I vote for none in public school.

Besides, last I checked there was not just one Judeo-Christian view of sexuality or morality. Should we take the Southern Baptist view, the Episcopal view, the United Church of Christ view, or the Catholic view?

I agree Ned and DB. It’s not the place of schools - or the government for that matter - to teach morality, sexuality, etc. That’s up to the parents and the parents only.

So we’re going to abolish biology classes just so the homophobes can hide from Teh Gay?

No Jon. My point is that kids should be taught what school is for (three R’s etc.) and not all these social engineering accretions.

There is a difference between K-2, where math, reading, and basic learning skills are taught to pre-pubescent children and High School biology class taught to young adults.

A high school student was murdered for being gay last week. I think we can all agree that school was not a safe place for this student.

Conservatives like Stacey Campfield need to stop hiding their intolerance behind the curtain of morality. It is immoral that this country still reacts to people who are different from then with violence. And teaching tolerance is not the same as teaching about sex.

People need to get over their hangups.

I vote for none in public school.

What constitutes “none?”

Does reading a book in which a character have two moms “teach[ing] morality, sexuality, etc.”? Before you answer that, what about a book in which a character has a mom and a dad?

There’s a double standard at work. I, for one, am all for not teaching sexuality to young school children. Yet, human sexuality is such a part of the human experience that it creeps in in the most benign and casual ways. Experience dictates that when heterosexuality does as much, there is silence. When homosexuality does the same, there’s outrage.

When I hear one arguing to “keep sexuality out of schools” further digging almost invariably reveals that their proposal to do so is really a proposal to simply suppress all viewpoint on morality and sexuality that they disagree with. That is a defacto way of pushing their own morality and sexuality views.

Dolphin:

Shame on you, for being intolerant of intolerance.

Dolphine:

Oh, now I get it, PFLAG is a gay organization. Oh, that’s bad. They probably want to come in and make all of the boys wear pink and play with dolls and make all the girls ride Harleys and wear flannel shirts. That’s gay, isn’t it?

Just remember, Dolphin, intolerance doesn’t kill gay students–being stupid enough to want to live as who you are kills gay students.

There is actually some evolutionary biologist (I’ll come up with the reference later, if this snowballs) who says NO kids should be taught biology until they’re in HS or college (I’m thinking he said college). His argument is that young students become confused by undertrained teachers. His justification for this seems to be that those who need to understand biolgy will have to go to college. Hmmm, what if I really, really like knowing how frogs can jump and pigs can eat some pretty nasty stuff and yet taste so good? What if I think I want to be a doctor but don’t find out until I’m in college that the sight of a dissected lab rat will make me hurl, every time?

Simplistic solutions to complex problems usually don’t work all that well.

Dolphin,
I don’t want the Southern Baptist Convention or PFLAG advocating teaching my children anything in school.

My 2nd grader is in school to learn to read, add/subtract, learn some history/science/etc. and how to pay attention in school. So far, she has been successful.

Incidental to that, one classmate has two moms, some parents are divorced, one lives with grandma, one student didn’t participate in the halloween party because “it is evil”, one student didn’t celebrate Christmas, one has a mom who wears “a scarf” on her head, most all of them thought Valentine’s was yucky except for the candy part, one stabbed another in the leg with a pencil.

These are pre-pubescent children who could not care less about much of anything that we adults consider “important”. Leave them alone to learn.

I am with you SB when you say people need to get over their hangups, whether it be sexuality, race, religion, etc. Live and let live would be utopia for me and I am trying to teach my kids that.

My 2nd grader is in school to learn to read, add/subtract, learn some history/science/etc. and how to pay attention in school.

My point is that human sexuality creeps in to all of those (perhaps not math or paying attention) whether we want it to or not. It’s not a question of “should or should not” it’s a question of “can or cannot.” These kinda of bills are not intended to keep sexuality out of schools, they are intended to keep homosexuality out of schools.

I no more want to see schools teaching sexuality or morality than you do, but the vast majority of “incidents” that these kinds of bills are a response to are simply NOT “teaching morality or sexuality” in any meaningful way.

If a child is reading “Dick & Jane” and Jane says “I need to ask my Moms first before I come out to play” it is no more teaching morality or sexuality as it would be for Jane to say “I need to ask my Mom and Dad first before I come out to play.” Yet the former causes an outcry, while the latter never even shows up on the radar. It’s a double standard and sheer hypocrisy on the part of those whose stated goal is to “keep sexuality out of schools.”

These are pre-pubescent children who could not care less about much of anything that we adults consider “important”.

I have to disagree with you here, David. My daughter is dealing with these issues right now…at 7 years old. Having a gay father is not an easy road, and if there is anything that can be done to help encourage — in the very least — TOLERANCE of other viewpoints, then I am all for it. (She hears gay jokes in school and it makes her feel like something is terribly wrong with her own father…can you imagine how heartbreaking that can be?)

They don’t need to learn the “mechanics” of the sexual act at that age, but they do need to understand that there are different kinds of love, and we should respect that.

The big thing when I was a kid was self-esteem. It was all about loving yourself. That’s all fine and good, but it doesn’t work when the playground is a battlefield.

Gingersnaps,

Different kinds of love?? You call homosexuality love? I will never understand why people would willfully choose to engage in a lifestyle that is contrary to biology. Two women or two men can’t procreate. That is fundamental biology. Plus, it is well proven that those who engage in homosexual acts will eventually contract HIV/AIDS. Why put yourself at risk?

There is a reason why it takes one male and one female to reproduce. And that same reason is why homosexuality is, and always will be, wrong and immoral.

Oh, and by the way, something is wrong with your daughter’s father.

You call homosexuality love?

Sure. Love isn’t limited to a particular sexuality. I know that for a 100% FACT.

I will never understand why people would willfully choose

Perhaps you can’t understand it, because your beginning with a false premise. People don’t willfully choose who they are attracted to. If they did, might I suggest that the world would be a better place. Friends would just up and decide to become attracted to one another. The divorce rate would be close to zero.

a lifestyle that is contrary to biology.

Except that homosexuality is completely consistent with biology. It’s contrary to procreation but then so are elderly couples as well as the infertile. Of course, there are many people who believe in a virgin birth which, by definition, would void the fertility objection to homosexuality anyhow.

Plus, it is well proven that those who engage in homosexual acts will eventually contract HIV/AIDS.

This is laughably false on it’s face. If it’s well-proven, perhaps you’d like to cite even one study. I again know this for a FACT to be false.

Eric,

Your last statement just seems almostly cartoonishly hateful. I’m guessing there’s probably a lot of pain that results from situations like Ginger’s daughter’s father’s (whoo, possessives), and, from what you wrote, it seems like you’re just fine with personally adding to that. I guess it’s worth it if you feel like you’re correcting people’s erroneous beliefs..?

Maybe the idea that someone would risk being ostracized by their friends and family and potentially (or absolutely, positively, according to your comment) contracting HIV/AIDS just to live a certain way tells you something about the conviction with which they believe that they were born a certain way and that there ain’t no changin’ it. Sorry if that sounds too touchy-feely tolerant-y to you, but, really, why do you care so much?

I found homosexuality weird and gross as a kid, but as I’ve gotten older and encountered people who are different in all sorts of ways, I’ve grown more and more puzzled about why some people feel so strongly about how other people live, when those other people aren’t doing any harm to anyone else.

(Dunno where “almostly” came from… dang typos.)

a lifestyle that is contrary to biology
I sure do make all my life choices based on what is biologically best. Is someone who choses not to have children living a life that is contrary to biology too?

Love is more than a simple mechanism to cause reproduction.

Eric,
My first impulse was to respond by saying “Fuck you and the horse you rode in on!” but then my good nature took back over, and I will just respond by saying this:

Love does not equal reproduction any more than sex equals love. You are equating how people reproduce with love? If you are married, do you only believe in having sex with your wife when you both want to reproduce?

Secondly, you have no idea what I have been through with this and I find your comments to be extremely uncompassionate.

But even more to the point is I lived through what my ex-husband went through trying to figure it all out. It was not in his nature to want to hurt me, lose his family, his home, and everything else he lost in coming to the realization that he is a gay man.

I used to subscribe to the train of thought that it was a choice and a sin. That was until I lived through the experience of watching my husband TRY to not be gay.

Nobody would CHOOSE that. No way.

Thank you, jblank, for your response to Eric’s very hurtful and hateful comments directed to me. I very much appreciate your support.

Different kinds of love?? You call homosexuality love?

While you might call it hot monkey sex, people who actually *are* gay and *are* in love, would call it love, so would any reasonable human being.

I will never understand why people would willfully choose to engage in a lifestyle that is contrary to biology.

I don’t know why people would choose such a hard road either. Probably because it’s not a choice. And against biology? Tell that to my gay cats.

Two women or two men can’t procreate. That is fundamental biology.

Procreation does NOT equal love.

Plus, it is well proven that those who engage in homosexual acts will eventually contract HIV/AIDS.

Lesbians have the lowest incidence of HIV/AIDS transmission. So there goes that “AIDS is God’s punishment for being gay” argument.

There is a reason why it takes one male and one female to reproduce. And that same reason is why homosexuality is, and always will be, wrong and immoral.

You know, it’s people like you that make it really hard to be a Christian. I just want to edge myself over and be like, “Nope, I’m not like this asshat at all.” If we look at the Bible, is being gay a sin? One could certainly make that argument. However, there are a hell of a lot of other things that are Biblically a sin, and I bet you do some of them.

Oh, and by the way, something is wrong with your daughter’s father.

No, I think something’s wrong with *you*.

[…] Williams says he doesn’t want Tennessee schoolkids hearing about morality from PFLAG: It appears the message that various non-heterosexual phenomena are normal is already […]

While HIV/AIDS is disproportionately high amongst gay men and IV drug users, in the U.S. that is not the case in many other countries.

I stopped listening to the RCC when I was 18 but even they say celibate homosexuality (any kind of celibate sexuality seems like a contradiction in terms) is, if not okay, not such a big deal. Gays, straights, religious, heathens, whites, non-whites all have the capacity for love. Generally, when I hear somone like Eric say some other person or group of persons can’t love because it’s unnatural I start thinking that maybe the person making the remark is unable to love–himself or anyone else.

While it breaks my rule against responding to Ned, I just noticed this and thought it was important.

Unless the public schools (esp. K-2) are going to allow the teaching of the Judeo-Christian view of sexuality or morality, they shouldn’t be teaching any.

Leaving aside that there is no universally agreed upon definition of “the Judeo-Christian view of sexuality or morality,” this statement essentially says “It’s ok to do things my way to the exclusion of others, but it’s either my way or no way at all.”

Why is it ok to screw over people who disagree with you, but not to screw over you? I think that’s a fair question.

Gingersnaps, first of all, let me apologize to you. I didn’t intend to come off so harsh and cold and unfeeling. That was wrong of me. I apologize.

Eric,
I accept your apology. I appreciate it very, very much.
Ging

Now I want to address some of the other comments of the people here.

Ivy, I never said procreation = love. There is a difference between loving someone plutonically - as in a friendship type relationship - and loving someone romantically. Guys can love each other all they want as friends, and so can women. That’s not the issue. The issue is when men love each other, or women love each other, romantically for the sake of having sexual relations. That is what I’m talking about being morally and biologically wrong. And just because your cats do it, does that mean it’s okay for you to do it? Come on. Animals don’t have a soul or a conscience. Humans do.

And to answer your comment about it “being hard to be a Christian”. Well, to be perfectly honest with you, if you believe that homosexuality is acceptable, you might want to re-examine your relationship with God. Of course the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. There’s no denying it. And yes, I am guilty of committing sins, but homosexuality is an abomination to God.

And for a study on homosexuality and HIV/AIDS, go here.

I am not trying to come down on those who are homosexuals. I know several, and they are my friends. I love them as people just the same. It’s just the act of homosexuality that repulses me. It’s something I’m strongly against, and I’m sorry if I offended or hurt anyone…not my intent. Sometimes I just get so wound up about something I talk before I think…So I apologize to anyone I have offended.

There is a difference between loving someone plutonically - as in a friendship type relationship - and loving someone romantically.

I think you mean “platonic”, and it’s really not quite the same thing as friendship, either. Unless you’re talking about friendship on Pluto.

The issue is when men love each other, or women love each other, romantically for the sake of having sexual relations.

Nobody loves each other “for the sake of having sexual relations.” You have some really screwed up views about what love is. Love and sex are not the same thing (though people in love often do have sex). You’re really missing out on something special by equating the two.

And gays and lesbians, like straight people, experience love (and sex, again, just like straight people).

And just because your cats do it, does that mean it’s okay for you to do it?

That’s a separate point altogether. You said being gay was “contrary to biology.” Animals don’t have the ability to act contrary to their biology. Therefore the fact that there are gay animals (and there are examples of gay animal among ALL mammals and a fair number of non-mammalian species) invalidates your assertion.

Of course the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. There’s no denying it.

Except for the fact that a fair (and growing) number of biblical scholars do debate and object to the (mis-?)translations which have led to the English version of the Bible making such declarations.

And yes, I am guilty of committing sins, but homosexuality is an abomination to God.

Perhaps you’d like to clarify, as a Christian, which sins God hates more than others.

And for a study on homosexuality and HIV/AIDS, go here.

Could you highlight the portion that discusses how “those who engage in homosexual acts will eventually contract HIV/AIDS”? I must have missed it. Seems to me that your notation simply notes that among the US population, HIV transmission occurs through male homosexual sex more often than through heterosexual sex. And if you do the math, given that it’s generally agreed that 10% of the US population is gay, there’s still a good 29,661,884 US gay folks who are still HIV-. I personally know a good 50-80 HIV- gay men and women. I know precisely 1 HIV+ gay person. Your statement remains laughable and your link does more to disprove it than to prove it.

Well, dang, Dolphin, you said pretty much everything I wanted to say. I would like to address my relationship with God, as it has been called into question, and I hate to have my Christianity besmirched by people that don’t know me.

I re-examine my relationship with God every single day of my life. It’s a personal goal to become closer to God every day. Some days, I don’t do as well as others, but with enough prayer and Bible study, I hope to become the best Christian I can be.

I’ve been reading Romans quite a bit lately, and I’d like to point out some things that are said that you might be interested in.

Romans 2:1 says “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgement on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgement do the same things.” Later, in Romans 3:23 it says: “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” I think we all must resist passing judgement on other people and really, truly love people.

I appreciate your apologies, Eric, and I understand how sometimes your mouth (okay, fingers) get ahead of you, but please consider that while the Bible may very well say homosexuality is a sin (I am personally undecided- I have both read the Bible and read various Biblical scholars’ take on the possible mistranslations) it is not our job to judge other people, but to work on our own sins. And if you’re strong in your faith, awesome. Keep in mind Romans 15:1 which says: “We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of th weak and not to please ourselves.” It’s fun as all get-out to sit back and be judgemental, but what we really should be doing is being kind and helpful.

Ok, here’s the thing, Eric. If you believe that homosexuality is wrong, then don’t *you* have sex with dudes. Because the key word there is that you BELIEVE it is wrong and immoral. Not that it *is* wrong and immoral.

Some religions require you to not eat fish on certain days or to stay away from pork. The religion you subscribe to just happens to prefer that dudes don’t poke dudes. But the non-pork-eating religions don’t expect ALL religions to give up pork, do they? Of course not.

If you want to believe it’s wrong for *you* to love someone of the same sex, then fine. But why the hell do you care so much who’s poking who?

Megan:

I think you actually hit it bang on the nail. It is about what a religious person, rather than an entire religion, finds repellent or an “abomination in the eyes of God”. I personally find it interesting that the “marriage conract” which so many pols and a lot of christians consider to be null and void unless its between one man and one woman (sorry, Mr. Romney) is so easily dissolved because of current divorce law. I’m not a bible reader (I’m also pretty sure I’m not recognizable as a christian to most of the christians whose comments I read here) but I do remember the injunction “therefor, what God hath joined let no man put asunder.” That sounds pretty unequivocal to me but it doesn’t seem to slow down the rate of divorce.

I think you’re right. People who don’t want to eat meat on fridays, during Lent (it was EVERY friday when I was a lad); eat pork, ever; engage in homosexual lovemaking or have an abortion should feel free not to do so. People who want to tell me that I shouldn’t do whatever is they don’t do, should also feel free not to do so.

Sorry to have been out of pocket for several days.

K-2. That stands for Kindergarten through Second Grade, which includes children who are–typically, 5 years old to children who are 7-8 years old. How many of them are being killed? How many of them are unable to be controlled? The safety argument is at least in part an appeal to emotion in this context.

As far as a Judeo-Christian standard or orthodoxy, I can safely say that there is a traditional view on this issue, despite modern efforts to ignore that standard. And I’m not sure one can credibly argue for changing the standard by attacking the basis/source of the standard (and ostensibly the source of the new or evolving standard).

If a K-2 teacher is going to condone, promote or affirm any certain political or theological or moral view that is not nigh unto universally accepted, I want to have my place at the lectern.

NW:

Don’t you homeschool? Why would you want input into a system of education that you don’t use. You might as well call up the local catholic parochial school, hebrew schul and islamic madrassa and tell them you don’t appreciate their teachings on certain items.

Oh, I know you pay taxes, but you have opted out of the process so why get involved now?

There are, btw, numerous traditional views on all sorts of different aspects of education. I’m not sure what your second paragraph is really saying. It seems like it might be saying there is a view that is acceptable to you and some other people and you don’t want it changed.

NW:

Fortnunately, not many 5-8 yo children do kill each other. Unfortunately 14 yo (and younger children) have and do kill each other for all sorts of strange reasons. Telling youngsters that they should not hit or say bad things to or about other children is something the majority of parents I’ve known place a lot of emphasis on. I am grateful that the era I grew up in, where the use of offensive language about gays, the mentally impaired and physically handicapped and people of color were accepted in the “polite company” of adults. Sadly, a lot of people still seem to think that saying hateful things about people, because they are homosexual, is permissible. Instructing young children (K-2) that someone’s differences in that regard do not make abusing them okay is not, imo, wrong.

Don’t you homeschool? Why would you want input into a system of education that you don’t use. You might as well call up the local catholic parochial school, hebrew schul and islamic madrassa and tell them you don’t appreciate their teachings on certain items.

Oh, I know you pay taxes, but you have opted out of the process so why get involved now?

There are, btw, numerous traditional views on all sorts of different aspects of education. I’m not sure what your second paragraph is really saying. It seems like it might be saying there is a view that is acceptable to you and some other people and you don’t want it changed.

Excuse the double post. I was still editing when the first one disappeared.