<p>“A couple of homosexual people talking to a classroom of seven year olds will go a long way in showing the kids that homosexuals are people too.”</p>
<p>Comrade, you could always just take them on a field trip through the East Village ;)</p>
<p>Comrade???</p>
<p>Kluge, </p>
<p>In the spirit of Kurt Cobain, the reason I got into that whole smells-like-commie-spirit thing was that I was moved by the following posts:</p>
<p>MrB said:
Just to press this a little further…should any school that recieves any public dollars be allowed to teach religion? This would of course include Yale Divinity and others…</p>
<p>dstark enthusiastically replies:
As far as public dollars being used to teach religion… I’m not in love with Yale, as a private institition, receiving any public dollars
I will tell you what I would like to see taught in public schools
[yadda, dadda
.the things dstark would like taught]
We should start this education when the kids are 7 years-old</p>
<p>Its almost like your average 7 year old doesnt have any parents to call her own.</p>
<p>Anyhow, I was just trying to get with the spirit of that whole uprooting tradition and beliefs and planning our new fearless society sort-a thing. Comrade just took me back for a moment.</p>
<p>Besides, I like dstark and would gladly consider him an elder comrade if things take a turn for the I mean, in his direction wouldn’t it be great to be on the committee for the first 5 year plan.</p>
<p>FountainSiren, I don’t know if I said what I said enthusiastically. :)</p>
<p>Elder? :(</p>
<p>You don’t like teaching kids about homosexuals? I’ve seen it done and it is very effective. The prejudice is lessened and in some cases eliminated.</p>
<p>dstark, </p>
<p>I’m 17, unless you’re a junior in high school I simply must call you “sir”; whether you feel free to offer me a position on the politburo or not.</p>
<p>As to the moral education of children, perhaps you should stick with your other and seemingly contrary opinion of having children learn such moral things as this on the weekends or while taking the air in the East Village of lower Manhattan.</p>
<p>Some people are prejudiced against homosexuals without ever meeting one. Kids see that they are human beings and opinions change. Nobody is trying to convert anybody. No body is describing sexual acts. </p>
<p>A couple of homosexuals come into a classroom and describe their day. They work, sleep, eat, go to school, go to a movie, go to a concert, go to the library, go to church, …just like heterosexuals. No sexual acts are mentioned. Kids see that wow, homosexuals are not evil incarnate. </p>
<p>That Ceiling in the 16th Chapel is one awesome piece of work.</p>
<p>“A couple of homosexuals come into a classroom and describe their day.” and “No sexual acts are mentioned.” These statements are CONTRADICTORY. By declaring verbally that one is a homosexual, you are verbally (although only implicitly) mentioning sexual acts that are irrelevant to the discussion.</p>
<p>If someone interviewing for a job says at the end of the interview, “By the way, I have an excellent consensual, sexual relationship with my dog,” some interviewers may be taken aback. Of course, dstark, since you are neither a homophobe nor a speciesphobe, you would not think it odd that such a statement would be made during an interview. The remaining interviewers would not likely console themselves with, “Well, since no explicit details of the sexual acts were mentioned, then this is completely irrelevant.”</p>
<p>When someone mentions that he/she is a homosexual during general conversation, to me it is not substantially different than stating that he and his wife are swingers and like to participate in group orgies, or that he pleasures himself while looking at (non-pornographic) photos of children, or that he is into bestiality. WHY is it necessary to make such a statement? If you want privacy in your bedroom, then why not kep your discussion of it in your bedroom as well?</p>
<p>Perhaps, dstark, you think it would be a good idea to parade groups of people of all different sexual fetishes and behaviors into a kindergarten classroom so that little Johnny finds out that swingers seem to be nice people too, or that some adulterers are funny, or that people who have sex with animals can be fat or skinny, or whatever. I don’t think school should be a forum for such a parade. Would a child be allowed to say something like, “But isn’t adultery bad?”</p>
<p>Who are you to decide that no one except you are allowed to judge anyone else’s behavior?</p>
<p>I didn’t realise US schools didn’t study religion. In the UK, Religious Studies is compulsory throughout school and its basically a comparative religion course, with equal weighting (supposedly) given to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism. I also remember a lesson on Sikhs, although sadly none of the content. Would something like that not work in the States?
Also, is sex education taught in US schools? Because recently in the UK Section 28 was repealed, which banned the “promotion” of homosexuality in the classroom, so obviously it was never mentioned in the classroom at all. I would think now the idea is to incorporate it into sex education. Could the tolerance bit not be done then, with minimal disruption?</p>
<p>Allowing myself to get off topic for a moment. Pafather, it is disingenuous to attempt to compare Homosexuals with people who have sex with dogs.</p>
<p>At the middle school level, I teach tolerance. There are two many people who attempt to feel morally superior to others, condeming them, denying them rights that are basic to all human beings; to be with a loved one when they are hurt or dying; to help provide for their loved ones through job benefits. I can’t Imagine waking up in a world that would condem my love for my wife (25 years Sunday), that ridicules it, denies its morality. This is the worst form of ignorance.</p>
<p>The benefits we have recieved from the contribution of the gay community can not be denied or adequately evaluated because so many were forced to deny themselves the dignity of being allowed to be themselves in public. This malevolent attitude is shameful and should cease. If people are brave enough to come out of the closet and to meet with students, just to show that they are human too, it might help the students to become better adults.</p>
<p>Bringng this back to topic, in nature there are numerous sexual practices…fish that change their sex to maintain a balance in there community for example; There are individual life forms which contain both sexes. If there is intelligent design then one must realize the designer has not limited himself or herself to heterosexuality as the only acceptable life form.</p>
<p>I didnt want to get to into this one, but I have a 7 year old brother. </p>
<p>Would it also help to sensitize 7 year olds like my brother to ‘difference’ by bringing in polygamous couples (some by conviction: polygamists by definition [an assortment of Muslims and off-shoots of the Mormon tradition, about a quarter+ of the world community approves of polygamyfor all you internationalists]; and some by default because of a rather loose definition of commitment and devotion, basically a very liberal attitude when it comes to sexual lifestyles making them polygamists by common definition)?</p>
<p>Perhaps such people who have chosen to enter into these SEXUAL unions could be ushered in to 1st grade classes to be honored and celebrated between having the 7 year old boys and girls receiving their normal education of working on phonics and the reading of nursery Rhymes. </p>
<p>7 year olds are either first or second graders, some are still working on bed-wetting and some on security issues; do they also need to honor and approve of differing sexual lifestyles so that adults who choose to live in a alternative Sexual union are neither offended or over-looked? </p>
<p>And here I thought that 1st grade was about the childrens insecurities over life itself, not the sexual insecurities of educated adults.</p>
<p>What can I say? I want to stop bigotry before it starts. It’s too late for some.</p>
<p>Mr. B, nice post. Happy 25th anniversary.</p>
<p>My daughters former school was K-12.
As it was K-12, she had exposure to high schoolers and middle school age kids every day as a primary school student.
The clubs were school wide and while the gay straight alliance was mostly high school students, if interested elementary school students could particpate as well. Several of the students had gay parents, and several of the teachers were gay. While the teachers generally did not discuss their private lives, having two moms or two dads instead of one of each, did come up and was discussed.
raising a child is not a sexual act- and it is totally appropriate in a school setting to discuss the different types of families- single moms, single dads, grandparents raising grandchildren, adoptive children, foster families, older siblings raising younger…
It is far better for children to have their questions answered in a classroom setting, than to speculate on the playground and possibly for the child in question to be harrassed, just because there is ignorance about his family.</p>
<p>Going back a bit to the point about ID: I was raised in a Catholic family and was taught that there was a God. However, I was never taught to take Genesis literally. I believe that God started it all and then let the world evolve. So essentially I believe in ID which i guess can be compared with deism. I don’t think that it should be taught in a science classroom or at school. </p>
<p>However, it seems that many people here are being ridiculous. What would be so bad about a teacher teaching evolution and then saying that science still doesn’t know what started the big bang but some people out there believe it was a higher power that created it. The teacher isn’t indoctrinating the students, he or she is merely stating that although there is no scientific evidence some people believe that a higher power created it while others are still waiting for science to develop a theory. The teacher is merely exposing the students to different views. What would be some wrong about that? Oh no a kid learns that some people believe in God while others don’t!!! Call the ACLU!!!</p>
<p>Now about all this homosexual talk: When someone comes out and says they are gay they are intrinsically implying that they are different because they are attracted to and have sexual relations with people of their same gender. You don’t see heterosexual people going around parading their heterosexually. In that case then heterosexuals should also be brought into classrooms and paraded around, “see he sleeps with women and he’s a nice guy kids!” That would be ridiculous, just a bringing in a gay person would be ridiculous. Why can’t homosexual people just stop being so prideful about the fact that they sleep with people of their same sex. I really don’t care about their sexual orientation and that is something that should be kept to yourself. I don’t go around yelling “hey I have sex with women!” </p>
<p>I think I might organize a huge heterosexual parade. :)</p>
<p>It is far better for children to have their questions answered in a classroom setting, than to speculate on the playground and possibly for the child in question to be harrassed, just because there is ignorance about his family.</p>
<p>EK4, </p>
<p>I would have thought that in a free society (?), it is far better for children to have their moral questions addressed within the moral tradition of the homewhatever that tradition is; Its a signature ideal of a free society.</p>
<p>The school systems exist to give a different kind of education, they are not there to contravene the morality of the parents who have entrusted their children to the keeping of the State, Monday through Friday, 4-8 hours a day.</p>
<p>I dont believe the State has that right. </p>
<p>When something becomes the law of the land, it may be different; however, even then, I should think the State should err only on the side of prudence and caution where other peoples children are concerned. They should not force the children of Jehovahs Witnesses to say the pledge of allegiance, or the children of Jews or Muslims to eat forbidden foods in the lunch programs and they should not force moral principles unrelated to their educational mission or legal restraints on anyone’s children.</p>
<p>That would be a signature ideal of totalitarianism.</p>
<p>“it is disingenuous to attempt to compare Homosexuals with people who have sex with dogs.” </p>
<p>Why? As long as you DENY that there are some moral absolutes of right and wrong, who are you to judge what goes on between two consenting animals? What right do you have to condemn a human being who wants to be with his loved one?</p>
<p>“There are two many people who attempt to feel morally superior to others, condeming them, denying them rights that are basic to all human beings; to be with a loved one when they are hurt or dying; to help provide for their loved ones through job benefits.”</p>
<p>Disapproval and feelings of moral superiority are not equivalent. I do not feel morally superior to anyone, even those who engage in behaviors that I consider wrong. But I definitely reserve the right to opine that some behaviors are immoral.</p>
<p>I have personally never advocated denying anyone rights that anyone else has based on sexual orientation or behavior. I have a lot of good friends. It would be great if I could have them all receive medical benefits from my family insurance policy, but it simply doesn’t work that way. If a young single man cannot obtain medical benefits for a male friend he is NOT having sex with, then why should he be able to have medical benefits for a friend he IS having sex with? Why do YOU wish to DISCRIMINATE in this manner?</p>
<p>“This is the worst form of ignorance.”</p>
<p>WHAT is the worst form of “ignorance”? Refusing to approve of all sexual behaviors among consenting adults?</p>
<p>“The benefits we have recieved from the contribution of the gay community can not be denied or adequately evaluated because so many were forced to deny themselves the dignity of being allowed to be themselves in public. This malevolent attitude is shameful and should cease.”</p>
<p>The world has certainly ALSO benefited greatly from the financial, scientific, or whatever contributions of ADULTERERS. Nevertheless, I refuse to approve of adultery. I guess that must be because I am “ignorant.”</p>
<p>morality is taught in schools all the time
It is taught when we learn about the American revolution,it is taught when we learn about slavery and civil rights, it is taught when we learn about the Holocaust and about genocide.
We teach values when we caution against: cheating, lying or stealing.
Against running in the halls, littering,wasting supplies.
Students organize war protest rallies as well as prayer circles.
Schools are a natural place to learn about the world and society-in many states there are laws against harrassment and discrimination including against gays and lesbians as well as other minorities.
School is an appropriate place to learn that harrasment is not acceptable and won’t be tolerated.</p>
<p>EK4,</p>
<p>Your post seems to imply that it would be ok to harass people under the right circumstances, but I do not believe this would be the case. Moreover, this form of absolute morality (harassing or beating people is wrong) is “taught” in schools–they taught it to me in every school I attended. </p>
<p>However, they did not go down a list of when it was ok and not ok to harass people for whatever reason, and they did not place a special emphasis on not harassing people involved in a sexual union, whether of the traditional pro-creative type or the sexually expressive type. They taught us harassing anyone was wrong, as was lying, cheating, stealing or killing someone, regardless of the potential victims form of sexual gratification. </p>
<p>There are no moral theories that that Ive ever heard of that support these vices as if they are virtues ever wonder why?</p>
<p>Should homosexuals be discriminated against?</p>
<p>certainly harrasment should never be tolerated
however laws that protect adults don’t necessarily apply to children.
Some schools allow harrasment of students that are rumored to be gay even perpetuated by teachers.
Sometimes it goes farther than verbal harrasment but if the adults in charge secretly or not so secretly agree with the sentiment, they look the other way.
Schools should teach that verbally, emotionally, or physically harming another is wrong period, but they don’t.
Thats why we need laws protecting everyone.
No federal law expressly prohibits bullying in schools so local districts are having to piece together their own approaches.</p>
<p>The sad thing about this “debate” is the homophobe’s insistance that being a homosexual is about sexual acts. That is no more true than that being a heterosexual is “about” sexual acts. (I can hear Pafather and Bern300 sputtering as they read this.) The insistance on equating an adult, monogamous homosexual relationship with “swinging” or bestiality is evidence of this unhealthy - and misplaced - fixation on sex acts.</p>
<p>The ultimate defining feature of homosexuality is the same thing as that of heterosexuality: the fomation of a lasting bond of love and mutual caring and responsibility between two adults. Who they may have had sex with along the way (and how) is irrelevant. But the homophobes fixate on it. To them, it is the only thing that matters. A homosexual couple in a classroom are “parading”, while a heterosexual couple, for some reason, are not. My relationship with my wife is not defined by our sex life. I don’t define my homosexual friends’ relationships with their partners by their sex lives (about which I know, and wish to know, no more than I know about my heterosexual friends’ sex lives) either.</p>
<p>There are couples who enjoy enduring homosexual relationships even though for one reason or another they are no longer able to engage in sexual activity, just as is true with some heterosexual couples. It’s not about the sex, it’s about the relationship. That’s why your perceived parallels to bestiality, “swingning”, adultery, etc. are inapposite.</p>
<p>But you guys will never get that, will you? Can’t stop thinking about the naked bodies.</p>