Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mekniakal wrote:

You realize Prop-8 was an initiative to repeal a law that was decided, right? The anti-gay groups didn't like the ruling, and fought it again.

Of course I understand that this issue is very important to a lot of people on the anti-side, and I hope they understand that it is equally important to many people on the pro-side.

I don't think much can be gained by demonizing the people on the other side. All that does is polarize the issue and make civil discourse nearly impossible to acheive.

I think it is important to point out, however, that using the courts instead of ballots creates bad feelings, because it subverts the democratic process. I think the proper way to effect change is through a vote, not by getting the courts to rule in your favor. That's only my opinion, of course.

It will be struck down as unconstitutional, and the Mormons have wasted $20 million dollars that could have spent helping people instead of hating them.

Well, the courts cannot find part of the constitution unconstitutional, for two reasons. 1) Because they don't have authority to do so. 2) Because if it is in the constitution, it cannot, by definition, be unconstitutional, because that is what constitutional means.

One of the reasons the Mormon Church is a target is because they created monstrously misleading ads, saying things like, "If prop-8 passes, kids will be taught HOMOSEXUALITY IN SCHOOLS!" which is, of course, a bald faced lie and a misrepresentation of what prop-8 was advocating to do.

I haven't looked into it, but I have heard that this is exactly what started happening in Baltimore after they legalized gay marriage, so it may not be as wrong as you think.

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Mekniakal wrote:

Doctor Thunder wrote:To me, the core issue is this: When you use a democratic process to resolve differences, what is the appropriate response when you win, and what is the appropriate response when you lose?

I think it is a basic requirement in a democracy for both sides to be willing to accept the results graciously.

In this case, I think the soft response is usually the more effective one. I think adopting a response of hate will hurt the anti-8 groups cause more then it will help it.

You realize Prop-8 was an initiative to repeal a law that was decided, right? The anti-gay groups didn't like the ruling, and fought it again. It will be struck down as unconstitutional, and the Mormons have wasted $20 million dollars that could have spent helping people instead of hating them.

Also, the majority cannot vote to limit the civil rights of a minority. What Prop-8 is trying to do is legislate discrimination into the state's constitution. It will be struck down by the Supreme Court because that's their job. They have to ensure the legality of a law, and one that flagrantly violates the rights of a minority is blatantly illegal.

Of course I understand that this issue is very important to a lot of people on the anti-side, and I hope they understand that it is equally important to many people on the pro-side.

I don't think much can be gained by demonizing the people on the other side. All that does is polarize the issue and make civil discourse nearly impossible to acheive.

I think it is important to point out, however, that using the courts instead of ballots creates bad feelings, because it subverts the democratic process. I think the proper way to effect change is through a vote, not by getting the courts to rule in your favor. That's only my opinion, of course.

It would be interesting to see a court attempt to rule a part of the constitution unconstitutional, since that would be beyond their authority.

Exactly on all counts!!!

Excelsior DR!

Mekniakel, you're putting words in my mouth. I'm not advocating either side. I'm just saying that if the mormons are blamed, they had better deserve it. I don't know the issue. I live on the opposite end of the U.S. I have seen nor heard nothing about prop 8 besides what a friend of mine put on her facebook site. I think that scapegoating would be very easy in a situation like this, and such political baiting will just sour relations and screw up the issue for quite a long time. Did the Mormons do stupid things? If so, protest back in a civilized manner, by all means. But I'm from Louisiana. To use the disgusting vernacular, you know how we do. When people here pick a scapegoat, they stick to it unto death and it's very frustrating.

What does "taught homosexuality in schools" mean anyway ?

I'm guessing it's not a practicalexam or such right ? Why the beef then ?

Yeah I was about to ask the same question.
Surely there's nothing wrong with explaining the concept of homosexuality to kids. At least then a kid who is experiencing homosexual urges won't feel as isolated and wierded out.

Mormons are being picked on because they are the only non-leftward group of the bunch. Hence the attacks, the mailing of suspicious powders, etc.

Doctor Thunder wrote:To me, the core issue is this: When you use a democratic process to resolve differences, what is the appropriate response when you win, and what is the appropriate response when you lose?

well, when you are a left winger.

if you win - you rub it in everyones faces
if you lose - you start claming it is racist / bigoted in some way, whine aobut it, and if all that dosent work, start sueing people... or boycot.


when you are a right winger

if you lose - you have it rubed in your face
if you win - you have to deal with being called racist / biggot, and all the whining and nagging, and court fees.


just something i have noticed.

Da Boss wrote:Yeah I was about to ask the same question.
Surely there's nothing wrong with explaining the concept of homosexuality to kids. At least then a kid who is experiencing homosexual urges won't feel as isolated and wierded out.

Maybe there is nothing wrong about it. But it is a very small deviation from 'normal' sexual relations. While it is mostly harmless, to make 2% seem the same as 98% is a bit odd, and has been seen (perhaps unjustly) as an attempt to proselytize youth.

also... how is banning gay marrige discriminating to ANYONE???

last time i checked, a stright guy couldent marry another guy if he wanted to.
a stright woman couldent marry another woman if she wanted to.


if a homosexual man wishes to marry a woman. he is free to.
if a lesbian woman wish to marry a man she may.
heck, if a homosesual man wants to marry a lesbian womman they can.

there isnet a law saying "if you are homosexual you cant marry anyone"

As long as its not in school-cool.

Schools have not right to teach nuttin but that thar readin ritin and 'rithemetic until they get that right, then they can trie to move on to more advanced stuff...

Frazzled wrote:Mormons are being picked on because they are the only non-leftward group of the bunch. Hence the attacks, the mailing of suspicious powders, etc.

What ? Every one of the "Blacks and Latinos" who were "blamed" for this vote earlier is a leftie ? Really ?

If this is true I guess it just goes to show how out of the touch the recent Republican campaign really was then.

@ Gen.Lee.Losing : But homosexuality is normal in nature isn't it ? We've been over this already.

You teach democracy in schools, and that, from a strict "natural is good" school of thinking is distinctly unnatural no ?

Frazzled wrote:As long as its not in school-cool.

Schools have not right to teach nuttin but that thar readin ritin and 'rithemetic until they get that right, then they can trie to move on to more advanced stuff...

LOL!
Looks like you done learned proper that thar "English!"

[quote=reds8n

@ Gen.Lee.Losing : But homosexuality is normal in nature isn't it ? We've been over this already.

You teach democracy in schools, and that, from a strict "natural is good" school of thinking is distinctly unnatural no ?

Envy89: Banning gay marrige (or more to the point, gay civic union) is unfair because it stops gay couples getting the same rights and benefits as straight couples. I thought that was pretty obvious.

As for the "not in school" argument, I suppose I have a different veiw on education- I think it's there to help prepare people for life in many different ways, not just academic success.

I'm totally okay with churches not acknowledging gay marrige, that's their choice. I just think the state should try to grant people equal rights as much as possible.

MFT

It depends what you mean by adding to the curriculum though surely ?

I appreciate that whilst it is impossible to teach/cover any/all problems or issues a child will have to face up to ( I'm not proposing Serial killing 101... yet ! ) I still don't see what the problem is in covering it in, for example, sex education classes.

reds8n wrote:MFT

It depends what you mean by adding to the curriculum though surely ?

I appreciate that whilst it is impossible to teach/cover any/all problems or issues a child will have to face up to ( I'm not proposing Serial killing 101... yet ! ) I still don't see what the problem is in covering it in, for example, sex education classes.

It is not necessary to cover it in sexual education. Sex-Ed is not supposed to be about relationships. It is supposed to be a scientific explanation of the human reproductive system. They are not supposed to go into fetishes, bondage, three-way sex, etc. Again, I am not saying that homosexuality is harmful, just that does not belong in the school.

edit: MFT is a Marriage Family Therapist. It is one step below psychologist.

Just a sentence in sex ed would be enough I reckon:
A small number of people are attracted to people of the same gender. This is known as homosexuality.
Then answer any questions that arise and move on.
You don't have to say it's good or bad, just acknowledge that is exists and give it it's correct name. Then a kid can go and look into it themselves if they need to.
Don't think there should be entire classes devoted to it or anything.

African Americans in California voted something like 95% pro-Democratic. That almost busts the statistical rules of certainty.

As to school
1. It violates parents rights to teach their children
2. As above but note it violates their freedom of religion. Whether you or I think its cool is irrelevant. There are plenty of religious folks (and non-religious) who don't.
3. My point-most schools fail at the most basic basics. Adding other stuff obviscates their fundamental inability to teach the real stuff. When your school district ranks Top 10 worldwide in Math/Science scores then come talk to me about ANYTHING ELSE (except Band of course...and basic Mai Thai classes... and competitive drinking! oh wait you weren't supposed to be doing that...never mind).

I feel it odd that sex ed is taught seemingly without any mention of relationships. I wonder if that has any correlation with your absurdly high teen pregnancy rates compared to countries like Holland where the education is much fuller ( and explicit) and the teenage pregnancy rate is much much lower.

I don't agree it violates parents rights really in any significant way. Doesn't stop the parent from explaining to their child what the parents beliefs/feelings are. But the school has a duty to at touch upon the societal norms and laws. No more so than teaching about the racial movement infringes upon the rights of racists, or religious education infringes upon the rights of atheists.

Sure it might only be 2% (seeing as that is the figure we're using suddenly) , but is there anyone here for example who doesn't who "out" gay people at all. They're going to have to meet and interact with people from all walks and persuasions in their lives.

reds8n wrote: But the school has a duty to at touch upon the societal norms and alws.

I disagree. The school is charged with the intellectual training of children. Not the social training of children. Social institutions (Religions, families, clubs, groups, etc.) are responsible for the social instruction. (As for 'norms", we are talking about 2% of the population. Hardly a norm.)

It is a norm- it's a norm that a small proportion of the population are homosexual. Making people aware of that is to my mind no more harmful than making them aware that a small proportion of the population live in Utah.

But hey, Ireland is hardly a bastion of gay rights, so don't think I'm just crapping all over america here.

Good point Lee Losing

Da Boss wrote:It is a norm- it's a norm that a small proportion of the population are homosexual. Making people aware of that is to my mind no more harmful than making them aware that a small proportion of the population live in Utah.

But hey, Ireland is hardly a bastion of gay rights, so don't think I'm just crapping all over america here.

I understand you point to be that it is 'normal' to those who practice it. That is fine. But it is not "normal" to the roughly 98% of the US population.
But my argument is beside the point, as the school is not about social instruction.

I agree with General Lee. It is inappropriate for Public Schools to act like Private Schools.

That's not really my point, my point is that the existence of homosexuality is normal. It's as normal as the existence of people who are allergic to milk, or people who burn easily in the sun, or whatever. Kids get taught that these things happen in school, I see no reason why they couldn't be taught that homosexuality exists too. Hiding it is a bit wierd from my perspective.
I'm not talking about the act of homosexual sex, the fact of homosexual attraction or anything. Just the existence of homosexuals, and what homosexuality means. That's all. I'm not advocating teaching about positions, terminology, philosophy or anything like that, or anything about how to react to or treat homosexuals. I'm just saying that acknowledging their existence is sensible, as it prepares kids for the real world in the same way teaching geography does.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

reds8n wrote: But the school has a duty to at touch upon the societal norms and alws.

I disagree. The school is charged with the intellectual training of children. Not the social training of children. Social institutions (Religions, families, clubs, groups, etc.) are responsible for the social instruction. (As for 'norms", we are talking about 2% of the population. Hardly a norm.)

It's impossible to do the latter without some teaching of societal norms. School IS a societal institution. Part of the problems in too many schools is kids from "bad" homes who haven't been taught good manners and basic politeness. And even if they have the school still reinforces and builds upon this basic instruction : kids learn to que up, to not interrupt others, national anthem in your country I believe.

And how does a school train people intellectually without debate or awareness of other points of view. I'm sure the civil right struggle is covered in your schools, you're not claiming that it's possible to learn and think about that without being aware of the history of the movement. It's the same for female emancipation and the changing attitudes towards homosexuality : it's in the news, it's being discussed here, schools would be remiss not to touch upon it in some ways.

Envy89 wrote:

Doctor Thunder wrote:To me, the core issue is this: When you use a democratic process to resolve differences, what is the appropriate response when you win, and what is the appropriate response when you lose?

well, when you are a left winger.

if you win - you rub it in everyones faces
if you lose - you start claming it is racist / bigoted in some way, whine aobut it, and if all that dosent work, start sueing people... or boycot.


when you are a right winger

if you lose - you have it rubed in your face
if you win - you have to deal with being called racist / biggot, and all the whining and nagging, and court fees.


just something i have noticed.

I know and they're just so mean and it's totally not fair and they're always picking on me!

So, what do schools in the US teach then? Just how to read, write and do maths? Or do they teach geography and history too? Do they teach science? I'm not sure what the difference between the facts in these subjects and the facts of the existence of homosexuals is.

Da Boss wrote:That's not really my point, my point is that the existence of homosexuality is normal. It's as normal as the existence of people who are allergic to milk, or people who burn easily in the sun, or whatever. Kids get taught that these things happen in school, I see no reason why they couldn't be taught that homosexuality exists too. Hiding it is a bit wierd from my perspective.
I'm not talking about the act of homosexual sex, the fact of homosexual attraction or anything. Just the existence of homosexuals, and what homosexuality means. That's all. I'm not advocating teaching about positions, terminology, philosophy or anything like that, or anything about how to react to or treat homosexuals. I'm just saying that acknowledging their existence is sensible, as it prepares kids for the real world in the same way teaching geography does.

But homosexuals look like everyone else. And thank heavens we live in a society that doesn't tattoo their foreheads or make them wear a patch on their shirt. So how to interact with someone has nothing to do with what that person favors sexually.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

reds8n wrote: But the school has a duty to at touch upon the societal norms and alws.

I disagree. The school is charged with the intellectual training of children. Not the social training of children. Social institutions (Religions, families, clubs, groups, etc.) are responsible for the social instruction. (As for 'norms", we are talking about 2% of the population. Hardly a norm.)

Don't schools in the USA swear allegiance to the flag?

Schools have an important role in social training. The point of pre-school and kindergarten is to socialise children to the point where they can enter primary school successfully. More social training follows through all sorts of teaching such as sports, humanities, foreign languages, geography, religious education, off-site visits and after school activities, and basic classroom discipline.