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
Gender distinction in Canada's schools
Options
Comments
-
Zombrex said:
OK, you say anything the State says is socially acceptable is so. Racism in Nazi Germany; Apartheid in SA, etc.
No, I'm saying anything the State says is socially acceptable according to the State which in Canada is responsible for education, and in a democracy if yo disagree with the current position of the State you are free to attempt democratic change of that position.
If you believe the State's position should be that it is not socially acceptable to be a homosexual or to carry out homosexual acts then the onus is on you and others who agree with you to convince, through democratic methods, the rest of the population.
It will then become the position of the State.I quite agree that the State's morality may differ from mine. And I appreciate I'm free to campaign for the Sate's morality to be changed.
But that is not the point. The point is the State is not entitled to enforce all its moral views on me or my kids.
What, just some of its moral views? We want our kids learning there is nothing wrong with being black, but not learning there is nothing wrong with being homosexual?
Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Who decides what areas of civics, health, etc we do teach our kids and what areas we don't if the democratic will of the people.
Should a parent be able to demand that a school stop teaching an anti-bullying class because they personally believe that bully is actually pretty good their kids?
That is what this course does, it is designed around empathy and tolerance of those who are different to you.It can present them, but not in the terms that this is the truth. Let them acknowledge the differing views, especially those that the State was founded on.
The religious view point of the person as they grow old enough to have a religious view point is their own private matter. This course is to stop kids throwing stones at the boy who likes to play with dolls instead of action men.Indeed. And Canada was quite famous for its support of eugenics. All socially acceptable at the time. Like homosexuality today.
Like I said if you have an argument why homosexuality shouldn't be considered socially acceptable you are free to present it. You will notice that eugenics isn't the States position these days.Yes, that is true. If society casts off Christian morality, society will have to face whatever replaces it. Christians will suffer in the process, but evil brings its own punishment.
Christians seem to suffer only in the annoyance they feel that everyone isn't doing what they say. Everyone else finds their standards of living increasing.I think my reason is fine: The State should not teach kids that homosexuality is valid, because it is a perversion of nature and has bad mental and physical tendencies.
Well I would say that is demonstratively false but given our history with you and science I don't think I'll bother
Needless to say if you think you can convince others of that position you are free to try. It doesn't seem to be going that well so far, but no doubt that is because of how evil we all are, not because of the weakness of your position
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
I doubt it. I'm sure we are at least a substantial minority in the USA, the UK and Ireland.
I really don't see any evidence of that Wolfsbane, homosexuality seems socially acceptable by most people in all those countries.
Well I don't know what you mean by "on a par", but ask them do they think it is acceptable to be a gay and have gay relationships. I would be surprised if even 1 out of 10 said no this is not acceptable in society.Hard to believe that. Even most of my non-Christian friends do not regard homosexuality as on a par with heterosexuality.
No, the State has a responsibility to the substantial minority as well. But you aren't a substantial minority, and this is reflected in the actions of States where homosexuality is socially acceptable.But if we are a substantial minority? Should our views be disregarded?
The reason we tell thieves to be ashamed of themselves is not because they gave into an urge. It is because they stole something.The same reason thieves and fornicators should be ashamed of themselves. They might argue their longing for property or sex is just how they are, but we expect people to deal with those urges and not give into them.
We don't with fornicators because non-marital sex between consenting adults is socially acceptable and common place even among most Christians.
Equating stealing with sex is really not the best argument I've ever heard against fornication, let alone homosexualityDoes that make children from a thieving or promiscuous culture loath themselves? Hopefully it makes them question their desires, reject them as harmful and adopt healthy practises.
Again we do not object to stealing because it is an unhealthy urge. That is missing the wood for the trees. We object to it because it is stealing, an act which harms another through involuntarily removing property without consent.
Talking about healthy and unhealthy practices might go down well against people who already think like and agree with you, but it means nothing to others because it is already based on axioms you have not yet established.
You might as well say the reason homosexuality is bad is because it is not good.OK, I appreciate your tolerance of dissent. Would it extend to the right to withdraw one's kids from being taught that homosexuality is a valid lifestyle, with them only being taught the anti-bullying principles?
That is a very interesting question. Personally I'm torn at the moment over where exactly the role of the parent is in their education and how much right they have to raise their kids even if their kids turn out to be intolerant bigoted nut jobs.
I imagine you think it would be perfectly fine for a parent to withdraw their kid from homosexuality tolerance class.
Would you think a parent has a right to withdraw the kid from anti-bullying class? Or racism awareness class? Or religious tolerance class?
It goes to the question must the State only teach things that are perfectly in line with the parents views or does the State have a responsibility to the child to educate them in social notions that may be contrary to the parents.
Either side of that question is a mind field as far as I can see.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Zombrex said:
My issue is not what is tolerated, but what is promoted as good.
But that is the thing, I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the role a secular western government takes in society. What is a good way to live your life is largely irrelevant.
Religions promote what is good, normally based on ideas of how God or some other divine creator (or from my point of view, ancient middle eastern priests and kings) decided was the purpose of our existence.
It is good to marry for that is how God meant it to be.
It is bad to fornicate, for that goes against God's design for man and woman.
It is good to have children, for that is why God placed us on this Earth.
Etc etc.
Governments haven't be doing that for hundreds of years, since kings and theocracies went out of fashion.
The central idea of western governments since the Enlightenment is freedom to pursue the live you wish to lead, not telling you what is the life you should be leading.
When gays march down main street as part of the "homosexual agenda" as you call it they are not calling on governments to say it is good to be a homosexual. They are calling on governments for the freedom to carry out the life style they have already decided is good for them.
I think some religious people, including yourself, find this very difficult to understand because you are still viewing the role of government in this rather ancient notions of instructing people on how they should be living their lives as religions have done.Again, most Christians in America and elsewhere are not asking for homosexuality to be banned - just that it not be promoted.
Homosexuality doesn't need to be promoted it already exists. It is the freedom to be homosexual, the acceptance of that freedom, which is being promoted.But we agree on that! You want to take it further, however, and have kids taught homosexuality is as valid as heterosexuality.
There is that above point again.
The government doesn't teach heterosexuality is a valid way to live your life, so why would it promote homosexuality as that?
The State does not tell you how to live your life, so why would that change for homosexuals? I have never being told by a government body that it is good that I'm a heterosexual, that is is good that have heterosexual relationships. I've never been told either that it is good that I become a computer scientist, that it is good that own property, that it is good that play video games.
These concepts are exclusive to religions, they don't exist in other areas such as modern democracies. If you view governments in these terms you are going to come away with a very skewed view of what is going on.Correct. But why go further and teach that any/all are moral? Toleration, not indoctrination should be the goal.
They aren't. Again you think that because you view it as two competing notions of how best to live your life, the Christian one and the secular government one.
In reality the secular government one isn't telling you how to live your life, it is giving you the freedom to live it as you see fit.
That is what is being promoted to children in this school curriculum, not that you should be a homosexual but rather if you are a homosexual we are not going to tell you there is something with that and you are free to live your life as you see fit.Should the State teach Catholicism is as true as Protestantism or Hinduism or whatever? No. Whether it is or not is not the State's business. Same with sexual orientation. Just teach that people are free to believe what they like about God, be it wrong or right. Same for sexual orientation.
Which is what they are doing, a homosexual kid is as free to live as they like as a heterosexual kids.
You seem to think that by saying this the Canadian government is saying it is moral to be homosexual. In reality the Canadian government isn't saying anything other than it is moral to live as you wish to live.So anything that does not harm others is morally OK? Might it not be morally bad, but none of our concern?
Generally morality is centred around harm. Even Christian concepts of morality are centred around harm, since most Christians consider deviating from God's plan for humans leads to harm.OK, I don't have a problem with the State teaching that. I do if they say it is good to sleep around.
Good in relation to what? The States plan of how you should live your life? Such a plan doesn't exist.
Again you seem to view this topic purely in religious terms, religions tell people how to live their lives so secular governments must also be doing this.I said If our desires are the defence - that is, if homosexuality is validated because it is a basic desire, rather than it not doing any un-permitted harm to another. But if is the latter, that only means homosexuality should be tolerated, not endorsed as moral.
It is up to the homosexual to determine if it is moral or not. The State endorses the freedom to be homosexual if you want.The concept of consent is moving toward endorsing paedophilia and incest, let alone polygamy
Not in any legal documentation I've ever seen. Paedophile lobbying groups are hardly the best place to get unbiased assessment current consent laws. In other news the KKK thinks blacks have it too easy :PI've no problem with that - just with having immoral positions taught as moral by the State.
Well luckily for you western governments haven't been concerning themselves with things like that since the American revolution. 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement