The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[huskeR32]

Give me a break, I'm all for equality.

Language like this...

I will firmly state what I did from the start, to support sex in school is not needed, and not only do I not care for the cost, making someone special at the expense of the others around them is lame.

...would suggest quite the opposite.

Promoting inclusion does not "mak(e) someone special," it makes them equal. In fact, you could say it removes the "special" treatment that "the others" (heterosexuals, in this case) have long enjoyed.

And you've yet to substantiate, even a little bit, this notion that eliminating bigotry comes "at the expense of others."

 

[Eh Team]

My words have been clear the whole time

I had to do quite a lot of assuming to get where I got, your posts have been quite the contrary. The only thing that was clear was that you don't want money spent giving anyone who isn't heterosexual the same sort of treatment and education as heterosexuals.

 

[niky]

well, you should not of attacked me for stating how silly a special support program is perhaps. Whatever, you guys just want a fight where there is none.

I simply want clarity. You've been dancing around the issue for several pages, and when you've been questioned on where the proper venue to teach sexuality is, you've danced around that issue, as well.

The question still remains: What is the purpose of public schooling, in your mind?

Because getting down to the actual purpose of public schooling will either justify or nullify the need for sex education.

The fact that it is wrapped up in a support program is beside the point. The support program is basically a band-aid to cover up for the lack of proper sex and values education, in the first place. In a perfect world, it would not be needed.

I will firmly state what I did from the start, to support sex in school is not needed, and not only do I not care for the cost, making someone special at the expense of the others around them is lame. My words have been clear the whole time, it's funny to see the attacks.

Point one: Opinion, we are still hung up on the purpose of schooling.

Point two: Could be made about the entire public schooling system, so singling out a specific program smacks of subjectivity.

Point three: Citation required. Also, lame is a subjective qualifier.

Point four: No, your words have not been. You made it abundantly clear that you think they are not needed. You followed that up with very vague notes as to why and refuse to answer the question as to where.

Whereas others have made cases for alternatives. Johnnypenso and Prisonermonkeys may not agree with each other, but they're having an actual conversation. This is not what I'd call a proper conversation.

This is how an opinions forum works, you exchange ideas or debate them. You don't simply get defensive and hand-wave away arguments when your ideas are challenged.

If you never accept the possibility of being wrong, then you lessen your chances of ever being right.

-

I won't claim to know everything about education, or sex education, despite having majored in health education and human development in College. But I find it interesting that you believe that it has no place in the school system, when there is compelling evidence that sex education does have a statistically positive effect in combating social issues such as teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases and so forth.

Even if your view of public education is that it is simply required to provide employment skills (which it laughably fails at, since those are covered in trade schools and Colleges, which are not free), the social benefits of proper sex education (which should include homosexuality, but typically doesn't) carries on into the employability and work-preparedness of teens who might otherwise become single-parents and possible social services basket cases.

-

Personally, I'm of two minds about public education. The libertarian in me believes that the government has no right to collect taxes... period. But the pragmatist in me sees public education as a government service that's useful in cutting the cost of other social programs, raising the GDP, and training adults armed with the knowledge and critical thinking skills to become informed, responsible citizens who hopefully won't vote tweet-worthy demagogues with terrible hair into office on a whim.

-

Of course, that would be expecting too much... as even private education fails horribly at the last criteria. But that's a topic for another thread...

 

[squadops]

I cannot explain my stance anymore than I already have so typing more words would be a waste of time. There is no room for social type programs in the public school system, that is not dancing and I said it right off the bat.

I should not have to go back and dig up the posts, you can do that if you wish.

 

[Eh Team]

I cannot explain my stance anymore than I already have so typing more words would be a waste of time. There is no room for social type programs in the public school system, that is not dancing and I said it right off the bat.

I should not have to go back and dig up the posts, you can do that if you wish.

Wait wut?

I just realized, I should probably state for the record I agree with what the man said.

You said that in what I can only assume was a reply to my post in which I said we need to teach children of all sexualities what they should do and what they'll feel. Now you've completely changed tack?

 

[squadops]

It's not changing tracks, go back and read prisonermonkies post about this program to 'support '. That would be a joke with kangaroos shaming kids for no reason. I cannot believe it is so hard to understand me. What you suggest is the same thing I have, many times when I say abc 123, teach the biology class or whatever.

I'll keep responding to you guys because I don't run, I don't waiver either.

 

[Bo]

I cannot explain my stance anymore than I already have so typing more words would be a waste of time.

With insightful explanations such as "gimi a gake" and "get out with the Chicago", your previous attempts have also come across as a bit of a waste of time.

I should not have to go back and dig up the posts, you can do that if you wish.

You tried to throw that at us two pages ago, and we happily obliged. Nothing has changed since then.

There is no room for social type programs in the public school system

So no social studies should take place within the education system? Care to explain - note I said explain, not throw together a meaningless phrase or redirect us to old posts - why you have that view? Bear in mind we've already covered the difference between your personal experiences of education and the experiences of countless others, so you can't say that young people needn't receive any kind of PSHCE education because your own memories of the attitudes of other students aren't that bad.

There also comes the question of drawing a line between social studying and purely academic studying - subjects such as Psychology and Ethics will surely cross over into some aspects of PSHCE, so where do you stand on that? How far does your "ABC, 123" system go before you would consider the education it provides unnecessary?

kangaroos

More random word games or a poor attempt at a derogatory remark?

shaming kids for no reason

So students are being shamed... how, exactly? By being taught how to be decent human beings?

I'm beginning to get the feeling you're throwing us round in circles for the sheer sake of it.

 

[squadops]

Na, you just choose not to listen.

We do not need cockeyed knee jerk liberals creating programs willy nilly because some dude got his feelings hurt.

 

[Dennisch]

Na, you just choose not to listen.

We do not need cockeyed knee jerk liberals creating programs willy nilly because some dude got his feelings hurt.

You missed that ball by so much that I'm wondering if you were even holding a bat.

Schools are a great part of a kids life, a great part of your social behaviour is learned in school, because so much time is spent there. Teaching kids that being gay is normal isn't going to cost anything. It can be slipped into a sex ed class, a biology class, or any social study kids have.

But, that can all be moot when you have parents who force you to go the brainwash club on Sunday.

 

[squadops]

I didn't miss that ball, I hit it out of the park.

 

[Dennisch]

I didn't miss that ball, I hit it out of the park.

What's your opinion on slipping in the phrase 'being gay is perfectly normal' in the various textbooks and classes?

That instead of the willy-nilly programs.

 

[squadops]

No problem there.

 

[Tornado]

I'll keep responding to you guys because I don't run, I don't waiver either.

And since you're not actually saying anything when you respond beyond punched up quips, it's not like it takes any effort on your part anyway.

 

[squadops]

Well, the point at the beginning was so simple. Surely you guys have realized it by now.

 

[niky]

I cannot explain my stance anymore than I already have so typing more words would be a waste of time. There is no room for social type programs in the public school system, that is not dancing and I said it right off the bat.

I should not have to go back and dig up the posts, you can do that if you wish.

We know you've said that, but then:

What's your opinion on slipping in the phrase 'being gay is perfectly normal' in the various textbooks and classes?

That instead of the willy-nilly programs.

No problem there.

Teaching students that "being gay is perfectly normal" either falls under social studies or sexual education, which are both "social type" programs. It's not science, because science doesn't and shouldn't make ethical pronouncements.

-

We know you don't think such programs belong in the system. We're simply hung up on why they don't and where they actually belong.

 

[squadops]

I don't want to see the program, it's pretty simple.

Children have the right of liberty just as much as we do, I think we try to punish them for our mis giivings or some thing.

Leave them alone I say.

 

[squadops]

We know you don't think such programs belong in the system. We're simply hung up on why they don't and where they actually belong.

I just wanted to add something that like, I'm not sure if it applies to you or not, but it very much does apply to the argument at hand.

 

[niky]

I don't want to see the program, it's pretty simple.

Children have the right of liberty just as much as we do, I think we try to punish them for our mis giivings or some thing.

Leave them alone I say.

That you actually quote a song (which is the very first Pink Floyd song I'd ever heard... sometime in the early 80's) without understanding its criticism of the impersonal cookie-cutter "ABC 123" version of education that you are advocating is truly ironic.

Even more ironic when you consider the over-arching theme of "The Wall" was abuse and the resultant social isolation (The Wall) it causes, which are two things which your much ballyhooed "special programs" attempt to address.

Honestly, are you still claiming the promotion of social sensitivity is some sort of punishment? Really?

I just wanted to add something that like, I'm not sure if it applies to you or not, but it very much does apply to the argument at hand.

In other words, you can't frame a proper response and just wish people would drop it? Because that song doesn't say anything about an argument.

-

Giving you a lot of chances to examine your own arguments here. If you refuse to, that's your loss.

 

[squadops]

Sure, I cannot frame a response, I've already said my peace, with eloquence lol.

 

[Imari]

I don't want to see the program, it's pretty simple.

We know. What we don't understand is why.

Your reasoning so far has been "because it doesn't belong in schools", which raises more questions than it answers.

Children have the right of liberty just as much as we do, I think we try to punish them for our mis giivings or some thing.

You continue to think that teaching children not to be :censored:holes is a punishment.

Why is that?

 

[squadops]

Because they are not ass holes to begin with, you'd like to make them so however.

 

[niky]

Because they are not ass holes to begin with, you'd like to make them so however.

So, by that logic, does teaching them their ABCs makes them illiterate, also?

 

[Imari]

Because they are not ass holes to begin with, you'd like to make them so however.

No, I would not like to make anybody :censored:holes. You and your assumptions.

I'd like to make them aware that just because other people may have different sexualities or gender identities that doesn't mean that they're lesser people. How is teaching that "punishment"?

 

[squadops]

I have addressed that.

My kids did not need the shame, leave them alone, they are smart, they have numbers, they shall live. I am for liberty is all, something you are not for.

 

[Scaff]

I have addressed that.

My kids did not need the shame, leave them alone, they are smart, they have numbers, they shall live. I am for liberty is all, something you are not for.

That makes about as much sense as Donald Trumps speech about having all the words, the best words.

I'm sure that all of this makes sense in your own mind, but as far as articulating that, it's certainly not coming across with anything behind it at all.

 

[squadops]

Ok scaff, let me just say, that people are able to think for themselves, hopefully.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I've already said my peace, with eloquence

You misspelt "misgivings" as "mis giivings", then posted a Pink Floyd out of context, gave yourself a pat on the back for doing nothing, and then misspelt "piece" as "peace".

 

[Imari]

I have addressed that.

My kids did not need the shame, leave them alone, they are smart, they have numbers, they shall live.

No, you haven't addressed that. What shame? The shame of learning about homosexuals and transgenders?

Why should that be shameful?

Why can we not simply teach children about this? "This is Billy, he likes girls. This is Tommy, he likes boys. This is Peter, he likes boys and girls. This is Freddie, he's a boy but he feels like a girl on the inside."

I am for liberty is all, something you are not for.

I'm for people having the freedom to live their lives without fear of persecution.

You're apparently for people having the freedom to persecute anyone they wish.

I'm not saying that you're not for freedom, just that perhaps your particular sort of freedom isn't a particularly positive thing for the community. For example, anarchy is in some respects total freedom, and yet there's good reasons why there's not many successful communities based on total anarchy.

LGBT folk have as much right to liberty as you do. Unfortunately, they sometimes tend not to receive it as a matter of course, which is why we have support programs.

I find it odd that you find such support programs to be an unacceptable violation of liberty, yet forcing children to learn the alphabet or math is an acceptable violation of liberty. Remember, a certain level of schooling is mandatory in most countries, which is absolutely a violation of liberty. We do so because it's considered to be of benefit to society as a whole.

What's the difference between learning addition and learning how to treat your fellow humans?

I'd argue that one is significantly more likely to be of use to pretty much everyone. There's plenty of people who apparently manage to go through life without basic math skills, and yet we're all forced to interact with other people daily. Unless you're a hermit.

I don't think you actually understand why you feel the way you do as well as you think. You're having a very hard time explaining it clearly without resorting to quips and ad homs.

 

[Scaff]

Ok scaff, let me just say, that people are able to think for themselves, hopefully.

Well that doesn't clear things up at all, but it does help to illustrate that what may be clear in your mind is not being communicated clearly at all.

In regard to the topic and discussion, between my wife and myself we have 30+ years experience in teaching in both child and adult environments. I'm quite happy to state that just teaching the basics, with no tie in to social understanding, application and impact is by far and away the least effective way of ensuring that topics are understood.

Linking learning to application in wider society is incredibly effective, to the degree that it forms one of the cornerstones of Learning and Development and is vital in ensuring that a student is actually function in society (parents do not always equip children to do this) and the work place.

The country that has most pushed the link between education and application in society is also the one that tops educational standards, Finland's application of this clearly shows that it works.

That you dislike the public funding of this doesn't change the effectiveness of this approach, personally I have no issue at all with my tax being used to fund this approach, because I know that the end results will make for a better workplace (and if that makes me a liberal, socialist, do-gooder then so be it).

 

[squadops]

Finland is a huge exception to me, in many ways. Not to be cryptic or not to spell correctly. socialist type of stuff with a free market. It does not hurt that they seem pretty smart.

Teach what you are going to teach by all means, I know you guys are teachers already, that is why you dislike me lol. Don't ask me to fork over more dough for a special social program. That is not hard to understand.