Are lgbt identities explored in the school curriculum?

L1011

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

So the teacher saying "so kids, some religions see gay sex as immoral" is unbiased, while excluding all the religions that see being gay, end of, as immoral?

No it isn't. You just really, seriously want your viewpoint to be represented, and you'll insist something is "unbiased" when your bias is covered.

Jakkass wrote: »

Aard: I personally don't feel that I should tell other people how to live

If you don't feel you should tell others how to live, why do you spend copious amounts of time moralising on a gay forum?

You said you were leaving, but something drew you back in. Possibly a desire to tell people how to live....

philologos

MYOB wrote: »

So the teacher saying "so kids, some religions see gay sex as immoral" is unbiased, while excluding all the religions that see being gay, end of, as immoral?

I've said the views of those who support homosexual acts as being moral, and those who do not, will both be taught.

MYOB wrote: »

No it isn't. You just really, seriously want your viewpoint to be represented, and you'll insist something is "unbiased" when your bias is covered.

Not true actually. If there was a way where people could be told that this is an issue that they themselves should decide on without presenting both views this would be just as fruitful. I've asked you to suggest such a way.

MYOB wrote: »

If you don't feel you should tell others how to live, why do you spend copious amounts of time moralising on a gay forum?

The issue isn't about how LGBT people live their lives. It's about how children are taught.

I personally have no interest in legislating the bedroom in the slightest and I never have done as far as I know.

MYOB wrote: »

You said you were leaving, but something drew you back in. Possibly a desire to tell people how to live....

The thread is about education. Not about what you decide to do with your partners. In education freedom of conscience should be respected. That's what I feel.

I was going to stop posting out of futility, but some people posted responses I felt I should respond to.

L1011

Jakkass wrote: »

I've said the views of those who support homosexual acts as being moral, and those who do not, will both be taught.

"Teacher, what homosexual acts do they find immoral?"
Provide an answer to that without providing yet further bias.

Jakkass wrote: »

Not true actually. If there was a way where people could be told that this is an issue that they themselves should decide on without presenting both views this would be just as fruitful. I've asked you to suggest such a way.

I think everyone else on this forum other than IWasFrozen knows this is entirely true. You see "unbiased" as your bias.

Jakkass wrote: »

The issue isn't about how LGBT people live their lives. It's about how children are taught.

I personally have no interest in legislating the bedroom in the slightest and I never have done.

The thread is about education. Not about what you decide to do with your partners.

This hasn't answered my question. Why do you, a deeply religious heterosexual student, spend huge amounts of time in the "Lesbian & Gay & Bisexual" forum, other than to moralise to the legitimate users of it?

Iwasfrozen

MYOB wrote: »

"Teacher, what homosexual acts do they find immoral?"
Provide an answer to that without providing yet further bias.

Christians see all aspects of homosexual acts as immoral becuase it says so in the Bible. Being gay is not a sin but acting on it is.
Does that answer your question ?
Now may I put up my own ?
Say a teacher is teaching her class and she is in the process of brainwashing them when a young muslim child puts up his hand and says "My Mommy says homosexual acts are wrong." How should the teacher react ? Should she say the childs mother is a bigoted idiot ?

MYOB wrote: »

I think everyone else on this forum other than IWasFrozen knows this is entirely true. You see "unbiased" as your bias.

And I think you are wrong.

MYOB wrote: »

This hasn't answered my question. Why do you, a deeply religious heterosexual student, spend huge amounts of time in the "Lesbian & Gay & Bisexual" forum, other than to moralise to the legitimate users of it?

We are discussing a homosexual matter on a homosexual forum. If you have a problem with that perhaps you should bring it up with a mod.

philologos

MYOB wrote: »

"Teacher, what homosexual acts do they find immoral?"
Provide an answer to that without providing yet further bias.

I don't see how the teacher would be saying that as a believer, rather answering what other people think about the issue.

Again, if you could please answer my question, I'd much appreciate it.

MYOB wrote: »

I think everyone else on this forum other than IWasFrozen knows this is entirely true. You see "unbiased" as your bias.

I have no time for false accusations. I would prefer if people weren't demonised for disagreeing with homosexual acts.

Why would I only wish to pursue my own bias when I have asked you explicitly three times now, how can we teach about LGBT issues without demonising others for having alternative views?

MYOB wrote: »

Why do you, a deeply religious heterosexual student, spend huge amounts of time in the "Lesbian & Gay & Bisexual" forum, other than to moralise to the legitimate users of it?

I would just describe myself as a Christian. I post here because some issues interest me. I've also posted here in response to some threads encouraging people to bring their gay partners to the debs, and I disagreed outwardly with putting homosexuals to death in both Iraq and on other forums I condemned the death of people of LGBT orientation in Tel Aviv. I agree with civil partnerships, and the choice that people of LGBT orientation have about their lives.

So I'm fed up of your inaccurate claims. If you want me to stay off this section merely asking might be a start.

Iwasfrozen

Jakkass wrote: »

So I'm fed up of your inaccurate claims.

Indeed, I think jakkass has been very patiant with you constent cries of homophobia and religious insultes

L1011

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Christians see all aspects of homosexual acts as immoral becuase it says so in the Bible. Being gay is not a sin but acting on it is.
Does that answer your question ?

Its absolutely impossible to know you are gay without having "acted on it" in some way. As I've said before. And why would the teacher *only* respond with "Christians see...". What about Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastarianism...

So, no. It doesn't answer my question at all.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Say a teacher is teaching her class and she is in the process of brainwashing them when a young muslim child puts up his hand and says "My Mommy says homosexual acts are wrong." How should the teacher react ? Should she say the childs mother is a bigoted idiot ?

I'd wonder why it was being taught to kids young enough to say "my mommy", first of all. Secondly, the teacher should say that the morality of the issue isn't dealt with. If a kid says "my daddy says all blacks are thieves" what is the teacher going to say?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And I think you are wrong.

Lets see what the rest of the forum think, then...

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

We are discussing a homosexual matter on a homosexual forum. If you have a problem with that perhaps you should bring it up with a mod.

No, you're blathering about religion and politics on a LGB forum.

LookingFor

I'm just absolutely flabberghasted by your post Jakkass.

I just cannot believe some of what you're coming out with.

I'm going to TRY keep this brief:

Life, of our type at least, sustains itself by sex. Nature imbues sexual drive in order to perpetuate species. Sexuality is as a consequence a primary concern of nature and life. I do not see how there can be any debate about this. I'm not saying 'life revolves around sex' in the context I think you mean, I mean life on a very very fundamental level places sexual activity as a very high priority for very obvious reasons.

There's no comparison to religion to be made as dearly as you may wish it to be so. Subscription to particular religious views is not something driven by nature. They're fundamentally of completely different relevance to one's being.

No one said homosexual ACTS were biologically determined (or as I say, more relevant here, whether it's optional). You were questioning though the very state of being as whether it was biologically determined or not. But forget biological determinism or not - the more accurate question is whether it is optional or not, a choice or not. That's what's relevant in determining its treatment.

You've come out with some enormously big statements saying, basically, that bullying in schools with regard to religion is as bad or bigger a problem than bullying related to homosexuality. (Which, by the way, is a different scenario to bullying regarding religious views on homosexuality anyway). You claim to have been in school up to 2008. If you were, you must have had blinders on mate. How many times did you hear 'christian fundie' thrown at another pupil vs 'fag'? Why do you think the Dept. of Ed issued specific guidelines on homophobic bullying recently? If anything it's actually got worse I think. "That's so gay" has entered youth conversation as a very common refrain.

I think you're living in an airy fairy world where everyone just disagrees with homosexual acts but really feels great affection for homosexuals themselves, and no one would say a bad word about them. So it's OK to continue to validate religious teaching on homosexual acts in school regardless of its actual benefit to society.

The truth is, there are many people out there who LOVE to pick on people if they think they can get away with it. Maintaining a mixed message (or even just an apparently mixed one) from authority figures that will in ANY way validate this behaviour against homosexuals isn't going to improve things.

As much as you might protest otherwise, continuing to promote disagreement with what homosexuals do in their private time in their private bedrooms as perfectly reasonable will reflect badly on ALL gay people in the real world. People assume people have sex. People assume gay people have or will have sex. If you even just say 'the sex is disagreeable' and say it's OK to think that, you are promoting negative judgementalism of anyone associated with homosexuality - whether you intend that or not. People ARE judgemental and do generalise. You have to consider actual consequences of these things, not just intended consequences.

If people really just strictly disagreed in a relatively passive way with 'homosexual acts' gay people wouldn't have nearly the problems with acceptance than they do. But you seem to be ignorant of or in denial of what gay people do put up with from others, so in your world probably everything is hunky dory for us.

L1011

Jakkass wrote: »

I have no time for false accusations. I would prefer if people weren't demonised for disagreeing with homosexual acts.

Easy way to avoid that - don't post on an LGB forum then, when its blatantly obvious that the legitimate posters are going to vehemently disagree with you.

Jakkass wrote: »

Why would I only wish to pursue my own bias when I have asked you explicitly three times now, how can we teach about LGBT issues without demonising others for having alternative views?

As I've answered MORE THAN THREE TIMES - Do not teach the "alternate views" AT ALL. Teaching them is inherent bias.

Jakkass wrote: »

So I'm fed up of your inaccurate claims. If you want me to stay off this section merely asking might be a start.

OK then. Please stay off this section. You cause arguments, you contribute nothing of use, and you are neither lesbian, gay or bisexual.

Boston

I love the way you say "young Muslim child" as if just because ignorance is rooted in religion it should be respected. What if the same child says to the teacher "My mommy says that its immoral for you, as a woman, not to wear a burka.". What is the teacher going to say then?

For like maybe the tenth time in this thread, schools are not the place to teach religious morality. That can be left to the religious leaders.

I'm amazed this hasn't come up so far, but tbh it isn't are job to ensure that there's a balanced unbiased view presented. I'd hope that a child who came up with ignorant comments relating to homosexuality was educated on the matter, in the same way I'd hope a child who came out with race hate comments was educated on the matter.

Iwasfrozen; You haven't a clue what this forum is for. We're not here to justify ourselves to you or anyone else. We engage in these debates because it interests some of us to do so and while there is no hope of changing the main protagonists mind, we may influence the opinions of others who are more on the fence. There is no onus are obligation on our parts to allow such debates on this forum.

Herbal Deity

Jakkass wrote: »

Homosexual acts are still a contentious moral issue

They're not, they're simply opposed by bigots.

Something is a contentious moral issue if it can be reasonably argued that it does harm to people/society. If it harms no one, then opposition to it is bigotry.

Consensual homosexual acts between two adults harms nobody, therefore there's nothing immoral about it. It really is that black and white.

Iwasfrozen

Boston wrote: »

Iwasfrozen; You haven't a clue what this forum is for. We're not here to justify ourselves to you or anyone else. We engage in these debates because it interests some of us to do so and while there is no hope of changing the main protagonists mind, we may influence the opinions of others who are more on the fence. There is no onus are obligation on our parts to allow such debates on this forum.

Where did I say you had to justify yourself to me ?
We both engage in these debates out of interest, nothing more. I cannot though for the life of me understand why some members of this forum have a problem with us bringing up Homosexual matters on the Homosexual forum.

Iwasfrozen

MYOB wrote: »

OK then. Please stay off this section. You cause arguments,

Nobody is arguing, we are discussing. As this is a discussion forum.

MYOB wrote: »

you contribute nothing of use,

We contribute debate. Is that not what forums are for ?

MYOB wrote: »

and you are neither lesbian, gay or bisexual.

So you think that we should not post here because of our sexual orientation ?

Boston

It's neither "The Homosexual" forum nor the "Debate" forum.

Aard

I think they're hinting at that it's unusual for people who aren't LGB to post in the LGB forum. Why would one bother, unless one had a vested interest in the topic of Homosexuality?

L1011

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nobody is arguing, we are discussing. As this is a discussion forum.

This failed to be a discussion somewhere about page 2.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

We contribute debate. Is that not what forums are for ?

No.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So you think that we should not post here because of our sexual orientation ?

In a word, yes.

Iwasfrozen

Aard wrote: »

I think they're hinting at that it's unusual for people who aren't LGB to post in the LGB forum. Why would one bother, unless one had a vested interest in the topic of Homosexuality?

Homosexuality is an interesting topic form a social point of view. Especially in recent times with the new civil partnership bill comming out soon.
I usually lurk about this forum untill I find a forum that catches my eye and then I will respond with a post, either agreeing or disagreeing. If another person postes in reply of my post then a discussion has started in the subject of the thread.
The LGBT forum is not a gays only forum, there is absolutly nothing wrong with a little friendly debate.

Goodshape

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

I don't have contempt for disagreements, I think what you call a "disagreement" is thinly veiled (intentionally or not) bigotry.

http://www.answers.com/bigot wrote:

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

You say you have no contempt but you are willing to teach intolerance of those who differ to children. That's disgusting.

Aard

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The LGBT forum is not a gays only forum, there is absolutly nothing wrong with a little friendly debate.

Friendly?

Iwasfrozen

Aard wrote: »

Friendly?

Yeah.

Boston

MYOB wrote: »

In a word, yes.

Erm, that's not right. And is against the ethos of boards.ie

L1011

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The LGBT forum is not a gays only forum, there is absolutly nothing wrong with a little friendly debate.

Telling people their sexuality is immoral and 'friendly' don't work in to the same sentence.

L1011

Boston wrote: »

Erm, that's not right. And is against the ethos of boards.ie

If it keeps the religious right and the conservative right from moralising and proselytising; its worth it.

Additionally, I don't think I'd be too welcome in the Non-Drinkers Club if I went in talking about the wonders of a good pint; the Ladies Lounge if I lectured them on the penis; BGRH if I banged on relentlessly about hair, and so on.

LookingFor

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yeah.

I dunno. It's stressful.

I don't think it's a reason not to have these discussions - I'm happy to fight my corner on it tooth and nail - but it IS quite stressful.

We're not debating from ivory towers here. This stuff actually affects some of our lives.

Boston

MYOB wrote: »

If it keeps the religious right and the conservative right from moralising and proselytising; its worth it.

It's an option to ban topics*; it will never be an option to exclude people on the basis of orientation and I can't believe you're trying to defend such a position.

MYOB wrote: »

Additionally, I don't think I'd be too welcome in the Non-Drinkers Club if I went in talking about the wonders of a good pint; the Ladies Lounge if I lectured them on the penis; BGRH if I banged on relentlessly about hair, and so on.

You're watering down your comment now. If would be wrong to say you shouldn't be allowed post on those forums because you're not the target audience. We're not here to justify ourselves, and so far jackass hasn't fallen into that little pitfall, he's here justifying his views.

* Better to accept that differing views exist and challenge them then to close our ears to them. We won't change jackass's or even IwasFrozen's mind, but we may change the mind of a reader.

L1011

Boston wrote: »

It's an option to ban topics*; it will never be an option to exclude people on the basis of orientation and I can't believe you're trying to defend such a position.

You're watering down your comment now. If would be wrong to say you shouldn't be allowed post on those forums because you're not the target audience. We're not here to justify ourselves, and so far jackass hasn't fallen into that little pitfall, he's here justifying his views.

* Better to accept that differing views exist and challenge them then to close our ears to them. We won't change jackass's or even IwasFrozen's mind, but we may change the mind of a reader.

I did say "in a word, yes". The full explanation would have been much the same as to Jakkass - Iwasfrozen isn't in the target audience of the forum, causes arguments and contributes nothing of use. Its identical to me swanning over to the Ladies Lounge and being misogynistic.

Boston

Well you know there's a fair few heterosexual posters and readers of this forum and that to the best of my knowledge two of the five moderators are straight? We're the point in pissing people off over jackass or IwasFrozen? If either of them started ranting about the immorality of homosexuality on a LGBT Personal Issues thread, they'd be banned by now, but until that happens there's no need to over react.

L1011

Boston wrote: »

Well you know there's a fair few heterosexual posters and readers of this forum and that to the best of my knowledge two of the five moderators are straight? We're the point in pissing people off over jackass or IwasFrozen? If either of them started ranting about the immorality of homosexuality on a LGBT Personal Issues thread, they'd be banned by now, but until that happens there's no need to over react.

Two of the moderators are CMods. And I definitely know at least two of the three specific moderators aren't heterosexual.

The other heterosexual posters and readers have not spent their time on here posting homophobic garbage, and indeed anyone who does so without wrapping it in a veil of religious or conservative political concern gets dealt with rather rapidly. They have no interest in the forum except a malicious one.

LegacyUser

Hey I am a dino by your standards... I left school in 1979 and anything to do with sex was heretical. And mention of same sex unions would lead to an attack of the vapours. Both my children were instructed that sometimes couples are same sex...in national school... C of I school of course.. classes in or associated with the stay safe programme...

this is why it matters not if the bishops resign....they will be replaced by bishops...same thing, same traditions, same ethos, same gowns they will still control about 3,000 schools and select who get to become teachers, principals...same with doctors and hospitals, they even will wear the same hat.

LookingFor

MYOB wrote: »

They have no interest in the forum except a malicious one.

I think some of them have a genuine if misguided interest in protecting against a percieved threat of homosexual acceptance to the credibility of their religious views, or what they think would be real threat to - for example - religious kids who apparently need their intolerance of homosexuality to be validated if homosexual kids are to have their fundamental acceptance validated. I mean, Jakkass was already nailing poor christian kids to the cross over this.

It isn't unusual when intolerance is being challenged for the perpetuators of said intolerance to themselves cry persecution on grounds they hope will drum up sympathy. Go to some parts in the US and there are still folks who'll say that white people are the most persecuted race in America, for example. It's happened over and over where a margin of folks who can't accept unqualified tolerance try themselves to pull the persecution card, not themselves realising just how silly they look to the outside world. This sort of stuff may just be another manifestation of that in a different context.

If it is a case of being contrarian because of a more malicious underlying agenda then..