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.

reds8n wrote:

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.

I think we have very different views on schools.
As for your last point there, a class about current events would be right to include gay marriage, etc. as that fits the curriculum. And students would not be required to take a Current events class. But sex ed is about reproduction. That is why it was permitted into schools in the first place. It is a scientific view of the reproductive system.

Kilkrazy wrote:

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.

Okay, by that definition of social instruction, I would alter my statement to say that acceptance of homosexuality and teaching it as 'okay' (Which it probably is) would fall under Philosophical/Moral instruction. And that has no place in schools.

Kids recently told me that sex ed was about diseases.

Hilarious.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

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.

Okay, by that definition of social instruction, I would alter my statement to say that acceptance of homosexuality and teaching it as 'okay' (Which it probably is) would fall under Philosophical/Moral instruction. And that has no place in schools.

That's fair enough, I was more about educating kids about the existence of homosexuality, so that if they encounter it they at least know what it is enough to name it, and if they are interested to learn more you've given them the language to research it. I'm alright with no particular moral stance being attached to it, though I think ethics (as opposed to morals) should be taught to all children.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:[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 ?

I am not going into "nature is good" here (my previous arguments were that nature is Not good). I am just saying that there is no need to add curriculum for a 2% sexual variant. Any person who is struggling with there personal views on sexuality ( of any variant - and I am not saying that homosexuality is the same as harmful variants, but it is a variant) should seek a counselor. My sister is a MFT with the school district. She helps a lot of teenagers accept themselves.

There is no need for it to be in the class.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

You see, it's a matter of tolerance. If you teach about something in school, it becomes more acceptable. You can clear away a lot of bigotry with just a couple of lessons. This means the '2%' suffer a hell of a lot less, and if you can make even one persons life better, surely it must be worth it? The lessons would be about what it is to be gay. All to often the media portray homosexuals as quite flamboyant individuals, and also efeminate. Most homosexuals are neither of these things. One lesson, bam, myth somewhat expunged. The worst thing you can do with a young mind is tell it something is right/wrong and never bother to explain why.

But the root of that 'bigotry' is just a belief that homosexuality is wrong and that lies with religion/moral codes, not a lack of knowing what homosexuality is. So in essence, you are claiming that the school is to teach that religion is wrong. You can see why religions would be upset by that.

No, I am saying that a school which teaches Religious *Dogma* is wrong.

The Bible says sleeping with another man is wrong. It doesn't go into why. I mean no disrespect to those of a religious persuasion, but that is not enough for education.

The promotion of Religion I am all for, but a Religious Education to my mind is a dangerous thing, simply because your are being taught a particular set of morals with little room for deviance from a particular text.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote: But sex ed is about reproduction. That is why it was permitted into schools in the first place. It is a scientific view of the reproductive system.

No, human biology teaches the basic science of reproduction.

Sex ed discusses issues of consent, of risks and possible forms of protection, and otherwise makes kids more prepared to make decisions about sex.

I think bringing it into "right and wrong" in school (especially in america) would be a bad idea. Then you really would be crossing over into personal freedom territory.

Okay, I was hoping not to have to say this, because I HATE it! please forgive me.

But people have a Right to Hate. You are allowed to foster intense and absolute irrational hate for anyone you want. That is a freedom we all have. You cannont act on that hate to do harm to another person, but the hate and bigotry is a right people have. I think it is a waste of energy, but it is legal.

I agree that schools should not teach religion! Fully agree. But acceptance of homosexuality is a dogma that also should not be taught. Acceptance of homosexuals is okay, as they are people with feelings and rights. Children should be taught to accept those different from themselves. You don't need to go into the specifics of sexual alignment as that is not a public matter. Skin color is a better example. You can tell if someone is dark skinned, you can’t tell if they are homosexual.

Da Boss wrote: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.

Ooh I know I know Me! ME!:

Jr. High 8th grade anyway
PE or other special curriculum
Math
Science
English (Language Arts now-how cute)
Lunch
Social Studies/History/Geography
Language or other special curriculum.
Some sort of Health thing and they get weird seminars on health and other stuff including "the Talk"

So that'd be what, 13 year olds? Seems pretty okay to me.
Bit young to be going into sex ed and whatnot though.

They get the first "talk" in elementary school in this district actually. Its like an afternoon. They send 'em to the gym to a chat. It was panned as Gross! by the relevant reviewers consulted...

Shockingly (I’m sure), I’m on board with Sebster and some of our European colleagues here. Sex Ed talks about consent, safety, disease prevention, etc. It’s about behavior as much as biology, and it helps kids make smarter decisions. Some Comprehensive programs include a component for young children to help them avoid molesters; Obama supporting such a program was labeled by some dishonest opponents as trying to teach Sex Ed to little kids. Given that somewhere between 2%-7% of humans, including the school kids themselves, are inclined this way, it’s appropriate for them to know enough about it to help them make safe (or safer) choices, and maybe reduce the incidence of hate crimes.

Envy89 wrote: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"

This is an intellectually-bankrupt and fundamentally dishonest (whether you’re lying to yourself or to others) argument. Please do me the favor of not polluting the board with it.

I concede. Sex Ex was not just about biology. In it's first incarnation it was a bunch of slide shows and films of VDs to scare kids away from sex. But, as previously pointed out, the USA has a very high teen pregnancy rate. So the 'education for smarter choices' is a failure.

Mannahnin wrote:Shockingly (I’m sure), I’m on board with Sebster and some of our European colleagues here. Sex Ed talks about consent, safety, disease prevention, etc. It’s about behavior as much as biology, and it helps kids make smarter decisions. Some Comprehensive programs include a component for young children to help them avoid molesters; Obama supporting such a program was labeled by some dishonest opponents as trying to teach Sex Ed to little kids. Given that somewhere between 2%-7% of humans, including the school kids themselves, are inclined this way, it’s appropriate for them to know enough about it to help them make safe (or safer) choices, and maybe reduce the incidence of hate crimes.

Envy89 wrote: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"

This is an intellectually-bankrupt and fundamentally dishonest (whether you’re lying to yourself or to others) argument. Please do me the favor of not polluting the board with it.

Actually, if we are saying Marriage is not applied evenly, then it is a correct counter argument. If we are saying that the definition of marriage is flawed, then it is an irrelevant line of thought. It comes down to defining marriage. That is why I think that Civil Unions need to be the same legally as marriage. Leave that institution alone and make a new one that is equal.

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.

Of course being the primary financial contributors, and a contiguous religious entity, couldn't anything at all to do with it. :S

Envy89 wrote: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"

This is phenomenally ignorant for so many reasons that I barely know where to begin.

By definition, you are heterosexual if you prefer the opposite sex. By definition, you are homosexual if you prefer the same sex. We are absolutely denying homosexuals the right to their preference, which may indeed be referred to as a right for the fact that the state endorses heterosexual preferences.

dogma wrote:

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.

Of course being the primary financial contributors, and a contiguous religious entity, couldn't anything at all to do with it. :S

Mormons as individuals? Okay, you can be upset at them but be upset at them because of their vote not their faith.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? You really should not be mad that a religion abided by its own theological ideas. That is like getting pissed of at Jews for wanting to keep Israel on the map!

dogma wrote:

Envy89 wrote: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"

This is phenomenally ignorant for so many reasons that I barely know where to begin.

By definition, you are heterosexual if you prefer the opposite sex. By definition, you are homosexual if you prefer the same sex. We are absolutely denying homosexuals the right to their preference, which may indeed be referred to as a right for the fact that the state endorses heterosexual preferences.

I know of "Rights of the State" and "Rights of the Individual" but not "Rights of the Couple". The law is applying the same rule evenly, you dislike the rule. That is fine! You are allowed to dislike it! But the Right as presently written is not being denied you, you just don’t like how the right is written. I can understand. Feel free to campaign to change the rights of Civil union to be the same as marriage. Leave Marriage alone.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Okay, by that definition of social instruction, I would alter my statement to say that acceptance of homosexuality and teaching it as 'okay' (Which it probably is) would fall under Philosophical/Moral instruction. And that has no place in schools.

I gotta say that I beg to differ. One of the most important things a school, any school, can do is provide a potentially dissenting opinion from that of the parents. I'm not saying that kids should be told what is, and isn't wrong, only exposed to other ways of thinking as par for the course is any philosophy class. Essentially, being forced to account for what Socrates thought was wrong.

dogma wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Okay, by that definition of social instruction, I would alter my statement to say that acceptance of homosexuality and teaching it as 'okay' (Which it probably is) would fall under Philosophical/Moral instruction. And that has no place in schools.

I gotta say that I beg to differ. One of the most important things a school, any school, can do is provide a potentially dissenting opinion from that of the parents. I'm not saying that kids should be told what is, and isn't wrong, only exposed to other ways of thinking as par for the course is any philosophy class. Essentially, being forced to account for what Socrates thought was wrong.

And in a philosophy class, please! Have at it! Talk it up! Because that is the point of philosophy.
But to require students to listen to something they may find offensive to appease 2% of the population is a bit out of hand.
Students who want to debate can join debate club or sign up for that philosophy class.

But the schools function is not to offer an alternative to the parents thinking. That is very dangerous indeed!

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

dogma wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Okay, by that definition of social instruction, I would alter my statement to say that acceptance of homosexuality and teaching it as 'okay' (Which it probably is) would fall under Philosophical/Moral instruction. And that has no place in schools.

I gotta say that I beg to differ. One of the most important things a school, any school, can do is provide a potentially dissenting opinion from that of the parents. I'm not saying that kids should be told what is, and isn't wrong, only exposed to other ways of thinking as par for the course is any philosophy class. Essentially, being forced to account for what Socrates thought was wrong.

And in a philosophy class, please! Have at it! Talk it up! Because that is the point of philosophy.
But to require students to listen to something they may find offensive to appease 2% of the population is a bit out of hand.
Students who want to debate can join debate club or sign up for that philosophy class.

But the schools function is not to offer an alternative to the parents thinking. That is very dangerous indeed!

Exactly. If you want to "challenge their parents thinking" (aka brain washing) do it in college where they have developed and are independent enough to disagree. Education is a requirement-you're subscribing to mandatory brain washing. As a parent I politely invite you to take a long run off a short pier if you try to impose that on my school district. Your statement alone is why millions are now homeschooling their kids.

As much as everyone is complaining, you'd think that their right to vote had been taken away. It was a proposition on a ballot. The no on prop 8 camp lost the vote. Instead of rolling up their sleeves and getting more organized to get supporters to vote, they've decided to boycott a group of people who were voting (and campaigning) in accordance with their faith.

Having spent some time in hillcrest (the "gayborhood") in San Diego, I can tell you that many people were very confrontational on the subject of prop 8. Shades of Bush's "You're either with us or against us" speech. Either you supported them or you were a bigot.

dogma wrote:

I gotta say that I beg to differ. One of the most important things a private school can do is provide a potentially dissenting opinion from that of the parents.

Fixed your quote.

Public schools have no business subverting parental authority.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
But the root of that 'bigotry' is just a belief that homosexuality is wrong and that lies with religion/moral codes, not a lack of knowing what homosexuality is. So in essence, you are claiming that the school is to teach that religion is wrong. You can see why religions would be upset by that.

By that definition we should not teach something like evolution because it follows that many traditional religions are wrong as a result. You don't have to teach that homosexuality is to be accepted, but you can teach people about others who accepted homosexuality. There is a difference between education and indoctrination.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Okay, I was hoping not to have to say this, because I HATE it! please forgive me.

But people have a Right to Hate. You are allowed to foster intense and absolute irrational hate for anyone you want. That is a freedom we all have. You cannont act on that hate to do harm to another person, but the hate and bigotry is a right people have. I think it is a waste of energy, but it is legal.

I agree that schools should not teach religion! Fully agree. But acceptance of homosexuality is a dogma that also should not be taught. Acceptance of homosexuals is okay, as they are people with feelings and rights. Children should be taught to accept those different from themselves. You don't need to go into the specifics of sexual alignment as that is not a public matter. Skin color is a better example. You can tell if someone is dark skinned, you can’t tell if they are homosexual.

I would rather schools taught religion, all religion, or at least the big 5: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism.

In any case, I imagine that hoping that people can't pick out a homosexual is somewhat wishful thinking simply because it doesn't matter if they are correct. Intolerance will manifest itself anywhere there is perceived difference, not just blatant examples of it. Utilizing homosexuality as an example of how differences are all around us, and sometimes very subtle, is could be very useful in that it forces children to think; which is only ever a good thing.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
I know of "Rights of the State" and "Rights of the Individual" but not "Rights of the Couple". The law is applying the same rule evenly, you dislike the rule. That is fine! You are allowed to dislike it! But the Right as presently written is not being denied you, you just don’t like how the right is written. I can understand. Feel free to campaign to change the rights of Civil union to be the same as marriage. Leave Marriage alone.

The right is not being applied evenly. The only way you can assume that is if you presume that homosexuals and heterosexuals are precisely the same, which you yourself have conceded is not the case by classifying homosexuality as a 'deviance'.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Mormons as individuals? Okay, you can be upset at them but be upset at them because of their vote not their faith.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? You really should not be mad that a religion abided by its own theological ideas. That is like getting pissed of at Jews for wanting to keep Israel on the map!

Interesting you feel that way since only about 750,000 Mormons live in California I gotta say that the millions of dollars they came up with in fund raising reeks of a Church actively taking advantage of its tax free status to influence an election result. Either way, unless the Mormons have a theological doctrine which requires them to deny rights to those they do not agree with I gotta say that this is less like getting mad at Jews for wanting to keep Israel on the map, and more like getting mad at Jews for oppressing non-Jewish resident of Israel.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
And in a philosophy class, please! Have at it! Talk it up! Because that is the point of philosophy.
But to require students to listen to something they may find offensive to appease 2% of the population is a bit out of hand.
Students who want to debate can join debate club or sign up for that philosophy class.

But the schools function is not to offer an alternative to the parents thinking. That is very dangerous indeed!

In what way is it dangerous? It gets the child to weigh things which were said by the parents against things that were said in school, and promotes the active involvement in the child's education. I see no issue.

Moreover, being offended is not a sufficient reason to avoid exposure to something. Indeed, if something offends you I would have to say that you are more obligated to confront it. Lest you be left without any basis for the negative opinion you might have.

Frazzled wrote:
Exactly. If you want to "challenge their parents thinking" (aka brain washing) do it in college where they have developed and are independent enough to disagree. Education is a requirement-you're subscribing to mandatory brain washing. As a parent I politely invite you to take a long run off a short pier if you try to impose that on my school district. Your statement alone is why millions are now homeschooling their kids.

Really Frazz? Challenging the thinking of the parent is brain-washing? What about those children who never challenge their parents way of thinking? I'd say that they have been far more thoroughly brainwashed than anyone else.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
I agree that schools should not teach religion! Fully agree. But acceptance of homosexuality is a dogma that also should not be taught. Acceptance of homosexuals is okay, as they are people with feelings and rights. Children should be taught to accept those different from themselves. You don't need to go into the specifics of sexual alignment as that is not a public matter. Skin color is a better example. You can tell if someone is dark skinned, you can’t tell if they are homosexual.

To clarify : are you saying there that schools shouldn't teach from a particular religious stance or that they shouldn't eductae and inform about religions in general. I assume and hope for the latter, I think the world would be a lot better off if schools taught the basic facts of the worlds religions. I think it would be very useful for schools in hevaily Islamicised countries to teach actual facts about Jews and Christians for example.

Acceptance of homosexuality is not a dogma, it's the law of the land.

Doctor Thunder wrote:

dogma wrote:

I gotta say that I beg to differ. One of the most important things a private school can do is provide a potentially dissenting opinion from that of the parents.

Fixed your quote.

Public schools have no business subverting parental authority.

So you're saying that if the parents are racists or don't believe that the Holocaust happened then Public schools have no right to teach the students these things? I don't see how saying, "A small percentage of humans are attracted to the same sex; they are called homosexuals." is subverting the will of the parents. It is neither condoning nor condemning homosexual behavior, just stating it as a fact.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

reds8n wrote:

Acceptance of homosexuality is not a dogma, it's the law of the land.

Actually, Non-discrimination is the law of the land. Acceptance is a personal issue that cannot be legislated.