The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

JimiTime wrote: »

All in all, we don't erradicate bullying by saying, 'Gingers are people too', We erradicate bullying by condemning bullying, whoever is on the receiving end.

It is the exact opposite. If it was simply a case of ordering children not to bully that would do nothing.

Nearly all modern anti-bullying programs work based on empathy and understanding and normalisation, not dictating to children not to carry out an action of bully. Often the bully doesn't even understand what he is doing well enough to understand to stop it. Bullying is a mixture of the insecurities of the bully, the social stigma of particular situations and the separation between the bully and the bullied.

It is very difficult to build empathy and understanding and normalisation if teachers and other carers are unable to state that there is nothing wrong about having gay relationships because they will step on the toes of parents who wish their children to believe that actually yes there is.

And what ever about objecting to gay marry, you certainly don't get to disrupt anti-bullying campaigns because you read in your holy book that God thinks homosexual sex is bad. Your religious freedom stops at the point where you start doing harm to others, including children.

JimiTime wrote: »

I remember doing that myself, but thats creative writing and art. Thats not the school saying, 'This is the proper family makeup' or 'These are all ok kinds of family makeups' etc.

Agreed, but it can be an activity where classmates learn about their peers family, be it do they have siblings/is a parent dead for example. So if a kid draws his/her family, and they happen to be a child of a same-sex couple then it could be a catalyst for a brief education in that family structure. That also isn't a "thumbs up" from the school regarding gay families.

I don't recall ever seeing movies, programmes etc that looked to glorify bullies of any stripe. I don't ever remember it being acceptable to beat up anyone tbh. Also, my mention of 'Gngers are people too' was in the context of specifically talking about gingers. People are people, and no-one should be bullied. You don't need to start talking about, and bringing attention upon, every type of different kid in the class/school.

They definitely exist, especially if you watch movies that are 15+ in ratings. Plenty of movies where it wasn't considered bully to beat up the gay kid. And there was plenty of comedians earning a living off of jokes that were extremely anti-gay.

I'm not saying you have to go through a list of every potential type of reason for a kid being bullied and address that. But banning any material that mentions homosexuality from the classroom just seems like a retrograde step in education.

Silvio.Dante

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Like we waited to see if child protection was for 'us'?

Are you correlating child abuse with loving, homosexual relationships..?

Silvio.Dante

koth wrote: »

What an awful idea for how to run a country.

Legislate in haste..................

Silvio.Dante

NuMarvel wrote: »

Allowing women the vote was a rare phenomenon when it was first introduced. By your thinking, it would only have introduced in Ireland in the last 20 or 30 years!

Democracy is over rated anyway...:D

Bannasidhe

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Are you correlating child abuse with loving, homosexual relationships..?

No. But by even referring to both in the same sentence - you are.

As well you know.

JimiTime

koth wrote: »

Agreed, but it can be an activity where classmates learn about their peers family, be it do they have siblings/is a parent dead for example. So if a kid draws his/her family, and they happen to be a child of a same-sex couple then it could be a catalyst for a brief education in that family structure. That also isn't a "thumbs up" from the school regarding gay families.

I agree. There should be no, 'You cant talk about this', or 'pretend it doesn't exist'. Its not about denying the reality of various family structures. There should just be no curriculum looking at indoctrinating kids in the issues of LGBT. In a specific case like the art scenario you alluded to above, well a teacher should be allowed to use their discretion, and with due regard for the children and their welfare. I see no issue in the case above for example, with telling the class that some people are raised by two men or two women, or one man or one woman etc. Its simply fact.

They definitely exist, especially if you watch movies that are 15+ in ratings. Plenty of movies where it wasn't considered bully to beat up the gay kid.

Don't recall it myself, but I'll take your word for it.

And there was plenty of comedians earning a living off of jokes that were extremely anti-gay.

There'll always be distasteful comedians. Lets not forget that religion/the religious and God have been the butt of many a comedians joke for years neither.

I'm not saying you have to go through a list of every potential type of reason for a kid being bullied and address that. But banning any material that mentions homosexuality from the classroom just seems like a retrograde step in education.

I'm not saying that it should be banned. I'm saying that a) Sex ed should be broached age appropriately and b) It should not be politically motivated. I.E. With a view to making sure pupils are on side when it comes to LGBT issues.
In sex ed, we were taught about what sexual intercourse was, how it worked, its possible consequences (disease, pregnancy etc), contraception etc. The moral side of sex etc should be left to parents. If the topic of homosexuality arises, then it shouldn't be taboo, but taught matter of factly without political bias or moral pronouncement.

Benny_Cake

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Are you correlating child abuse with loving, homosexual relationships..?

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Democracy is over rated anyway...:D

Less of the trollish one-liners please, this is a discussion forum.

lazygal wrote: »

What about saying group x shouldn't be glorified? What does that mean? Is educating children about group x propaganda?

It depends on how you educate. Does the teaching contain bias or not. Using books like King & King as mentioned earlier is biased. Teaching the legal standpoint on varying kinds of union isn't.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

It depends on how you educate. Does the teaching contain bias or not. Using books like King & King as mentioned earlier is biased. Teaching the legal standpoint on varying kinds of union isn't.

Would you consider books with a heterosexual couple as the story propaganda?

NuMarvel

philologos wrote: »

It depends on how you educate. Does the teaching contain bias or not. Using books like King & King as mentioned earlier is biased. Teaching the legal standpoint on varying kinds of union isn't.

Have you read King & King?

JimiTime wrote: »

I agree. There should be no, 'You cant talk about this', or 'pretend it doesn't exist'. Its not about denying the reality of various family structures. There should just be no curriculum looking at indoctrinating kids in the issues of LGBT. In a specific case like the art scenario you alluded to above, well a teacher should be allowed to use their discretion, and with due regard for the children and their welfare. I see no issue in the case above for example, with telling the class that some people are raised by two men or two women, or one man or one woman etc. Its simply fact.

I agree with you about not having indoctrination in the class, but so far we seem to disagree on the defintion of 'indoctrination'.

I'm not saying that it should be banned. I'm saying that a) Sex ed should be broached age appropriately and b) It should not be politically motivated. I.E. With a view to making sure pupils are on side when it comes to LGBT issues.
In sex ed, we were taught about what sexual intercourse was, how it worked, its possible consequences (disease, pregnancy etc), contraception etc. The moral side of sex etc should be left to parents. If the topic of homosexuality arises, then it shouldn't be taboo, but taught matter of factly without political bias or moral pronouncement.

But by teaching kids about contraception, for example, it could be argued that the school is taking a moral side on sexuality. That is that it's ok to use contraception. There are parents that would object to that suggestion, yet the school can teach about it. Homosexuality should be treated as much the same, i.e. just another aspect of human sexuality.

philologos wrote: »

It depends on how you educate. Does the teaching contain bias or not. Using books like King & King as mentioned earlier is biased. Teaching the legal standpoint on varying kinds of union isn't.

Just had a look at the wiki for the book. So a book that has a gay love story is biased? Do schools also have to remove all books with a love story (gay/hetero or otherwise) in it to avoid biase?

Morbert

koth wrote: »

Just had a look at the wiki for the book. So a book that has a gay love story is biased? Do schools also have to remove all books with a love story (gay/hetero or otherwise) in it to avoid biase?

If phil is saying the book is biased because it has a gay love story, then that is reprehensible. I have a feeling he is referring to the gay marriage though. That is not reprehensible. It is just ridiculous.

Morbert wrote: »

If phil is saying the book is biased because it has a gay love story, then that is reprehensible. I have a feeling he is referring to the gay marriage though. That is not reprehensible. It is just ridiculous.

I'm saying that glorifying this type of relationship in the curriculum instead of allowing children to come to their own conclusion on the basis of their own thought is much better.

One doesn't need biased storybooks to teach a child how to read and I understand why many parents objected.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

I'm saying that glorifying this type of relationship in the curriculum instead of allowing children to come to their own conclusion on the basis of their own thought is much better.

One doesn't need biased storybooks to teach a child how to read and I understand why many parents objected.

What do you mean by'glorifying'? Do you object to heterosexual marriage being 'glorified' too? By the by, storybooks aren't the only means of teaching children to read. If gay marriage isn't mentioned in the classroom,suppose children come to their own conclusions that being gay is wrong, what happens then?

lazygal wrote: »

What do you mean by'glorifying'? Do you object to heterosexual marriage being 'glorified' too? By the by, storybooks aren't the only means of teaching children to read. If gay marriage isn't mentioned in the classroom,suppose children come to their own conclusions that being gay is wrong, what happens then?

Children are not to be taught that gay relationships are normal and ok, this is to allow them the freedom to come to the conclusion that they are in fact abominations. :rolleyes:

28064212

philologos wrote: »

I'm saying that glorifying this type of relationship in the curriculum instead of allowing children to come to their own conclusion on the basis of their own thought is much better.

One doesn't need biased storybooks to teach a child how to read and I understand why many parents objected.

Does the same book "glorify" monarchies? Does The Hungry Caterpillar "glorify" gluttony and caterpillars? "The Butterfly Heart" won children's book of the year, does it glorify arranged marriages, the African way of life, or snake men?

King and King does not present homosexual marriage as an ideal way of life. It does not present it as a better alternative. In short, it does not "glorify" it. It acknowledges that it exists, just as it acknowledges that monarchies exist

lazygal

Zombrex wrote: »

Children are not to be taught that gay relationships are normal and ok, this is to allow them the freedom to come to the conclusion that they are abominations. :rolleyes:

They will naturally come to Christian conclusions, I'm guessing.....

philologos wrote: »

I'm saying that glorifying this type of relationship in the curriculum instead of allowing children to come to their own conclusion on the basis of their own thought is much better.

One doesn't need biased storybooks to teach a child how to read and I understand why many parents objected.

Using the literal meaning of glorify, how exactly is having that book in the classroom giving praise to God? :pac: Sorry, just amused me when I examined the meaning of the word

Anyways, I am really struggling to see how that book glorifies same-sex relationships. Nowhere does the plot of the book suggest that it's better than heterosexual relationships. So how is it glorifying homosexuality?

koth wrote: »

Anyways, I am really struggling to see how that book glorifies same-sex relationships. Nowhere does the plot of the book suggest that it's better than heterosexual relationships. So how is it glorifying homosexuality?

Well as well know Christians are very opposed to anything that promotes or glorifies long term stable monogamous relationships based on life long commitment.

Oh wait ...

lazygal wrote: »

What do you mean by'glorifying'? Do you object to heterosexual marriage being 'glorified' too? By the by, storybooks aren't the only means of teaching children to read. If gay marriage isn't mentioned in the classroom,suppose children come to their own conclusions that being gay is wrong, what happens then?

The main plot of King & King is an example of biased teaching on this. I object to biased teaching of all kinds on this issue. I think parents should teach their own children about relationship structures.

If children come to their own conclusion that gay marriage is wrong, that's up to them. Why should anything happen?

aloyisious

Something tell's me that comparison between books contents by adults will end up like "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter". If one was to continue letting adults determine which books school children read, in line with phil's (pardon me being so familiar, philologos) train of thought, then I suppose Wuthering Heights and other such classical titles would not be allowed to children and students in our learning establishments.

There is also the chance that parents would oppose the use of one religious tract (and related sub-tracts etc from the same source) solely in schools as it could lead to children (perish the thought) being inculcated into one sole train of thought.

philologos wrote: »

The main plot of King & King is an example of biased teaching on this. I object to biased teaching of all kinds on this issue. I think parents should teach their own children about relationship structures.

If children come to their own conclusion that gay marriage is wrong, that's up to them. Why should anything happen?

By that reasoning, all books should be banned in schools that are in any way interpretive. Huckleberry Finn would be banned as no parent would condone the idea of the child running away with any adult to essentially live as a hobo. Any books that have a romantic story outside of marriage would be gone. The list just grows and grows, all because you don't want children potentially coming to the conclusion that homosexuality is acceptable.

Do you think books about romance at primary school age are appropriate?

NuMarvel

philologos wrote: »

The main plot of King & King is an example of biased teaching on this. I object to biased teaching of all kinds on this issue. I think parents should teach their own children about relationship structures.

If children come to their own conclusion that gay marriage is wrong, that's up to them. Why should anything happen?

But have you actually read the book?

philologos wrote: »

Do you think books about romance at primary school age are appropriate?

Yes. I read books about romance in primary school as assigned by the teacher. One of them was called Across the Barricades, a love story about a Catholic and Protestant in Northern Ireland. Their love is opposed by both sides of the divide. I don't see why a similar book about homosexuality can't be examined in the classroom.