed as valid choices. This was certainly the indication that I recieved. It's not simply, some people are Catholic, some are Mormon, and some are Hindu. Instead it's all of these groups have good things to offer and a lot of similarities. If they weren't portrayed as valid choices than there would have been outcry from every group. I believe it will be the same way with homosexuality. Just as it's "ok" for Janie to be Catholic, it will be taught that it's "ok" for Janie to have two dads. For those who have moral problems with homosexuality, I can see how this would be a very detrimental thing. It would be pitting the school's lessons against the parent's lessons. For them, it would be akin to teaching children that drug use is perfectly acceptable.
quote: you get to meet lots of different people outside of school. People still exist within a society, but just as all girl schools aren't detrimental to girls; or all Muslim schools detrimental to Muslims; or all Catholic schools detrimental to Catholics, etc, so schools that are left up to the culture or the family which the person belongs to not detrimental to them. Are you arguing that any of the types of schools I've mentioned are 'bad'?
Let's take it further. Families raise their children to believe particular things without having to refer to any manual or program. Should families give up their children so that the state can raise their children? Aren't parents qualified to raise their children as they see fit? At core, this is the essence of my argument for 'private schools' for everyone. We already follow this model for colleges. Why not all the other schools?
To be honest I'm not against all schools being privitized, and honestly I missed this part of your argument before. I have very strong libertarian tendancies and do not like the idea of the government monopoly.
However, I do not like the idea of all Muslim or all Catholic schools. While I wouldn't call them bad and I believe that people have the right to educate their children in whatever enviornment they desire, I certainly wouldn't call it good. While other types of people exist in the world, how often would you be likely to personally interact with them? I know that in high school everyone I knew was either from my school or chruch. If those environments were full of exteremly similar types of people, then I think children would miss the beauty of interacting with others that were not like them. This would inadequately prepare them for the real world.
That being said, I really don't know how you would get a nice diversity with privitization of schools. If people had to create their own schools, they would certainly do it based on similar traits: class, religion, race, parents are all fans of OSC, etc. Any ideas?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Just as it's "ok" for Janie to be Catholic, it will be taught that it's "ok" for Janie to have two dads. For those who have moral problems with homosexuality, I can see how this would be a very detrimental thing. It would be pitting the school's lessons against the parent's lessons. For them, it would be akin to teaching children that drug use is perfectly acceptable.
Exactly. That states one of the concerns very well. Thanks.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to admit to having this concern, too. And yet it comes down to the fact that people are being denied a very basic of package rights because we're afraid of how our children will be taught about this in school. I just can't make that leap.
quote: I'm not asking for rose bushes. In fact, I personally have no problems with consenting adults doing whatever they want that doesn't harm anyone else. But you wanted to put sexuality on the same terms as religion. In schools, I believe that all religions are displayed as valid choices. This was certainly the indication that I recieved. It's not simply, some people are Catholic, some are Mormon, and some are Hindu. Instead it's all of these groups have good things to offer and a lot of similarities. If they weren't portrayed as valid choices than there would have been outcry from every group. I believe it will be the same way with homosexuality. Just as it's "ok" for Janie to be Catholic, it will be taught that it's "ok" for Janie to have two dads. For those who have moral problems with homosexuality, I can see how this would be a very detrimental thing. It would be pitting the school's lessons against the parent's lessons. For them, it would be akin to teaching children that drug use is perfectly acceptable.
O.K. Your response doesn't really answer my point about how homosexuality is taught in sex ed classes. What do you think about the fact that homosexuality is taught as an option? Should this be allowed or no in public schools?
There are people that have problems with Mormons and Catholics, what have you. There is no way that they would want their children to be Mormons or Catholics or what have you. They believe their religion is the correct one. Should their children be exposed to the idea that other religions are valid choices for other people, or should their children be kept in an environment that maintains that those other religions are 100% wrong?
quote: To be honest I'm not against all schools being privitized, and honestly I missed this part of your argument before. I have very strong libertarian tendancies and do not like the idea of the government monopoly.
However, I do not like the idea of all Muslim or all Catholic schools. While I wouldn't call them bad and I believe that people have the right to educate their children in whatever enviornment they desire, I certainly wouldn't call it good. While other types of people exist in the world, how often would you be likely to personally interact with them? I know that in high school everyone I knew was either from my school or chruch. If those environments were full of exteremly similar types of people, then I think children would miss the beauty of interacting with others that were not like them. This would inadequately prepare them for the real world.
That being said, I really don't know how you would get a nice diversity with privitization of schools. If people had to create their own schools, they would certainly do it based on similar traits: class, religion, race, parents are all fans of OSC, etc. Any ideas?
I totally understand where you are coming from. I think tolerance of people who are different than you are is important. It's why I'm having a hard time reconciling your views (if I'm understanding them correctly) on homosexuality and gay marriage being taught in schools and total 'privatization' of schools.
To answer your question, the ideal that I would shoot for is that in your private space, or your group's private space, your rules are the ones that are followed as far as custom and the like. In public space, I would prefer that rather than follow the ideal of a total sterile, non-objectionable space that is devoid of any individual or individual group's markings, we just let anything go. People should be allowed to do and say as they see fit. Of course there have to be limits to self expression and the ones that I've always gotten behind on this board revolve around something like observable harm or trying to cause observable harm. Something in that ballpark. Thus, in order to go from point a to point b, and to exist in public, everyone would have to get along. People would be exposed to others of different faiths, beliefs and ideals, no matter what they were taught at home, because in order to do business and to travel anywhere outside of their community's borders, they would need to do so. And, of course, if someone wants to ignore what other people are saying or doing, they are free to do so.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Your response doesn't really answer my point about how homosexuality is taught in sex ed classes. What do you think about the fact that homosexuality is taught as an option? Should this be allowed or no in public schools?
I'm not sure how homosexuality is taught in most public schools. I only have my own experience to speak from, and from what I remember there might have been a minor blurb in the book saying that some people were homosexual and the causes were unknown or something similar. I know that it was certainly not taught as a valid option. Instead, it was not spoken of much at all in health class. If our government states it is ok for homosexuals to marry, then our government schools will undoubtedly teach that it's ok. I know I still haven't answered what do I think should be done, but I haven't been arguing what I think should or shouldn't be done. I have mixed feelings on the issue. I'm simply trying to point out a consequence of what you're saying, one that somebody dismissed prematurely.
quote: Should their children be exposed to the idea that other religions are valid choices for other people, or should their children be kept in an environment that maintains that those other religions are 100% wrong?
I don't know that those two options are exclusive. Just because something's a valid choice, or seen as societally acceptable, doesn't mean that it's not wrong. For example, drinking alcohol is seen as societally accepable and a valid choice, but many religions (Muslims and Mormons for example) believe that it is wrong.
I think you're trying to equate homosexuality to a perfectly acceptable religion like Catholicism or Islam. But the problem is that many people just won't see it as Catholicism or Islam, they'll see it as a wierd goat sacrificing religion. Sure, most aren't going to deny their right to sacrifice, but they'll think it's wrong and they sure won't want it want to be elevated to the social acceptability of Catholicism or Islam, etc.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
Just what exactly is the problem with letting the state tell your kids that homosexuality is okay? Would it help if they added a state's-point-of-view disclaimer whenever they said it?
From the State's perspective, homosexuality is okay.
Well here's a question.
Science class. You learn about the weather. No value judgments are made. Facts are presented, words are memorized, concepts grasped. No value judgments there.
You learn about human sexuality. No value judgments are made. Facts are presented, words are memorized, concepts grasped. No value judgments there, either.
What's the big deal? Or is the problem here that having homosexuality be taught about in school gives it the APPEARANCE of a "valid choice", simply by being in the curriculum? Is the problem that you want classes to mention that homosexuality is thought of by many to be a sin? Or would you prefer that it not be mentioned at all--and in doing so effectively teach that homosexuality is NOT a "valid choice", or at the least that it is inconsequential.
Cuz that reasoning is great, really great; especially since people by-and-large DO NOT CHOOSE THEIR SEXUALITY ANYWAY.
Any of you ever stop to think that maybe kids NEED to learn that it is primarily (if not only) religious institutions who see homosexuality as "invalid"?
Is the fear here that religious kids who are gay might get a chance to learn about themselves? Or that religious kids who are straight might make friends with them and end up rejecting portions or perhaps all of their belief systems? And if so, how is that the public school's problem and not yours?
Seriously, what is this huge "concern" that you have about "consequences"? What part of society are homosexuals--or the mere mentioning of them--going to destroy this time?
posted
OK, I'm broken. I just wrote a huge post in response to many points on this thread and when I was done all I could feel was "What's the point?".
I guess I just need a break from this place. Or at least these threads.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Karl, I understand. I felt the same way with that post because it just made me angry and I know exactly how far this will probably go: nowhere.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
My concerns (and you'll note I didn't say they justified discrimination) stem directly from how abortion was taught at my public school. The basic attitude presented was, "right-thinking people think this is a perfectly moral choice and the only people who oppose it are religious wackos." So it's not that I'm worried about homosexuality being presented as "OK" in the sense that it's legal and pretty much no one else's business. I'm worried about students being told that anyone who considers homosexual actions sinful is repressed and just needs to get over it. Of course, I have no problem with that view being expressed outside of a public school context, where authority and separation make it easier to refute.
The proper way to prevent this problem is parental involvement in school, which I intend to have, probably to an annoying extent. This is why I'm not "worried" about it.
quote:I understand what you are saying, Tres. If that is the case, then why don't we, then, hear these same arguments being used to nullify freedom of religion, or the right to vote, or driving, or anything else? See, you are bringing in a standard of impartiality and fairness that isn't being used for anything else. Your standard might be useful if it was used by society, but it's already a clear principle in society NOT bound to sex, that is, sex being an outgrowth of this principle, that children are not adults and that they are not privy to all the rights of adults--and this includes sex in general. So, I don't see how your point is useful.
The fact that society is not fair does not mean we shouldn't try to be fair in our own arguments. I'm well aware that issues in America aren't often decided in a fair or impartial way, but that does not mean we should give up on that goal. Isn't that the goal of your argument too - to determine the fair answer to the question?
quote:Cuz that reasoning is great, really great; especially since people by-and-large DO NOT CHOOSE THEIR SEXUALITY ANYWAY.
But you DO have a choice whether or not to act upon your sexual desires. So, I think in some cases their fear is that kids with homosexual desires might get the idea that it's okay to act on their desires if the government makes it sound "okay".
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that people are (and should) generally be concerned about conflicts between the morals they believe and teach their children and what is taught in school.
The reason for concern, at least in my opinion, has nothing to do with "sheltering from alternative viewpoints" or "burying your head in the sand". Rather, it is about authority figures and presentation as factual or right things which are not (at least from the parent's point of view).
Here's an example: in highschool I was taught about evolution and the origin of life. That is good, it is fundamental to biology. I was presented with the Urrey/Miller experiment (amino acids from electricity and basic chemicals) and told that this was the end of the story- the experiment had proved the possibility of the spontaneous creation of life from inanimate matter. It was only much later that I learned that I had been cheated, that the above experiment has nothing at all to say about the question it addressed. So what is the problem? Folks who believe in creationism were surely shaken when they were told that science could prove life needed no God to start it. They were taught this concept in school by the same authority figure who taught anatomy and the difference between reptiles and mammals. They were forced to make a decision between trusted authority figures. None of that is necessarily a bad thing, but the bad thing is that the authority figure charged with teaching science was teaching bad science and in so doing was forcing a point of view contrary to what many students learned from church and parents.
Some people are undoubtedly stil saying "So?" and "Bury your head in the sand why don't you", but imagine if the opposite case were being taught- if creationism was taught as solid science to kids who you taught otherwise.
Keats suggestion actually has some merit- if homosexuality were simply presented during biology class as something, say bonobos and humans and other creatures sometimes do then all is well. However, I very much doubt that it could be left at that by most teachers. They would feel compelled either to point out that homosexuality is a filthy, sinful practice or that it is a perfectly normal and natural lifestyle. Either way the repercussions are the same as say, a school program which teaches kids that it is pretty much expected that they will have sex in high school, so here are your condoms and go enjoy yourself.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, the real problem in schools is that we can't trust our teachers to be impartial if we tell them to?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Either way the repercussions are the same as say, a school program which teaches kids that it is pretty much expected that they will have sex in high school, so here are your condoms and go enjoy yourself.
How exactly does "it is a perfectly normal and natural lifestyle" lead to the above statement? And why is it that you attach this idea to 'validated homosexuality'? Is there some reason that "heterosexuality is a perfectly normal and natural lifestyle" does not lead to the same thing? And again, why is it the SCHOOL'S job to make sure YOUR child's sexuality and sexual activity lines up with your personal beliefs?
I guess I can understand that you feel slighted by a school system that gave you the impression that there was no such thing as creation science. Although I find myself doubting that you were really put in such a crisis as to which authority figures you were able to trust. As far as I know they are still calling it the "theory" of evolution, not the "history" of evolution.
Your mileage may vary, I guess.
Not that that matters to this subject, anyway.
What if in High School kids had to read a fictional novel whose main character--and point of view--was homosexual? Do you ban this because it might make YOUR kids think homosexuality is "okay"? Would you let a homosexual teach your kids? Which one is more frightening, the fictional character or the teacher? Would you protect your children from learning about prominent homosexuals in history? Can they be allowed to learn Shakespearean sonnets because some of them have homosexual undertones? Would you ban Oscar Wilde because you don't want some homosexual 'giving your kids the idea' that homosexaulity is "okay"?
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly how would it be a bad thing? Teaching young people to accept gays would at least lesson the amount of boys who get the crap beat out of them for even acting the SLIGHTEST bit gay.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I largely agree with your points. What you aren't addressing is the potential problem of an authority figure marginalizing the moral teachings of parents in a dismissive way (as evidenced by my example above). That, at least, is what my concerns are. And it's not a homosexuality issue, it's an education issue.
However, refusing to acknowledge the potential for problems is not going to assuage fears, whether they are overhyped or not.
Dagonee Edit: And let me ackowledge up front that there is an element of unfairness in asking the party discriminated against to assuage majority fears. However, as a practical matter, it is necessary to get public acceptance of change, even if unfair. Second, there is always a heavier burden on the side advocating change - it's a fact of rhetoric.
posted
Keats- read what I said and not what you wanted me to say.
quote:How exactly does "it is a perfectly normal and natural lifestyle" lead to the above statement?
That should be obvious. People who believe that homosexuality is a sin do not consider it a perfectly normal and natural (and therefore acceptable) lifestyle.
quote: And again, why is it the SCHOOL'S job to make sure YOUR child's sexuality and sexual activity lines up with your personal beliefs?
It is the school's job to NOT take any position on such questions. When they teach a given position they do so at the detriment to other positions.
quote: I guess I can understand that you feel slighted by a school system that gave you the impression that there was no such thing as creation science
You have completely mischaracterized me. I am certainly not a creationist. I use the story to illustrate a case in which the teacher took an anti-religious stance based on bad science.
quote: Although I find myself doubting that you were really put in such a crisis as to which authority figures you were able to trust.
Indeed I was not. The story wasn't about a crisis of my faith, though I have indeed often had to work to reconcile religious and scientific beliefs. However, I certainly know many people who were brought to a crisis of faith by this and other similar school teachings.
quote: What if in High School kids had to read a fictional novel whose main character--and point of view--was homosexual? Do you ban this because it might make YOUR kids think homosexuality is "okay"?
It depends completely on why the book was assigned. In this day and age I suspect it would be used as a platform for support of homosexual marriage and to condemn any who do not support it as bigots. In that case I would certainly opt out for my kids. If however the teacher were to use the book to make the point that homosexuals are people too and not different from anyone else then yes, by all means let's read it. At any rate i would read the book and visit the teacher first.
quote: Would you let a homosexual teach your kids?
Sure, assuming he or she was a good teacher.
quote: Which one is more frightening, the fictional character or the teacher?
It all depends on the agenda. Neither one is inherently frightening.
quote: Would you protect your children from learning about prominent homosexuals in history?
I certainly would like them to learn about important historical figures who happen to be homosexual. I definitely would not support some history unit based solely on that criterion, however, because that would once again indicate that the teacher has an axe to gring. I hate the idea in general of teaching history based on the hot-button topics of the day. If the homosexuality of some historical person- Ernst Roehm, for example, is key to understanding their place in history then by all means talk about it. Otherwise who cares?
quote: Can they be allowed to learn Shakespearean sonnets because some of them have homosexual undertones? Would you ban Oscar Wilde because you don't want some homosexual 'giving your kids the idea' that homosexaulity is "okay"?
Depends if the sonnets are any good. I'd ban Oscar WIlde because he sucks, not because he is homosexual.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Forgive my cynicsm, then. It's not like these questions are even applicable for today's world, since governments around the country are currently busy trying to project the unscientific idea that homosexuality is, to use the word of the day, invalid. With a few notable exceptions, this is the future we seem to be headed for.
I only wish we could really be arguing about whether kids can be told that homosexuality is a perfectly natural alignment experienced by millions of humans and animals everywhere.
Jacare,
I didn't mean to mischaracterize your quandry with your teacher's bad science, I was merely trying to sum it up. I assumed 'creation science' to be an umbrella under which your other theories could be contained; I didn't mean to unfairly assign you to creation science. I apologize.
quote:That should be obvious. People who believe that homosexuality is a sin do not consider it a perfectly normal and natural (and therefore acceptable) lifestyle.
Well it's not that obvious because you didn't answer the question. Please tell me specifically how teaching "homosexuality is perfectly natural" leads to "it is pretty much expected that you will have sex in high school, so here are your condoms and go enjoy yourself".
Or is that just a projection of prejudice since you think these kids will be influenced to "try" homosexuality and, since homosexuals are so damned promiscuous the school is basically inciting your children to orgy?
And how am I not supposed to get this impression from your previous post?
quote:It is the school's job to NOT take any position on such questions. When they teach a given position they do so at the detriment to other positions.
So in your view a school should not even mention homosexuality beyond acknowledging its presence in society? Just because your religion says it's bad everyone else just has to live with treating homosexuals as the proverbial ugly duckling. So a homosexual high school student gets the message: "we know you're out there, but we can't really address any of your concerns or help other people understand you better because some people find you unacceptable".
quote:In this day and age I suspect it would be used as a platform for support of homosexual marriage and to condemn any who do not support it as bigots.
This is getting good.
So in order for kids to be allowed to read a book with a homosexual point of view, you have to make sure that it doesn't accurately represent the homosexual point of view? I mean, I understand that what you're really worried about here is propaganda (apparently schools where you come from are more political than educational) but come on. What if I wrote a book about my life and it ended up in somebody's Sophomore English class? Surely I'm going to include elements from my perspective such as being completely justified and at peace with my sexuality, or perhaps some of the many challenges I've had to face dealing with family and friends of more Biblical persuasions. You're damn right that my book would at the very least send the message that homosexuality is okay.
So would you ban my book because I suck, or because you don't want homosexual opinions contaminating your children's minds? At what point do my opinions cease to be relevant to my character and begin to become propoganda to teach kids that their parents are bigots? I assume this is just a judgment you'd make on a case-by-case basis?
quote:Sure, assuming he or she was a good teacher.
Okay. Let's say Teacher Loras is a great social studies teacher and an unrepentant homosexual who's been living with his partner Tyrell for 14 years. Loras keeps a picture of himself and Tyrell on his desk, in plain sight. It is a picture of a Vermont Civil Union ceremony--that legally means nothing where he teaches in the state of Oklahoma. Let's say this is a Junior course in High School.
Now, as an Authority Figure, is Loras violating your educational prime directives by showing with his very existence that homosexuality is okay? Should he be expected to give no impression of his homosexuality, since that might give your kids an example of a successful and happy homosexual who is accepted?
Of course, you know, this situation would do far more to encourage homosexual students to accept themselves--note that I did not say have-sex-with-everyone--than just mentioning homosexuality in a sex-ed course. Is it an Agenda for Loras to be himself here? Should he have to keep his private life separate from his work life, even while other teachers bring their babies and spouses into schools all the time? Is it okay for the principle and his wife to kiss each other in the hallway but not alright for Loras and Tyrel to kiss good-bye in the parking lot; it is public property after all and we wouldn't want YOUR kids thinking that homosexuality is "okay".
Sorry about the Bush wisecrack. However, his recent statements make it clear that he is pursuing a one-religion agenda in this country. And since we apparently may talk about teachers as being authority figures, I thought that the President of the United States also fell under that category. But I'll stop noe (of course, after I make that one, last JAB!)
And can anyone explain to me just how homosexuality is a bad thing? Except for, of course, the Bible thing stating that it's a sin and an abomination. Yes, we've gotten some of our morality and laws from the Bible--but not all. And if we are to add more Biblical constraints to our constitution, let's at least acknowledge them for what they are.
But asides from the Biblical references (strike them from your mind--for the moment), how is homosexuality bad? Really: how is it "not a valid choice"?
HIV/AIDS? Promiscuous heterosexual sex will get you there as well. And HIV/AIDS will not just spring from monogamous homosexual sex like [insert yourt favorite abiogenesis reference here].
The fact that you really don't want the image floating in your head of two gay men going at it? You probably don't want the picture in your head of your parents going at it either. Neither do I. I mean, my parents. Not yours. What I mean is...well, you get what I mean.
We've raised our kids to understand (note the pointed use of words) that homosexuiality is perfectly fine. We've banned the use of the term "Gay" as a derogatory term in our household (our son is 12, it's apparently in common usage at his school). They're both perfectly fine.
And I know that as "things come up" we'll at least have the language available to us to discuss it; and they won't be afraid to come to us with questions or problems.
But back to my question: other than the Bible, why is homosexuality "wrong?"
Thanks. You'll have to ask others about non-religious reasons for homosexual actions being sinful. In my faith, sex outside marriage is sinful, and marriage is restricted to men and women. I believe these restrictions reflect a description of the family life as intended by God. However, this ideal is not lived up to by many people, not just homosexuals.
I have no other reasons, which is why I'm against societal restrictions on homosexual actions. As I explained earlier, the only justification for having civil heterosexual-only marriages would be to allow provision of benefits for raising children. Since our society has found means to provide these benefits almost entirely outside the context of marriage, there is no state interest justifying the denial of equal marriage rights to homosexuals.
quote: Well it's not that obvious because you didn't answer the question. Please tell me specifically how teaching "homosexuality is perfectly natural" leads to "it is pretty much expected that you will have sex in high school, so here are your condoms and go enjoy yourself".
One doesn't lead to the other. I was giving the second as an example of how political positions on hot-button topics can lead to endorsement of actions which I consider wrong. In this case, that means that I think it is not the place of any educational institution to distribute condoms on campus.
quote: So in your view a school should not even mention homosexuality beyond acknowledging its presence in society? Just because your religion says it's bad everyone else just has to live with treating homosexuals as the proverbial ugly duckling.
Sure, acknowledge its presence and leave it at that. The same as say, extramarital sex or even marital sex. I don't see any reason why it needs to be endorsed or condemned, do you?
quote: So in order for kids to be allowed to read a book with a homosexual point of view, you have to make sure that it doesn't accurately represent the homosexual point of view?
Of course it will represent what the author and/or main character think. So what? What I am talking about is the class discussion. What will the teacher say? "See class, there are some hateful groups in our society who would do anything to destroy the character, Johnny's, happiness. These bigots are so prejudiced that if they have their way Johnny won't be allowed to marry Bill, who he loves so much!" If this is the case then of course I don't want my kid to be subjected to it.
quote: I mean, I understand that what you're really worried about here is propaganda (apparently schools where you come from are more political than educational) but come on.
ARight. Are you saying there are programs that aren't like this? Everything in the humanities tends to be slanted to a specific viewpoint.
quote: So would you ban my book because I suck, or because you don't want homosexual opinions contaminating your children's minds?
I said nothing like this. What I have been talking about the entire time is the use of authority figures of their pulpit to preach their point of view.
quote: At what point do my opinions cease to be relevant to my character and begin to become propoganda to teach kids that their parents are bigots? I assume this is just a judgment you'd make on a case-by-case basis?
Of course it is, and I don't believe that you would do any differently. If you had a child would you allow them to attend a worksop at school explaining why homosexuality is laying the foundation for the destruction of society?
quote: Okay. Let's say Teacher Loras is a great social studies teacher and an unrepentant homosexual who's been living with his partner Tyrell for 14 years. Loras keeps a picture of himself and Tyrell on his desk, in plain sight. It is a picture of a Vermont Civil Union ceremony--that legally means nothing where he teaches in the state of Oklahoma. Let's say this is a Junior course in High School.
Now, as an Authority Figure, is Loras violating your educational prime directives by showing with his very existence that homosexuality is okay?
Of course not. The teacher needn't hide personal facts. However, I would get angry if the teacher used his position to suggest that some of the students would be happier if they embraced a homosexual lifestyle, just as I would if a single teacher suggested to students that it is perfectly acceptable to live together with one's boyfriend/girlfriend before marriage.
quote: In my faith, sex outside marriage is sinful, and marriage is restricted to men and women. I believe these restrictions reflect a description of the family life as intended by God. However, this ideal is not lived up to by many people, not just homosexuals.
I agree with Dagonee on this.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can I just ask if anyone else has an opinion on the whole idea of 'seperate but equal' schools that I presented? Would you guys who are opposed to gay marriage be opposed to gay marriage if you knew that the issue would never come up in school? In talking to you guys in previous threads, I thought this was a serious concern. However, in talking with Amenecer,and from the lack of responses to my point, it has became obvious from that the whole issue of what is taught in schools is a smoke screen for some people. That is, even if their children aren't taught about gay marriage in school, or if their children are taught exactly the morality that the parents want them to have, these people are still opposed to gay marriage. So, if you're just arguing the point about schools, but it really doesn't matter one way or another, can you admit it, please? Likewise, if it does mean that you would 'allow' gay marriage, could you say that, too?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, I can say that the fear of how something is presented in school has never informed my opinion on a policy matter not directly associated with schools, nor can I conceive of a situation where it would.
posted
JohnK, Your analogy is all wrong. Teacher Loras's partner was Renly, not Tyrell.
I apologize in advance for anyone who has no idea what I'm talking about. Just ignore me, it was a stupid joke anyway.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I want to point out, incidentally, that this whole problem could be avoided if you just had schools tailored to individual groups, rather than schools designed to be unobjectionable to everyone in society. For instance, if we as a society handed out vouchers to families and said, spend this on the school of your choice, wouldn't everyone be able to get what they want? If society said, we don't care what your school teaches as long as your child has 'X' standard of literacy and mathematical ability, and leave all the moral standards up to the group that family belongs to or, god help us, the family itself, wouldn't it avoid all the problems of 'bad teachers' that both sides fear?
These schools exist. There are catholic schools and christian schools and so on precisely because there are groups which believe that it is better to have an education combined with moral values held by that group. For that matter, that is why teh Mormon church supports 3 universities. The problem in most cases is twofold: cost and availibility. Private school is expensive and it also requires paying for school twice (through taxes and through tuition). The other problem is that any such school at the level of high school and below requires a certain population density of like-minded people. Some folks that I know- a lot of oflks actually, have decided that homse schooling is the best option. They look at the public schools and don't like what they see. Of course, such a decision also requires an enormous time investment on the part of the parents.
It is probably also important in the context of this thread to point out that homosexuality specifically isn't the reason these parents I know are homeschooling.
I personally like the idea of forming a parents' coalition of like-minded individuals in which a group of parents take turns teaching the children. My daughters are too young for school, but they do attend a preschool group run by six families taking turns giving a short class once a week.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jacare, that is why you have vouchers and the like to pay for those schools. The solution that I propose is just to give all parents of school age children the same amount of money/vouchers for schools. Only these vouchers could be used to pay for school. So, the cost would still be borne by the state.
quote: It is probably also important in the context of this thread to point out that homosexuality specifically isn't the reason these parents I know are homeschooling.
That may be so, but have you and others on this board not been arguing against gay marriage because it will be taught to your children in school as normative? If your children AREN'T, in fact, going to be taught this in school, does this change your position on gay marriage, or not?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
