Gay marriage and public education


unixknight
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 211
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

To desensitize this subject, they need to reeducate or really, doctrinate others into believing what is true to them should be true to you. There are hoping, overtime, the next generation will accept this as normal practice. .

I think that's exactly right. Increasingly, schools are becoming political indoctrination centers rather than educational centers. It's not just about the gay marriage issue, either. More and more we're seeing moral and ethical messages being taught to the kids that are hostile to Christianity, and it's gotten to the point now where it's the Christians being demonized for it. You should see some of the things being said on that other forum about the parents in this video.

I place gayism and atheism as a religious belief. If that is the case, there can be liable lawsuit where the state educational school board in allowing religious preaching in school. Right or wrong?

I'm not sure I'd call homosexuality on par with religion, but the mentality that promotes it certainly acts like one. I absolutely agree that Atheism has become a religion unto itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Civil partnerships are fine but it is not marriage and it is not ok. Personally I think it is a mental disease which people that have it engage in risky behavior.

Some argue it is a civil rights issue but that is hardly the case. I have just as much right to marry a person of the same sex as anyone else. The absurdity comes when compared to the struggles of those of Blacks during the 1960's.

If that were true then imagin this senerio. If a Black person were to ask out a white person or vice versa and was to be rejected because of the color of their skin, would that not be a bigotted thing to do? Would the same logic apply with homosexuals? If a gay person asks out a straight person (there is no vice versa here) and the gay person is rejected then is that biggotry as well? Will one day we live in a society where it is considered wrong to reject somebody just because they are of the same sex?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Civil partnerships are fine but it is not marriage and it is not ok. Personally I think it is a mental disease which people that have it engage in risky behavior.

Some argue it is a civil rights issue but that is hardly the case. I have just as much right to marry a person of the same sex as anyone else. The absurdity comes when compared to the struggles of those of Blacks during the 1960's.

If that were true then imagin this senerio. If a Black person were to ask out a white person or vice versa and was to be rejected because of the color of their skin, would that not be a bigotted thing to do? Would the same logic apply with homosexuals? If a gay person asks out a straight person (there is no vice versa here) and the gay person is rejected then is that biggotry as well? Will one day we live in a society where it is considered wrong to reject somebody just because they are of the same sex?

People already argue the issue as a Civil Rights issue akin to the racial struggles of the 1960s. I've even been called a bigot because I once said I'd not let my male children wear dresses. (Who, exactly, I'm supposed to be bigoted against was never made clear, but meh.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what if a biology teacher is asked by a student if there is any proof that homosexuals are born that way and he says the truth -- that there is no compelling evidence for such a position and if homosexuality were genetic then the law of natural selection would have weeded the trait out as it leads to less offspring for the individual -- therefore it is counter to any advantage in evolution.

Has what he said qualify for his being reprimanded by school officials?

I'm not sure how much research you've done, but there certainly is some compelling evidence that sexual orientation has some biological (not necessarily genetic) roots.

It's also a leap to say that it would have disappeared even if it were solely genetic. Lots of gay people have biological children the old-fashioned way. I used to work with gay support groups in Provo, UT (where BYU is located), and we had plenty of middle-aged Mormon men who had been married in the temple and had a "picture perfect" Mormon family trying to deal with their homosexuality and whether or how to come out. Of course, how to approach their kids was a MAJOR issue for these men.

In addition, some biologists have theorized about why homosexuality might acutally be selected for. (Two references off the top of my head are On Human Nature by E.O. Wilson and Sperm Wars by Robin Baker.)

BUT, even though I am unabashedly liberal -- and I have no horse in this race, as I don't have children -- I would rather see the teacher respond something like, "That's a controversial question that hasn't been settled, so I don't want to tell you how to think about it. How would you go about finding out information on both sides so you can come to your own conclusions?" And then go into a discussion of what fields a person might look at (biology, psychology, sociology, philosophy) and also pursue if and why the question even matters (which would bring in questions of differing ideas of standards and morality, legal issues, etc., etc.).

We could all use better critical thinking skills. THAT would be education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BUT, even though I am unabashedly liberal -- and I have no horse in this race, as I don't have children -- I would rather see the teacher respond something like, "That's a controversial question that hasn't been settled, so I don't want to tell you how to think about it. How would you go about finding out information on both sides so you can come to your own conclusions?" And then go into a discussion of what fields a person might look at (biology, psychology, sociology, philosophy) and also pursue if and why the question even matters (which would bring in questions of differing ideas of standards and morality, legal issues, etc., etc.).

We could all use better critical thinking skills. THAT would be education.

That makes perfect sense at the High School level, but in the case of the family in the video, we're talking about Kindergarten age kids.

At that age, kids don't have much in the way of critical thinking ability. They rely on their parents and their teachers to provide them with information. When those sources conflict, that's a serious problem for the child and can lead to issues later. Either way, the credibility of one or the other is going to be damaged for all time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there was a point to that I missed it.

Thinking you are a martyr for the cause, and then choking up with tears at just the moment it would have the most emotional impact, does not persuade me.

The guy was an idiot. Of course he was going to get handcuffed and taken away. You cannot stay on a school's property without permission. Was he so stupid he didn't realize this?

Did he not know there are proper channels to go through? If the school wasn't doing what he wanted, then he should have gone to the immediate surperindent, or whatever higher authority they call it where he lived.

Additionally, I highly doubt he was the only parent upset about the book. He could have brought them all together and gone to the school board with their concerns and proposals.

There were a myriad of "legal" actions he could have taken, none of which would have resulted in him being handcuffed.

But, no. He was going to milk this one, knowing what was going to happen, including knowing it would make great copy on the local nightly news.

Stories like this are what dumb-down Americans into believing this means something, when it does't mean anything at all. Overreactions cause more problems than they solve.

And the best manipulation of all is the tears--at just the right moment, of course.

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe it or not, at one time the very notion of government had less to do with politics than with virtue. According to James Madison, often referred to as the father of the Constitution: “We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of the government—far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” (Russ Walton, Biblical Principles of Importance to Godly Christians, New Hampshire: Plymouth Foundation, 1984, p. 361.)

George Washington agreed with his colleague James Madison. Said Washington: “Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” (James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the President, 1789–1897, U.S. Congress, 1899, vol. 1, p. 220.) :D

Oh please..... lets not start with the quotes of the founding fathers game. There are enough varying quotes in there to keep the religious folks, the diests, the agnostics, and the athiests happy. Some of the founding fathers have specific quotes that could keep all of us happy dependent on which quote you use. Would you like some of them? I have hundreds. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a gay person asks out a straight person (there is no vice versa here) and the gay person is rejected then is that biggotry as well? Will one day we live in a society where it is considered wrong to reject somebody just because they are of the same sex?

First, there is a vice versa. Gay people are often asked out by straight people. One's sexual orientation cannot usually be determined in a glance.

I don't think it will every be considered wrong to reject someone romantically if you're just not attracted to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would recommend that the biology teacher give the scientific answer: we don't know. You almost had a good answer when you said, "There is no compelling evidence." That needs to be followed with the phrase "at this time."

Why follow with a "at this time"? That implies it's there but hasn't been proven wheich would be almost the same as lying to the kids and telling them that it is a scientific fact that homosexuality is genetic.

Your suggestion that the law of natural selection would have 'weeded the trait out' is fairly weak for several reasons, including 1) homosexuals are a minority, so you could argue that natural selection is doing it's job just fine; 2) the law of natural selection has yet to 'weed out' Down Syndrome; 3) if evolution were really that efficient, why do so many of us have appendix, tonsils, and wisdom teeth?

Let's address your points:

1) Yes they are a minority -- and in some countries they can live in peace and not reproduce while in others they can be killed. In either case, are there still homosexuals in those regions? Yes, but like any BEHAVIOR it will exist due to humans being able to contemplate it. It is not genetic or it would have died out by now.

2) Down Syndrome is a chromosomal abnormality that is more a failure of genetic "mechanics". It is in no way shape or form something that is inherited. It does not run in families.

3) They don't remove tonsils anymore because they contribute to the immune system, wisdom teeth in the past, when you had people lose molars earlier in life due to lack of brushing, had the function of pusing in the remaining teeth and making chewing easier (that was explained to me by a British educator and...well, better skip any jokes) and as for the appendix I have heard in the past why it actually does have some minor functions but I am too lazy right now to look that one up.

The natural selection argument is used primarily by people who can't stomach the idea that some people could truly have a predisposition to same gender attraction.

No, it's used to counter nonsense that people are born predisposed to become homosexual and desire homosexual sex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why "at this time?" Perhaps you should refer to Otter Pop's post. There is still research taking place and we don't yet know what we will find. If you're not comfortable with "there is no compelling evidence at this time" then use the words "we don't know at this time," or "we don't know yet." What's wrong with saying that we don't know but we hope to find out in the future?

The fact that homosexuality is not genetic is actually makes it more similar to Down Syndrome than any genetic disorder. Your error is that you're trying to apply the law of natural selection to a relatively small population. But the law of natural selection is subject to the Law of Large Numbers. If the species were trying to keep the abnormality out, it would do so at the macro level. But there would be individual variations. You'll find these in all species. We just happen to be one of the few species that keep the abnormal offspring.

No, it's used to counter nonsense that people are born predisposed to become homosexual and desire homosexual sex.

You're not exactly qualified to categorize what is and isn't nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always said LDS shold have their own schools everywhere in the world. Sholls run by LDS principles where also pupils with other religions are welcome. Even small congrigations with long travel ways to schools could manage this. We have MANY competente teachers and mothers often end up in substitute teaching or kindergarten workers, why not give them a bit moer education so they can run a school consept! Smal private schools are a LOT better than big schools with lesbo teachers (I been in one).

With use of montessori pedagogy, one also would make it easier to childrens families to move from one ward or district or even country to an other as the school would be the same. Also with this pedagogy children have a chanse to learn in mixed groups, so a school could have 5 pupils as well as 100. In USA there are many mothers already doing hometeaching, but that is not allowed everywhere, these small Church shools would be a good option and they would also make sure that kids get the education they need, not like schools today where no one cares.

We may be in world but not of world, but htat is getting more and more difficult for LDS kids out there... anyone hear my cry!!

OK I DO burn for this thing so ANYTIME ... I am ready for this, to contribute on this......:)

OH I WISH!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always said LDS shold have their own schools everywhere in the world. Sholls run by LDS principles where also pupils with other religions are welcome. Even small congrigations with long travel ways to schools could manage this. We have MANY competente teachers and mothers often end up in substitute teaching or kindergarten workers, why not give them a bit moer education so they can run a school consept! Smal private schools are a LOT better than big schools with lesbo teachers (I been in one).

With use of montessori pedagogy, one also would make it easier to childrens families to move from one ward or district or even country to an other as the school would be the same. Also with this pedagogy children have a chanse to learn in mixed groups, so a school could have 5 pupils as well as 100. In USA there are many mothers already doing hometeaching, but that is not allowed everywhere, these small Church shools would be a good option and they would also make sure that kids get the education they need, not like schools today where no one cares.

We may be in world but not of world, but htat is getting more and more difficult for LDS kids out there... anyone hear my cry!!

OK I DO burn for this thing so ANYTIME ... I am ready for this, to contribute on this......:)

OH I WISH!!!

Interesting idea, but I'm not sure I like it. The LDS community is already disturbingly homogeneous and isolated from the world. I guess it really depends on the child. I, for example, would certainly not have remained active in the Church if I had gone to school with a heavy concentration of Mormons. It isn't good for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the one hand i think these kids are to young to be learning about this.It cold get very confusing when the "where do babies come from question is asked.

On the other hand will it ruin the kids?High schools science classes across the the county teach things contrary to religious beliefs.Have the youths been leaving the church in larger numbers due to the increase of "secular science"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's wrong with saying that we don't know but we hope to find out in the future?

And maybe we will discover in the future that frogs have a language and communication far more advanced than humans. :rolleyes:

Thank you for pretty much proving the point of this thread that if these kinds of laws go into effect then if a teacher says homosexuality is great then that will be acceptable, but if a teacher expresses an opinion not in accordance to gay PC, even if it is totally divorced from any religious references or foundation, that teacher will be subject to censor.

Edited by Fiannan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smal private schools are a LOT better than big schools with lesbo teachers (I been in one).

Oh ofcourse, its the lesbos that are your nations problem. *rolls eyes*

Gay marriage should be legal.

But I dont think they should be allowed to get married in churches ... I mean, why on earth would the majority of them WANT to in the first place?

I'm thinking this. LDS church is against national recognisation of gay marriage because it would threaten it's non-profit status?

And also, I guess it doesn't fit with the gospel principles of eternal families.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gay marriage should be legal. But I dont think they should be allowed to get married in churches ... I mean, why on earth would the majority of them WANT to in the first place?

There are members of my family who want to. My uncle and mother would both like to be married to their gay partners by the Church. So there are at least two that I know of.

It is simply audacious that any school administration would find it necessary to make any statement to the student body one way or the other concerning the social acceptability and morality of homosexuality. It is a demonstration of either incompetence or lack of efficacy that such a course of action is allowed. The situation could easily be avoided. Schools do not have any necessity to issue such statements.

-a-train

Edited by a-train
Link to comment
Share on other sites

private schools are a LOT better than big schools with lesbo teachers (I been in one).

I suspect because English is your second language, you don't realize the word "lesbo" is a pejorative and would only be used to insult someone. I think the way you phrased your sentence, you could have written "lesbian," and it would have been fine.

Also, I'm curious to know how you knew she was a lesbian.

not like schools today where no one cares.

This gets so old.

Teachers do not enter the profession for the money. They become teachers because they DO care. They care about educating children to give them the best educational foundations possible.

For every person who loves to bash the education system, there is a person grateful to a certain teacher who gave him the encouragement he needed to believe in himself, and to be successful.

I have read numerous comments about how "people don't care," especially when talking about how LDS standards aren't being met. Believe it or not, people who are not LDS care just as much as anyone else about educating their children. Mormons do not have a corner on that market.

People always have different points of view, but that does not mean they don't care. Of course they care.

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share