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
-
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?
Would one bias this to suggest that people who have moral disagreements with homosexual acts are wrong for doing so? If that is the case I have a big problem with that.0 -
You have to understand that kids get sex education from the age 10 - 18 in this country and in some countries it starts even younger. You're not going to get into a debate about the morality of homosexuality with children at the age 10. Why would there even be a need to bring up "moral disagreements with homosexual acts". The current sex ed classes thread extremely softly and parents are involved in each step of the way. Attendance isn't compulsory, there is no test to insure you conform.0
-
It's plainly biased and doesn't allow for people to make up their own conclusions.
Why don't we teach everything from a 'not negative/not positive' point of view?
We don't because in the education system we wish to promote the behaviour and ethics that are commensurate with what's best for the most number of people.
What that is is what produces the most happiness overall.
This is why we don't take a 'balanced unbiased' view in education of, for example, stealing. Or murder. These things yield a net negative effect on overall happiness.
Homosexuality and its acceptance, however..? I think there's a very clear simple answer.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.
I accept that's your point of view. However I disagree. I think it's society's responsibility to promote greatest net happiness. (And also to do so with positive intent, for anyone who thinks I may be taking a strictly utilitarian view). I think morality and ethics based in nothing more than 'because this book says so' vs because of their actual impact on society hold little credibility, and usually reflect thinking on what was best for society a long time ago when certain issues where not as well understood (e.g. in the case of homosexuality when it was not known what its actual nature was and when there was a fear that it could over-run a society and disrupt population growth and continuation of the species).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.
From my own experience I've not seen bullying on religious grounds in schools. People - kids even - seem to be much more tolerant of differing religious views than they are even of different hairstyles (not to mention percieved sexuality differences).This goes to LookingFor, is teaching biased education on LGBT issues really for all peoples happiness?
I think it promotes the greatest net happiness, yes.
Homosexuality doesn't directly affect the vast majority of people. So its irrelevant - in a direct sense at least - to their happiness. Its treatment does greatly affect the happiness of those who are homosexual, however.
In a indirect sense I do see payoffs for society in general too, yeah. I think acceptance of homosexuality over time would:
a) reduce bullying in schools - which affects a learning atmosphere for all students
b) reduce depression among gay people - reducing impact on work productivity & healthcare cost etc.
c) related to b, but reduce instance of suicide
d) promote more stable homosexual relationships - reducing the indirect impacts due to instability on healthcare (I can elaborate on this point if it's not immediately obvious what I'm getting at here)
e) reduce inter-family tensions and stress over a homosexual member of the family
...among other things.
I can see an argument that the conflict between what one is taught in school and what one is taught in church might cause some degree of unhappiness. However I think the people that this is likely to cause the MOST unhappiness for is actually gay people. Since that's whom the issue is actually relevant to, they're the ones who deal most directly and who are most affected by the conflict between their identity and what they're taught by their religion. The trade off there from a happiness point of view is clearly in favour of the rights and happiness of the wider gay population vs the tension this might create for some gay people when placed next to their religious teaching.0 -
LookingFor wrote: »We don't because in the education system we wish to promote the behaviour and ethics that are commensurate with what's best for the most number of people.
Utilitarianism. It is also perceivable that people will disagree with you on what is best for the greatest number. I'd go forward and insist the best for all, not just the greatest number. This includes those who have moral disagreements with homosexual acts.LookingFor wrote: »This is why we don't take a 'balanced unbiased' view in education of, for example, stealing. Or murder. These things yield a net negative effect on overall happiness.
On issues of murder, and stealing the situation is much more absolute than on the issue of sexual ethics.
For me I've made clear, and for a lot of other people, "happiness" isn't the goal in doing what is right. It's rather Aristotelian. Most moral philosophy goes beyond happiness. I think people need to accept that people differ with them rather than enshrining their own views in the education system.LookingFor wrote: »I think morality and ethics based in nothing more than 'because this book says so' vs because of their actual impact on society hold little credibility, and usually reflect thinking on what was best for society a long time ago when certain issues where not as well understood (e.g. in the case of homosexuality when it was not known what its actual nature was and when there was a fear that it could over-run a society and disrupt population growth and continuation of the species).
We're making assumptions here. You assume that my form of ethics involves nothing more than "The Bible says so". That's quite an assumption to make. I'd like you to clear this up.LookingFor wrote: »From my own experience I've not seen bullying on religious grounds in schools. People - kids even - seem to be much more tolerant of differing religious views than they are even of different hairstyles (not to mention percieved sexuality differences).
Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Bullying on religious grounds has happened, does happen, and will probably happen again. Is this somehow less legitimate than LGBT grounds?LookingFor wrote: »Homosexuality doesn't directly affect the vast majority of people. So its irrelevant - in a direct sense at least - to their happiness. Its treatment does greatly affect the happiness of those who are homosexual, however.
This is utilitarianism. We should make schooling best for all, not just for the vast majority.LookingFor wrote: »a) reduce bullying in schools - which affects a learning atmosphere for all students
It does not deal with bullying in general.LookingFor wrote: »I can see an argument that the conflict between what one is taught in school and what one is taught in church might cause some degree of unhappiness. However I think the people that this is likely to cause the MOST unhappiness for is actually gay people. Since that's whom the issue is actually relevant to, they're the ones who deal most directly and who are most affected by the conflict between their identity and what they're taught by their religion. The trade off there from a happiness point of view is clearly in favour of the rights and happiness of the wider gay population vs the tension this might create for some gay people when placed next to their religious teaching.
The trade off should be to teach neutrality. That's what education is. If you can demonstrably show to me how one would teach about LGBT orientation in a way that wouldn't condemn people with moral disagreements, I'd be all for it.
If I ever had children, yes, I'd want them to know not to harm or bully anyone of LGBT orientation. I would also want them to know that moral disagreement is fine. I would even insist respect, and compassion towards people of LGBT orientation. However, I would also insist that this doesn't mean that one has to applaud everything that one does in the same way that one doesn't applaud everything anyone else does (especially out of some fear of being labelled).0 -
The trade off should be to teach neutrality. That's what education is. If you can demonstrably show to me how one would teach about LGBT orientation in a way that wouldn't condemn people with moral disagreements, I'd be all for it.
There are gay/bisexual/transgender/asexual people. tada.
I don't see a point in much more than that. like I said, no one really mentioned anything about heterosexual sexuality in school either.0 -
Advertisement
-
Utilitarianism. It is also perceivable that people will disagree with you on what is best for the greatest number. I'd go forward and insist the best for all, not just the greatest number. This includes those who have moral disagreements with homosexual acts.
These people aren't made happier by their disagreement with homosexuality or homosexual acts, are they?
And sorry, but it's not always possible to do 'best for all'. There are folks out there who'd probably be made most happy if they could - say - steal and loot as they wished. We've to weigh that potential happiness against the reduction in happiness this would cause for others. The latter's a bigger effect so the former loses out.
You've not explained to me how teaching homosexuality is viewed by some as bad as well as by some as OK, vs just OK, how that improves the 'net happiness' situation. IMO you are doing much more damage to the happiness of gay people by offering 'homosexuality is not ok' as a equally valid view than you are to the happiness of people who may have a religious disagreement with homosexuality by only offering the 'homosexuality is ok' teaching.On issues of murder, and stealing the situation is much more absolute than on the issue of sexual ethics.
I think it's about as absolute when it comes to people's happiness. Unless, again, if you can show me how acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual acts makes for greater unhappiness among people who aren't even homosexual, than unacceptance does among gay people.
IMO, it's very simple when it comes to homosexuality, murder, stealing. It's not so simple with other things like abortion.For me I've made clear, and for a lot of other people, "happiness" isn't the goal in doing what is right.
I accept that's your point of view, but I believe it should be the underlying goal in these choices.
You haven't presented to me what overrides this, so that's why I assumed that the overriding factor for you in this decision was 'the book', rather than the actual impact on people and society. You'll forgive me for the assumption based on your posting history, but if you'd like to elucidate your reasoning beyond that, please do.Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Bullying on religious grounds has happened, does happen, and will probably happen again. Is this somehow less legitimate than LGBT grounds?
If it happens, absolutely not.
But I do not think that religious sensitivities should hold the same weight in this as the impact we actually see on people and in society. The former can't run roughshod over the latter.This is utilitarianism. We should make schooling best for all, not just for the vast majority.
It's a noble goal, but we're not there, unless we segregate everyone along any potential differences and school them all seperately or something. Which itself would have unintended bad consequences.
I'm presenting a way however to make it better for more people than it does currently. I do not think your proposal makes for the same degree of improvement.It does not deal with bullying in general.
It would deal with one which makes up a large proportion of the bullying that goes on in male schools.The trade off should be to teach neutrality.
That's not what I mean by tradeoff. I mean weighing which approach has the better outcome and making a tradeoff based on that.
Your approach, neutrality, IMO would not have the same positive impact that going 'ok only' would.That's what education is. If you can demonstrably show to me how one would teach about LGBT orientation in a way that wouldn't condemn people with moral disagreements, I'd be all for it.
I really don't see what's so wrong with condemning that viewpoint given the net increase in happiness we'd have in society if this moral disagreement was not there in the first place.
But in that transitionary period where there is a disconnect between what people were taught in school and what people are taught in a holy book, I think of course you'd have to look out to protect those who could be villified, if you like, for religious views. But seriously - what religion DOES NOT advocate these kinds of anti-gay views? Can you see buddhists bullying the christians over it? I don't think so. Most kids don't so closely judge each other according to their religious affiliation anyway here, IMO (you could make an argument about muslim/christian tensions in britain for example - but that has little to do with either actual religion, and I can't see such interfaith tensions over homosexuality).
edit - and come to think of it, why teach religion in schools at all if you don't want highlight differences there - differences that could lead to bullying on a whole manner of issues.However, I would also insist that this doesn't mean that one has to applaud everything that one does in the same way that one doesn't applaud everything anyone else does (especially out of some fear of being labelled).
In an ideal world no sexual behaviour or identity would either have to be applauded or even just said to be 'ok'. But in a transition toward that some degree of 'promotion' of said OK-ness would likely be necessary. Some degree of general 'difference sensitivity training' might be appropriate. Eventually we'd ideally get to a point where we don't even have to make any explicit references to one sexuality or another, acceptance etc. would just be naturally implied and engrained regardless of differences like that. However it wouldn't do, IMO, to go silent on it at this stage, as that would just imply a support of the status quo.0 -
Are you taking the piss? Kids will be bullied because their prejudices aren't legitimised in the classroom?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.
Do you really expect kids to start committing suicide because they're being bullied for viewing homosexuality as a sin? Because that is the level of hurt that is being done at the present to LGB kids.0 -
Respecting other people's faith is a different lesson, Jackass. As is morality and learning of your own religion.
LGBT identities and issues are real world occurrences (and I don't mean to contrast between "real world" and religious teachings). They should be taught factually and inline with any other sexual/social subjects.
If religion is a subject in school then that's the place to discuss religious morals. In my mind a much more controversial subject.0 -
-
If I ever had children, yes, I'd want them to know not to harm or bully anyone of LGBT orientation. I would also want them to know that moral disagreement is fine. I would even insist respect, and compassion towards people of LGBT orientation. However, I would also insist that this doesn't mean that one has to applaud everything that one does in the same way that one doesn't applaud everything anyone else does (especially out of some fear of being labelled).
How do you teach safe sex in schools without condemning those who morally oppose contraception.
I not that you seem to assume that none of your children would ever be LGBT. Do you think none of us were raised in a religious environment? Some of us on this forum are both LGBT and actively Christian.0 -
Advertisement
-
Respecting other people's faith is a different lesson, Jackass. As is morality and learning of your own religion.
I disagree, there should be no special case for LGBT people. If anyone is bullied on any grounds, it is a disgrace and people should be ashamed of themselves. Irrespective of whether that student is homosexual or Muslim.LGBT identities and issues are real world occurrences (and I don't mean to contrast between "real world" and religious teachings). They should be taught factually and inline with any other sexual/social subjects.
Peoples beliefs shape this world, and how people deal with eachother, both are real world issues. Religious identity is no less of an issue than LGBT identity.If religion is a subject in school then that's the place to discuss religious morals. In my mind a much more controversial subject.
How can we teach about LGBT issues without marginalising those who disagree with the liberal consensus? If you can suggest an alternative that can work I'll agree with you.Boston wrote:How do you teach safe sex in schools without condemning those who morally oppose contraception.
Look at approaches such as abstinence as well as teaching about contraceptives. Students can then decide for themselves.0 -
Look at approaches such as abstinence as well as teaching about contraceptives. Students can then decide for themselves.
OK, and how do you propose they teach about race relations while giving the same "balance" and not opposing the morals of those that assume that non-whites are inherently immoral? Because these people certainly still exist in todays Ireland.0 -
I'm sure you know that moral action depends on freedom to be a moral actor. There is no such freedom in race. Hence why this is null and void. Morality depends on freedom to decide to do one thing over the other. A good example of a illogical argument.0
-
I'm sure you know that moral action depends on freedom to be a moral actor. There is no such freedom in race. Hence why this is null and void. Morality depends on freedom to decide to do one thing over the other. A good example of a illogical argument.
And there is similarly no such freedom in being a homosexual. Both are legally protected against discrimination also.
Its an entirely logical argument, but you won't accept this as it damages yours irreparably.0 -
How can we teach about LGBT issues without marginalising those who disagree with the liberal consensus? If you can suggest an alternative that can work I'll agree with you.
There's a couple of points here:
1) The argument being offered against yours is that disagreement with acceptance of homosexuality should be marginalised. Can you show promoting said disagreement on a equal footing yields a more desireable social impact?
2) That people who don't agree with homosexuality or its acceptance are marginalised by teachings that it is OK seems like a stretch. I doubt many would take much offense to this. How many people so closely associate or identify themselves with their views on homosexuality that hearing someone say 'it's ok', without hearing 'but others say it isn't, and that's ok too', would marginalise them? That seems like way too strong a word.
On the flipside hearing the latter as a gay person alongside the former has a much graver effect, IMO. Your sexual identity is a lot more fundamental and powerful when leveraged against you than most (heterosexual) peoples' views on homosexuality are to them - I hope! Promoting non-acceptance on an equal footing with acceptance has a much more powerful negative effect than promoting acceptance on its own.And there is similarly no such freedom in being a homosexual. Both are legally protected against discrimination also.
It's ok to be a fish. Just don't swim.
Swimming is wrong.
Oh, and....errr....yeah, don't look down on the fish. Even though swimming is wrong and evil and disordered. K?0 -
Jakkass: I'm sorry, but you've come out with some of the greatest bullsh1t I've ever heard on this thread.
It's like a class comprised of 90% male students and 10% female students being taught that it's ok to believe that women are the inferior gender and their place is in the kitchen when the subject of feminism comes up, so that chauvinistic parents aren't offended and so that the boys are shown that it's ok to feel that way about women.
And you claim to have respect for lgbt people!? Laughable.0 -
LookingFor wrote: »1) The argument being offered against yours is that disagreement with acceptance of homosexuality should be marginalised. Can you show promoting said disagreement on a equal footing yields a more desireable social impact?
Why should people who have moral disagreements with homosexuality be marginalised? This is no better than marginalising homosexuals.LookingFor wrote: »2) That people who don't agree with homosexuality or its acceptance are marginalised by teachings that it is OK seems like a stretch. I doubt many would take much offense to this. How many people so closely associate or identify themselves with their views on homosexuality that hearing someone say 'it's ok', without hearing 'but others say it isn't, and that's ok too', would marginalise them? That seems like way too strong a word.
Due to the fact that this is the truth, it is okay to disagree with homosexual acts.LookingFor wrote: »Your sexual identity is a lot more fundamental and powerful when leveraged against you than most (heterosexual) peoples' views on homosexuality are to them - I hope! Promoting non-acceptance on an equal footing with acceptance has a much more powerful negative effect than promoting acceptance on its own.
I don't see how religious identity is less important than sexual identity. There is no reason for such favouritism.elekid wrote:And you claim to have respect for lgbt people!? Laughable.
I generally don't view people based on sexuality. I don't think straight when I see someone, nor do I think homosexual when I see someone. Why would I?
Simple point is, biasing the education system doesn't stop people from being marginalised. Homosexual acts are still a contentious moral issue, and I don't think biasing children is the way to deal with it.
I can disagree with how people live their lives irrespective of how likeable I find them. I disagree with most of my friends on numerous matters, yet most aren't so naiive to believe that I hate them as a result.0 -
Why should people who have moral disagreements with homosexuality be marginalised? This is no better than marginalising homosexuals.
Jakkass, IMO there is a right and wrong here in terms of what's best for society.
I've invited you umpteen times to explain why you think promotion of non-acceptance of homosexuality as being 'ok' is as beneficial to the wider happiness of more people and you have failed to do so.
So basically to me what you're asking is like asking why we shouldn't marginalise any other point of view that is unhealthy. We marginalise plenty of such viewpoints all the time and for good reason.
It should be IMO beyond the pale to promote non-acceptance of homosexuality. Promoting that seems to have no positive benefits for society.Due to the fact that this is the truth, it is okay to disagree with homosexual acts.
Well actually, there is a subtle difference between disagreement with something and promotion of non-acceptance of it. I'm sure you and me and others have many trivial things they find disagreeable about other people's behaviour. But they're things that are accepted, and I accept that they're accepted. And I accept sometimes that for me to challenge people on some of these things would be unreasonable of me, even if I privately think it's dumb or whatever. Because in the end of the day, with most of these things, it's none of my business, and if I were to try to interfere I'd be viewed as a bloody loon.
I would love eventually for the 'issue' of homosexuality to get to that point. So we were at a point where also its relevance in education was pretty much non-existant. Where everyone felt happy without any address of this.
But coming back to the real world today, it's impossible to be neutral or quiet on this. Because as is, the environment in schools when it comes to homosexual kids is quite heavily negative. To balance that, the suggestion's been put forth that for the time being at least, a more positive 'acceptance' viewpoint be presented in schools in order to promote greater awareness of how this negativity is affecting other people. So you would hopefully have a large net gain in the improvement of gay students circumstances.
You've been arguing that there'd be a commensurate drop in the circumstances enjoyed by other students which is farcical (see below).I don't see how religious identity is less important than sexual identity. There is no reason for such favouritism.
I disagree. Your core sexuality is a very strong and innate part of your identity from nature.
Religion CAN be challenged. And your religion CAN be challenged without destruction of your sense of self and self-esteem. Indeed it happens all the time with people growing up, disagreeing with their religion, and actually finding their own true identity independent of any of this, and indeed, sometimes even greater confidence and self-esteem. People cast of and adopt religions all the time. It's not something that's quite as profoundly core as other aspects of one's sense of self.
But your sexuality does not leave you, and attitudes about clearly have massive consequences for identity/esteem/confidence/mental health etc.
When you tell a gay kid that homosexuality is wrong or homosexual acts are wrong, you are telling that child that THEY are wrong. And you are impressing upon them certain choices about their life that they no longer can have control over if they wish to be viewed as acceptable, choices that are not conducive to a life they may hope to have - i.e. a happy one where they're in charge and free to pursue adult (and adult sexual) relationships - relationships which are key in the happiness of most people's lives. You also have the double-whammy effect of stoking or validating prejudices among others that aren't explicit in anything a teacher might say, but which go on to negatively affect the gay kids in other ways.
When you tell a kid some minor aspect of their religion is wrong, it doesn't have remotely the same impact. The kid doesn't think of 'self' when they think of catholic church teachings for example. It might make them think whether the church is right or wrong, they might change their view on the church's teaching or not (there are many self-described religious people who don't necessarily agree 100% with everything their religion teaches - their religious identity survives these disagreements), but they're not going to think "i'm not normal, i can't be happy, i'm wrong, i'm disordered, i'm ...".
And I think you'll realise that when you don't see christian kids hanging themselves off of wardrobe rails because a teacher tells them homosexuality should be accepted without also validating their religion's views on it (views they probably don't give a toss about anyway).
Your equating that conflict with what gay kids have to put up with is enormously insulting.Simple point is, biasing the education system doesn't stop people from being marginalised. Homosexual acts are still a contentious moral issue, and I don't think biasing children is the way to deal with it.
I can disagree with how people live their lives irrespective of how likeable I find them. I disagree with most of my friends on numerous matters, yet most aren't so naiive to believe that I hate them as a result.
It's difficult not to see a cynical ploy here. You know there's a status quo out there currently. You know it's a massively negative one for gay kids. You think you can pass it off as neutral by saying "say some think it's ok, say some think it's not, and each view is alright". But you know that this in effect will yield no change, because if someone's told their existing beliefs are OK, they won't change. People don't like to change, it takes more effort to do so than to not. So by validating existing attitudes about homosexuality, people will ignore the first bit and won't let it bother their viewpoint further.
If you didn't know this, you should. If you actually want change here and not just to prop up existing attitudes then your approach ain't gonna cut it.0 -
LookingFor wrote: »Jakkass, IMO there is a right and wrong here in terms of what's best for society.LookingFor wrote: »It should be IMO beyond the pale to promote non-acceptance of homosexuality. Promoting that seems to have no positive benefits for society.
That isn't what I have argued. I've argued to teach both perspectives on the morality of homosexuality. Both those who claim it is moral and immoral. There is a difference between disagreement and "non-acceptance". Nobody is arguing for non-acceptance, I'm just arguing for letting people make their own minds up rather than teaching propaganda.LookingFor wrote: »Well actually, there is a subtle difference between disagreement with something and promotion of non-acceptance of it.
Thank you.LookingFor wrote: »So you would hopefully have a large net gain in the improvement of gay students circumstances.
A potential worsening for those who disagree with homosexual acts though.LookingFor wrote: »You've been arguing that there'd be a commensurate drop in the circumstances enjoyed by other students which is farcical (see below).
It's not farcical. Bullying along religious lines occurs and is something that should be taken as seriously as bullying along lines of sexuality.LookingFor wrote: »I disagree. Your core sexuality is a very strong and innate part of your identity from nature.
It isn't factual that sexuality is determined.LookingFor wrote: »Religion CAN be challenged. And your religion CAN be challenged without destruction of your sense of self and self-esteem. Indeed it happens all the time with people growing up, disagreeing with their religion, and actually finding their own true identity independent of any of this, and indeed, sometimes even greater confidence and self-esteem. People cast of and adopt religions all the time. It's not something that's quite as profoundly core as other aspects of one's sense of self.
Again, strawmanning my post. I never said that religion shouldn't be challenged. I mean that people shouldn't be demonised for disagreement. Teaching bias in the education system has the potential to do this.
Religious identity is as important as sexual identity to me, neither should be favoured over the other in school situations.LookingFor wrote: »But your sexuality does not leave you, and attitudes about clearly have massive consequences for identity/esteem/confidence/mental health etc.
See above concerning determination of sexuality.LookingFor wrote: »When you tell a gay kid that homosexuality is wrong or homosexual acts are wrong, you are telling that child that THEY are wrong.
Another strawman, this isn't what I'm suggesting. Rather an explanation of those who agree with homosexual acts, and those who disagree.
Not a rant by the teacher saying "Homosexuality is immoral" or "Homosexuality is moral, and everyone who disagrees is wrong". This is what is biased teaching. I disagree with both.LookingFor wrote: »You also have the double-whammy effect of stoking or validating prejudices among others that aren't explicit in anything a teacher might say, but which go on to negatively affect the gay kids in other ways.
I don't consider it a prejudice to disagree with homosexual act.LookingFor wrote: »When you tell a kid some minor aspect of their religion is wrong, it doesn't have remotely the same impact. The kid doesn't think of 'self' when they think of catholic church teachings for example. It might make them think whether the church is right or wrong, they might change their view on the church's teaching or not
This shouldn't be told to any child in the classroom, in the same way that people should not be told absolutely that homosexual acts are wrong. They also should not be told that thinking that they are immoral is wrong. This is something people need to think about for themselves in freedom.LookingFor wrote: »(there are many self-described religious people who don't necessarily agree 100% with everything their religion teaches - their religious identity survives these disagreements), but they're not going to think "i'm not normal, i can't be happy, i'm wrong, i'm disordered, i'm ...".
Actually, this can cause a degree of hurt, and I think it's ignorant to deny this. No teacher should be saying this.LookingFor wrote: »And I think you'll realise that when you don't see christian kids hanging themselves off of wardrobe rails because a teacher tells them homosexuality should be accepted without also validating their religion's views on it (views they probably don't give a toss about anyway).
Religious bullying is a serious problem in many countries. I think it's a fundamentally wrong to ignore potential issues.LookingFor wrote: »Your equating that conflict with what gay kids have to put up with is enormously insulting.
One could find it insulting that you regard LGBT bullying as more important than bullying along religious lines.0 -
Debating with Jackass has to be one of the most pointless and infuriating ways to spend time on the Internet.
Cutting through all the bull****, I think informing students of religious attitudes towards homosexuals is probably fair enough. Religious bigotry (sorry, "disagreement") exists in society and there's no point sweeping it under the rug. If it can be approached in a manor which lets the student themselves make up their mind as to what makes sense and what doesn't, I'd be fairly confident the religious POV will loose out in the end -- with no bias laid down by teacher, and due only to the fact that it simply doesn't make any sense in the real world.
Children aren't stupid. Education is the best weapon in fighting bigotry* and homophobia.
*sorry, sorry... again. I meant disagreement. Just so easy to mix those two up sometimes.0 -
Advertisement
-
That isn't what I have argued. I've argued to teach both perspectives on the morality of homosexuality. Both those who claim it is moral and immoral. There is a difference between disagreement and "non-acceptance". Nobody is arguing for non-acceptance, I'm just arguing for letting people make their own minds up rather than teaching propaganda.
There are consequences to promoting that it's not OK as a equally valid view.
It does lead to non-acceptance.
Just look around. Look at how homosexuality is treated, not just here but elsewhere in the world where things are much worse still.
The church, for example, can say all it wants that it loves the sinner, but its approach validates others' more practically dangerous attitudes to homosexuality every day.
(I'd also as a side note remind that in the case of the CC at least, its teaching with regard to the state of being of homosexuality isn't quite as benign as some suggest - they do teach that the state of homosexuality itself, the inclination of homosexuality, is 'objectively disordered' which is not exactly a flattering label to apply)A potential worsening for those who disagree with homosexual acts though.
It's not farcical. Bullying along religious lines occurs and is something that should be taken as seriously as bullying along lines of sexuality.
When were you in school?
Homosexual-related harrassment and bullying is widespread, particularly in all-male schools. You think religious bullying is actually as bad, or just in your head?It isn't factual that sexuality is determined.
Yeah, I hear it depends on which sexuality someone first tells you is OK.
WTF?
If you disagree that sexuality is not more primal and more instinctive and more engrained in your sense of self than an ADOPTED human construct like religion then I cannot begin to even argue this with you. Your concept of sexuality is completely messed up, and it's that same concept that informed the likes of the writing in the bible on it.
Sex and sexuality are the most fundamental things in life (in the general sense of 'life'). Virtually everything in life revolves around this on one level or another. Nature prioritises it even over survival in some cases.
If you think your nature leaves sexuality and sexual drive up to chance...crikey.
Answer this, because it would save us a lot of time I think: Do you think exclusive promotion of the acceptance of homosexuality in school could 'turn' a child gay?Again, strawmanning my post. I never said that religion shouldn't be challenged. I mean that people shouldn't be demonised for disagreement.
For certain views? YES THEY SHOULD!
Question again: If you think it's OK to demonise some things, why not demonise discrimination against homosexuality, for example? What's the net gain for us as a society vs presenting non-acceptance of homosexuality as equally valid?
You've repeatedly failed to try and approach the question as to the consequences for us, and which would provide better knock-on effects. Outside of your imagined inter-religious bullying because teacher didn't tell me homosexuality is considered not to be ok.Religious identity is as important as sexual identity to me, neither should be favoured over the other in school situations.
It's not as fundamental.
Answer this: you think the environment for a child who is - say - christian will be as bad if his views on homosexuality are not taught in school as it is currently for homosexuals?
If you answered yes: your world view is completely skewed and you need to come out of your bubble and see what schools are actually like. You've clearly no concept of the literal hell some kids go through over their sexuality.Another strawman, this isn't what I'm suggesting. Rather an explanation of those who agree with homosexual acts, and those who disagree.
Not a rant by the teacher saying "Homosexuality is immoral" or "Homosexuality is moral, and everyone who disagrees is wrong". This is what is biased teaching. I disagree with both.
Biased teaching is HELPFUL in certain circumstances.
We bias our teaching on certain matters all the time.
Stop calling it like it's something bad and start explaining WHY it's bad in the case of homosexuality and the exclusive teaching of its acceptance.I don't consider it a prejudice to disagree with homosexual act.
I didn't say that. I said a lot of kids, for a certain period at least (e.g. secondary-school-ish) have prejudices about homosexuality.
Where it suits them they will look for validation of their prejudices. If they have an authority figure presenting non-acceptance of homosexuality or sex between homosexuals or whatever as an equally valid point of view, they will conflate that with validation of their other existing prejudices.
You are taking a very very academic view of the treatment of homosexuality without thinking about the practical consequences.This shouldn't be told to any child in the classroom, in the same way that people should not be told absolutely that homosexual acts are wrong.
These are not equals.
How many kids adopt minor religious teachings like this into their sense of self in the same way as their sexuality?
I do not think it's wrong to challenge a religious viewpoint in an exclusively negative way if it is no longer congruent with the aims of society in promoting acceptance and equality. You will NOT hurt someone as much as you do when you make the same negative challenges about - say - sexuality or race or whatever.
Religious moral views and rules have been on the losing end of examination of actual impact on society for a very long time now. Look how many views and rules once held dear that have been discarded since when cast under a light that shows their complete arbitrariness vs their practical benefit. This just another such example.Actually, this can cause a degree of hurt, and I think it's ignorant to deny this. No teacher should be saying this.
How many kids do you honestly think out there are so attached to the ins and outs of their religions more arbitrary rules that they will be personally offended by this to the degree in which gay kids are EVERY DAY in schools?One could find it insulting that you regard LGBT bullying as more important than bullying along religious lines.
It IS a more pressing issue here today in Irish schools.
I have yet to even read a single case of someone being bullied because they disagreed with homosexuality. If you think this could be potentially so big of a problem that we should leave the case of homosexual acceptance as it is today, I think you've a very very skewed view of things.
A little bit of peer pressure about homosexual acceptance (not BULLYING but softer peer pressure that intolerance of homosexuality was not acceptable) would frankly not go amiss in our schools. Just as same pressure over other intolerances has done a lot of good.
There's something that's coming out in some of your answers that I don't think you've explicitly acknowledged, but I'm going to raise it - the underlying suggestion that you believe sexuality, homosexuality, is not a trait that can be avoided and thus is not something that deserves protection like other unavoidable traits like race or disability or whatever.
Ditto, in this view is the implication that sexuality could be influenced by one's education - since it's not or may something determined on a more base level - and thus we need to maintain the 'homosexuality is not ok' line in schools at least as much as others in case we might suddenly see teh gays everywhere.
What a ****ing antiquated and insulting notion to those of us who struggled with sexuality for the bulk of our lives. If you don't mind me saying so.0 -
Goodshape: I could just as easily retort that your contempt for peoples disagreement is bigotry and beyond (considering that I have absolutely no contempt for people of differing sexual orientations to my own) in and of itself by your scale of it. Let's not get into double standards though.0
-
LookingFor wrote: »The church, for example, can say all it wants that it loves the sinner, but its approach validates others' more practically dangerous attitudes to homosexuality every day.
Disagreement != promotion of hatred
I'm not sure about the use of the term "The church". There are many churches in Ireland.
1994 - 2008LookingFor wrote: »When were you in school?LookingFor wrote: »Homosexual-related harrassment and bullying is widespread, particularly in all-male schools. You think religious bullying is actually as bad, or just in your head?
It is as bad or worse in other countries. Our laws need to be future proof.LookingFor wrote: »If you disagree that sexuality is not more primal and more instinctive and more engrained in your sense of self than an ADOPTED human construct like religion then I cannot begin to even argue this with you. Your concept of sexuality is completely messed up, and it's that same concept that informed the likes of the writing in the bible on it.
There isn't evidence to prove that it is biologically determined. I don't feel it is right to say that one form of bullying is worse than another. Both are equally abhorrent irrespective of whether faith is adopted or not.LookingFor wrote: »Sex and sexuality are the most fundamental things in life (in the general sense of 'life'). Virtually everything in life revolves around this on one level or another. Nature prioritises it even over survival in some cases.
Actually, this depends on your own view, which not everyone shares. A lot of people believe that there are more important things than sex in life.LookingFor wrote: »If you think your nature leaves sexuality and sexual drive up to chance...crikey.
No, I didn't say that. I said that there is no evidence to say that it is biologically determined.LookingFor wrote: »Answer this, because it would save us a lot of time I think: Do you think exclusive promotion of the acceptance of homosexuality in school could 'turn' a child gay?
No. I don't. I do think that teaching such a biased view could breed animosity towards people who happen to disagree based on conscience grounds.LookingFor wrote: »For certain views? YES THEY SHOULD!
I disagree that they should in this case due to the fact it is a contentious viewpoind.LookingFor wrote: »Question again: If you think it's OK to demonise some things, why not demonise discrimination against homosexuality, for example? What's the net gain for us as a society vs presenting non-acceptance of homosexuality as equally valid?
Again. Your making loaded assumptions.
I think that homosexuals should be free to decide for themselves as to what they do sexually. I also think that other students should be free to decide how they regard sexual acts between two of the same gender.
I would also make explicitly clear that disagreement does not mean that one should express hatred to anyone. If this happens it should be treated with severity both at home and in school.
Moral disagreement to homosexual acts is absolutely equally valid, and I would stand up for people to make this conscience decision for themselves.LookingFor wrote: »You've repeatedly failed to try and approach the question as to the consequences for us, and which would provide better knock-on effects. Outside of your imagined inter-religious bullying because teacher didn't tell me homosexuality is considered not to be ok.
Our laws have to be future proof otherwise it is bad legislating.LookingFor wrote: »It's not as fundamental.
I find this insulting given how important my faith is to my life, and how important faith is to other peoples lives.
I don't think sexuality should be enshrined above religion or anything else in school. In fact it would be wrong to do so. Bullying of any student on any ground is just as bad.LookingFor wrote: »Answer this: you think the environment for a child who is - say - christian will be as bad if his views on homosexuality are not taught in school as it is currently for homosexuals?
It depends on the context. It certainly could be given the demographic of students.LookingFor wrote: »If you answered yes: your world view is completely skewed and you need to come out of your bubble and see what schools are actually like. You've clearly no concept of the literal hell some kids go through over their sexuality.
I would argue that you have no concept of how important faith is to people, and how people in the past have been victimised in schools over having it in different countries that would be more secular than our own.LookingFor wrote: »Biased teaching is HELPFUL in certain circumstances.
Stop calling it like it's something bad and start explaining WHY it's bad in the case of homosexuality and the exclusive teaching of its acceptance.
I have, it's clear that you don't understand anything about what faith involves in someones life.LookingFor wrote: »You are taking a very very academic view of the treatment of homosexuality without thinking about the practical consequences.
Your view ignores people who could be marginalised by your moves.LookingFor wrote: »How many kids adopt minor religious teachings like this into their sense of self in the same way as their sexuality?
A lot of people actually. Not only do they take it in the same way, they take it beyond sexuality.LookingFor wrote: »I do not think it's wrong to challenge a religious viewpoint in an exclusively negative way if it is no longer congruent with the aims of society in promoting acceptance and equality. You will NOT hurt someone as much as you do when you make the same negative challenges about - say - sexuality or race or whatever.
I don't think teachers have a right to do this. If other students want to question other students about their faith, that is fine. Bullying should be never tolerated though.
I think you're wrong, and clearly have no experience of what you are speaking of.LookingFor wrote: »Religious moral views and rules have been on the losing end of examination of actual impact on society for a very long time now. Look how many views and rules once held dear that have been discarded since when cast under a light that shows their complete arbitrariness vs their practical benefit. This just another such example.
I as a person of faith have a voice and I should have a voice in how any potential children of mine will be taught. Simply put, and I won't be demonised for disagreeing with your view of sexuality even if you call me a "homophobe" for disagreeing with you. In fact such a retort would be fundamentally childish.
My view is simply:
By all means teach about LGBT orientation, but tell students that they have the freedom of conscience to disagree with homosexual acts.
I personally won't support demonising people because they think differently to you. That in my opinion is also bigotry.LookingFor wrote: »How many kids do you honestly think out there are so attached to the ins and outs of their religions more arbitrary rules that they will be personally offended by this to the degree in which gay kids are EVERY DAY in schools?
See above.LookingFor wrote: »It IS a more pressing issue here today in Irish schools.
Laws and curricula are to be future proof.LookingFor wrote: »I have yet to even read a single case of someone being bullied because they disagreed with homosexuality. If you think this could be potentially so big of a problem that we should leave the case of homosexual acceptance as it is today, I think you've a very very skewed view of things.
Just because it hasn't happened yet in Ireland, doesn't mean we shouldn't protect students from it.
I think you have zero understanding of how people develop in faith.LookingFor wrote: »A little bit of peer pressure about homosexual acceptance (not BULLYING but softer peer pressure that intolerance of homosexuality was not acceptable) would frankly not go amiss in our schools. Just as same pressure over other intolerances has done a lot of good.
I disagree utterly with you. It is possible for people who disagree with homosexual acts to engage with people of LGBT orientation as any other person. There is frankly no reason why they should be goaded into accepting other peoples views. Particularly not with the type of fearmongering that people have attempted on this thread alone so far.LookingFor wrote: »There's something that's coming out in some of your answers that I don't think you've explicitly acknowledged, but I'm going to raise it - the underlying suggestion that you believe sexuality, homosexuality, is not a trait that can be avoided and thus is not something that deserves protection like other unavoidable traits like race or disability or whatever.
I never said it should be avoided, but taught in an unbiased manner.LookingFor wrote: »Ditto, in this view is the implication that sexuality could be influenced by one's education - since it's not or may something determined on a more base level - and thus we need to maintain the 'homosexuality is not ok' line in schools at least as much as others in case we might suddenly see teh gays everywhere.
I never said that.
I don't think that teaching people about homosexuality makes them "gay". What a ridiculous view. I support teaching about homosexuality in schools, I just support telling people that it is okay to disagree.LookingFor wrote: »What a ****ing antiquated and insulting notion to those of us who struggled with sexuality for the bulk of our lives. If you don't mind me saying so.
I personally am indifferent. My faith is just as important to me as sexuality is to LGBT persons, so I will challenge you when you try to belittle something as important to me on these boards. Simple as.
I'm quite amazed how someone can support more teaching about LGBT orientation in schools and receive such abuse.0 -
By all means teach about LGBT orientation, but tell students that they have the freedom of conscience to disagree with homosexual acts.
Once again, this is exactly equal to telling people them have the "freedom of conscience" to disagree with homosexuals. To any mature adult, 'homosexual acts' and homosexuals equate to the same thing.
To put it bluntly, its impossible to know you are homosexual without having committed something that *some* religion will count as "homosexual acts".
"By all means, teach about eastern europeans, but tell students they have the freedom of conscience to disagree with them"; "by all means, teach about blacks, but tell students they have the freedom of conscience to disagree with them", etc, etc are statements which are absolutely and utterly the same as this.0 -
"By all means, teach about eastern europeans, but tell students they have the freedom of conscience to disagree with them"; "by all means, teach about blacks, but tell students they have the freedom of conscience to disagree with them", etc, etc are statements which are absolutely and utterly the same as this.
Race, gender and ethnicity are profoundly different to acts that people choose to do.
For an act to be morally assessed one must have the freedom to decide to do one thing over another. In the case of being black, being a certain gender, or being Eastern European, these cannot qualify as being moral claims as there is no freedom of choice.
See this post I wrote earlier on this thread on the same point.0 -
Race, gender and ethnicity are profoundly different to acts that people choose to do.
For an act to be morally assessed one must have the freedom to decide to do one thing over another. In the case of being black, being a certain gender, or being Eastern European, these cannot qualify as being moral claims as there is no freedom of choice.
See this post I wrote earlier on this thread on the same point.
People do not chose to be gay. People do not know they are gay until they've done something that *some* church will consider a 'homosexual act'.
And that post you linked to is saying the same gibberish, and was refuted the exact same way.0 -
I think you are misinterpreting what I mean by homosexual acts: by this I mean sexual relations between two of the same gender. Do people not decide to engage in this? I had thought so.0
-
I think you are misinterpreting what I mean by homosexual acts: by this I mean sexual relations between two of the same gender. Do people not decide to engage in this? I had thought so.
Thats what *you* define as homosexual acts; but by doing so you're denying every religion that defines homosexual lust as a homosexual act the right to their interference in the education system, while maintaining yours.
Unbiased, eh? Anyway, I never said what you define, I said what religions define. For that is the basis of your argument.0 -
What would you suggest a homosexual couple do then? Not kiss eachother? Not have sex with eachother? Just live together, go on holidays together, and do everthing else together? Being homosexual means doing "homosexual acts", the same way as being heterosexual means doing "heterosexual acts". There is no "choice" in being a homosexual, and there is no "choice" in doing "homosexual acts". How can you think that something is morally wrong, when it is completely natural to a person?For an act to be morally assessed one must have the freedom to decide to do one thing over another. In the case of being black, being a certain gender, or being Eastern European, these cannot qualify as being moral claims as there is no freedom of choice.0 -
Advertisement
-
Unbiased, eh? Anyway, I never said what you define, I said what religions define. For that is the basis of your argument.
Yes, unbiased because the teacher is merely presenting viewpoints. If you have an alternative way to teach on the subject while respecting difference, I have already said I'm all ears.
I didn't refer to lust quite simply because sexual education involves for the most part physical acts.
I think if the system that LookingFor ever came into existence and if I had children, I would pull them out from the sex education classes and teach them about it myself. It's simply not fair to push one view on children on issues as sensitive as sexuality particularly in a group of children with different backgrounds.
Aard: I personally don't feel that I should tell other people what to do on sexual matters. If I were to advise, I would advise them to abstain from sexual acts with eachother but that is my stance. I have no problem with LGBT people deciding what way to live for themselves because they are people with their own decisions to make. I have no interest in legislating the bedroom. I merely hold my right to disagree with this lifestyle. I have major problems when people say that I cannot have moral disagreements with this however, particularly when they are biasing children to one particular view. I find that to be very wrong indeed.
That's what this issue is all about.0
Advertisement