Teaching kids about homosexuality?

[Darkdale]

I'm actually quite a strong example of how little parents can have to do with moral instruction. Also, sex ed is more about personal health and hygeine than about morality, and this is very much the school's business, just as it's the school's business to teach kids how to keep their bodies in good physical condition.

I disagree. I will keep my children out of classes that teach morality, sex, religion or politics. They are in school to learn math, language, history and science. They are not there to be taught what to believe. Most likely, I will simply home school my children. Public schools have become filled with political operatives (or in many private schools, religious activists). I want to teach my children that family, friends and community come first and they can't learn that in public school. I want my children to be taught honor and self-discipline and they can't learn that in public school. I want to teach my children the religion of their eldest ancestors and they can't learn that in public school. A government school simply trains and brainwashes America's youth to conform to relativist post-modern morality and that is why our nation is so uneducated. People are not taught good values. I appologize. I've digressed terribly. My point was, is that these things should be taught by parents in the tradition of their family and not by governments.

 

[Flappycat]

I disagree. I will keep my children out of classes that teach morality, sex, religion or politics.

This excludes most health-related classes, biology, sociology, ELP, most history classes...

They are in school to learn math, language, history and science.

Guess you're against PE, psychology, home ec, heck, most of the curriculum at this point.

They are not there to be taught what to believe.

I guess that means you're against them being taught to believe such pseudo-science as heliocentric theory.

Most likely, I will simply home school my children. Public schools have become filled with political operatives (or in many private schools, religious activists).

I hope you have several hours per day to set aside for this. Also, if you keep normal working hours, your kids would have nothing to do while their peers are at school and be busy studying while their peers are out playing. So much for friends and social skills.

I want to teach my children that family, friends and community come first and they can't learn that in public school.

I had no difficulty gathering this on my own.

I want my children to be taught honor and self-discipline and they can't learn that in public school.

These are social skills learned almost purely through experience. You're putting your children at risk of growing up in isolation from social situations in which they would have opportunities to pick up these skills.

A government school simply trains and brainwashes America's youth to conform to relativist post-modern morality and that is why our nation is so uneducated.

Excuse me, but are you blaming post-modern morality and relativism for the low rate of literacy in this country? My county, here on the belt-buckle of the biblebelt, suffers an illiteracy rate of over thirty percent. Post-modern morality and moral relativism don't even exist in my neck of the woods. Pat Robertson's the best thing since fried chicken, and there's at least one church on every corner.

People are not taught good values.

First you criticize schools for teaching "classes that teach morality, sex, religion or politics" because you feel that school children should only "learn math, language, history and science." Now you're criticizing the schools because they don't teach "good values." You're sending mixed messages.

My point was, is that these things should be taught by parents in the tradition of their family and not by governments.

It sounds to me like you're just against any serious discussion of homosexuality. Would you be satisfied if the schools restricted their comments to something in the nature of "homosexuals are abominations and sinners who will receive the harshest punishments of Hell"?

 

[Darkdale]

I hope you have several hours per day to set aside for this. Also, if you keep normal working hours, your kids would have nothing to do while their peers are at school and be busy studying while their peers are out playing. So much for friends and social skills.

If that is what is necessary I will make the time. When I have kids, my priority will be to teach them to be strong, loyal, honorable, knowledgeable and steadfast. I am not worried about my children learning facts and theories. All facts and theories are worth learning. What I worry about is my children being taught facts and theories without perspective (my perspective, a heathen perspective).

These are social skills learned almost purely through experience. You're putting your children at risk of growing up in isolation from social situations in which they would have opportunities to pick up these skills.

Not at all. I would demand that my children be active in their community, to learn to honor their duties to the people around them.

Excuse me, but are you blaming post-modern morality and relativism for the low rate of literacy in this country? My county, here on the belt-buckle of the biblebelt, suffers an illiteracy rate of over thirty percent. Post-modern morality and moral relativism don't even exist in my neck of the woods. Pat Robertson's the best thing since fried chicken, and there's at least one church on every corner.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc? No, I'm not saying that post-modernism and relativism are to blame for low literacy rates; I am saying that they are responsible for the decay of character, honor and ambition in society.

It sounds to me like you're just against any serious discussion of homosexuality. Would you be satisfied if the schools restricted their comments to something in the nature of "homosexuals are abominations and sinners who will receive the harshest punishments of Hell"?

Homosexuality is a personal choice and is the business, not of the State, but of the couple. What people do in love is none of my business, nor is it the business of the State. I abhor the fact that our government feels they have a right to legislate sexuality. But I would never send my children to a school where they are forced to go through politically correct socialization. Homosexuals should be treated with the same dignity and rights as anyone else.

You seem to be a rather judgmental individual. I would caution you against forcing your ideals onto others who do not share your traditions and culture.

 

[Flappycat]

If that is what is necessary I will make the time. When I have kids, my priority will be to teach them to be strong, loyal, honorable, knowledgeable and steadfast. I am not worried about my children learning facts and theories. All facts and theories are worth learning. What I worry about is my children being taught facts and theories without perspective (my perspective, a heathen perspective).

What's wrong with their perspective?

Not at all. I would demand that my children be active in their community, to learn to honor their duties to the people around them.

You feel that you can or should force them to do this?

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc? No, I'm not saying that post-modernism and relativism are to blame for low literacy rates; I am saying that they are responsible for the decay of character, honor and ambition in society.

Decay of character? Do you believe that teaching the values of personal responsibility, cleanliness, tolerance, self-restraint, awareness, empathy, community, and activism leads to a decay of character? This is what I'd have taught in schools.

Homosexuality is a personal choice and is the business, not of the State, but of the couple. What people do in love is none of my business, nor is it the business of the State. I abhor the fact that our government feels they have a right to legislate sexuality. But I would never send my children to a school where they are forced to go through politically correct socialization. Homosexuals should be treated with the same dignity and rights as anyone else.

Do you feel that the schools shouldn't make teenagers aware of sexually transmitted diseases? Do you feel that the schools should avoid mentioning aspects of personal hygeine related to sex? I don't have any desire to impose political correctness, but I do feel that sex education, if we have it in schools at all, should not be consciously restricted to material targeted at heterosexual teens or consciously restricted to the risks involved in vaginal penetration. I think that it's important for teens to know how rates of STD infection vary between groups in order to make those who are members of groups that have elevated risk of infection aware of the special risks that they face, and shielding them from this information is both dangerous and irresponsible. I think that you should be aware of your own variety of political correctness, sir.

You seem to be a rather judgmental individual.

I find this very insulting.

I would caution you against forcing your ideals onto others who do not share your traditions and culture.

Do you charge me with doing anything of the sort? Do you make such assumptions based on knowledge of my beliefs and actions that you couldn't possibly have, or do you very rudely make them in ignorance of what I believe, say, and do outside of this forum?

 

[martha]

I think that there was a time when sex was something that was never spoken of. What a person did behind closed doors was there business. Someware along the line somebody started to speak about it.

In the old days, (i am 50 yrs old) when a young girl got pregnant out of wedlock she just disappeared from the town. Wispers were spoken, but for the most part it was not talked about. It was delt with by the parents. I am sure you understand what I mean.

Now since the early sixties sex has become an open topic. Most of you who have young children must realize that they probably have a great knowledge of sex in all it's forms. Our country is inundated in the movies, commercials and sit coms. If you let your children view these things, then don't come complaining. There is sexual inuendo every where!!! Heck you can't drive down the road without seeing some model exposing her body in a sexual manner, comercials for things such as clothing don't seem to have anything to do with clothing. Forget about perfume commercials, for they seem to have the most flagrant sexual inuendo.

We have allowed this to slowly creep up within society, we did nothing to stop them. Freedom of speech don't you know! Oh well now it is here and we must educate our children to distance themselves from all the hype about sex in general. They will see the same sex Kiss on TV or in a movie and if they are young they won't understand unless we explain.

Some parents don't know how to speak to their children without freightening them, or themselves. There must be a good source of information to lead our children.

In the beginning it was the double entendre that insidiously crept in. Nobody made a big deal about the double sexual meaning of things. Now sex is prevalent and everyone is bent out of shape. Frankly my dears, where the heck were the advocates of morality then?
If you want your children to understand sex, then talk to them or let the school system put into practice a formal curriculum that explains all of the aspects.

 

[Darkdale]

What's wrong with their perspective?

A lot of people operate under purely secular, relativistic philosophies that promote meekness and an unconditional acceptance of mediocrity. This simply isn't what I want for my family. I want my children to be raised with complete faith in themselves and to be taught the skills that will help them succeed in any situation.

You feel that you can or should force them to do this?

No, I cannot force anyone to do anything. But I believe that children, when taught the importance of character, honor and personal responsibility will learn from their experience of living that way, that it is a superior way of living. It isn't more correct, it's just more productive with regard to strengthening family, community and personal happiness.

Decay of character? Do you believe that teaching the values of personal responsibility, cleanliness, tolerance, self-restraint, awareness, empathy, community, and activism leads to a decay of character? This is what I'd have taught in schools.

Political Activism is a dangerous ambiguity. Tolerance is a dangerous ambiguity. I believe in individual responsibility and honor before everything else. I believe in taking care of family and friends first and foremost.

Do you feel that the schools shouldn't make teenagers aware of sexually transmitted diseases? Do you feel that the schools should avoid mentioning aspects of personal hygeine related to sex? I don't have any desire to impose political correctness, but I do feel that sex education, if we have it in schools at all, should not be consciously restricted to material targeted at heterosexual teens or consciously restricted to the risks involved in vaginal penetration. I think that it's important for teens to know how rates of STD infection vary between groups in order to make those who are members of groups that have elevated risk of infection aware of the special risks that they face, and shielding them from this information is both dangerous and irresponsible. I think that you should be aware of your own variety of political correctness, sir.

I will teach my kids what they need to know about safe sexual practices. Parents should be encouarged to take an interest in their children. The State is not responsible for parenting.

Do you charge me with doing anything of the sort? Do you make such assumptions based on knowledge of my beliefs and actions that you couldn't possibly have, or do you very rudely make them in ignorance of what I believe, say, and do outside of this forum?

You seem to believe that others should think the way you think and that it is wrong for families to instill their own values and traditions in their children; instead, you want the government to instill those values. At least, this is how it seems. Your attitude is combative and judgemental, which is why I brought that up. If that is an incorrect interpretation, I apologize.

 

[Aqualung]

A lot of people operate under purely secular, relativistic philosophies that promote meekness and an unconditional acceptance of mediocrity.

Yeah, I definitely woudn't want that. I'm not like that at all. Yet I spent my school days in a public school. Schools do surprisingly little in the way of giving children morals. They just give kids knowledge, and usually their family life helps shape that knowledge into morals.

I want my children to be raised with complete faith in themselves and to be taught the skills that will help them succeed in any situation.

Somehow my family managed to do that anyway...

Political Activism is a dangerous ambiguity. Tolerance is a dangerous ambiguity. I believe in individual responsibility and honor before everything else. I believe in taking care of family and friends first and foremost.

I definitely agree with you there, but I still don't think that schooling necessarily precludes that sort of person. Look at me, again, for an example.

I will teach my kids what they need to know about safe sexual practices. Parents should be encouarged to take an interest in their children. The State is not responsible for parenting.

I agree with you 100% on this one.

 

[Flappycat]

I think that there was a time when sex was something that was never spoken of. What a person did behind closed doors was there business. Someware along the line somebody started to speak about it.

In the old days, (i am 50 yrs old) when a young girl got pregnant out of wedlock she just disappeared from the town. Wispers were spoken, but for the most part it was not talked about. It was delt with by the parents. I am sure you understand what I mean.

Now since the early sixties sex has become an open topic. Most of you who have young children must realize that they probably have a great knowledge of sex in all it's forms. Our country is inundated in the movies, commercials and sit coms. If you let your children view these things, then don't come complaining. There is sexual inuendo every where!!! Heck you can't drive down the road without seeing some model exposing her body in a sexual manner, comercials for things such as clothing don't seem to have anything to do with clothing. Forget about perfume commercials, for they seem to have the most flagrant sexual inuendo.

We have allowed this to slowly creep up within society, we did nothing to stop them. Freedom of speech don't you know! Oh well now it is here and we must educate our children to distance themselves from all the hype about sex in general. They will see the same sex Kiss on TV or in a movie and if they are young they won't understand unless we explain.

Some parents don't know how to speak to their children without freightening them, or themselves. There must be a good source of information to lead our children.

In the beginning it was the double entendre that insidiously crept in. Nobody made a big deal about the double sexual meaning of things. Now sex is prevalent and everyone is bent out of shape. Frankly my dears, where the heck were the advocates of morality then?
If you want your children to understand sex, then talk to them or let the school system put into practice a formal curriculum that explains all of the aspects.

I've gotta say I agree with all of this, Martha.

Oddly enough, I have pretty conservative feelings on sexuality. Perhaps some here wouldn't expect this of a gay man, but the truth is that I am really just a little disgusted with how sex is treated in our culture. The mass media well nigh encourages casual, irresponsible attitudes that I honestly don't like. This is one unfortunate side effect of embracing this level of freedom of speech, and we need some form of damage control.

 

[Darkdale]

I want to be clear in that I am not saying public schools are bad or wrong, I'm just saying that they are not what I'd want for my children. I believe that my lifestyle and beliefs are important for me and for my family, but I do not expect others to have to live up to my standards. I do encourage my friends and family to live an honorable, family/community centered life, but I honestly don't care how the people outside of that circle life. That isn't my place to judge.

 

[Flappycat]

A lot of people operate under purely secular, relativistic philosophies that promote meekness and an unconditional acceptance of mediocrity. This simply isn't what I want for my family. I want my children to be raised with complete faith in themselves and to be taught the skills that will help them succeed in any situation.

What do you suggest the schools do if they have to be a habitable place for members of several different cultures? The schools don't give children any formal moral instruction at all, really. They are doing their best to provide information that students can use, but they're having to shy away from instilling any real values in children because of parents who insist that they want to have absolute control over their children's moral instruction. All they have left is "be tolerant of other cultures," and the religious conservatives are trying to pull even that.

No, I cannot force anyone to do anything. But I believe that children, when taught the importance of character, honor and personal responsibility will learn from their experience of living that way, that it is a superior way of living. It isn't more correct, it's just more productive with regard to strengthening family, community and personal happiness.

How are children supposed to learn any social skills at all without being put into social situations? Wouldn't you at least allow them to join little league, or would the coach's insistance upon instilling ideas of teamwork and fair play interfere too much with what you try to teach them?

Political Activism is a dangerous ambiguity. Tolerance is a dangerous ambiguity. I believe in individual responsibility and honor before everything else. I believe in taking care of family and friends first and foremost.

You respond to "dangerous ambiguities" with even more dangerous ambiguities.

I will teach my kids what they need to know about safe sexual practices. Parents should be encouarged to take an interest in their children. The State is not responsible for parenting.

The state shouldn't be responsible for parenting, but the responsibility has been dropped into the state's lap.

You seem to believe that others should think the way you think and that it is wrong for families to instill their own values and traditions in their children; instead, you want the government to instill those values. At least, this is how it seems. Your attitude is combative and judgemental, which is why I brought that up. If that is an incorrect interpretation, I apologize.

No, I just think that your brand of political correctness dangerously restricts the school's ability to provide school children with anything at all. Yeah, first we're having to water down our science classes by giving equal time for "Intelligent Design," and now we're having to water down sex ed classes in order to "allow parents to introduce their children to the idea of homosexuality in their own way." This may taste a bit like lead to you, but the religious conservatives are holding back the state's ability to function as much as the egalitarian left was in the Nineties.

 

[Darkdale]

What do you suggest the schools do if they have to be a habitable place for members of several different cultures? The schools don't give children any formal moral instruction at all, really. They are doing their best to provide information that students can use, but they're having to shy away from instilling any real values in children because of parents who insist that they want to have absolute control over their children's moral instruction. All they have left is "be tolerant of other cultures," and the religious conservatives are trying to pull even that.

I think that "live in peace with others so long as they live in peace with you" is an excellent lesson to teach everyone. It is more specific than "tolerance". Anyway, it has been my experience that public schools are filled with political and social indoctrination. Of course, this is a more conservative interpretation. Most liberals deny this. But, that makes sense if the message is a more liberal one (or maybe relativist is a better term).

How are children supposed to learn any social skills at all without being put into social situations? Wouldn't you at least allow them to join little league, or would the coach's insistance upon instilling ideas of teamwork and fair play interfere too much with what you try to teach them?

I've already said that I would expect my children to be active in their community. They don't need to be sent to public school to get that.

You respond to "dangerous ambiguities" with even more dangerous ambiguities.

Not so.

The state shouldn't be responsible for parenting, but the responsibility has been dropped into the state's lap.

That won't be the case in my family.

No, I just think that your brand of political correctness dangerously restricts the school's ability to provide school children with anything at all. Yeah, first we're having to water down our science classes by giving equal time for "Intelligent Design," and now we're having to water down sex ed classes in order to "allow parents to introduce their children to the idea of homosexuality in their own way." This may taste a bit like lead to you, but the religious conservatives are holding back the state's ability to function as much as the egalitarian left was in the Nineties.

I don't think Intelligent Design should be taught in schools and I am constantly appalled at the "Religious Rights" power over socialization; they are as dangerous as the relativist/PC/liberals. Please don't group me in with them. That's just mean.

I think public schools should be secular, because I don't believe the state should dictate religion, but I want my children to be raised with heathen values and therefore must be responsible for their education, because they won't get that in a public school.

With regard to public schools though, I just think they need to avoid politics, which means, staying away from teaching "Activism". Students need to focus on math, science, language etc. They need to learn skills and gain knowledge, not opinions and beliefs. They should develop them on their own or in their homes (or, as is the case, from both).

 

[Flappycat]

I think that "live in peace with others so long as they live in peace with you" is an excellent lesson to teach everyone. It is more specific than "tolerance". Anyway, it has been my experience that public schools are filled with political and social indoctrination. Of course, this is a more conservative interpretation. Most liberals deny this. But, that makes sense if the message is a more liberal one (or maybe relativist is a better term).

You don't seriously think the students are buying any of it, do you? Dude, the politically-motivated crap is so pathetically stupid that even the potheads in the back row are saying "we r theenk dat sofunny, haha!" However, I've yet to see a negative response to genuine attempts to provide the students with information that they can use, should they choose to do so, to improve their chances of living long, healthy lives.

I've already said that I would expect my children to be active in their community. They don't need to be sent to public school to get that.

Oh, I'm not saying they do. However, I am saying that successful homeschooling is a lot of work and that many parents are unable or unwilling to provide any time at all for educating their kids about sex, culture, politics, and so forth. Let's just face facts: the kids going to public school usually end up there because their parents are unwilling to take an active interest in their children's future.

I don't think Intelligent Design should be taught in schools and I am constantly appalled at the "Religious Rights" power over socialization; they are as dangerous as the relativist/PC/liberals. Please don't group me in with them. That's just mean.

Well, I was trying to say that sex ed shouldn't be restricted to information targeted at young heterosexuals because not everyone in the room is going to be heterosexual. I think that the information should be more, not less, complete. The material I was exposed to, way back in the late Nineties, was anything but complete. It was "abstinence is the only way" hype and didn't even have the widely-ridiculed STD horror show. It was pathetic.

I think public schools should be secular, because I don't believe the state should dictate religion, but I want my children to be raised with heathen values and therefore must be responsible for their education, because they won't get that in a public school.

Ah. Found a private school for heathens? Just joking. I see what you mean here, man. The schools are too castrated to be much use for teaching values of any kind at all, really.

With regard to public schools though, I just think they need to avoid politics, which means, staying away from teaching "Activism". Students need to focus on math, science, language etc. They need to learn skills and gain knowledge, not opinions and beliefs. They should develop them on their own or in their homes (or, as is the case, from both).

Excuse me, but I don't think that I made myself perfectly clear. The schools need to provide some instruction in regard to basic things like personal health. It doesn't have anything to do with morality, and it has everything to do with keeping my own seatwarmer alive and well.

 

[Darkdale]

I agree that in the education of basic health (all morality aside) Homosexuality and Heterosexuality should be treated equally. My instinct is to say that parents should be invinted into the classroom, if they wish, so they really know what their children are learning, but I think that would just put too much pressure on the children and they wouldn't ask questions, because their parents were there. So I suppose, if the school were to distribute, or make available, the information that is being taught, then at least I could tell my kids, "Hey look, they are going to say this or show you that. If you have any questions, ask me now. Remember, not everyone shares the same values with regard to reproductive and sexual behavior". Or something like that.

I am naturally uncomfortable with public schools because I attended public school, in a wealthy area, and I remember how apathetic the kids were, but when they took an interest the teachers praised the opinions of some and mocked the opinions of others. In other words, they were openly partial.

 

[Mike182]

With regard to public schools though, I just think they need to avoid politics, which means, staying away from teaching "Activism". Students need to focus on math, science, language etc. They need to learn skills and gain knowledge, not opinions and beliefs. They should develop them on their own or in their homes (or, as is the case, from both).

hey darkdale, you obviously have strong feelings on this, but i don't think maths, english and science are everyones best subjects. im okish at those three subjects, but where i thrive best is in sociology! it includes modules on education systems, home and family, politics and media and many more. if my school had only tough the basic subjects, i would have failed school and not have the passion for learning i have now - i am incredibly greatful to my sociology teacher for opening my eyes to view the world we live in in a completely different way. and non of this was tought with a hidden agenda or to indoctrinate me to a particular way of thining, rather it opend up a world of questions and debates!

my second best subject is Religious Studies, and it is exactly that, the study of religion. its not degree standard, nor is it a complete guide to all religions, but it is a very thorough course in which i have learnt much about christianity, and i have come across arguments that completely tear the christian belief to the ground - quite simply, it is a course that studies christianity

it does only cover christianity, but tha tis for two main reasons, first of all we can only cover one main religion as we only have a limited time to do the course, to do more than one religion would be completely impractical

and second of all, three people in the class are christian, four people are atheists, one is a very open minded undecided, and the teacher is pagan - thus teaching about christianity would be the logical choice.

the second part of the course is ethics based, and it looks at different ethical models (just war theories, utilitarianism, situation ethics etc) and these can easily be applied to atheism and christianity, and probably many other religions aswell


what im saying is, schools (here in england at least) are not ignorant of other peoples faith and moral codes

C_P

 

[Darkdale]

CP - While I think Social Studies is an important class, focusing on actual semester long Sociology classes or Psychology or Religious Studies or Political Science should be saved for college. Children are getting out of High School and they don't know the basics. They cannot do math, they don't know english, they are unfamiliar with basic science and history. Up through high school, we need to make sure our children have mastered the basics, not just passed them. Once they get to college, open up the world and say, "Here, you can study anything you want".

 

[huajiro]

I think one of the choices should have been "that homosexuality is an option"

 

[Flappycat]

I think one of the choices should have been "that homosexuality is an option"

Agreed.

 

[jamaesi]

Curse you, Jensa, I'm only just admitting to myself I'm toastersexual! Now you've got to bring yet another option it!

You weren't just going to limit yourself to the boy toasters, now where you? O.O!

I think one of the choices should have been "that homosexuality is an option"

Doesn't "homosexuality is a choice" cover that?