Are lgbt identities explored in the school curriculum?

Lame Lantern wrote: »

I honestly cannot. You're objecting to the mere mentioning of homosexuality as a facet of an individual's identity. That isn't activism, it's an honest and responsible reflection of our society. "Gay people exist and they can be happy too" is the extent of what's being proposed. Your "anti-homosexual" opinion should no more colour decisions as to what is or is not acceptable in public education that being anti-Muslim, anti-women or anti-Polish.

You still haven't backed-up your statement that the majority of people are pro-homosexual.
I am not objecting to the mentioning of homosexuality as a moral topic in class discussion, in fact I welcome it. As long moral opposition brought up by parents and the church is also discussed. Censoring opposition is in my opinion just as bad as pretending homosexuality doesn't exist.

Lame Lantern wrote: »

It was an apt analogy, not a straw man. You can easily address the substance of arbitrarily inflicting an esoteric ideology on public education which was the sum of my point.

it still is a straw man, we live in Ireland and are discussing possible homosexual teachings being brought into the curriculum in Irish schools.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

pro-homosexual

What does that even mean?

Jakkass wrote: »

A presentation of both sides of the ethical argument (homosexuality is moral vs homosexuality is immoral, homosexuality is biologically determined vs homosexuality is not biologically determined),

Because neither of those discourses exist in secular ethical discussion. Biological determination is a fact and homosexuality cannot be immoral without a governing arbitrary ethical code to suggest that (in much the same way that eating pork or wearing synthetic fibres isn't immoral unless you subscribe to some dialectic that suggests it does). To introduce such a debate would be at best disingenuous and more likely plainly misleading.

Why is it so wrong to allow students to make up their own mind on contentious issues rather than passing an agenda through the education system?

"Homosexuals exist and fair play to them" is not an agenda, in the same way "People that don't celebrate Christmas exist and fair play to them" is not an agenda. "Homosexuals are better at chess than heterosexuals" is an agenda, one that nobody is proposing.

Why shouldn't it? In order not to bias the minds of people it is more reasonable to put what is the real situation to the class. I'd also support this in relation to abortion, presenting both pro-choice sides, and pro-life sides, and in sexuality itself, with the concept of pre-marital sex and who agrees and disagrees and why.

Abortion is a legitimate legal and ethical debate, one to which I would also not introduce religious (ie arbitrary and esoteric) arguments in class. The notion of pre-marital sex as ethically dubious should also never be introduced in school. Sex education should present only facts, cautioning students to be safe, and not presume to judge people on their actions based on some arbitrary moralising.

Ethics is something that is important to our lives. Living without ethics is just plain absurd.

A fundamental tenet of the our society's ethical makeup is not to allow some religion afforded arbitrary primacy by the state to hold authority over the moral compass of the individual.

It is up to us to think of what is right and wrong, and more importantly it allows for people to work out what is ethical for themselves (autonomous) rather than just adopting what people tell them (heteronomous).

The distinction you're not understanding that is by presenting "homosexuality is a thing" in class merely reflects something extant in society but by introducing "homosexuality could be good or bad," a concept that, as I've already demonstrated, can only be held by the acceptance of a arbitrary esoteric ideology or by an untenable sense of hatred, has no place in mainstream ethical discourse. To facilitate this point of view in the classroom, born out of either dialectic, is to skew ethics away from the objective and secular consideration of fact. Fundamentally, presenting "homosexuality" as an issue of ethics is to accept a discourse divorced from secular, rational ethics that should be the sole purview of public education.

Iwasfrozen wrote:

You still haven't backed-up your statement that the majority of people are pro-homosexual.

I'll turn that around on you and ask you to present evidence that homophobia is the consensus in Ireland.

I am not objecting to the mentioning of homosexuality as a moral topic in class discussion, in fact I welcome it.

I am. It's not a moral topic.

As long moral opposition brought up by parents and the church is also discussed.

As I said above, any such opposition emerges from untenable discourses that belong nowhere in school. Unless you want to bring up my grandad's dislike of women in the workplace or the church's opposition to safe sex on the basis that you'll go to hell as well.

Censoring opposition is in my opinion just as bad as pretending homosexuality doesn't exist.

Contriving opposition is what we're talking about here. There is no legitimate ethical basis for opposing homosexuality, only arbitrary and esoteric dialectics.

it still is a straw man, we live in Ireland and are discussing possible homosexual teachings being brought into the curriculum in Irish schools.

A straw man is the reframing of an argument to one that is invalid but easily undermined. Again, mine was an apt analogy.

Lame Lantern wrote: »

I'll turn that around on you and ask you to present evidence that homophobia is the consensus in Ireland.

I never claimed anti-homosexuality was the main consensus in Ireland. Here's my quote:

Iwasfrozen wrote:

Nearly everybody I know is anti-homosexual (I hate the term homophobic), why should pro-homosexuality teachings be forced onto their children ?

Nearly everybody I know is not everyone.
Here is your quote:

Lame Lantern wrote:

Moreover, while a massive majority identify as catholic, the majority of the state is not homophobic.

Now could you please stop beating about the bush and give me back up for your claim. That is if you have any...

Lame Lantern wrote: »

I am. It's not a moral topic.

Yes it is.

Lame Lantern wrote: »

As I said above, any such opposition emerges from untenable discourses that belong nowhere in school. Unless you want to bring up my grandad's dislike of women in the workplace or the church's opposition to safe sex on the basis that you'll go to hell as well.

It is you opinion that opposition to homosexuality should not be discussed in school. But this is not about your opinions, this is about giving parents with conerns about pro-homosexuality propaganda being fed to their children a voice to vent that opposition.
A balanced discussion on Homosexuality and it's place in our society can only be achieved by granting every envolved party a voice. Be that concerned parents, the LGBT community and the various religions.

Lame Lantern wrote: »

Contriving opposition is what we're talking about here. There is no legitimate ethical basis for opposing homosexuality, only arbitrary and esoteric dialectics.

When people start questioning the basis of public opinion then that society can no longer be called democratic. There are many reasons people condem homosexuality, be it religion, political ideology or even philosophical.
What you are suggesting is that we marginalise the many legitamite concerns such people have.

Jakkass wrote: »

In society there are two distinct camps on the issue. I don't think excluding either is to the benefit of educating about the real world.

But as I've demonstrated the opposing camp bases its position not in fact or objective ethical consideration but esoteric dialectics that have no bearing on an education based in fact.

As I've mentioned numerous times before, it isn't. Research is currently under way but this isn't proven, and there is no gene that determines sexuality biologically.

No legitimate authority on the subject advocates the opposite. Research in the area accepts the determination of sexuality quite unanimously.

It isn't in the slightest. It's a honest discussion about the role of the world.

I'll simply direct you to the substance of my post. You need to prove that esoteric ideological frameworks have a place in schools.

Again, people should decide for themselves whether homosexuality is moral.

Should they also decide whether geography, working on a Sunday, eating corn or listening to ska is moral? Again, homosexuality is opposed only by dialectical declarations.

I recognise that people have a choice to life a homosexual lifestyle, whether or not I agree with that lifestyle is entirely up to me.

No, whether or not you "choose" to live a homosexual lifestyle is entirely up to you. Ours is a plural society, you can foster hatred privately if you wish but there is an imperative on you to be tolerant.

Why shouldn't it? Again, do we want to educate about reality, or about an agenda?

How do you figure advocating the presentation of only fact is an agenda but abstinence-only is not?

It's not about allowing primacy. It's about allowing two positions to be listened to, so that the student receives an impartial education.

But one is neutral and factual, the other is based on an ideology it should not be presumed students subscribe to.

Indeed, homosexual activity could be good or bad, depending on ones opinion. This is the objective way to deal with the argument.

Absolutely wrong, as I demonstrated above. Anything can be "good or bad" depending on your arbitrary ideological contrivances but it has no place in public education.

You mention secular, that's fine but it does not give you a free ride to bias education to a liberal bias. However, both sides of the argument have to be presented to eliminate bias. The real world includes people who have moral disagreements on the subject.

Again, you're failing to realise that by even presenting the discourse you're creating a bias toward an opinion even held in minority by identifying Christians. You're free to hold your moral disagreements but you cannot inflict your opinions based on religion, mythology or other unempirical ideologies on the public sphere.

Secularism means no one view has primacy, it does not mean that they cannot be introduced. The views of those who feel it is moral, and those who don't will be both expressed. That's the best way to deal with it.

The question is do we want a real and honest education, or a biased one? I can't support the latter.

Again, you're failing to realise that by even presenting the discourse you're creating a bias toward an opinion even held in minority by identifying Christians. You're free to hold your moral disagreements but you cannot inflict your opinions based on religion, mythology or other unempirical ideologies on the public sphere. Again, you need to convince me that esoteric dialectic reason should be presented schools.

Now could you please stop beating about the bush and give me back up for your claim. That is if you have any...

First thing google coughs up: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhojojeyauid/

Also, "my mates say this" isn't representative of anything.

It is you opinion that opposition to homosexuality should not be discussed in school. But this is not about your opinions, this is about giving parents with conerns about pro-homosexuality propaganda being fed to their children a voice to vent that opposition.
A balanced discussion on Homosexuality and it's place in our society can only be achieved by granting every envolved party a voice. Be that concerned parents, the LGBT community and the various religions.

Opposition to homosexuality can be discussed in the form of "homosexuals are descriminated against by people that hold esoteric views based on their own whims" or whatever, but to claim "homosexuality is ethically dubious" is to introduce a discourse beyond the realm of fact into schools (as I've stated now dozens of times). Should "concerned parents" be allowed to pull their students out of any class that discusses evolution or vaccination or geology?

When people start questioning the basis of public opinion then that society can no longer be called democratic. There are many reasons people condem homosexuality, be it religion, political ideology or even philosophical.
What you are suggesting is that we marginalise the many legitamite concerns such people have.

This isn't censorship. People that base their opposition to homosexuality on their own selected belief-systems are free to make noise. However, to legitimise their arbitrary homophobia in schools is ludicrous. I've already demonstrated how no opposition to homosexuality manifests itself in a manner that arises honestly from objective ethical dialogue and that's all that should matter in schools.

Lame Lantern wrote:

First thing google coughs up: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhojojeyauid/

Also, "my mates say this" isn't representative of anything.

I prefare not to go by so called "opinion polls", one could say that these types of polls are un-balanced as the people being quizzed will must likely say they agree with homosexual marraige so as not to appear intolerant to the people conducting the poll.
In my opinion the only fair poll is the one carried out anonymously in a referendum.

Lame Lantern wrote:

Opposition to homosexuality can be discussed in the form of "homosexuals are descriminated against by people that hold esoteric views based on their own whims" or whatever, but to claim "homosexuality is ethically dubious" is to introduce a discourse beyond the realm of fact into schools (as I've stated now dozens of times). Should "concerned parents" be allowed to pull their students out of any class that discusses evolution or vaccination or geology?

Funny, I don't remember using the term "ethically dubious", yet it was quoted as if I did. Also no, parents should not be allowed to pull their children out of teachings on evolution or vaccination or geology just as they shouldn't pull their students out of discussions on homosexuality, (although I'm sure many do.)
Instead we need to introduce children to the support and opposition of homosexuality, school must remain a place to broaden childrens minds, not limit them.

Lame Lantern wrote:

This isn't censorship. People that base their opposition to homosexuality on their own selected belief-systems are free to make noise. However, to legitimise their arbitrary homophobia in schools is ludicrous. I've already demonstrated how no opposition to homosexuality manifests itself in a manner that arises honestly from objective ethical dialogue and that's all that should matter in schools.

To prevent the discussion of one side of an argument is censorship. By refusing them a voice our public school system, nay, our Government would have to deny the church and parents their say in how children are taught on this issue.
If that is not censorship then I don't know what is.

Jakkass wrote: »

Excluding a major opinion within our society on the issue isn't accurate education, irrespective of your own viewpoint on the issue. Neither side bases opinion on fact, but rather on what reasoning they have on the issue. The "homosexuality is moral" side is the same.

This is incorrect. You have the burden of proving "immorality." There is no burden to prove "morality." Much like if you wanted to criminalise sitting on a sofa, you need to present legitimate cause for this, not challenge sofa-huggers to declare why their sofa-sitting should be filed as moral. "Homosexuality is moral" isn't the argument. "Homosexuality is immoral" is the motion, and cannot be proven by rational ethical discourse, in much the same way "sofas are immoral" cannot.

Neutral education and letting people decide on moral issues is best.

Yes, and presenting opposition to homosexuality itself negates the notion of neutrality as previously I proved.

From what I have read, there are reports that suggest that it is likely to be true (not confirmed though), and reports which suggest that it is likely to be untrue, there are also reports that suggest that homosexuality exists in nature but for a very different reason than in humans.

It is likely to be true that some people like chocolate and some don't and some people like wearing blue jeans and others don't. If you're waiting for reductive neurological evidence you'll get it when all other personality traits are squared away in the same manner. Regardless of physiological cause, sexuality-as-determined is empirically and demonstrably true and is taken as the basis of further research.

Your opinion is an ideological framework if it is to promote a one-sided view of homosexuality. My view results in levelling the playing field, which is better for all in education.

It is not. I am discarding all moralising dialectics and challenging you to present the reason why yours should be taught in schools (leaving aside the question as to its validity). My "ideology" is that of the state: the separation of church and state and that education should take only the verifiable and true as its purview.

Yes, it is your choice. That's the point. Letting students choose whether or not they find it to be ethically sound or not rather than telling them that it is.

Again, it's only ethically questionable within ideologies that school has no business propogating.

Em? I don't support abstinence-only sex education! I think it is one view that should be taught amongst many.

The point was that "if you don't have sex you won't get STDs or get pregnant, obviously" is a perfectly fine statement. "Some suggest abstinence is moral imperative" is not fine.

How? This view could be discussed based on the views of many different groups which find homosexual acts to be immoral not merely Christians. I never even said that this should be the case.

I've addressed it at length in previous posts. Simply put, people who consider homosexual acts to be immoral for religious reasons should have no voice in schools because theirs is an esoteric ideology. People who consider them immoral in a secular context would be voicing an opinion contrary by definition to the pluralist consensus of our constitutional democracy which demands a demonstration of clear detriment to condemn or criminalise, or be basing their opinions in arbitrary hate. The burden of declaring immorality lies with the accuser and it is an impossible task given the lack of any legitimate implications of "homosexual acts" on the individual. They should not have their ideologies legitimised in schools, being that they are impossible to reconcile with the objective purview of education.

Sorry, that doesn't cut it. That's bias.

Propoganda has no place in the education system. By holding the view that homosexual acts are immoral you are not "discriminating" against anyone.

If I were to declare that the sacraments were immoral would you accuse me of discriminating against catholics?

By my beliefs, I personally am not discriminating against any human being. I respect people, but I can have my own opinion as to whether or not I agree with what they do.

That's not in question. You just don't get to force your arbitrarily held opinions on the school system.

It's propoganda. Presenting both views on contentious issues allows for students to make up their own mind. Keeping agendas at home is the best policy.

There is no secular argument born out of anything but hate. Religious arguments should not be allowed. There is nothing left.

Iwasfrozen wrote:

I prefare not to go by so called "opinion polls", one could say that these types of polls are un-balanced as the people being quizzed will must likely say they agree with homosexual marraige so as not to appear intolerant to the people conducting the poll.
In my opinion the only fair poll is the one carried out anonymously in a referendum.

That poll was conducted by Landsdowne, the same people that produce polling that always accurately reflects trends in voter behaviour heading into elections or referenda. Even with a margin for error taken into account, that majority in favour of civil union enormous.

Funny, I don't remember using the term "ethically dubious", yet it was quoted as if I did.

I wasn't quoting you, I was framing an argument.

Also no, parents should not be allowed to pull their children out of teachings on evolution or vaccination or geology just as they shouldn't pull their students out of discussions on homosexuality, (although I'm sure many do.)
Instead we need to introduce children to the support and opposition of homosexuality, school must remain a place to broaden childrens minds, not limit them.

Opposition to homosexuality is based on exactly the same arbitrary opinion as opposition to evolution.

To prevent the discussion of one side of an argument is censorship. By refusing them a voice our public school system, nay, our Government would have to deny the church and parents their say in how children are taught on this issue.
If that is not censorship then I don't know what is.

It's not censorship because the debate on one end is not based on substance, but rather dialectics largely divorced from reality and born out of hate or selective religious interpretation. Parents or the church can scream about how Muslims are stealing Christmas or how there's a brontosaurus on the moon in the privacy of their homes, but school cannot present random systems of reasoning alongside fact.


To sum up, somebody needs to provide a defensible secular argument against homosexuality.

Jakkass wrote: »

Lame Lantern: I feel that schools have no business in propogating liberal agendas in the classroom unless there is going to be an objective assessment. I.E comparing both sides in complicated moral debates instead of being dishonest about reality.

I am not suggesting we propogate a "liberal agenda." I'm merely suggesting we limit ourselves to fact. You're opposing the very mentioning of the existence of homosexuality. Nobody is suggesting homosexuality be valorised, merely that it not be presented as a question of morality, being that such a dialogue only exists within discourses that should not be manifested in schools (religion, hate).

I have yet to hear any solid reason as to why that could be perceived as objectable.

I have given my reasoning in as clear and succint manner as possible, avoiding simply debating the merits of being homophibic or otherwise advocating homophobia. I've yet to hear my claims rebuked.

I don't think the education system should be proving that homosexuality is immoral. That isn't it's function. By the by you're wrong on the burden of proof in this situation, the burden replies on the one making the positive claim.

Nobody is making a positive claim! "Homosexuals exist" is demonstrable fact, nothing more.

Rather it is about putting forward what common opinions are on the issue without saying that one is right and the other is wrong. This is generally how contentious issues are taught. For example, the history of the Reformation. Nobody should be adding in the opinion that the Reformation is wrong or right, but rather the opinions of the Reformers should be added, and the opinions of critics should be put forward.

"Homosexuals exist and can be happy" is not a contentious issue. It's fact. It's not a moment in history with competing interpretations, it is one statement with a foundation in objective reality.

Education should be discussing the way things are, rather than the way things are not. Allowing people to respond to the problems that exist in reality is much much better than presenting an idealistic view that is effectively propoganda.

"Homosexuals exist" is not a problem, nor is it idealistic. Crucially, it is not even a debate. The subject is the acknowledgement of gay identities, nothing more.

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

What do people see as the point of a class on homosexuality? If it's supposed to help stop bullying, or to help prevent depression, self harm and suicide by confused young people, legitimising bullies' opinions in the classroom would undo any potential benefits.

Seriously, like. "In a moment we'll talk about not discriminating against or bullying people because of their sexuality, but first, let's have a chat about whether the gays are dirty, evil sinners who will burn in hell for all eternity." Effective teaching ftw!

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I prefare not to go by so called "opinion polls", one could say that these types of polls are un-balanced as the people being quizzed will must likely say they agree with homosexual marraige so as not to appear intolerant to the people conducting the poll.
In my opinion the only fair poll is the one carried out anonymously in a referendum.

One could say that your straw poll of your friends is unbalanced because some of them may just want to go along with the norms of your group of friends and they don't want to stand out or be different or even possibly come out amongst a group of anti-homosexuals. Some of your friends might not actually even feel as anti-homosexual as you and the others and may not want to express that for fear of being labelled different or pro-homosexual

By the way - what sort of a referendum are you suggesting? A national referendum asking people - are you homophobic? or are you anti-homosexual?

Jakkass wrote: »

I never argued for that position. Hence your post is a strawman.

You argued for teaching both sides of the ethical divide. The ethical divide is between people who think homosexuality is a sin, and people who don't. Thus, teaching both sides of the ethical divide involves offering forth the opinion that homosexuality is a sin, and your suggestion of 'balanced' teaching requires that that position be held with as much respect and credence as the opinion that being homosexual isn't something to be ashamed of.

Aard wrote: »

Well, nearly everyone I know are in favour of same-sex marriage. Now what does that prove?

It doesn't prove anything but it gives us an indication that if a referendum was caled, your area would vote in favour of it.
We also can say that if you area votes in favour then similar areas will also vote in favour of same sex marriage.
When people start using the word "prove" estimation do of course fall apart. You will notice then that I did not use the word "prove" in my OP.