Upon further reflection, I refuse to eat my words. I was in the right here.
Actually, Witch said earlier in the thread that she just wanted a chance to prep her son before the presentation.
Personally, I don’t think a parent should be allowed to remove a child from a presentation like this, any more than they should be able to remove them from a math class or an English class. Teaching kids basic human rights should be a fundamental part of their education and should not be subject to meddling by parents.
Gnat, No laws were broken. You can disagree with the teacher if you want to but she followed procedure.
If she had brought in a speaker on racial equality, no one would have raised an eyebrow. People hear the word “gay” and they break out in hives.
the presentation was not "sexual. It was about simple human dignity and respect for those who are different. It’s not like they were showing Jeff Stryker videos.
I’ve been told all my life that who I love makes me a second-class citizen. There’s no rational basis for that position; nothing about my sexuality hurts anybody. I’ve been debating this issue since college, and not one person has come up with any rational basis for saying that homosexuality is wrong. It all boils down to “It’s icky” or “God says it’s icky.” And on the basis of some people’s juvenile revulsion towards what gay people do in private, gay people are demonized, denied equality, publicly derided, and killed.
Shodan, you asked:
First of all, of course, it’s a false dichotomy. Second, the phrase ‘gay behavior’ is pretty interesting; I’d be fascinated to hear what you’d define as gay behavior. Third, there’s obviously a distinction between those two phrases. But what I think you’re asking is whether a program of tolerance has to include the idea that gay people are okay. That what they do isn’t wrong.
And the answer is, yes, if the program is to be effective, that concept would have to be a part of it. Saying that gay people are sinners, are abominations, and that what they do is wrong but we shouldn’t beat them up is what’s been happening for decades; I’ve never heard anyone say that gay people are bad and everybody should beat the crap out of them, but gay people still get the crap out of them for being gay. You want middle ground? We’re standing in it.
I’m appalled that anyone would object to telling a gay kid “There’s nothing wrong with you; nothing wrong with how you feel, or who you want to sleep with. A lot of people feel the same way. It’s just how some people turn out, is all.” Do you have any idea what that would mean to a kid struggling with their sexuality? When they’ve been hearing that what they’re doing is a sin all their lives?
Telling these kids that how they feel is wrong is killing them. It’s time we tried another approach, one that could reduce the body count. And until someone can tell me how my having sex with my boyfriend is hurting anyone, the idea that it’s wrong is completely unfounded bigotry.
The majority of humans aren’t black; yet they are normal. The majority of humans aren’t Italian; yet they are normal. Normal does not equal majority.
Gnat, here’s the breakdown on how this all has come out of the media.
The story in my original post was dated the 25th of November.
http://www.kgun9.com/story.asp?TitleID=2855&ProgramOption=News
That was the one that said the school administration knew nothing of it.
The story broke on Monday at 4:30.
http://www.kgun9.com/scripts/MON430.HTM#TOP
The evening news at 6 had this intro and this outro to the story I quoted in the OP:
http://www.kgun9.com/scripts/MON6.HTM
But by the 10:00 news, the story had been bumped from the lead, and changed considerably.
http://www.kgun9.com/scripts/MON10.HTM#WINGSPAN-VO
The story stayed the same until noon, when the station added information about another teacher who had contacted their help line (the reference to 9 on Your Side) with information that contradicted the original story.
http://www.kgun9.com/scripts/TUES12.HTM#12
By the 4:30 news that evening, the story was gone.
I think it’s worth noting that no other news station even mentioned this story. Nor was it covered in any other local papers. I’m hoping the Tucson Weekly has something on it; that issue is due out tomorrow.
So, in other words, the story has changed considerably over the past couple of days, and the direction in which it is changing seems to indicate that the station got taken for a ride by the school board member who advised them of the situation. But, since the story has dropped out of the news, it’s all speculation. If I hear anything more on this, I’ll pass it on.
It’s a difficult distinction. Promoting the gay lifestyle would mean teaching that there’s nothing wrong with it and we should just accept it as an alternative lifestyle. Or trying to get people to appove or agree with this behavior in any form. I can agree with teachings that say we should treat others right and not be bullying or verbal abuse, but not with teachings that attempt to convince that this is a morally acceptable way of living.
Also, I don’t recall going all over the board condemning people to hell because they’re gay, as I’ve seen some post. I simply gave an honest answer to a question put to me and everything went downhill from there. There are those of us who believe it’s wrong because God says it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.
Finally, while I don’t think Christians should go around calling gays fags and condemning them, on the other hand I do believe God wants us to be witnesses to the truth when it comes up in our daily lives. I’m not going to go around banging on gays doors and informing them “hey , do you know you’re sinning?” but if I’m in a conversaton or situation where it comes up and feel I must say something, I will (hopefully with God’s guidance).
In my view, the Lord clearly condemns the behavior so I can say the same as He does, but as far as the person is concerned; all I can do is share the truth, and leave it with God. It’s up to Him what to do with the person.
People can think whatever they want. Of course, if they think gay people are bad for being honest about who they are, then they are horrible, Nazi-like people. But they can still think it. They just cannot act upon it.
Just a nitpick, but homosexuality is not a behaviour, its an orientation. it’s something you are, not something you do.
Kirk
Becuase it was just a flimsy justification for posting something that had no business being posted: a comparison between being gay and being a child-raping pedophile.
Pedophilia is not a sexuality. There is no such sexual orientation as “pedophile.”
While there are bigotted, evil laws that make it illegal to have gay sex in some places, there is nowhere that simply being gay is a crime. At least, not in the so-called civilized world.
Of course it’s right. However, just as schools should only inform kids of the facts of sex and at the same time do not encourage kids to have underage sex, they can explain the facts of homosexuality without making a case for people to go around fucking members of their own gender at a whim.
Kirk
In some cultures, homosexuality IS the norm. Think about in ancient Greece when most men were bisexual. There are even some cultures where all boys enter into sexual relationships with older men in order to “become men”. In Brazil, where homosexuality is more accepted here, fully 30% of the population is gay or for the majority, homosexual. (5 or 6 on the kinsey scale)
Laws against homosexuality have been used throughout history as political means mostly. In fact, they were even used against the church in several cases (great irony, no?).
In 533 AD, there was the first major law against homosexuals. This was unpopular and did little to halt any homosexual activitiy and the court historian, Procopius claimed that the motives behind the law were entirely political.
When the Penitentials (handbooks of punishment for offenses) came out around the 7th century, homosexual intercourse required merely 2 years of penance, while oral sex required 7.
in 1250, it was used largely against the clergy, with one law forbidding monks to leave their orders. When the Knights Templar where arrested and accused of sodomy in 1307, it was entirely a move by Philip IV to grad their vast land and riches. Philip also tried charging Pope Boniface VIII with sodomy, and nearly almost managed to ruin the popehood.
After the black death (1348-1350), jews and homosexuals recieved much of the blame and were punished.
In 1533, Henry VIII wanted to weaken the church, so he strengthed anti-homosexuality laws and took a lot of land that way.
And so on and so, leading up even to Hitler, when he used homosexuality charges to someone trying to get part of his power.
Homosexuality was accepted, respected and even held up as an ideal form of love in every single other culture around the world untainted by the ideas of a certain religion. Even when it was illegal in europe’s history, great artists openly flaunted their sexuality and it wasn’t much of a concern - unless they got in the way of someone policitcally.
No such fucking thing as “the gay lifestyle.”
No, you think its wrong because YOU THINK God says its wrong. Many people smarter than you disagree, even if they’re in your religion.
Kirk
Exactly. In both the private, catholic high schools that I and my brothers went to (both were for same sex only), the schools had much better policies towards gays than the public schools. Father Jack, who was the priest at my school, would “marry” gay couples. And I know tons of christians who are gay and who are trying to change the church’s position on homosexuality.
I honestly believe that in the future, the chuch will come to accept homosexuality. I think that it is just a matter of time. 
I find the numbers for Brazil extrordinarily difficult to believe. I’d like a cite. I know for a fact Brazil is having serious problems with gay men being assaulted and murdered.
His4Ever’s post reminds me of why this is even a debate in the first place. Certain conservative branches of the Christian family tree categorize homosexuality as a sinful behaviour, rather than seeing homosexuals as a minority, a subgroup within the larger population. For them, it’s about what we do, rather than about who we are.
But His4Ever, it is about who we are. I spent five years trying to change myself, and I was miserable and suicidal the whole time. I don’t think my life started until I came out (10 years ago this January).
We’re of very different faiths, but the closest my religion comes to a concept of sin is “harm” – that which promotes suffering. This is why I can’t understand why the pursuit of one’s faith would require one to inflict suffering on innocent people because of who they fall in love with.
As for Kirkland, I understand. My coming out was a series of worst-case scenarios as well, and you’re not the only poster here to have had a knife at his wrist at an age were a lot of other kids were thinking about university, parties, and the prom. It took eight years for my life to stabilize, and in the process, I lost friends, family, and home, teetered over the edge homelessness for awhile, etc.
And every step of the way, shutting out my every attempt to get my life back were a group of Christians and “concerned parents and teachers” who felt they had everyone’s best interests at heart.
It’s an absurdity worthy of Monty Python – a small but loud group of people hate you or pity you for who you love, because of their particular interpretations of the tribal taboos of the ancient Israelites, and their conviction that these taboos are somehow relevant to members of another religion, thousands of years later and half a world away. Even more ridiculous is that that these taboos should be inflicted on members of other religions in a free and democratic society through the instruments of law, courts, and schools. Thinking this made me insane with rage.
But in the last year, I’ve tried to get a hold of my bitterness and hatred. We didn’t deserve any of it, and we still don’t deserve any of it, but if we come to see those extreme-conservative Christians as less than human, then we fall into the same trap they’ve set for themselves. We starve ourselves of our own humanity, if we lose our compassion, if we lose the ability to see others as flawed human beings, like ourselves.
Yes, the anti-gay Christians still make me furious. But, as a wise teacher once told me, “Hate is burning down your house to kill a rat.” And I take heart to see that more and more people understand we’ve gotten a raw deal. Things are changing, and there’s reason to hope.
Whether homosexual behavior is objectively wrong or not, I think the issue is who gets to decide this for their children. Is it the parents, who are encouraged to do so on every other moral issue, or the state?
I require the state to come up with some pretty convincing reasons why I should allow them to enforce their moral decisions on me and my children in every other area of life. Why is who you have sex with any different?
Tolerance, my definition of it, is one thing. I can see the justification for preventing gay-bashing, or bashing of any other kind of minority, as vital to the preservation of public order, and the safe-guarding of individual rights. I can not see the justification of forcing adults to think one way or another about homosexuality. Whether I approve of it or not, and whether I teach my children to approve of it or not, as long as I and my children leave you in peace to think as you like, I will have to insist that you, and the state, extend the same rights to me in return.
** I don’t see that this is a false dichotomy.
“Whatever two consenting adults do in private is their own business” used to be the prevailing principle. Now we have a class which is taught without consent, to non-adults, and is so far from occurring in private that it is funded entirely with taxpayers’ money.
As I said before, I see the interest of the state in preventing violence and gay-bashing. This is to protect the rights of all citizens to go about their lives without interference by the state, or anyone else. But for the state to step in and attempt to overrule the teachings of parents on a topic which, to say the least, has no settled consensus, does not increase the scope of anyone’s rights, it decreases it.
Gays used to demand the right to be left in peace. Tolerance education is supposed to be in furtherance of people leaving each other in peace. Why do parents who disagree with Wingspan not get the same right? Can’t they be left in peace to raise their children as they see fit also?
I didn’t mean much more than gay sex.
Sexual behavior is a choice; sexual orientation is not (in my opinion). I can see someone objecting to sex of whatever kind or other, but not orientation, which is non-voluntary.
Would this be true of any other kind of tolerance that you wanted to encourage? Is it really necessary to condone behavior to prevent people from physically attacking those who practice it?
Suppose some group with whom you vehemently disagreed was coming to town - a Pat Buchanan rally or something. You, as a responsible citizen, wanted to prevent violence, and you had to convince your friends not to attack or insult him and his followers.
Could you really not come up with any better argument not to wade into the crowd with a baseball bat other than “You know, Buchanan is right on the issues. You really shouldn’t be attacking him.” ?
If you see what I mean.
I used to understand the “gay agenda” to mean that gays wanted to be able to say that their private lives were none of my business. Well and good, and I agree.
Now that isn’t enough. I have to approve, and teach my children to approve as well.
That just ain’t how it works. You don’t get to tell me what to think anymore than I get to tell you. And you aren’t going to make an end run around me to get to my kids thru the schools.
If we are in the middle now, then that is where we are going to stay. The state should not be in the business of telling me or my children how we should think about other people’s sex lives.
Regards,
Shodan
Then you should at least consider what the idea that being gay (in being or in action) is dirty and wrong does to a young gay child’s psyche. It’s too late to say “Oh, my darling son, we love you no matter” if you’re saying it to his corpse. This is the issue. That this isn’t some remote abstract philosophy that all people are good and true let’s all sing Kum-ba-yah. This is about the fact that regardless of whether a parent “approves” of homosexuality, there’s a good chance that their child will be gay. And the personal hell that that child is going to live for most of his or her adolescence is more painful and more cruel than you’ll ever know. A world where someone’s religious beliefs are stronger than their concern for their own child’s mental and emotional pain is a world I’d really rather not have to live in, thank you.
Homebrew, it was the best, most non-offensive term I could come up with on short notice. If you have a better one, then I’d like to know it so I can start using it instead.
MrVisible, thanks a bunch. I don’t think any of us really know what was going on there; the media apparently tried to make a story out of it and failed. My position depends on whether the teacher was in the right or not, something that none of us (or the news media, apparently) can tell.
Kirk, I think we’re having a breakdown in communications here. I even said it was a bad example. You don’t feel pedophilia is an orienation, fine. I don’t know whether it is or not. Can we leave it at that?
ava, thank you for the history lesson. Obviously it was more openly prevalent in some societies. But in this one, it is at percieved to be a fringe sort of thing.
Ok, another question, and perhaps one that people will respond to.
I remember when I was in school, my parents took an active role in keeping track of what I was learning. For example, I was raised Jewish. In sixth grade, my class had a unit on world religions. From what I remember, my teacher at the time did her best, but she failed in a number of ways to communicate information about Judaism that I found believable.
So I went home and talked about it with my parents.
It seemed that my parents would disagree with some of the material I was learning in school every so often, at which time we would talk about it and resolve it. It seems inevitable that there is going to be some disagreement between parents and curricula.
So why is gay acceptance education any different? So the Shodanling learns something in school that you disagree with. It happens any time a child is not homeschooled. Would it be so difficult to use this opportunity to address the issues raised by gay acceptance education in order to teach your child to treat everyone with respect?
I would understand it if you told me that it was an unfair burden. But if gay acceptance education can prevent the suicide of young people, do you not think it is a burden worth bearing?
his4ever:
If Christian children were being bullied and teased in school, and had high rates of suicide, would you stand up and refuse to allow a presentation that said that there’s nothing wrong with being Christian and we should just accept it as an alternative lifestyle? Or if anyone tried to get people to appove or agree with this behavior in any form? Heaven forbid that anyone should argue that someone “accept” a group of people who don’t do any empirically verifiable harm to others. If, say, some powerful and populous religion sprung up that beleived blacks were immoral sinners, would you be as sympathetic to their demand that teachers not hint that being black was acceptable? Even when black children suffered predjudice and had abnormally high suicide rates?
The state.
The state has an obligation to correct any “teachings” which are ipso facto destructive to children. Homophobia, like racism, is not only damaging to the targets of these corrosive attitudes, but to the racists and homophobes themselves.
How are the parents being harrassed, or not “left alone?” They can teach their kids whatever bullshit they want at home, but in a public school those kids are going to learn a proper code of conduct and they are going to follow it. Any contradictory teachings from home should be dismissed out of hand.
I keep hearing some people say that they don’t want their kids to be taught that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. Well here is the nub of the matter. When it comes to public schools, or any part of public life, homosexuals ARE equal to heterosexuals. They have exactly the same rights under the constitution. They have equal humanity, and deserve equal dignity and respect. Your religious hang-ups are NOT THEIR PROBLEM. Teaching this to kids does not violate your rights in any way. You can THINK whatever you want. The state must respect your RIGHT to your beliefs, but this does not mean it must respect the beliefs themselves. There is a difference.
No one gives a shit what you approve of. Gay people do not require your “approval.”
The state has every right to teach your kids FACTUAL information as it pertains to the rights of other people, and as to what kind of attitudes will and will not be tolerated on the public dime
Who said ANYTHING about “sex lives?”