LGBT Issues, Children and Education by Progressive Patriot 3.27.15

And all that you can do is to attack me as a means of avoiding the issue and saying anything of substance regarding it. Give it a try. Which policy from the OP would support? 1,2 ,or 3?? Please explain why.

If you don't like my style and how I present issues it's your problem, not mine

 

Thank you for sharing that. I hope certain people can learn from it

 

I could continue on, but this thread isn't about me and my life and would take us way off topic.

 

definition - Circlejerk

 

Yep, it is similar to race war that sponsored by democratic party, but much worse.

 

I apologize for my initially brief and perhaps terse response

The idea that sexual orientation is fluid is highly questionable. Those who say that homosexuals can become heterosexual or vis versa are confusion sexual orientation with “lifestyle” Many people are not clearly homosexual or heterosexual but, rather are to some degree bisexual. Bisexuals may, at various points in their life depending on a variety of factors, focus more on one gender or the other. Hence, the mistaken perception that their sexual orientation itself has changed.

However, it is the last part of your post that has been bothering me which is why I’m taking the time to respond further. For one thing, there is a growing body of research that points to evidence that sexual orientation is the result of a complex interaction of biological factors, including genetic indicators, and the social environment. No, there has not been a “gay gene” identified, but that does not mean that sexuality is fluid, nor does it mean that it is a choice.

Furthermore, none of this should have anything to do with how we approach “public policy” -by which I assume you mean “gay rights” -and certainly should have no bearing on how we approach the issue of young people who are struggling with their sexuality.

The fact is that the only people who are focusing on the reasons why people are gay are those who looking for a way to prove that it is fluid, or a choice and therefor to delegitimize it. Gay people and their advocates have no need to prove that it is biological or genetic and therefore not a choice. If they concern themselves at all with it, it is for academic purposes.

There courts have come to approach homosexuality as an immutable characteristic. Those opposing gay rights in the courts now know better than to even question that because they know that it will get them no place. There is no time or reason, or justification for approaching anything “tentatively”

 

Basically, yea.

 

A tough one....
Going by the options we have listed out here, number 2 couldn't be the answer.
It should never need to come down to a point where the government infringe on people's lifestyle... would be the same as the big man coming down on them emo / goth kids... sexual choices shouldn't be the government's business - so they shouldn't condemn on on what people do in their privacy.

The ideal answer would need to be a compromise between option 1 and 3.
I'm thinking of the time when teenage pregnancy numbers were catching up with reality and sex education, guidance counselling and safe sex ads were being ramped up to educate these teens.
From an educational standpoint, we really just need to keep up with a comprehensive sex education scheme and really have some super-qualified guidance counselors at the ready for when these type of lifestyle choices affect daily life.
What we don't need is to put homosexual lifestyle at the forefront and in turn seem as if education is attempting to promote homosexuality. What occurs in your private life should stay in your private life. When your private life is affecting our daily routine then external help is needed, and we better make sure there are some good people on standby

 

This thread was never about what the government should do. It is

Me personally, I don't think that sex education of anysorts should be taught in school. The parents should be teaching their children. Obviously that doesn't always happen. So therefore we have sex education. I think then that the main reason for sex education should be for procreation and then touch on the other aspects of sex.

 

OK, a compromise between 1 and 3. Can you develop that further? What would it look like. For instance, under what circumstances do we leave them to struggles on their own vs. supporting them and counseling them?

It's good that you support comprehensive sex education. As far as "putting homosexual lifestyle in the forefront goes, the educational systems is not doing that. It is something just is currently at the forefront. We are at that point in history and we just have to deal with it. No one is "promoting it" What schools and others should be promoting is respect and acceptance of those who are different.

Homosexuality, like heterosexuality is part of peoples identity. Heterosexuals are free to discuss and b open about their families and their life outside of school and the office. Gays should be able to be open about it as well, no more and no less.

 

you are discussing a sexual lifestyle choice, not race or the sex of an individual. Should schools also discuss hunting, fishing, skiing, surfing, cooking etc etc etc?

 

Maybe government was not the right choice of word here, but most of the educating takes place in institutions and since policies and bills will set the tone for the direction of discussion....ergo i just label all of that "government".

I would love nothing more that if this issue was not part of modern society, but like Progressive Patriot says, homosexuality is here to stay.
The responding reaction from the higher ups should follow a similar suite to how institutions put sex ed, safe sex ads and guidance counselling into overdrive when teenage pregnancy seemed to be getting all too real.
In that, these measures did not promote teenage pregnancy but instead gave them the information and resources they needed and a support system on standby.

Whatever angle we tackle homosexuality from should not be promoting the lifestyle, instead it should give the young people the comprehensive information and have support on standby.

Like sec said, its a lifestyle choice... not part of the curriculum.

 

In the world we live in today, what is not highly questionable?

A reasonable theory. It would certainly explain incidences in which individuals have claimed that their sexual preferences have changed. But it could be argued that the explanation is highly convenient whenever the discussion comes up.

What we define as science is in a constant state of flux and development.

As you have said, sexuality is a complex issue, regarding the interaction of numerous factors. It would be nothing but arrogance for anyone to claim that it has been fully mapped out as of yet. Perhaps it is not a choice, but it is equally possible that it may indeed be a matter of choice.

That is debatable. If sexual preference is truly something that is temporary, and can be affected, if not outright altered by undetermined stimuli, then policy should reflect such, rather than basing how to proceed on the potentially incorrect notion of it being of a permanent nature.

The courts used to hold that blacks were inferior to whites, and did not warrant rights or protections. Reliance on the opinion of courts is a highly problematic way of proceeding, as it is entirely the opinion of those who may or may not be well-versed in all relevant factors.

 

I’m just going to focus on a couple of things that I’m stilled troubled by here:

In response to my saying….
"Furthermore, none of this should have anything to do with how we approach “public policy” -by which I assume you mean “gay rights” -and certainly should have no bearing on how we approach the issue of young people who are struggling with their sexuality."

You said…….

.


What exactly do you mean by that? You seem to have a need to cling to the idea that sexual orientation is, or may be “temporary” and “fluid” and I suppose it is your right to believe that . However, the experience of teenagers who KNOW that they are different, those who are struggling to deal with their sexuality is very real. Go back and look at the three policy options that I presented in the OP and tell me what you would advocate. What would you suggest we do based on the possibility that sexuality can be altered? Conversion therapy perhaps?

Also, I said

"There courts have come to approach homosexuality as an immutable characteristic. Those opposing gay rights in the courts now know better than to even question that because they know that it will get them no place. There is no time or reason, or justification for approaching anything “tentatively”

You responded…..

I did not say that the courts were infallible. Far from it. I am saying that this is the reality right now. The courts are not questioning the nature or etiology of homosexuality and therefor, from a legal standpoint, it is useless to consider why people are gay. We may never have all of the answers to that question but I suspect that someday we will, although when, I don’t know. Meanwhile, the question that remains unanswered is, what do we do in the meantime. Is the outside possibility that homosexuality is not immutable a reason to delay that advancement of gay rights, and if so why? Keep in mind that it is a lot easier to prove that religion is not immutable but religious rights are taken for granted and even pushed to an extreme these days.

 

can we shame students who don't agree with those like progressives do when someone doesn't support the gay agenda?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/02/09/students-opposed-to-lgbt-agenda-shamed-in-classroom/

 

It's time that people start speaking up. If you are going to push the "religion" of gay-sex in public schools, then teach ALL religions, or none.

 

it's what all the conservatives in my lifetime have been preaching....


all or none

if you allow one, allow all
if you deny one, deny all

 

that would be true equality

Isn't it strange how schools now have a "holiday break" and not a Chsristmas break, and can't sing "Hark the Heralds" but will invite homsoexuals to come in and discuss their faith of gay-sex.

 

The third policy option: engage in constructive dialogue. But first it must be determined exactly what the dialogue must consist of. If human sexuality is indeed fluidic, and subject to change based on individual experiences, would that not lead to a reduction in suicides among teenagers who are aware that they are different, if they were informed that what they are experiencing is likely a normal part of the development of the human condition/experience?

Is not more harm than good done by introducing labels and classifications to those that are trying to sort out their lives? Would not more good be done by helping them realize that they do not have to be defined in specific, and generalized terms, simply because they are convenient for organization purposes?

There are also courts refusing to overturn the prohibitions on homosexual marriage in certain courts. That cannot be overlooked.

Because individuals do not deserve to be typified, codified, and classified in any manner that could render them as nothing more than pawns, in what amounts to nothing more than a game of political chess. It goes against the concept of being able to determine what you want for yourself, and what you wish to be, by saying that you are nothing more than the sum total of specific parts. It is invalidation of individuality.

 

So you’re now saying that we should put gay rights on hold because why? It labels and classifies people. Sorry, I’m not getting that at all. It seems like your bending over backwards to justify something that there is no justification for. It’s as if you’re saying that to allow gays to marry someone who they love who happens to be of the same gender, and to recognize the legitimacy of gay and lesbian headed families with all of the rights, protections and benefits that others enjoy is somehow doing a disservice to them. There is no good reason to do anything else, if for no other reason, than for the sake of the children. If I’m misinterpreting anything here, please explain what it is that you do, in fact, mean

 

"don we now our gay apparrell... falala... lala lah... la la lah...."

 

If people were truly serious about using sex ed as a tool to promote safe sex and reduce the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies they would do two things. First off show pics of what happens to women's bodies after having kids. Second show pics of people with ghonnorea and syphillis and genital warts. Then the teacher can say that statisticaly 3 out of 4 kids in that class room will get an STD by the time they graduate (not really accurate but it will scare them (*)(*)(*)(*)less) and then you will see a marked drop in pregnancies and STDs.

 

That is not what this thread is about. Please read the OP

 

Actually that was my point. Sex education should ONLY be about STDs and pregnancy. Any value or moral judgments are up to the parents to teach their children, it is not the governments job to teach that. School should focus on educating core subjects. Reading Riting and Rithmatic so to speak. The US school system used to be number one in the world and then around the late 60s and 70s they strayed from their mission and starting teaching social nonsense and thus lost time on the core subjects. Remember the disasterous whole learning fad and the still present problem with self esteem? This allowed other countries to eventually pass by the US and they did so by having their schools focus on the core subjects and not wander off into unnecessary claptrap.

 

Sorry, I can't agree. All adults in a child's life must deal with all issues that come up. Part of education is the emotional and developmental aspects of childhood. As a teenager, I had serious emotional issues that were overlooked precisely because that was too much emphasis on the 3 r's and to little on other things. You can't burry your head in the sand. These issues don't go away and kids need all of the help that they can get, and the parents are not always capable of dealing with it. That's one reason why we have kids killing themselves.