Are lgbt identities explored in the school curriculum?

philologos

shay_562 wrote: »

You argued for teaching both sides of the ethical divide. The ethical divide is between people who think homosexuality is a sin, and people who don't. Thus, teaching both sides of the ethical divide involves offering forth the opinion that homosexuality is a sin, and your suggestion of 'balanced' teaching requires that that position be held with as much respect and credence as the opinion that being homosexual isn't something to be ashamed of.

Yes, both sides should be presented objectively. I.E no opinion should be expressed as factual.

Those who support the idea of homosexuality being moral would argue the following...
Those who would support the idea that homosexuality is immoral would argue the following...

No propaganda in the education system. I.E No teaching that suggests that homosexuality is entirely moral, but rather teaching that brings forward both arguments, and teaching that strongly opposes mistreatment of homosexuals irrespective of whether we agree morally or not.

I believe both views should be held with equal respect, anything else is propaganda in the education system. This position is by no means extreme, rather it serves as a compromise.

L1011

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe both views should be held with equal respect, anything else is propaganda in the education system. This position is by no means extreme, rather it serves as a compromise.

Based on your contributions to this forum over the months/years, I doubt what the majority would see as 'equal respect' or 'unbiased' would be seen as that by you.

philologos

What do you define as unbiased?

Iwasfrozen

Jakkass wrote:

What do you define as unbiased?

MYOB wrote: »

Based on your contributions to this forum over the months/years, I doubt what the majority would see as 'equal respect' or 'unbiased' would be seen as that by you.

Exactly, what's your idea of unbiased MYOB?

Lame Lantern

The argument is simple.

1. There are no objections to homosexuality not based in arbitrary ideological discourses divorced from objective ethical dialogue.

2. Arbitrary ideological discourses (like religion or white supremacy) are legally prohibited from appearing on public school curricula.

3. "Presenting both sides of a contentious issue" would be to introduce such religious or otherwise indefensible world-views into education.

4. Therefore, opposition to homosexuality has no legitimate basis to be taught in school.

End of, really. That there is a sizeable number of homophobes extant in the world is no rationale for introducing their untenable prejudices into the classroom without the provision of just cause (and there is definably none).

Lame Lantern

Jakkass wrote: »

Those who support the idea of homosexuality being moral would argue the following...
Those who would support the idea that homosexuality is immoral would argue the following...

Again, this is profoundly fallacious. A dialogue of morality doesn't exist without the introduction of opposition to it. Schools don't declare "Some say Muslims are immoral because" though there are plenty in the RCC who hold that view. Homosexuality isn't an issue of ethics in the secular, objectively ethical world as there is no resulting detriment to anyone or anything. Your argument comes down to trying to crowbar hate into public education on the basis that plenty of loud people hold that ludicrous and logically untenable (based on a very rudimentary application of logic) point of view.

philologos

Lame Lantern: How would you teach about it while respecting peoples disagreement? Particularly the disagreement of parents? Just curious.

Lame Lantern

Jakkass wrote: »

Lame Lantern: How would you teach about it while respecting peoples disagreement? Particularly the disagreement of parents? Just curious.

You teach people fact and fact alone. Parents can tell their children whatever they like outside the classroom. That's the system as it is now. For example, sex ed teaches people who to use contraception safely without lending a voice to people who would find that morally objectionable. If parents wish to talk about the vices of condoms at home (or even pull their kids out of those classes) that's fine.

L1011

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Exactly, what's your idea of unbiased MYOB?

Nothing that either of you would ever see as unbiased. In previous threads we have had fundamental disagreements on rights and the interpretation of law; hence its blindingly clear that you and Jakkass wouldn't see the same "unbiased" as I would.

Iwasfrozen

MYOB wrote: »

Nothing that either of you would ever see as unbiased. In previous threads we have had fundamental disagreements on rights and the interpretation of law; hence its blindingly clear that you and Jakkass wouldn't see the same "unbiased" as I would.

I asked you what your ideas of unbiased where, you just told me our ideas are different, something which I already knew.
I'll ask again, what is you idea of unbiased ?

hot2def

Personally, i don't see the slightest need for "lgbt identities to be explored in the school curriculum". Why? I don't recall ever being taught about hetreosexual male or female sexuality in school. Even when reproduction and sexual health were discussed, they managed to sanitise any of sexuality from it.

shay_562

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Not true, I don't regard Homosexuality as a sin, because I'm an atheist.
People oppose the teaching of homosexuality in school for various reasons be they Political ideology, philosophical or even religious.
You cannot narrow an entire political arguement down to black and white, it isn't that simple.

Political ideology? Or philosophical? Are you kidding me? Point me to one example of a political reason for thinking that there's something inherently wrong with being homosexual, one rooted not even slightly in religion or ethics, but just a political viewpoint that could be objectively taught to kids to say anything other than "Homosexuality exists, and isn't a reason to bully someone".

Jakkass wrote:

Yes, both sides should be presented objectively. I.E no opinion should be expressed as factual.

Yet what I'm saying (as well as others on this thread) is that the very presentation of an opinion that homosexuality is sinful and immoral completely undermines any benefit of teaching kids not to bully those who are gay. Thus, it makes any endeavour to help the countless kids in schools who are bullied and excluded because of their sexuality pretty pointless.

Furthermore, and this is something that a few people have said and you haven't really dealt with, why shouldn't your 'objective, unbiased' teaching come into other areas? Should children be taught that some people believe that black people/women/Muslims are inferior/sinners, and that those opinions are equally meritous as the opinion that racism/sexism is wrong?

How would you teach about it while respecting peoples disagreement? Particularly the disagreement of parents? Just curious.

Screw 'em. The job of an education system isn't to pander to the views of parents, particularly when those views are more and more widely regarded as extremist and backward. If a majority of parents held backward views about race/religion/gender as outlined above, that wouldn't make it OK to teach those views in schools. If the majority of parents think 2+2=5, that doesn't mean we should restructure maths class around them.

Fundamentally, this comes down to the extent to which you think schools should 'teach' morality. Objectively, homosexual people exist. Being gay is not a crime. Being gay is, for the most part, socially accepted. Bullying or discriminating against gay people because of their sexuality is wrong and, in certain cases, criminal. Anything beyond that, religious stuff about whether something is right or wrong in the eyes of God, has no place in a classroom where your moral philosophising and 'unbiasedness' can cause actual harm to teenagers struggling with their sexuality.

L1011

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I asked you what your ideas of unbiased where, you just told me our ideas are different, something which I already knew.
I'll ask again, what is you idea of unbiased ?

Unbiased on what topic? All I've said is that there isn't a hope in hell I'll agree with your definition of it, or Jakass's one.

I love the irony of you, who has never answered any question I've put to you clearly, demanding clarification here.

Nebit

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, both sides should be presented objectively. I.E no opinion should be expressed as factual.

Those who support the idea of homosexuality being moral would argue the following...
Those who would support the idea that homosexuality is immoral would argue the following...

No propaganda in the education system. I.E No teaching that suggests that homosexuality is entirely moral, but rather teaching that brings forward both arguments, and teaching that strongly opposes mistreatment of homosexuals irrespective of whether we agree morally or not.

I believe both views should be held with equal respect, anything else is propaganda in the education system. This position is by no means extreme, rather it serves as a compromise.

But why should facts I.E. 1 in blah people is gay (i think this is in the 1 in 10 area) not be taught in school
This is a fact backed up by scientific research.
This would neither be telling a child that it is right or wrong but that it is Out there and that everyone in the classroom more than likely will know or be an acquaintance of a homosexual.
Therefore should learn to tolerate the fact that there are different people out there and that they should not be ridiculed for it.
This doesn't mean they have to agree that homosexuality is X or Y.

This tactic should not interfere with your views.
Unless that is, that you believe children should be ridiculed in school.
im not saying that is your tactic btw just an example.

philologos

Nebit wrote: »

But why should facts I.E. 1 in blah people is gay (i think this is in the 1 in 10 area) not be taught in school

I never said it shouldn't!

I said to teach it without teaching bias in the educational system. I.E to allow students to make up their own minds as to whether or not it is moral or immoral. Read my posts before replying to them!

shay_562: You can't just say "screw em'" when we are dealing with the welfare of other peoples children. Teaching that homosexual acts according to some to be immoral does not promote bullying in the slightest.

I personally would consider it to be immoral, yet I do not criticise or bully people of another sexual orientation to my own. I just hold my beliefs. Your assumption that all who disagree with you are going to bully because people disagree with you is just ridiculous.

Either you want to teach about the real world or you don't. Education is better when students are taught about the real world and invited to respond to it.

shay_562 wrote:

Furthermore, and this is something that a few people have said and you haven't really dealt with, why shouldn't your 'objective, unbiased' teaching come into other areas? Should children be taught that some people believe that black people/women/Muslims are inferior/sinners, and that those opinions are equally meritous as the opinion that racism/sexism is wrong?

Saying that homosexual acts are immoral is not the same thing as saying that blacks are inferior. Therefore I'm not going to respond to you as you are implying by my disagreement with you that I am homophobic.

I support teaching about homosexuality in schools without bias, that's all. That's a rather moderate position to hold.

shay_562 wrote:

Anything beyond that, religious stuff about whether something is right or wrong in the eyes of God, has no place in a classroom where your moral philosophising and 'unbiasedness' can cause actual harm to teenagers struggling with their sexuality.

Your biased idea is going to marginalise those who disagree in the educational system rather than allowing for an open discussion on the issue, you are stifling debate. So it is about as likely to cause harm to others who are growing and developing as moral beings. The only way to be fair is to allow it to be entirely unbiased.

L1011

Jakkass wrote: »

Saying that homosexual acts are immoral is not the same thing as saying that blacks are inferior. Therefore I'm not going to respond to you as you are implying by my disagreement with you that I am homophobic.

Except it is the same thing, backed up in law in this country. Proving my point that your idea of 'without bias' and most of the rest of the countries do not mesh.

Endymion

Jakkass wrote: »

shay_562: You can't just say "screw em'" when we are dealing with the welfare of other peoples children. Teaching that homosexual acts according to some to be immoral does not promote bullying in the slightest.

A lot of what's thought in science subjects will be contrary to peoples religious believes. From memory you believe in creative design. Teaching the current junior cycle syllabus and teaching creative design are mutually exclusive. Likewise teaching acceptance which preaching that one groups of people is immoral can't not work. You're replying on a child ability to differentiate between the sin and the sinner, something adults throughout the world have a huge problem doing. Yes the teacher doesn't actively promote bullying, but kids will make the intuitive jump themselves.

Nebit wrote: »

But why should facts I.E. 1 in blah people is gay (i think this is in the 1 in 10 area) not be taught in school
This is a fact backed up by scientific research.
This would neither be telling a child that it is right or wrong but that it is Out there and that everyone in the classroom more than likely will know or be an acquaintance of a homosexual.
Therefore should learn to tolerate the fact that there are different people out there and that they should not be ridiculed for it.
This doesn't mean they have to agree that homosexuality is X or Y.

This tactic should not interfere with your views.
Unless that is, that you believe children should be ridiculed in school.
im not saying that is your tactic btw just an example.

There are facts, and then there are facts. The 1 in 10 thing is a bastardised fact dumped down for the masses and only works as a rule of thumb. There's nothing to say its even applicable to Irish society as it was based entirely on test subjects in America. Anyway, facts can be spun simply by the process of deciding what facts to include and what facts not to include. You could talk at lengths about the "fact" that gay men have a higher contraction rate for STIs for instance.

shay_562

Jakkass wrote: »

shay_562: You can't just say "screw em'" when we are dealing with the welfare of other peoples children. Teaching that homosexual acts according to some to be immoral does not promote bullying in the slightest.

I don't see it as an issue of 'welfare' for the kids who might come from families who believe homosexuality is immoral. If you come from a white supremacist family, I don't think it harms your welfare to be told that black people aren't inferior; if anything, it improves your welfare, because tolerance and acceptance are good values for kids to learn. I don't accept your 'moral beings' point because I don't think there's anywhere near the same harm to someone from presenting them with a view contary to their morality as there is to telling a gay teenager that they're a sinner, and it's OK for their class to shun them as such.

I personally would consider it to be immoral, yet I do not criticise or bully people of another sexual orientation to my own. I just hold my beliefs. Your assumption that all who disagree with you are going to bully because people disagree with you is just ridiculous.

Basically, what carnivore. In the 'real world' that you accuse me of ignoring, you can't have a conversation with teenagers where you give them license to treat those in their midst who are different as evil sinners and then expect them to show magnanimity and compassion. Even if they're as 'tolerant' as you (which, dude - you hang around the LGBT forum reminding us as often as possible that we're sinners. I don't think you're the benchmark of tolerance), that's still damaging for a kid trying to come to terms with their sexuality.

Either you want to teach about the real world or you don't. Education is better when students are taught about the real world and invited to respond to it.

Not when those responses might hurt other kids in the class. And furthermore, I don't think abstract ethics and religion do constitute part of an objective 'real world' that kids need to learn about.

Saying that homosexual acts are immoral is not the same thing as saying that blacks are inferior.

Yes, it is. Saying that people are different and wrong because of race is no different to saying it because of sexuality. Show me why it's any better to call a gay person a sinner than to call a black person a n*****r.

Lame Lantern

Jakkass wrote:

Either you want to teach about the real world or you don't. Education is better when students are taught about the real world and invited to respond to it.

There is no opposition to homosexuality grounded in reality. There is no opposition to homosexuality grounded in ideology permitted by law to be propogated in school. Afflicting students with religious opposition to being gay (or white supremacist opposition, whatever) is to afflict them with the declarations of a group of people not basing their opinions in objective fact.

Again, you need to provide us with any rational secular opposition to the "morality" of homosexuality that might legally be permitted in schools. Your argument about "teaching about reality" falls apart without it because it would simply be to propogate claims by groups whose ethics are derived from esoteric, injudicious sources that are legally not allowed a voice in public education.

LookingFor

Jakkass wrote: »

shay_562: You can't just say "screw em'" when we are dealing with the welfare of other peoples children. Teaching that homosexual acts according to some to be immoral does not promote bullying in the slightest.

Ummm...you've clearly not been in a school in a long time.

If anyone's deemed to be doing or associated with anything beyond the pale it attracts often very negative attention. My mother is a teacher and she's told us about all kinds of cases of people being bullied because they or someone in their family, for example, were doing something wrong or were associated with something outside of the 'herd'. Kids are very impressionable and have a massive sensitivity to not being 'different'.

Relating to homosexuality itself, teaching that 'homosexual acts' are immoral does two things - one, it reinforces and moreover validates existing prejudice in the eyes of the kids that have picked up hate elsewhere and two, for the gay kids who everyone seems to forget about, it reinforces their own guilt/shame about their own natural inclination toward wanting to have sex, and reinforces in their mind that it's something that'll never be acceptable to others, and again, also helps validate feelings they themselves might have about 'not being right' that they picked up because of their environment.

You may think that kids are going to seperate in their heads 'homosexual acts' and homosexuals themselves as some theologian in the Vatican might, but it just doesn't happen like that at all, and it's very naive to think so. It doesn't happen like that for most people. It's like saying it's OK to be a fish but not to swim. Everyone knows virtually everyone gay or straight is going to pursue their sexual urges. It's the natural course. So condemning 'homosexual acts' is making a negative association with 90%+ of people out there who are gay.

(Oh, and by the way, teach homosexual acts are not immoral does in no way affect the welfare of other peoples' kids. Unless you think people's sexuality is driven or determined by what they think is moral, which it very clearly is not. Thinking that gay sex is OK doesn't make you want to have gay sex. The thought that it might could explain a lot about some people's resistance to that notion though - don't worry though, it won't make you gay!)

Jakkass wrote: »

Saying that homosexual acts are immoral is not the same thing as saying that blacks are inferior.

If I said it was immoral to 'act black' vs actually just being black, I think everyone would accept it an attempt to defend thinly veiled racism.

Jakkass wrote: »

I support teaching about homosexuality in schools without bias, that's all. That's a rather moderate position to hold.

That would suggest deferring to civic attitude/morality, not looking at it through the lens of religious attitude/morality. The state's attitude on this is that it is not immoral, neither to be a homosexual nor to engage in 'homosexual acts'.

Anyway, getting back to the OP, I'm not even sure what 'exploring lgbt identities' actually means, or exploring any identity means.

If you mean what associations were made in schools with homosexuality by teachers, I think it fell into two camps. You had some who were not at all averse to wisecracking about fags - generally the rougher ones - and then you had others, the english and - gasp - even religion teachers who were a lot more careful. For example our english teacher had no problem telling us that the Shakespearean love poems we were learning were thought to be addressed to another man, nor was he afraid to highlight where relevant Elizabeth Bishop's lesbian relationships (though their relevance to some of her poems is a matter of debate). That would prompt some sniggers among the students, but he'd quickly shut them up. One of my religion teachers was pretty fearless in her approach to homosexuality-related discussions in a way that wasn't alienating to anyone. She even showed us 'And The Band Played On', which was probably the most gay-friendly flick you could find on AIDS & prejudice, with none of the overtones you might expect from a 'Catholic' viewpoint on the matter. But then of course you had the school chaplain who was disgustingly acidic in some of his remarks about 'anyone here who might be a homosexual' - remarks made after a very obviously gay student had gone to the Principal complaining about his bullying. His remarks were to the effect that if you're gay, you just have to 'keep it under wraps' and not cause trouble for the rest of us by coming to us with problems about it. If I could transport myself back to that time I'd have no qualms about punching his lights out for that little lesson* I was in secondary school 95-01.


* Oh, and what do you think this kind of attitude did for bullying of gay or 'percieved-to-be' gay students? The student in question who sparked this was pulled out of the school for a year by his parents. He came back to finish his LC in sixth year but he was absent a lot.

philologos

shay_562 wrote: »

Basically, what carnivore. In the 'real world' that you accuse me of ignoring, you can't have a conversation with teenagers where you give them license to treat those in their midst who are different as evil sinners and then expect them to show magnanimity and compassion. Even if they're as 'tolerant' as you

Misconception here. All sin means is that we fall short of God's standard. I've sinned plenty of times in my life, but I don't seek to dwell in it, but rather to move forward and become a better person.

It isn't about regarding people as evil, it's about recognising the fact that some people don't regard this way of living as advisable.

shay_562 wrote: »

(which, dude - you hang around the LGBT forum reminding us as often as possible that we're sinners. I don't think you're the benchmark of tolerance), that's still damaging for a kid trying to come to terms with their sexuality.

I think you're crossing the line here. I am welcome to express my views. Ironically I've been bad mouthed more than once on this thread for expressing the view that yes, homosexuality should be discussed in all schools, but with an evenhanded approach.

I've not mentioned once that you are evil, or anything of the sort. I have merely said people disagree with you, and they are deserving of respect.

Filan

I hope the Catholic Church vacate the school system.....they've had a roll in keeping Irish society in the dark ages in many respects....as they have had a role in maintaining prejudice....there is calls for that now due to the Child sex abuse scandal. I'm transgender identifying and qualfied as a teacher, rarely practiced since I qualified, not entirely due to my identity, but I didn't feel comfortable having to censor a part of myself at school...I know Trans people face prejudice far beyond the school, but I'd like lgbt identities to be considered under civics maybe and not pathogenised, just accepted for what they are as identities which although not the average are not pathogenic.

shay_562

Jakkass wrote: »

It isn't about regarding people as evil, it's about recognising the fact that some people don't regard this way of living as advisable.

So you wouldn't have us teach gay kids that they're evil, just that they're sinning in the eyes of God, that it would be inadvisable to act on their sexual urges, and that many people in their life will regard them as deviant, which is a perfectly acceptable view with as much validity as the view that it's OK to be gay? That's at best a semantic distinction and you know it.

I think you're crossing the line here. I am welcome to express my views. Ironically I've been bad mouthed more than once on this thread for expressing the view that yes, homosexuality should be discussed in all schools, but with an evenhanded approach.

I've not mentioned once that you are evil, or anything of the sort. I have merely said people disagree with you, and they are deserving of respect.

You're entitled to express your views here, yes, and I'm just as entitled to tell you that those views are logically inconsistent twaddle that, whatever you say, reek of intolerance and biad. You've been bad-mouthed because your version of 'evenhandedness' amounts to peddling unsupportable religious morality to children in a way that will actively harm gay or questioning kids. And quite honestly, no, I don't think that people who disagree with me on this issue are deserving of respect. I think they're bigots, and I regard their views with as much respect as I would those of a racist or sexist.

philologos

shay_562 wrote: »

So you wouldn't have us teach gay kids that they're evil, just that they're sinning in the eyes of God, that it would be inadvisable to act on their sexual urges, and that many people in their life will regard them as deviant, which is a perfectly acceptable view with as much validity as the view that it's OK to be gay? That's at best a semantic distinction and you know it.

I wouldn't teach them that they are sinning in the eyes of God. I would merely say that certain groups disagree with this because they regard sexuality as best kept between a man and a woman, and perhaps refer to case samples such as Proposition 8. Teaching without bias on either side. I don't mean stopping bias on just the pro-side.

shay_562 wrote: »

You're entitled to express your views here, yes, and I'm just as entitled to tell you that those views are logically inconsistent twaddle that, whatever you say, reek of intolerance and biad.

You didn't just do that, you effectively said I am not welcome to post here.

shay_562 wrote: »

You've been bad-mouthed because your version of 'evenhandedness' amounts to peddling unsupportable religious morality to children in a way that will actively harm gay or questioning kids.

See above. I support complete unbiased notions. Not driving a pro-Christian view into peoples minds. Nor do I support driving a view that forces people to regard homosexual acts as being moral.

People have deliberately been ignoring what I have said thus far. Without bias, means without bias Christian, or otherwise.

shay_562 wrote: »

And quite honestly, no, I don't think that people who disagree with me on this issue are deserving of respect. I think they're bigots, and I regard their views with as much respect as I would those of a racist or sexist.

I don't know what to say to you really, apart from the fact that disagreeing with how you decide to live is no different from disagreeing with people who choose to smoke, or drink heavily.

Iwasfrozen

MYOB wrote: »

Unbiased on what topic? All I've said is that there isn't a hope in hell I'll agree with your definition of it, or Jakass's one.

I love the irony of you, who has never answered any question I've put to you clearly, demanding clarification here.

You can shout baseless irony untill the cows come home but you still haven't told me what you would class as unbiased in regards to the teaching of the morality of homosexuality in our school system.
I await you answer, again.

shay_562 wrote: »

Political ideology? Or philosophical? Are you kidding me? Point me to one example of a political reason for thinking that there's something inherently wrong with being homosexual, one rooted not even slightly in religion or ethics, but just a political viewpoint that could be objectively taught to kids to say anything other than "Homosexuality exists, and isn't a reason to bully someone".

Name one political ideology ?
Alright, Conservatism.

Boston

Heres an idea, why don't you leave religious indoctrination to the churches. All catholic children should be attending both church and school regularly so I see no reason for the subject of morality as it pertains to a specific religion/grouping of religions, to be broached in the school system. In fact it isn't.

Theres quite a lot of merit to sexuality being explored in the school curriculum. Something which goes beyond STI and puberty education. I was subjected to a course in school called relationships and sexuality, it amounted to a moral introduction to sexual relationship. At no point were actual relationships discussed, at no point were was the topic of sexuality covered (Straight,gay or otherwise).

L1011

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You can shout baseless irony untill the cows come home but you still haven't told me what you would class as unbiased in regards to the teaching of the morality of homosexuality in our school system.
I await you answer, again.

Being taught that it exists, that its relatively common, that is not legally, medically or scientifically seen to be abnormal, and that discrimination is illegal is what i'd see as unbiased.
Being taught anything that even touches on the 'some people see it as...' basis i see as biased.

philologos

Boston wrote: »

Heres an idea, why don't you leave religious indoctrination to the churches. All catholic children should be attending both church and school regularly so I see no reason for the subject of morality as it pertains to a specific religion/grouping of religions, to be broached in the school system. In fact it isn't.

We're not even encouraging "religious" teaching, rather a presentation of both perspectives, those who consider homosexual acts to be moral, and those who do not. Doing the same in the abortion argument would be also warranted.

Boston wrote: »

Theres quite a lot of merit to sexuality being explored in the school curriculum. Something which goes beyond STI and puberty education. I was subjected to a course in school called relationships and sexuality, it amounted to a moral introduction to sexual relationship. At no point were actual relationships discussed, at no point were was the topic of sexuality covered (Straight,gay or otherwise).

Nobody disagrees with you here. I'd be concerned as to how it is taught though.

Iwasfrozen

MYOB wrote: »

Being taught that it exists, that its relatively common, that is not legally, medically or scientifically seen to be abnormal, and that discrimination is illegal is what i'd see as unbiased.
Being taught anything that even touches on the 'some people see it as...' basis i see as biased.

I agree with every thing you worte except the last line, I still fail to see how broadening a childs mind by giving fair representation to all parties involved can be seen as a bad thing.
After all propaganda is just our belifes that we want you to believe in.

L1011

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I agree with every thing you worte except the last line, I still fail to see how broadening a childs mind by giving fair representation to all parties involved can be seen as a bad thing.
After all propaganda is just our belifes that we want you to believe in.

Except there is no way to give fair representation to all parties other than sticking solely and completely to the facts and not going in to morals or opinions *at all*. Teaching "some religions believe homosexuals are immoral" is bias, simple as.