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.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:4 - If children "do not have the mental and emotional development necessary to legally consent", why the push to promote sexual lifestyles in the classroom?

It's not promoting a 'lifestyle'. It's pretty poor form to describe homosexuality, which comes as naturally as heterosexuality, as a 'lifestyle', not only because that implies a choice in the matter but also because there's no such thing as a gay lifestyle. Gay people are just attracted to the same sex, in other ways they are all different. Their choice of sexual partner is only an issue because some people make an issue out it it.

Anyway, children should learn about sexual relationships before they reach the age of consent. It may be broadly decided that they are not emotionally developed enough to consent to sex itself, but that's not a reason to discuss concepts around sex with them. Keeping children in ignorance is not a solution, and discussing issues around sex is not the same as actually having sex so you're really making very poor arguments.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Anyway, children should learn about sexual relationships before they reach the age of consent. It may be broadly decided that they are not emotionally developed enough to consent to sex itself, but that's not a reason to discuss concepts around sex with them. Keeping children in ignorance is not a solution, and discussing issues around sex is not the same as actually having sex so you're really making very poor arguments.

Actually, that's a big issue here in the states. Sexual education is lacking for the most parts and some states still teach abstinence only classes despite the fact that they are inferior to comprehensive sexual education classes.

I'm aware it's an issue, and we have the same ignorant arguments from conservative groups here, teach kids about sex and they'll all start doing it. Which just makes no sense, the preferred option is to 'protect their innocence' so they end up pregnant at 15 because they didn't know how to use a condom.

Howard A Treesong wrote:I'm aware it's an issue, and we have the same ignorant arguments from conservative groups here, teach kids about sex and they'll all start doing it. Which just makes no sense, the preferred option is to 'protect their innocence' so they end up pregnant at 15 because they didn't know how to use a condom.

Its weird how it happens, comprehensive sex shows that there is a little bit more sex but it's also safer sex because of the fact that they know to use condoms. Unfortunately the federal government takes funding from schools that teach coprehensive sex education or anything besides abstinence only courses.

Howard A Treesong wrote:I'm aware it's an issue, and we have the same ignorant arguments from conservative groups here, teach kids about sex and they'll all start doing it. Which just makes no sense, the preferred option is to 'protect their innocence' so they end up pregnant at 15 because they didn't know how to use a condom.

I always loved the argument that heterosexuality is the only natural form of human sexuality, but children won't engage in it if they aren't told what it is.

dogma wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:I'm aware it's an issue, and we have the same ignorant arguments from conservative groups here, teach kids about sex and they'll all start doing it. Which just makes no sense, the preferred option is to 'protect their innocence' so they end up pregnant at 15 because they didn't know how to use a condom.

I always loved the argument that heterosexuality is the only natural form of human sexuality, but children won't engage in it if they aren't told what it is.

I saw a picture of a sign protesting the anti-homosexual marriage protests saying that homosexuals aren't to blame because they don't reproduce and that we should blame heterosexuals for making 'gay babies'.

Frazzled wrote:Slaves were kept for monetary reasons since before writing in nearly ever culture. But it took people of faith to start the ball rolling to free them, both in the US and Britain.
Just because people have a chip on the shoulder about Christians on this board doesn't make them right.

Slavery was a huge part of the abolitionist movement, but it was also a very important part of the pro-slavery movement.

Religion is used for and for bad. Accept this and move on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:You can throw out that the Mormons pumped money into campaign ads. but you do realize that the No on 8 crowd outspent the Yes on 8 crowd, right? So your point is beyond useless.
(other than to be biased against religion, which is okay, right?)

It costs way less money to get people to be afraid of a boogeyman, than it does to support the rights of another human being.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:More money means nothing.
But I am not the one saying mormons 'bought' prop 8. Money does not determine votes.

Of course it doesn't, and that's why politicians never bother advertising on tv.

Be sensible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Children are not able to independently decide on sexual matters. We live in an society with an age of consent law. If you argue that teenagers can (and should) explore sexuality, why have an age of consent law? You are, in fact, saying teenager may consent to sexual activities.

Umm, the point of the age of consent is that by the time they've reached that age they've learnt about sex and had discussions on the subject

"Judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin." MLK was a brilliant man.
We probably shouldn't even be saying skin colors.

He certainly was brilliant. But pretending our understanding of race relations hasn't progressed since him is as stupid as pretending our understanding of evolution hasn't progressed since Darwin. The idea that we can just decide to not mention skin, or gender preference, and then everything will work out just fine just doesn't make any sense when you look at what we've learned since MLK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Should we explore the deep aspects of Abraham Lincoln's christian beliefs? it played a big part in his work to free slaves. How would you feel if students were learning in-depth Christian theology in a history class? Against it, right? Not that Christian theology is wrong and shameful, but it does not belong in a history class! Right?

We absolutely should teach that. This idea you're trying to make that there isn't time to study the lives and beliefs of great people, and how their circumstances and beliefs led to them doing great things is just completely bizarre.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:i am saying that high school level history classes do not study persons. They study broad eras in history.

The problem is that you simply cannot teach history without teaching about the people at the centre of it. You cannot teach modern Chinese history without teaching about Sun Yat Sen, Chiang Kai Shek or Mao.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:DarkPrince010 - We have very different ideas as to the purpose of school.

I thought it was to educate. Social engineering should not rear its ugly head there.

No, the issue is that you have an entirely fantastical idea about what education is. Education, information, knowledge, is not politically neutral and cannot be.

What is the point of understanding history if it doesn't challenge our views about the world operates?

I'm probably the only openly gay TG/S on this forum and I'm thinking “Huh?”
Both arguments have there merits and flaws.
In the context of a history lesson a brief two lines could/should be given to the person in question, unless it is the subject of social history which should be run at the same time as the historical time period.
I believe that all major social historic events should be covered, the stonewall riots, the suffragettes, and the road to social and personal equality for all.
How such a course would be run is questionable as I'm not sure how it could be done. If any thing it is not to promote a type of "sexual preference" but more of "not to be a d**k as every one is in the same boat as you" sort of thing.
(Note* I write this as I remove last nights make up and suffer from a hangover induced by living it up Gay. )

It's simple, guys: if students in California( or any other state) are doing badly, the Californian school board should concentrate on improving the curriculum they use, NOT devoting a whole chunk of a history class to the study of one particular group, no matter what.

Frankly, I don't think a persons orientation should be brought up in a public school curriculum. AFAIK, last time I heard, public schools where supposed to be a NEUTRAL environment. Bringing up a historical figures orientation is just begging for partisan friction.

My thoughts are like this: If you are gay/lesbian, guess what? It doesn't matter to me one BIT. If your are Bi? I really don't care! If your Heterosexual, hey, so what? A persons orientation does not matter to me, what matters to me is the content of the character. If your a good, honest person, your orientation won't change that.

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:Frankly, I don't think a persons orientation should be brought up in a public school curriculum.

I don't think people should hate tohers based on sexual orientation to begin with, but they do. What you suggest basically just means a continuation of the current levels of abuse GBLT teens receive.

Schools aren't neutral environments. They're LEARNING environments.

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:It's simple, guys: if students in California( or any other state) are doing badly, the Californian school board should concentrate on improving the curriculum they use, NOT devoting a whole chunk of a history class to the study of one particular group, no matter what.

Those aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
Frankly, I don't think a persons orientation should be brought up in a public school curriculum. AFAIK, last time I heard, public schools where supposed to be a NEUTRAL environment. Bringing up a historical figures orientation is just begging for partisan friction.

While neutral environments can exist, when they come about they tend not to stay that way.

And, when you're environment pertains to something as broad as education, you're always going to ruffle feathers. Just ask the Young Earth people.

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:My thoughts are like this: If you are gay/lesbian, guess what? It doesn't matter to me one BIT. If your are Bi? I really don't care! If your Heterosexual, hey, so what? A persons orientation does not matter to me, what matters to me is the content of the character. If your a good, honest person, your orientation won't change that.

But almost no-one is born a good, honest person. We are typically afraid or critical of things we don't understand. It takes knowledge to change that.

Ribon Fox wrote:I'm probably the only openly gay TG/S on this forum and I'm thinking “Huh?”
Both arguments have there merits and flaws.
In the context of a history lesson a brief two lines could/should be given to the person in question, unless it is the subject of social history which should be run at the same time as the historical time period.
I believe that all major social historic events should be covered, the stonewall riots, the suffragettes, and the road to social and personal equality for all.
How such a course would be run is questionable as I'm not sure how it could be done. If any thing it is not to promote a type of "sexual preference" but more of "not to be a d**k as every one is in the same boat as you" sort of thing.
(Note* I write this as I remove last nights make up and suffer from a hangover induced by living it up Gay. )

+1 to this.... except I'm straight and such... and no make up

education isn't about indoctrination, its about being exposed to as many things as possible and learning how to learn about things you don't know

frgsinwntr wrote:education isn't about indoctrination

That's news to me. When did this happen?

frgsinwntr wrote:education isn't about indoctrination, its about being exposed to as many things as possible and learning how to learn about things you don't know

Exactly what is the clear and definite dividing line between those two things?

frgsinwntr wrote:
education isn't about indoctrination, its about being exposed to as many things as possible and learning how to learn about things you don't know

So, its about indoctrination.

Learning that thing X is thing X and not thing Z is indoctrination. So is the whole process education of "learning how to learn."