I would hope that teaching people not to discriminate against someone that is different from themselves would be a little more acceptable than teaching a religion or sexuality. There are some things that are best taught at home and learned as we grow.
But ‘HOPE’ is the key word here. Whatever happened to the teaching of COMMON COURTESY. Sad really!
As for taxes and the government, I still say that it is not their buisiness. If I am working, supporting my family, paying taxes, and doing the best possible job I can do, then it is nobodys right to try to tell me what I should teach, or what I should do with my family.
As for our Constitution, I do believe it is the very best, but how can you push something that our own politians can’t even follow. Another sad subject.
Okaaayyy… But then how do you teach people not to discriminate based on sexuality? Does that not carry the message that homosexuality is ok? It seems that you want to teach tolerance while not mentioning what it is that we should be tolerant of. That simply won’t work. FWIW, discussing or teaching about homosexuality, or how society has treated homosexuals, or even that homosexuals deserve equal rights under the law-- none of that is in any way advocating homosexuality.
It seems to me that there is a fundamental problem with the particular type of Christianity many try to practice. It preaches tolerance and acceptance out of one side of its mouth, but still claims the right to condemn homosexuals out of the other. Some don’t “condemn” per se, but try to brush it under the rug and not talk about it, but that’s really just about as bad, since it doesn’t speak to the essential conflict between the tolerance and condemnation. “Don’t ask; don’t tell” is a lousy solution.
What a very backhanded and callous treatment of the real problems that exist in society today. This is tantamount to, “You deserve what you get.”
Interesting theory. Guess evolution has to be taken out of the curriculum as well, then, since creationism is, of course, a religious issue. And sex ed - well, that’s right out. Some would argue that boys and girls shouldn’t be socializing together in school, either - another religious belief. So many things that are “partly religious…”
There is no curriculum that teaches homosexuality is right (nor any kind of indoctrination for that matter); it teaches tolerance for those who are different by specifically pointing out those differences, which is, of course, the only way to address the issue (as has already been pointed out). Once this tolerance is taught, it should be easy for a good, Christian family to further their child’s education by saying that yes, tolerance is good, even if they, personally, feel it is immoral. (The inconsistency is not lost on me, but I’ll play devil’s advocate for the moment.)
You’re contradicting yourself. On the one hand you state, specifically, that tolerance must be taught for differences, even going so far as to list some of them, yet you say that you shouldn’t list them because people might get the wrong idea that homosexuality is ok (which, of course, is pushing your own beliefs on others who think it is ok). So which is it?
Fascinating diversion…
Esprix
Once again I am humbled by the eloquence of others.
Esprix
Thanks Esprix! (Purely accidental I assure you.)
OKKAAYYY, we should be tolerant of the fact that people are different.
Christians are not taught to condemn homosexuals, they are taught to love all people. The Christian Church does not teach tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality,they accept that it exists just like they accept the fact that other religions exist. They teach their fellow christians and anyone who WANTS to listen that the law of God says homosexuality is wrong. They would not turn their backs on anyone regardless of what they are, and once again, they teach to love all people.
Don’t judge all Churches and Christians on one or a few bad experiences you may have had. By no means does the Christian Church " brush it under the rug “, at least not any Church I have been to. As for " Don’t ask; don’t tell”, thats our military!
Esprix ,
Sorry if you see my views as backhanded and callous, but people make decisions everyday that others may not agree with. It’s not so much that " you deserve what you get", it’s that you should realize that in many situations, you go into something knowing that there may be backlash, and there is nothing you can do about it, short of stomping your feet and crying about how it’s unfair.
I’m not saying it’s fair, I’m just saying that’s the way thing’s work in our world.
Yes, I can see how you can take just about everything and make it " partly religious", and being that I am Christian, I must say that I have never noticed anything in the Bible saying that boys and girls should not socialize in school.
I didn’t think that teaching how the male and female reprodutive system works was an abomination.
I assume after that, you know where I stand on evolution(In the beginning God created the heaven and earth)
But, I do recall something about sexual relations of the same sex!
I never said that there was a curriculum teaching that homosexuality is right. I gave an example (maybe a bad one) of why teaching homosexuality and/or religion would be a bad idea. But I do agree with what you said…“Once this tolerance is taught, it should be easy for a good, Christian family to further their child’s education by saying that yes, tolerance is good, even if they, personally, feel it is immoral”.
I’m done with this for now. See you around the board 
Actually, at the risk of being Johnny One-Note on this, Jesus gave a pretty clear set of instructions on the issue: in summary, love God and your fellow man; do what you know to be right yourself; and do not judge your fellow man. (That’s not “accepting diversity” – it’s loving persons of diverse races, orientations, etc.)
Now, if we could only get the Christians to believe that… :rolleyes:
Uh, rather not, I think. The popular thinking is that homosexuals can change, if they really want to. You’ve got lovely ideals, but they don’t translate into reality as much as you think they do.
I haven’t had a few bad experiences - it’s the religion in its entirety that I disagree with.
So, yes, by all means, let’s just sit back and accept it, even if you’re the one getting discriminated against. :rolleyes: But then, perhaps you and I aren’t so different - after all, Christianity is a “lifestyle choice…”
Actually, I wasn’t thinking Christian, but rather Muslim.
Birth control, which is sometimes taught in sex ed classes, is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic church. Other religions don’t think reproduction should be taught at all outside the home.
So if you believe in Creationism, should Evolution be removed from the curriculum?
So why would you have a problem with a curriculum that teaches tolerance for those of differing sexual orientations? I’m still not getting you on that point, so I hope you’ll come back and elucidate more.
And of course this little sidebar relates to the OP. Of course “exposure” to the Jews was a bad thing for our children, and so, it would seem, are gays “propagandiz[ing] young schoolchildren” and such “seduction is followed by destruction.” After all, “Why, let them steal the innocence of our children?” (All quoted from the link in the OP.)
Esprix
Well you don’t want to listen to anything anybody says unless it agrees with what you say. Funny you accuse me of doing the same thing.
I’ll leave you to stroke each other’s egos all you want, but I don’t feel up to intellectual masturbation today.
Since you missed it when I said it before, schools should teach facts. not values. that people choose to live different ways is a fact. that one lifestyle is good or bad or indifferent is a value.
guess which one should be taught in school?
Oh, no, we quite agree - schools should teach facts, not values. However, some people read values into facts - for some, just mentioning homosexuality is a de facto endorsement as an “acceptable alternative lifestyle.” Does that mean teaching tolerance should be removed from schools, since it’s also a fact that in order to confront intolerance one must be specific about what, exactly, one ought to be more tolerant of?
A simple question, or so I thought.
Esprix
[QUOTEChristians are not taught to condemn homosexuals, they are taught to love all people. The Christian Church…[/QUOTE]
What the heck is “The Christian Church”? I’ve never heard of such an organization.
The world’s 2,000,000,000 Christians do not all have a full slate of identical beliefs.
ZOG, as everybody knows, is the acronym for Zionist Occupational Government, so * now everybody knows who you work for and what you’re up to, Zoggie!!! *
But I’m the only one who really knows what’s going on …
It seems to me that there is something that has taught children tolerance of others without being specific. I’m sure that you’re all familiar with Sesame Street. While there are occasional shows that teach us to accept people with disabilities or different colored skin, most of the time the message is not to hate or judge anyone just because they are different.
Some of the posters have sarcastically asked if the Christians involved in this thread want evolution banned from schools. In several states it has been. In Kansas(source on this is The Philadelphia Inquirer. It is the respected, main stream paper for this area.) it is illegal to teach evolution in public schools.
I think it's impossible not to teach values. In history class, we learn that slavery is wrong. This is a value I share but it's still a value. Almost any literature also teaches a value of some kind.
Lastly getting back to the original subject, the lies spread about one group match the ones spread on almost any other.
Jews get together to kill Christian infants and drink their blood. Gays get together to jam gerbils and have some one urinate wine into their mouths.
For a while I worked at a very small company with a woman who was the daughter of a US soldier and a Hiroshima survivor. She was upset by any discrimination against asians. She was also strongly prejudiced against blacks, Jews, Gays and others. I tried and tried, but I could never make her see that the lies she believed about these groups were no more valid than the asian stereotypes she had heard so often.I don’t think that it’s a problem to teach the material as factual:
[li]X percentage of people are gay, and are nigh onto unanimous that they did not choose that orientation.[/li][li]The greater share of Americans find homosexual activity repulsive. A majority of those with a religious background find it sinful.[/li][li]Freedom, as practiced in this country, allows people to do things that other people do not approve of.[/li]
A huge piece of the problem is in the equating of homosexual orientation, homosexual acts, and “the homosexual lifestyle” (a disgusting misnomer for two people of the same sex dating/living together/covenanting a more-or-less-marital relationship with each other). 'Sprix, would you be offended if a Christian person, say Navigator to pick a name, said that he had no problem with you being who you are, but feels that your sex life is sinful – and is quick to add that he’s not isolating you as a gay person, but would say the same thing to anybody who had sex outside marriage?
Jersey, would you be so kind as to check back (change the default on the main Great Debates menu to “Show threads from the last 90 days”) and resurrect one of the “special rights” threads, read it, and comment if you like? I think that you might find some useful answers to the question of whether gays are asking for special rights there.
The whole values issue is so fraught with personal assumptions that I’d urge that anybody discussing it start defining terms before they ever get into their opinions.
Well, we have then, at the very least, matching goals. That’s a good thing to start with I think, and I really don’t think that we’re engaging in a fruitless dialogue here, “intellectual masturbation” as you termed it in a later post. [Note: Upon rereading, I realized how ironic the phrase “fruitless dialogue” sounds in that sentence given our topic. I decided to leave it as a glaring example of what I sound like when not engaged in “accidental eloquence.” :)]
**
If only this were true across the board JD. There are lots of Christian churches out there that, in fact, officially denounce homosexuality. Many do so in their sermons, the writings they publish, during radio broadcasts, on television shows, and so forth. Many are not content to teach only to those who WANT to listen, but seek to spread their message by any means possible, including prayer in schools, or posting their religious documents in schools. Failing that, they attempt to silence speech they object to religiously, to include birth control, sex education, and yes, any mention of the topic of homosexuality.
Certainly I realize that the Christians I described in my last paragraph are not representative of the whole. In fact I have seen Christians who will stand up and say that such activities are improper. However, the minority that actively seeks to impose religious belief onto the school curricula are very vocal and very active, far more so than any Christian groups actively opposing such things. The vast majority of Christians have nothing to say about the matter at all. They let others battle it out.
The reason I bring up “Don’t ask; Don’t tell,” is because that I feel it is exactly the same thing that you are proposing when you say “Just don’t talk about it at all.” Simply stating “We should be tolerant of all kinds of people,” is sufficient only if you want a catchphrase. In order to actually teach anything at all, you have to engage people in thought, not merely repeat canned phrases. There is a whole world of misinformation that needs dispelling, and it’s awful hard to teach tolerance without taking the air out of those myths. “Gays usually have AIDS. They will try and recruit you. They like little boys. They are all promiscuous and love to dress up like women. They all have lisps, so if so-and-so has a lisp…” I think it should be clear why it would be difficult for people to manage tolerance for some lisping drag queen who is just looking for a little boy he can forcefully recruit and infect with AIDS, unless you can actually teach that gay people are just like everyone else except for the fact that they happen to be oriented toward the same sex. And before you say that kids are too smart to believe these things, (I’d like to believe that was true.) try to remember how many adults spout such nonsense on a regular basis.
The question still, to my mind, comes down to a question of whether tolerance is a value that is actually practiced, or whether it is one that is given lip service. Can a Christian practice tolerance and still condemn homosexuals? Can a Christian practice tolerance and let other Christians suppress teaching tolerance?
What a coincidence that you should say this. Would that be similar to getting your panties all in a twist because Cecil made a thilly queen joke?
You claim that your only complaint is that the joke wasn’t funny, but strangely enough I’ve seen a number of unfunny jokes, but the only one I’ve seen you complain about is that one.
You’re right. Some people get all upset whenever homosexuality is mentioned. And you’re it.
You’re missing the point. I’m trying to say that condemning homosexuals is judging people, which is wrong and is condemned in the bible. Condemning homosexuality is judging people’s actions, which is acceptable (as long as you’re not being hateful or hostile toward the person himself) and is commanded in the bible.
In other words, you can love somebody and still express disapproval of what he is doing. And yes, Christians believe that homosexuality is sinful, but no more sinful than any sex outside of marriage (and no less!).
Very appropriate statement, isn’t it?
Well JD, I do understand the “Love the sinner, hate the sin” answer, or “Judge the act, not the person” if you prefer. I think it has some inherent troubles when put into practice, and I find that very few people I have known who subscribe to that philosophy manage to carry it off. Leaving that aside for now though, what I don’t understand, is exactly how that turns into “don’t even discuss the things we object to.”
**Polycarp[/b} said:
[quote]
**'Sprix, would you be offended if a Christian person, say Navigator to pick a name, said that he had no problem with you being who you are, but feels that your sex life is sinful – and is quick to add that he’s not isolating you as a gay person, but would say the same thing to anybody who had sex outside marriage?"
Well, considering that most of the same people who feel this way will also specifically deny him the opportunity to marry the person of his choice, how is this supposed to make him feel any better? In all practical terms it’s saying “You’re fine, as long as you never, ever have any sex. God has reserved romantic love and sexual congress for heterosexuals only.”
DocCathode:
First off, it is not illegal to teach evolution in Kansas. All that was done was to remove it from the state mandated curriculum. Local school boards may teach it if they so choose, but most schools teach a curriculum heavily weighted towards the state tests, so it’s still pretty bad.
I was interested by your Sesame Street comment. Indeed it does teach tolerance and celebration of individual differences. That’s a great start IMO, but it doesn’t go far enough. Although in a perfect world we might all judge everyone according to their own unique, individual personalities, the fact is that we have to deal with the idea of groups of people in certain areas. No church is out there preaching against Esprix after all, but against a group of people he happens to be a member of.
When we speak of general ideas or try to assess society, we cannot avoid grouping people in some way, whether it’s the elderly, Democrats, the Religious Right, venture capitalists, anarchists, homosexuals, or a near infinitude of other categories we use to try and understand our world. I don’t think it’s an adequate solution to say merely “judge each other as individuals” when much of our understanding of the way the world works requires us to do otherwise, or when people spread intolerance of groups. This can lead to an attitude I’ve seen before:
“Blacks are lazy, untrustworthy thugs who want everything handed to them on a silver platter.”
“Well what about your friend Bob? You always talk about what a great guy he is.”
“Yeah, but Bob is not like the rest of them.”
While Bob gets to be judged as Bob simply because the guy knows him, often the unfounded bias against the group remains untouched. Bob merely becomes an exception.