Bricker, do you give more weight to your distate for homosexuality or to the legal right of the school board to offer this opt-in program when deciding where you stand on this?
Good gods man, if we give them facts… they might use them!
And then come to some logical conclusions based on the data!
And those conclusions might offend our religious sensibilities!
This situation can not be allowed to continue.
I think the problem is if your church says that homosexuality is bad and the school says they are wrong because of the way they interpret the bible (as in saying Jesus never said anything about homosexuality), then the school is teaching that other versions of christianity are correct while your version isn’t. I’m an athiest and even I find this one disturbing.
“Many homophobic responses are born out of a fear that one’s own sexual orientation may not be entirely heterosexual.”
I’m sure many white folks racist responses to blacks are because they fear they are actually black, too. :dubious: No, people hate each other for many reasons and few of them are related to the fact that people see themselves in what they hate. This just seems to be an updated shoolyard taunt, “I know you are, but what am I?”.
“It is perfectly natural to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, and/or transgender.”
I’m sure it would be perfectly natural to have a vestigal third arm grow out of the top of my head, too. But, I’m not sure how it would be beneficial to myself or the species as a whole for it to happen. I guess this depends on what the definition of natural is. Yes, it is most likely true that people are born glbt. But if you look at natural as being a continuation of the species then how does having two members of the same sex in that species attracted to each other and not to the opposite sex benefit the species? I’m asking, not looking for a fight in this one. I personally could care less what anyone, glbt included, want to do with each other, as long as it is consentual, including getting married if they so choose.
“[A]bstinence until marriage” is detrimental to “GLBT youth.”
I never even thought that because they couldn’t get married this was saying that glbt youth had something detrimental placed upon them. As soon as I saw this I assumed that someone was making the outrageous comment that glbt youth couldn’t control themselves before entering a committed relationship and this was the reason it was detrimental them. I guess it is how you interpret these things.
I was turned on to this fragment of an essay (Robert G. Ingersoll) by Lewis Lapham, one of the few remaining masters of the essay form.
Amen.
The school is teaching no such thing. It is not making any interpretation of the Bible, nor is it commenting on anyone else’s interpretation of the bible. It is not an interpretation that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. That is an objective fact. Jesus says not a word about the subject anywhere in the Bible.
It’s also does not contradict anyone’s religious beliefs simply to state that other beliefs exist, and that not all religious people believe that homosexuality is a sin. That’s just a fact, it’s not a doctrine.
This is just ignorance on your part. Study Links homophobia with homosexual arousal (warning: pdf)
To summarize the study, the more homophobic a subject is, the more turned on he gets by gay porn. Coincidence? Nope.
Sorry to bust your bubble, but the link between homophobia and repressed homosexuality is pretty strongly attested in the research. That is an objective fact.
I really don’t care to try to make sense of this rambling gibberish but all that really matters is that it is an objective fact that homosexuality is a perfectly normal and natural orientation which is found not only in humans but extensively in other mammals and even in some birds. It is also an objective fact that homosexuality is not a psychological disorder and does not require treatment. If any of that conflicts with a religious opinion that’s too bad, because we’re talking about facts here, not opinions.
So you agree that preaching abstinence until marriage to gay kids is detrimental to them because efectively it’s telling them that it’s immoral for them to ever have sex?
Maybe my ignorance is showing, but I thought the references that thumpers used against homosexuality were not in the the teachings of Jesus? If that is the case, who cares what Jesus said on the matter and why bring it up at all as to what Jesus said on the matter.
What does it matter if you are not trying to say that one group is right and the other is wrong?
You’re not bursting my bubble. As I said I was asking. Too bad your link proves nothing, though, as the caveat at the end of the link suggests it could be an anxiety response and not an arousal one which is what occured to me as I read the opening paragraphs. Which to me makes more sense than saying that most homophobes are just repressed homosexuals. Not to say that it isn’t true and I’m quite willing to say I’m wrong, but I’m sticking with my, “I know you are, but what am I” remark. It just seems to be more applicable to my observations as to how humans act.
Well, I could care less whether it conflicts with what some goat herder wrote 2-3000 years ago, or how some fundie interprets that today, so I agree with you there. And frankly, I wish I hadn’t put this part in my post in the first place because I knew it probably would be interpreted incorrectly, partly because it isn’t really clear, hence the rambling gibberish, in my mind whether my argument was worth making in the first place.
Why do you make this leap, but are unable to make the one that by mentioning religion you are effectively giving an opinion on it? Must be because it ain’t your ox being gored? Dunno.
No, what I said is that the sentence seemed to be saying to me that gay kids aren’t able to control themselves as much as straight kids, which I think is ludicrous. I said it because of previous posts in this thread where someone said we can’t be responsible for what people infer from what is taught to them. People infer many things and probably half of them are wrong. I’m not saying that what I infered was wrong, but it wasn’t until I read the thread that I saw the alternate meaning as you, and others, are putting forward.
Damn right. If there is anything that the religious and nutty are concerned about, it’s facts in schools.
<resumes putting evolution as theory stickers on textbooks and pushing equal time for the “god did it” theory in science class.>
Very well, perhaps I can illustrate my discomfort this way…
Suppose the board had decided to teach the following facts:
-
The majority of people in the United States identify as Christian
-
Homosexual acts are forbidden, and considered immoral (sinful) by the majority of Christian denominations
-
The Bible explictly condemns homosexual activity
-
Only one out of the fifty states actually permits same-sex marriage, and the history of that state’s law was changed by the courts, not the legislature
I assume, given your love for objective facts, that you have no problem with THAT course of study?
When you teach “Jesus said nothing about homosexuality,” you do not do so in a vacuum. Combined with the other facts mentioned, you invite the listener to conclude that Jesus had no problem with homosexuality. This is a conclusion that’s it’s inappropriate for a school to teach.
I’d be against a class that taught my proposed curriculum above - it’s inappropriate for a public school to suggest religious conclusions, and it’s in appropriate for a school to cherry-pick facts to invite a conclusion they wish to advance.
These parents are not pushing for evolution-as-theory – are they? So what relevance does your comment have to this case?
I give complete weight to the issue of whether the school board has the legal right to offer these particular facts in an opt-in course of study. I give no weight to how I feel about homosexuality, and I deny that I have any particular distaste for homosexuality.
I have a great distaste for using schools to present a class that invites religious conclusions.
Do you think it does?
Okay, then to be fair in the future, what term would you have me use to describe your stance on homosexuality? You don’t want them to be married, and that’s not based on your state’s rights stance that you take on many issues. You claim to be okay with civil unions, and somehow consider that not to be a sign of being treated differently (hello tax code, among other things), but aren’t willing to give them the same rights to marry their consenting partner, which heterosexuals have. Help me out here. If distaste isn’t the right word for that, what would be?
Saying Jesus said nothing about homosexuality is not the same as saying he said it was okay. It simply means he was silent on the subject in the bible. He was. If someone decides on their own that that means Jesus was a FOG (friend of gays), then that’s their opinion, but not based on any fact that is taught in that class.
Okay, here’s the Straight Dope as I know it. There was a meeting for all interested parents at the beginning of the school year * regarding the upcoming changes to the 8th grade curriculum. This meeting, hosted by the principal, covered the changes in grading, testing, the new emphasis on math skills, AND the sex-education section of the health curriculum. They even had the video set up and running in a seperate classroom for all interested parents to view! There was a handout describing what would be covered that had to be signed by all parents, plus the opt-out form. Of the handful* of parents that attended the meeting, not one spoke up with any concerns about this curriculum! After the meeting, a small group of us went to view the video. it was met with a “whatever” bored attitude. Unless they have re-edited the video, there was NO bashing of any religion! I do not recall religion ever cropping up in the video at all. There was NO promotion of promiscuous or homosexual behavior! There WAS plenty of discussion about STDs and the dangers of unprotected sex. The video primarily stressed the biological changes the kids would be going through from a scientific background. I believe these protesting parental groups are trying to stir up hysteria to further another agenda. I will let you know as my daughter is in 8th grade and will be starting the sex-ed part of health today.
Hmm. My observations as to how humans act include people getting erections when they see material that arouses them. I have no personally observed people getting erections that disgusts and revolts them.
The usual example given is wolves. In wolf packs, not every male and female mate. This provides extra adults to watch over the cubs, thus ensuring that they will grow up, providing more wolves, a stronger pack, and better odds of the non-mating wolf’s genes being passed on when he does finally mate.
What about if the religious components were completed dropped, and the curriculum stuck entirely to the non-religuous subset of bullet-points:
[ul]
[li]Fact: Most experts in the field have concluded that sexual orientation is not a choice.[/li][li]Fact: Sex play with friends of the same gender is not uncommon during early adolescence and does not prove long-term sexual orientation.[/li][li]It is no more abnormal or sick to be homosexual than to be left-handed.[/li][li]One’s sexual and emotional orientations are fixed at an early age … certainly by age five.[/li][li]Human sexuality is a continuum.[/li][li][A]bstinence until marriage" is detrimental to "GLBT youth.[/li][/ul]
Would you be OK with that being taught in public schools, in the context of a broader sex-ed class?
Er, explain what relevance this line of argument has to the original bullet-list item and get back to me…
Never mind; I see that this point has been fully addressed and answered upthread.
I think Bricker has a valid point in that the religious arguments being presented are cherry-picked to prevent a rather skewed viewpoint. The curriculum may not explicity say that homosexual behaviour is moral, but it can certainly be interpreted as implying that view.
Judging only by the link in the OP, this curriculum presents as fact certain things that invite the classroom participant to draw religious conclusions. I appreciate the desire to do this – undoubtedly the course designers have seen the deleterious effects that religion can have on GLBT youth, and they want to offer reassurance and comfort by suggesting that religion is mistaken when condeming homosexual behavior as wrong. That’s an admirable sentiment… but it’s not one that a public school can permissibly teach.
That’s untrue. I support same-sex marriage. I want to see it decided on a state level by the legislature or the people of each state, not by judicial fiat at the state level and certainly not by judicial fiat at the federal level.
I am okay with civil unions, as long as they confer the exact same legal benefits – including taxes – as marriage.
I realize that a quick reading of my posts here my invite a different conclusion - one that you’ve evidently drawn. But I find myself so often arguing against same-sex marriage here because same-sex marriage is almost universally proposed by means that run counter to what I believe are our notions of self-governance.
Technically true. So how would YOU feel about my proposed: “The majority of people in the United States identify as Christian; Homosexual acts are forbidden, and considered immoral (sinful) by the majority of Christian denominations; The Bible explictly condemns homosexual activity; Only one out of the fifty states actually permits same-sex marriage, and the history of that state’s law was changed by the courts, not the legislature” curriculum? All those facts are true. If someone decides, on their own, that this means homosexual acts are immoral and not favored by the majority, then that’s their opinion, but not based on any fact taught in that class.
Right? Or not?
I’d be much more comfortable.
The only point I think still sticks in my craw is the last, and it’s only because we do not permit same-sex marriage, which leaves GLBT youth in the analomous position of being told, in effect, not to abstain while telling heterosexual youth to abstain.
Since marriage restrictions seem primarily religious in nature (a point I’ve raised before in regard to same-sex marriage discussions, suggesting that the government should remove itself completely from the marriage game – all unions should be civil, same- or opposite-sex, and “marriage” left to churches to define as they see fit for thier own members) perhaps it would be better to replace this with a bullet saying that abstinence until adulthood is recommended for ALL youth. Leave marriage out of it, and do not encourage ANY youth to enter into sexual relationships until they are mature adults.
I know it’s probably an archaic view, but why not leave the entire topic of sex to the parents? My kids are 10 and 13 and are totally competent on the biologic aspects of reproduction. They have met friends of mine who are far from mainstream sexually and they understand what is going on.
Our schools are not doing an adequate job of teaching basic math/science/etc. I am happy to do my part in taking up the slack.
Not especially relevant, but factual
Again, this is factual, and ok to mention as long as it is also pointed out that not all religious people, indeed not all Christians, believe this. Basically, it needs to be stated that these are opinions, not facts and that these opinions are rooted in religious beliefs, not in scientific research.
This one is not true, or at least it’s misleading. It is not clear at all that the Bible condemns all homosexual activity. That is a matter of interpretation, not objective fact.
An unconstitutional restriction was struck down by the courts and I fail to see how subjecting children to a rant about “activist judes” is relevant to sex education. Yes, it’s true that SSM is illegal in most states. So what? What does that have to do with sex education?
I have no problem with teaching facts. The only one you got wrong was the Bible part, but the rest of it is objectively true (well the judicial activism thing is your opinion). So, sure, go ahead and teach that a lot of Christians don’t like homos and that gay marriage is illegal but also teach that this is just one religious opinion of many, that not everyone agrees, that this is a secular society and that the scientific research shows that homosexuality is a normal part of human sexuality
And when you withhold the information that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, you invite the listener to conclude that Jesus DID condemn homosexuality. Withholding the information that Jesus said nothing is dishonest and manipulative in itself. Why are you so afraid to give your audience all the facts and let them draw their own conclusions?
What makes you think the school is cherry-picking facts? How do you know that the information we’ve seen is not presented in a greater context? WND is hardly the most objective source of information.
Now this I agree with. Encouraging kid to wait until adulthood, and even encouraging monogomy is sensible. Telling them to abstinent until marriage is preaching a religious view which serves no legitimate public health interest and has nothing to do with education.
I haven’t seen where GLBT kids have been taught that they shouldn’t wait until adulthood, though. Don’t conflate marriage with adulthood.