Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Are lgbt identities explored in the school curriculum?
Options
Comments
-
How can you call broadening a childs education biased ? If we teach children every side of the story then allow them to make up their own mind on the issue then is that not better ?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.
Why would you have us force feed "morals" to our young children, and more importantly who decides what "morals" are fit for the education system anyway ?0 -
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.
Nobody is arguing this, no Christians hold that people are immoral for just being people. Rather people fall short of God's standard, we all do. There is no special case, and by this assessment homosexuals are no worse than anyone else in society.
Whether or not homosexual acts are moral is the issue.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »How can you call broadening a childs education biased ? If we teach children every side of the story then allow them to make up their own mind on the issue then is that not better ?
Why would you have us force feed "morals" to our young children, and more importantly who decides what "morals" are fit for the education system anyway ?
Except its not broadening their education, its providing them with useless addendums to the truth selected from a whole host of usless addendums that could be added.
And you're the one trying to force feed morals, not me!0 -
Nobody is arguing this, no Christians hold that people are immoral for just being people. Rather people fall short of God's standard, we all do. There is no special case, and by this assessment homosexuals are no worse than anyone else in society.
Did I say Christians? No. Did you jump to conclusions, again? Yes.Whether or not homosexual acts are moral is the issue.
To 99% of people, they are one and the same. Homosexuals will do "homosexual acts", otherwise they are in fact asexual. You cannot pretend to claim one is apparently immoral without making the other so.0 -
To 99% of people, they are one and the same. Homosexuals will do "homosexual acts", otherwise they are in fact asexual. You cannot pretend to claim one is apparently immoral without making the other so.
Actions | Person
To me there is a clear separation.
A lot of what I have done before, I would now find disagreeable. This doesn't mean that my past actions bear anything on who I am now. It's the same for everyone really. I'm a believer in thinking the very best of people, being optimistic rather than pessimistic.0 -
Advertisement
-
Actions | Person
To me there is a clear separation.
A lot of what I have done before, I would now find disagreeable. This doesn't mean that my past actions bear anything on who I am now. It's the same for everyone really. I'm a believer in thinking the very best of people, being optimistic rather than pessimistic.
And to most of the rest of the world, there isn't. If you believe homosexuals acts are immoral, you believe homosexuals are immoral. There is no seperation.0 -
And to most of the rest of the world, there isn't. If you believe homosexuals acts are immoral, you believe homosexuals are immoral. There is no seperation.
To you perhaps. This is incompatible with my philosophy, and to say that this is the case would be misinformed. Simple as. I know what I stand for, and it isn't hatred.0 -
To you perhaps. This is incompatible with my philosophy, and to say that this is the case would be misinformed. Simple as. I know what I stand for, and it isn't hatred.
This is what you always say, and to the rest of us, its just a convenient shield for you to hide behind.
Once again, if you say homosexual acts are immoral, you are saying homosexuals are immoral. You just don't want to admit that as it'd remove any remaining shreds of your arguing position.0 -
This is what you always say, and to the rest of us, its just a convenient shield for you to hide behind.
Think whatever you wish, ultimately it isn't you who will decide who I am. I am simply someone who wishes to live the best life I possibly can before I die, and I post in this thread as someone who respects proper impartial education.
I'm really fed up of this nonsense though, if you are going to make an accusation, please have the fortitude to do so.
I'm amazed that I have received such a negative response for agreeing with the OP that there does need to be more classes on LGBT orientation, but in an impartial manner. It appears that some people are afraid of balance.Once again, if you say homosexual acts are immoral, you are saying homosexuals are immoral. You just don't want to admit that as it'd remove any remaining shreds of your arguing position.
Repeating this isn't reflecting an honest discussion. It's the internet equivalent of shouting someone down because you do not like what you have to say.
I have to say I find it amazing that the moderators tolerate this sort of personal attack on this forum. Since when did disagreement warrant this?0 -
Repeating this isn't reflecting an honest discussion. It's the internet equivalent of shouting someone down because you do not like what you have to say.
I have to say I find it amazing that the moderators tolerate this sort of personal attack on this forum. Since when did disagreement warrant this?
No, its the internet equivalent of refusing to let someone hide behind something which amounts to an exact equivalent of the stereotypical taxi drivers "I'm not racist, but..."
You very, blatently clearly have serious problems with homosexuals and equal rights. You hide these behind a "I'm only against homosexual acts" shield, thinking that somehow, this makes it all OK.
If you were making these comments as "I don't think black people are bad, but the way they act is" or similar, you'd be out of here (and likely boards.ie completely) faster than you could count to ten - to flip your argument around, I'm amazed the moderators have continued to let you make your religious and political arguments in a forum *for* lesbian, gay and bisexual people.It appears that some people are afraid of balance.
Indeed. Yourself for one, unable to accept the idea that religious moral teaching in education is inherent bias.0 -
Advertisement
-
Indeed. Yourself for one, unable to accept the idea that religious moral teaching in education is inherent bias.
Except that isn't what I have been suggesting. I've been suggesting to look at both perspectives in the LGBT argument. If you read my posts I explicitly said that there should be no bias from either side involved.
It should be basically an explanation of the LGBT community, an explanation of LGBT sexuality, an explanation of those who have been campaigning on this issues and why, and an explanation of those who are in disagreement with the issues and why.
If the teacher want's to add an extra bias to the situation, they should be told whether biased towards LGBT, or biased towards Christianity that they should leave their agendas at home, and teach a balanced curriculum. Hardly an issue where you can accuse me of ulterior motives, as I wouldn't support anyone with my views biasing the class either.
I have yet to see how that is unreasonable.
As for secular education, I am open to the concept alongside faith schools. I've made it quite clear that I support an expansion of secular education in this country. However, secular does not give anyone an excuse to bias education in the process. Secular doesn't mean removing a real world explanation of what the situation on LGBT issues is about. It is a heavily contested moral issue, that's reality.0 -
Except that isn't what I have been suggesting. I've been suggesting to look at both perspectives in the LGBT argument. If you read my posts I explicitly said that there should be no bias from either side involved.
It should be basically an explanation of the LGBT community, an explanation of LGBT sexuality, an explanation of those who have been campaigning on this issues and why, and an explanation of those who are in disagreement with the issues and why.
The latter belies the former. The latter is a method of introducing religious moral teaching by the back door.0 -
MYOB: Balance that's the point. Balance. I'd be concerned with bias in the education system, particularly on issues that are matters of conscience for people to decide for themselves. I have yet to see how it is religious teaching when people are told explicitly not to bias their teaching by their opinions.
By your standard it could also be perceived that allowing people to assess why people advocate LGBT opinions is LGBT advocacy propoganda through the back door.
The reality is it is a contentious issue, if we want to pretend that it isn't that's all well and good. Honesty is key though.0 -
Jakkass, across nine pages of this topic the notion of introducing homophobia in the form of "presenting both sides without bias" has been challenged (and defeated) numerous times by numerous posters. If you wish legitimately continue this dialogue you're going to need to address these arguments directly, not simply restate your initial, by now discarded claim.0
-
MYOB: Balance that's the point. Balance. I'd be concerned with bias in the education system, particularly on issues that are matters of conscience for people to decide for themselves.
How is bias going to be introduced if you teach the facts, and nothing but?
Also, issues which are for the most part legal (discrimination, for instance) are not matters of conscience. The existence of homosexuality is not a matter of conscience. Its relative prevalence is not a matter of conscience. Its legal status as a recognised sexual orientation is not matter of conscience.0 -
Lame Lantern wrote: »Jakkass, across nine pages of this topic the notion of introducing homophobia in the form of "presenting both sides without bias" has been challenged (and defeated) numerous times by numerous posters. If you wish legitimately continue this dialogue you're going to need to address these arguments directly, not simply restate your initial, by now discarded claim.
There's nothing homophobic about moral disagreement. It is possible to disagree with people without hating them. I find it a ludicrous notion that people should be accused of such without adequate basis.
Particularly when personal accusations have been brought against me on this thread for merely saying that:
1) LGBT orientation should be taught which is what the OP agrees with
BUT
2) We should be careful to present a balanced, and accurate representation of the situation.
Just because you disagree with my opinion doesn't mean that it has been "defeated". What tripe?
My opinion represents a middle ground between those who wish to bias towards a view which disagrees with homosexual acts, and those who wish to bias towards a view that advocates them without question.
MYOB: If assurances could be made that there would be no bias that would be one thing. I don't believe they can be unless multiple perspectives are taught.0 -
I could simply copy/paste any number of older posts, but I will just present the following:There's nothing homophobic about moral disagreement. It is possible to disagree with people without hating them. I find it a ludicrous notion that people should be accused of such without adequate basis.
Particularly when personal accusations have been brought against me on this thread for merely saying that:
1) LGBT orientation should be taught which is what the OP agrees with
BUT
2) We should be careful to present a balanced, and accurate representation of the situation.
Just because you disagree with my opinion doesn't mean that it has been "defeated". What tripe?
My opinion represents a middle ground between those who wish to bias towards a view which disagrees with homosexual acts, and those who wish to bias towards a view that advocates them without question.
1. There are no objections to homosexuality emerging from objective fact or secular ethics.
2. All objections to homosexuality emerge from religious or esoteric claims with no basis in reality (as, in your case, emerging from catholicism).
3. To voice an objection, therefore, is to introduce a discourse that is a) not legally permitted to be perpetuated in schools and b) creates a debate that is inherently biased toward the claims of arbitrarily belligerent groups.
4. Therefore, to teach opposition to homosexuality is to teach the ideological agendas of organisations not interested in the presentation of fact. That is illegal, dishonest and intellectually bankrupt.
Point out the fallacy.0 -
T
MYOB: If assurances could be made that there would be no bias that would be one thing. I don't believe they can be unless multiple perspectives are taught.
Whereas I'm utterly convinced from the way primary and junior cert religion and CSPE are taught in this country (I'm too old to have done SPHE, or leaving cert religion though) that if they even attempt to teach multiple perspective, it ends up biased.0 -
Lame Lantern wrote: »2. All objections to homosexuality emerge from religious or esoteric claims with no basis in reality (as, in your case, emerging from catholicism).
I believe Jakkass isn't Catholic, actually; I'll let him confirm/deny it. Emerging from christianity is, however, the case.0 -
My mistake, if that's the case. I was just making a statistical assumption.0
-
Advertisement
-
1) Irrespective of secular ethics, the fact remains, homosexual acts remain a contentious ethical issue. One would need to explain to me how the schools would keep the sex education unbiased without the measure I am proposing. (I.E not forcing the opinion of LGBT advocates onto people but allowing for free thought and allowing for parents to educate their children freely on such moral issues).
2) Nonsense. You would first have to demonstrate how such moral claims have no basis in reality first. This is an assumption that I find unreasonable to make. I feel you are abusing the secular card in this argument. Why? Well, due to the reason that secular doesn't mean that religious perspectives shouldn't be taught about, rather it means that they shouldn't dominate the discussion. I'd agree, they shouldn't, but they do bear some significance in the argument and as a result do have relevance and should be heard.
3) To introduce opposing views in comparison to those which are proposing a biased and limited understanding of a contested moral issue is only right if we are to accept that it is the parent who is the primary educator of morals as in the Irish Constitution.
4) Do you not understand that teaching a biased perspective which does not reflect the reality of the situation is what you are supporting?
Personally, I'm fed up of people taking my opinion out of context several times on this thread so far... I mean, agreeing with you on the main premise of the fact that LGBT orientation should be taught in schools must show you that I am willing to allow for respect towards people of LGBT orientation to be taught, as long as respect for those who have moral disagreements are also respected. I have also agreed that homophobic bullying shouldn't be tolerated in any shape or form.
MYOB: Correct, I'm of a Christian mindset, but I am not myself Roman Catholic.0 -
Only in discourses of religion or other esoteric ideologies, as repeatedly demonstrated.1) Irrespective of secular ethics, the fact remains, homosexual acts remain a contentious ethical issue.
If people wish to be homophobes (or, to an extent, if parents wish their children to be homophobes) that's fine. However, schools cannot introduce homosexuality as an ethics issue for the reasons repeatedly enumerated in here. You need to address how such a dialogue could possibly work by providing us with secular reasons to be wary of homosexuality.One would need to explain to me how the schools would keep the sex education unbiased without the measure I am proposing. (I.E not forcing the opinion of LGBT advocates onto people but allowing for free thought and allowing for parents to educate their children freely on such moral issues).
You would need to demonstrate the veracity of religion. The burden of evidence lies with the claimant. And as repeatedly demonstrated, there is no evidence to be provided. Homophobia is fundamentally routed in arbitrary ideological declarations aberrant to the school system.2) Nonsense. You would first have to demonstrate how such moral claims have no basis in reality first. This is an assumption that I find unreasonable to make.
Accepting the veracity of my last statement, you're effectively suggesting we discard the imperative of keeping religion and unempirical ideological claims out of schools in order to present a counteropinion to homosexuality supported simply by the fact that there are many, many homophobes in the world. It remains illegal and unethical, no matter the noise.3) To introduce opposing views in comparison to those which are proposing a biased and limited understanding of a contested moral issue is only right if we are to accept that it is the parent who is the primary educator of morals as in the Irish Constitution.
Again, all I've proposed is the presentation of fact. There is no bias in the observable and verifiable.4) Do you not understand that teaching a biased perspective which does not reflect the reality of the situation is what you are supporting?
It's because we've repeatedly shown your moral disagreements to be based in opinions held in a manner aberrant to what is acceptable in the context of education (that being the salient concern at least) yet you haven't addressed them directly. Also, you're claiming that "fact" presents an immediate bias. As proven, you cannot possibly claim that homosexuality is a contentious issue in the context of the empirical and secular and that is the fullstop purview of public educational discourse.Personally, I'm fed up of people taking my opinion out of context several times on this thread so far... I mean, agreeing with you on the main premise of the fact that LGBT orientation should be taught in schools must show you that I am willing to allow for respect towards people of LGBT orientation to be taught, as long as respect for those who have moral disagreements are also respected.0 -
Lame Lantern wrote: »If people wish to be homophobes (or, to an extent, if parents wish their children to be homophobes) that's fine. However, schools cannot introduce homosexuality as an ethics issue for the reasons repeatedly enumerated in here. You need to address how such a dialogue could possibly work by providing us with secular reasons to be wary of homosexuality.
I'm going to stop you there.
How does a moral diagreement result in hatred?
Why is it that I can disagree with my friends smoking, and not be regarded as a smoker-hater?
This is why I think it is absolutely ridiculous to insinuate that honest people, with honest concerns about their education system are homophobic. There is absolutely no basis for that claim. Not only honest people, but honest people who would be entirely behind teaching about LGBT orientation if it wasn't for these concerns.
Despite trying to be as reasonable as I can be with this argument, I'm afraid for me I'm damned if I do, and I'm damned if I don't. Think what you like. It seems futile even trying to engage with you in a peaceable manner, which is really a sad state of affairs.0 -
Homophobia is simply the used term. I have friends who are largely homophobic for religious reasons. I don't condemn them as people, only their opinions when they come up. "Hate" is not necessarily implied. We're just tethered to language here.I'm going to stop you there.
How does a moral diagreement result in hatred?
Why is it that I can disagree with my friends smoking, and not be regarded as a smoker-hater?
This is why I think it is absolutely ridiculous to insinuate that honest people, with honest concerns about their education system are homophobic. There is absolutely no basis for that claim.
Despite trying to be as reasonable as I can be with this argument, I'm afraid for me I'm damned if I do, and I'm damned if I don't.
I'd appreciate if you respond the the rest of the substance of my post, though. I too am being civil. Your views are pretty hurtful from my perspective, in all fairness, but I'm perfectly happy to discuss and not fly off the handle.0 -
Homophobic = hatred or an aversion towards LGBT people.
It's an abuse of that term to say that a moral disagreement results in hatred.
I can only apologise if my opinions have offended you. However, it is only for the offence that I can apologise. I have always realised that you are merely a person just like me, and despite common belief, I came to discuss on this thread because I am very interested in the concept of teaching about LGBT orientation, I believe it should be done, but it should be done with transparency.
I have yet to see how that automatically brands me as someone who has a hatred or an aversion towards you as an individual. Despite MYOB's ramblings against it, my opinions in finding an action immoral aren't passed on to the individual. As I say, that's a central part of my philosophy or belief system.
Alas, I'm going to call it a day. It's very clear that I am not welcome to post on this section.0 -
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.
Do we present both the Darwinian theory of evolution and the intelligent design one?0 -
I don't see where presenting two opposing views comes into it in this subject really to be honest.
Consider a school in the midst of rural Ireland in which 97% of the students are white and a handful are black. In order to normalise a multicultural experience (as I don't think anybody would think was wrong) it would be par for the course for the school curriculum to run some kind of module that fostered a healthy and tolerant attitude towards different races. I don't think anybody would get away with suggesting that alongside that, teachers would say "Right now class, some people don't like blacks and think they are an inferior race and here are the reasons why so you can make up your own mind..." Now that seems ludicrous. I don't believe that preaching race hate is okay, so preaching gay hate is no different. (And yes it is hatred if you are saying homosexual acts are wrong...there can be no separation of acts and sexuality for anybody who wants to live a normal, healthy and balanced human existence.)
Look I get what the religious argument here is. Hate the sin, not the sinner. I get that you would rather a percentage of teenagers grow up in a world thinking that they can never be allowed to experience love and all the wonderful things that go with it and thus with all the serious emotional/mental problems which that lack of hope will bring - marvellous. But in a world where to be honest from my own experiences, the majority of Irish catholics probably when put in a situation where they have to deal with this, would not actually choose that misery for their child over their own previous beliefs - I don't see how anyone could propose anything other than making kids in schools aware that a percentage of their friends, classmates and relatives are going to be gay and that it is perfectly normal.
Kids can be cruel, especially when it comes to picking on anyone that is different to what they are used to. I cannot understand how anyone could fail to see the contradiction between saying "Homophobic bullying will not be tolerated" but at the same time "now kids here are some reasons for you to look down on your gay classmates if you so choose."0 -
I'm of the opinion that a decent and moral society (moral in the sense of doing the right thing by its people, not moral in whatever religious sense you might personally apply) should in social matters make decisions based on the principle of greatest happiness. That is, should make decisions that support the pursuit of happiness by as many people as possible (what should be a fundamental right in any decent society), while trading off in favour of the greatest net gain in happiness where there is a conflict.
So in thinking of the value of raising two view points on homosexuality in a school and not advocating one or the other...I don't see much value in that when I apply the aforementioned principle. The principle of greatest happiness leads to a pretty clear answer on it. The principle of greatest happiness if anything suggests the promotion of the 'homosexuality is ok' viewpoint just as it might in another matter suggest the promotion of a 'stealing is wrong' viewpoint. You might mention that some people think the latter is OK, but whether you'd put it on an equal footing or not is quite a different question. It would not be conducive to promoting outcomes that achieve greatest net happiness for the people involved in the act of stealing (the stealer and the person stolen from).
When I apply it to a subject like abortion I see a different outcome though. It's not as clear if net happiness is improved by one viewpoint over the other. There's the happiness or potential happiness of two directly involved individuals to consider, and the net impact of an abortion on the balance of that happiness is very much open to debate. It is easy and credible to argue about the negative effect on the happiness or potential happiness of the unborn child as much as it is to argue about the happiness or wishes of the mother.
Again though, when it comes to homosexuality and (consensual) homosexual acts between homosexual people (you know, the people the 'issue' of homosexuality actually concerns), I think the net improver of happiness is clear - i.e. the viewpoint that it is OK. Providing for and reinforcing a happy homosexual population and its acceptance has positive knock-ons for the rest of society too - less depression, less mental disruption, less crime, (IMO) more stable homosexual relationships that are free of the extra strain put on them by family/peer/social disapproval etc. which itself would have knock-on effects on health, life expectancy etc.
Unless you are going to tell me that all this makes non-homosexuals unhappy, and that there's a conflict between the happiness of homosexuals and heterosexuals. Really?0 -
LookingFor wrote:Unless you are going to tell me that all this makes non-homosexuals unhappy, and that there's a conflict between the happiness of homosexuals and heterosexuals. Really?
It's plainly biased and doesn't allow for people to make up their own conclusions. That's what makes it difficult for those who are questioning their ethical viewpoint. I personally don't think it's fair to ram one view down peoples throats.
I also disagree that moral means the greatest happiness. Then again, my viewpoint wasn't to compromise happiness, it was to make the education system fair.Monkey61 wrote:but at the same time "now kids here are some reasons for you to look down on your gay classmates if you so choose."
That isn't what I was saying. Alas some people just aren't interested in listening to what I am saying.
You're ignoring the possibility that biased teaching could involve classmates looking down on Jewish, Christian, Muslim or any other faith group who disagree on homosexuality. This could also result in bullying.
This goes to LookingFor, is teaching biased education on LGBT issues really for all peoples happiness?0 -
Advertisement
-
Head ache.
Everything is bias, especially in the educational system. I don't really think the teaching of morality has any place in school. A nut job teacher tried that off this own bat in my school and frankly I found his idea of liberal morals disgusting.
Back to the original point, should LGBT identities be explored in schools? Yes. Should this be done without trying to put a negative moral slant on this? Yes. No of the "coming of age" books I read as a pre pubescent child ever tried to preach that fornication with a member of the opposite sex was a sin (It is according to my churches believes) none of them suggested that my soul would be in peril. Why would a similar book for LGBT children have to include such view points?0
Advertisement