What is the alternative explanation of the bit he quoted above? I’ve seen you go into depth about the “arsenokoites” passage elsewhere and I’m curious what the deal is with this one.
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 1971
Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 1989
Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 1992
Evolution does not fail the tests mandated by the case law above. It, itself, is not held to be a religious viewpoint.
Teaching that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, that many religions accept homosexual behavior as moral, and that religion has often been used to promote hatred and bigotry IS teaching a religious viewpoint. It fails the Lemon test’s excessive entanglement prong, it fails Allegheny County’s endorsement test, and even with the opt-in/opt-out provisions, fails Lee v. Weisman’s coercion test.
Would I be safe in saying that MOST Christian denominations interpret it thusly? Or, better still, that the most popular or largest Christian denominations so interpret it?
In any event, you’re making my point. How to correctly interpret the Old Testament is simply not the right subject for high school sex-ed to be covering.
I don’t want to derail the thread too much or necessarily argue the point myself, but there are some liberal scholars and denominations who argue that the passage refers only to Canaanite cultic prostitution, specifically to the male transvestite prostitutes who served those temples. The argument is that this was a prohibition on an idolotous religious practice, not the per se sexual practice of homosexuality.
This particular argument is not a hill I would pick to die on myself but my point is that it is the way some Christians interpret it and that it’s at least disputable whether that passage was intended to condemn all homosexual acts.
There is also the argument that Leviticus is no longer applicable to Christians because Christians are not bound by Mosaic Law. For the same reason Christians can eat lobster, they can be gay. That’s the argument anyway.
Yes, but not all individual Christians within those denominations necessarily agree with those interpretations. My wife is a Catholic who doesn’t believe homosexuality is a sin. She is not unusual in that regard.
I think that’s what I said. isn’t it?
Oops, my last two quoted sections should have been attributed to Bricker.
Then we agree.
** whale and potted petunia spontaneously materialize in the upper atmosphere **
All this “agreement” is all very nice, but as far as I can tell, it seems like some people believe that it is possible to teach how to have sex, gay or straight without putting one’s life in danger, even to gay people is morally neutral, even if one accidentally winds up makinging it seem like homo-and heterosexually are somehow equal. 
The other side seem to be saying the opposite. As far as I can tell, human decency leans in the direction of teaching safe sex.
runs in out of breath
Sorry I’m late to reply. Some of us don’t have internet access at work. 
Just making a little joke at your comment of the parents not wanting assertions in schools and drawing a parallel to the recent Kansas I.D. scuttlebutt.
Ahhh, nothing makes a joke like having to go back and explain it.
No, I’m assuming that the best decision possible is one reached independantly, by the students, with as great a command of the facts involved as possible.
You assume incorrectly. My response to your bullet points is much the same as that of Diogenes.
Once again, you’re confusing terms. Inviting a conclusion is not the same as advancing a conclusion. Inviting a conclusion is a good thing. Inviting a conclusion means that the student has been encouraged to think about the facts and see where they lead.
So let the students have the facts…all the facts. Sure, tell them what mainstream religions think about homosexuality, but tell them that Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality too. Tell them that same-sex marriage isn’t legal in most states, but tell them about examples of homosexual behaviour in nature as well. And let them reach their own conclusions from as well-informed a position as possible.
I’m not asking to. I’m saying that we should use public school time to educate students, as comprehensively as possible, on the complete spectrum of views regarding homosexuality. Don’t promote any one view, but invite the students to form their own. Isn’t that why we’re educating students in the first place?
And while I realize the next bit wasn’t addressed to me, I think it’s relevant to my train of thought:
How about the teacher says “Oh, you’ve read the Bible? Good. If you’re interested in it, I encourage you to read the whole thing and form your own conclusions.”
While Bricker is deeply in love with the term ‘cherry picking’, I doubt he’d admit that they way the Bible is used to persecute gays and lesbians is cherry picking from the Bible as well as willful misinterpretation to support bias.
I’m taking the link in the OP with a grain of salt, as it’s pretty heavily tilted. I’ve been reading up on the issue in other places, and some of the stuff on WND really looks silly (actually hateful, but so poorly done that it becomes silly) after doing so. For instance they are indignant that the curriculum doesn’t teach about the STDs that you can get from gay sex. Well, the course does teach about STDs, so I can only assume that their argument is that it doesn’t ascribe certain STDs to gays, which perhaps they think it should. If you have an alternative explanation for their wording, I’d be interested to hear it.
Then there is a disconnect somewhere. Here are some quotes from this thread:
Perhaps you and I have different opinions of what constitutes “support?”
How can they, if this is a state issue? You’re even against applying “full faith and credit” to the issue.
Yes, it invites the opposite conclusion, in fact.
No problem whatsoever.
While I do indeed believe this to be true, I’d only be fine with it if they actually had cites to support it, and were willing to state which religions were either fine with or divided over the issue. It seems a bit silly to do such a laundry list, but there is no monolithic “Christian Church”, so it’s necessary if you wish to try and make factual statements from all sides (which seems to be your point).
This is an area with which Dio is much more familiar than I, but there are a shitload of other things the Bible condemns that many Christians would rather not be made widely known. I’m fine with teaching one if we’re willing to teach them all, but I’d like agreement that it does condemn it before we do so. I don’t think we have that yet. Oh, and if someone wants to not teach them because they were “fulfilled” or some such nonsense, then they’re going to need a lot better evidence to support that. Even Christians can’t agree on whether that is true or not.
Sure, if we can also let them know that until the last decade or so, hardly any states had laws explicitly forbidding same-sex marriages. Let’s also throw in the names of the countries that share our stance on it, such as Iran, as well as those which allow such marriages.
Sure. I’m a fan of the facts. I don’t have a problem with teaching all of the facts regarding the matter, if we must teach any of them. Personally, I don’t think the Bible belongs in the debate. I can see why both sides want to bring it in, but I disagree with both sides on that issue. Stating that it’s a “fact” that something is printed in some book that we don’t know to be “factual”, opens the door for way too many people with way too many agendas (on all sides), thus adding unneeded noise to the course being taught.
Well, there are enough objective facts about sexuality and reproduction that can be removed from any moral/religious/“normal” connotations that are simply good for people to know. Relying on kids to disseminate (heh) that information to each other on their own just perpetuates ignorance. I’ve heard from adults who’d been sexually active for years and still didn’t know about pre-ejaculatory emissions (they thought that the withdrawal method was 100% safe), how STD’s are spread, that vaginal contraceptives are sufficient to prevent STD’s, etc.
Personally, I’d want to remove any of the sociological aspects of sex (is homosexuality “normal”, is it “okay” to masturbate, etc.) from a state-run health class altogether.
Well, you didn’t ask me, but that’s never stopped me from offering my opinion before: IMO it wouldn’t be appropriate, because it’s a sex-ed class, not a comparative religion or theology class. A teacher in that situation should respond that the aim of the class wasn’t to make a value judgement on homosexuality one way or the other, just to explain how we understand it from a biological and sociological perspective.
I take it you didn’t read the full thread.
Please read post #366 and those following it.
Then come back.
Sure, but than actually tell them all the facts: 1. There is no proof that one religion is more valid than any other; 2. There is no proof that any religion is valid at all; 3. There is no proof that Jesus was the son of god; 4. There is no proof that there is a god. 5. Because there is no proof of any of this, it is irrelevant what religious leaders past and present have to say on the matter.
So, to base your perception of yourself on what religion tells you is to base that perception upon what, in all probability, is a bunch of lies.
Geez, if you really want to help kids break them of this strange compulsion to believe in Magic Sky Pixies and Pink Unicorns and get them really thinking for themselves.
You don’t think that course of instruction in a public school might create a teeny tiny First Amendment problem?
As I read the list I wonder how much is edited, and how much is part of the prepared lecture and how much is taught as “answers to questions”
I see class going something like this:
Teacher: Today we are going to be discussing homosexuality. [some sort of explaination of same sex preference]. You should know that most experts consider same sex preference to be perfectly normal. Its also normal to do sex play with same sex friends when you are young, this doesn’t prove long term orientation. Yes, Polly, you have a question?
Polly: My minster says homosexuals are bad and Jesus said it was a sin.
Teacher: There are many Christian faiths that don’t believe homosexuality is sinful. And Jesus never commented on homosexuality in the bible.
Polly: But the Bible says its a sin.
Teacher (left out of the article): The Bible mentions homosexuality several times in the Old and New Testament. Since this is not a bible study course, I’d encourage anyone who is interested to look up these passages and interpret them in context for themselves.
etc…
Somehow, I don’t think these bullet points are being put in front of eighth graders as a Powerpoint presentation.
Thanks, TT. That sounds more like the Montgomery County I remember than the one in the article.
How did I miss this post before?
Sounds like we’ve been debating a phantom. The course, as described above by our eyewitness, seems utterly unobjectionable.