Tenn. Senate OKs ban on teaching of homosexuality

cpwill · May 21, 2011

CaptainCourtesy said:
If you read her post, you would know that she said nothing that pertains to what you wrote. She was speaking about education NOT morality or beliefs.

on the contrary, the two aren't distinguishable when you are discussing this sort of thing.

which is why i want the whole damn matter out of schools - our concepts of family, society, morality; they are too important to be left to government, and attempting to do so only leaves at each others throats, as it forces some of our most deeply held beliefs into conflicting with each other over the things in this world we hold most dear. it creates unnecessary conflict.

stillballin75 said:
I have to believe that cpwill was at least partially being facetious there.

I like yourstar. respect her quite a bit, too - she's one of the best posters on DP, and I have a sneaking suspicion that were we ever to meet in real life, we would be drinking buddies. my little sister is a lesbian (my little sister is also cool as ****), and i love her with everything in me. but sometimes it helps people to identify that there is something "wrong" when the shoes are placed on opposite feet. the government is not my childs' parent - I am, and it is no better to have the government teach my child a system that includes moral messages that I find contrary to how i wish to raise my child than it is to have the government teach your (or yourstars') child a social system that includes moral messages contrary to how you wish them raised.

why are people so eager to get "morality out of government" so eager to put it in the schools? I would suspect a potential answer might be found in the number of evangelical voters, contrasted with the relative liberality of the government education services. It's always hard to see that you may be pushing too far when it's your own system you're pushing

.

CaptainCourtesy · May 21, 2011

cpwill said:
on the contrary, the two aren't distinguishable when you are discussing this sort of thing.

Wrong. They absolutely are.

which is why i want the whole damn matter out of schools - our concepts of family, society, morality; they are too important to be left to government, and attempting to do so only leaves at each others throats, as it forces some of our most deeply held beliefs into conflicting with each other over the things in this world we hold most dear. it creates unnecessary conflict.

The problem is when some folks confuse education with morality... like those that think teaching sex education is encouraging promiscuity... or those who think teaching that different sexual orientations exist is teaching how to be gay. That's the problem and what creates the conflict.

cpwill · May 21, 2011

Your Star said:
What are you talking about? I don't want the morality of sexuality to be taught it schools, I want the facts about not just homosexuality

ah, but so does our mythical tennessean above. you just don't agree with his facts, nor he with yours. the fact that you are evil demonspawn and doomed for burning for your wicked lusts is something children need to be made aware of, just as the fact that sex is a normal part of a high school experience and needs to be done with condoms is. both imply a moral judgement, though one of condemnation and another of enabling or equivalency.

but sexuality in general to be taught. By professional sex education teachers, just like I want math, and history to be taught by professional teachers in those fields.

if you want to teach biology that's fine and it belongs. no graduate should still buy the stork theory

but if you want to teach sexuality, leave it to the family, or wait for college, when the (adult) student chooses the class.

cpwill · May 21, 2011

CaptainCourtesy said:
Wrong. They absolutely are.

they absolutely are not, and even the claim that there is nothing inherently moral about how we approach sexuality assumes a particular moral system. these are a priori arguments, here, CC. hence the depth and the continual nature of the conflict over them.

this is also (side note) why centralized systems produce more conflict than decentralized ones. when you attempt to force the same answer on everyone, the people who disagree are going to push back.

allow each family to teach as they will, and let the kids learn math and science. we're falling behind enough in those as it is.

The problem is when some folks confuse education with morality... like those that think teaching sex education is encouraging promiscuity... or those who think teaching that different sexual orientations exist is teaching how to be gay. That's the problem and what creates the conflict.

i can't tell you for others, but my conflict comes from the school trying to step in and do my job in a way of which I don't approve. any more than you would appreciate someone teaching your child my post above.

CaptainCourtesy · May 21, 2011

cpwill said:
they absolutely are not, and even the claim that there is nothing inherently moral about how we approach sexuality assumes a particular moral system.

No, they absolutely are. There is certainly a difference between providing information and making value judgments on that information. It is YOU that is making the value judgments, not I.

i can't tell you for others, but my conflict comes from the school trying to step in and do my job in a way of which I don't approve. any more than you would appreciate someone teaching your child my post above.

And I already explained how your post, above, was not relevant to the discussion. It described the teaching of right and wrong, and about beliefs. Not what we are discussing.

Your Star · May 21, 2011

cpwill said:
ah, but so does our mythical tennessean above. you just don't agree with his facts, nor he with yours. the fact that you are evil demonspawn and doomed for burning for your wicked lusts is something children need to be made aware of, just as the fact that sex is a normal part of a high school experience and needs to be done with condoms is. both imply a moral judgement, though one of condemnation and another of enabling or equivalency.

if you want to teach biology that's fine and it belongs. no graduate should still buy the stork theory but if you want to teach sexuality, leave it to the family, or wait for college, when the (adult) student chooses the class.

You can teach sexuality, without teaching morality. The facts are that if you use condoms properly you are extremely less likely to get an STI, Aids, pregnant etc, the facts are the homosexuality isn't a mental disorder, and all the things that apply to straight kids about safe sex, applies to LGBT kids as well. Nothing about that has anything to do with morality. Sure you can say that it is a moral issue that kids are being taught that homosexuality isn't a mental disease, but you can say that about anything being taught. The facts should be taught, nothing more, and nothing less.

cpwill · May 21, 2011

CaptainCourtesy said:
No, they absolutely are. There is certainly a difference between providing information and making value judgments on that information

no, there isn't. we're not talking about biology here, we are talking about sexuality. when you teach equivalently, you teach equivalency.

It is YOU that is making the value judgments, not I.

exactly, you see nothing inherently moral about one's sexuality. that is a moral position on the subject of sexuality that is not shared by the wide majority of Americans.

And I already explained how your post, above, was not relevant to the discussion. It described the teaching of right and wrong, and about beliefs. Not what we are discussing.

in fact we are discussing precisely that. but for some reason because you happen to agree with the moral presumptions of the current system, you recognize them no more than a fish see's water.

Your Star · May 21, 2011

cpwill said:
ah, but so does our mythical tennessean above. you just don't agree with his facts, nor he with yours. the fact that you are evil demonspawn and doomed for burning for your wicked lusts is something children need to be made aware of, just as the fact that sex is a normal part of a high school experience and needs to be done with condoms is. both imply a moral judgement, though one of condemnation and another of enabling or equivalency.

if you want to teach biology that's fine and it belongs. no graduate should still buy the stork theory but if you want to teach sexuality, leave it to the family, or wait for college, when the (adult) student chooses the class.

You can teach sexuality, without teaching morality. The facts are that if you use condoms properly you are extremely less likely to get an STI, Aids, pregnant etc, the facts are the homosexuality isn't a mental disorder, and all the things that apply to straight kids about safe sex, applies to LGBT kids as well. Nothing about that has anything to do with morality. Sure you can say that it is a moral issue that kids are being taught that homosexuality isn't a mental disease, but you can say that about anything being taught. The facts should be taught, nothing more, and nothing less.

CaptainCourtesy · May 21, 2011

cpwill said:
no, there isn't. we're not talking about biology here, we are talking about sexuality. when you teach equivalently, you teach equivalency.

Incorrect. Sexuality can easily be separated from morality and taught both educationally and scientifically. No problem at all.

exactly, you see nothing inherently moral about one's sexuality. that is a moral position on the subject of sexuality that is not shared by the wide majority of Americans.

No, I did not say that. What I said is that one can separate the morality and the information in regards to sexuality. Very easily.

in fact we are discussing precisely that. but for some reason because you happen to agree with the moral presumptions of the current system, you recognize them no more than a fish see's water.

No, that is not what we are discussing, but since you do not agree with the current state of things, you are attempting to define the discussion by something that it is not.

cpwill · May 21, 2011

Your Star said:
You can teach sexuality, without teaching morality.

no, you can't. you teach kids about multiple different approaches to sexuality without distinguishing any moral difference between them, and all you have managed to teach is their moral equivalency. tell a kid it's nieither right nor wrong for him to have sex but here's a condom and what he learns is that his decision to have sex is morally unweighted - it is his decision to use protection that is important.

The facts are that if you use condoms properly you are extremely less likely to get an STI, Aids, pregnant etc

:shrug: and the fact is that if you don't have sex you are even less likely to experience all these things. obviously if we want to avoid these things we should be hammering home abstinence only?

of course not - because that is a moral position. i happen to agree with it, but your kids are not my kids and i have no right to impose on you teaching them your values.

but i think it comes down to this - because you find sexuality to be morally equitable, you treat it as such and recognize the wrongness of trying to impose a specific "one way" for sexuality.

but being equitable is a measurement too. if two items each weigh a pound, they don't cease to have mass, they remain both weighted. that items are presented without drawing moral distinction is just as much a moral decision as presenting them with a specific moral distinction.

which is why you get laws like this. because parents get tired of arguing with each other when each is sure that they are "right" and only being "reasonable" about this critical part of humanity and how we should pass it on to the most precious things in our lives. for both sides it becomes a jihad - you fight to prevent aids, i fight to prevent promiscuity.

until we get tired, and we all meet together and pass a law that says "**** it"; no more of anybody's system in school.

which is apparently what Tennessee has done.

cpwill · May 21, 2011

CaptainCourtesy said:
Incorrect. Sexuality can easily be separated from morality and taught both educationally and scientifically. No problem at all.

biology can, certainly; and the reproductive cycle of the various life forms belongs in biology.

sexuality, no it cannot. you merely think that because you separate sexuality from morality.

No, I did not say that. What I said is that one can separate the morality and the information in regards to sexuality. Very easily.

alright, convince me.

tell me about your sexuality curriculum which makes no moral weights at all including the weight of equivalency.

because that is a weight.

No, that is not what we are discussing, but since you do not agree with the current state of things, you are attempting to define the discussion by something that it is not.

indeed it is precisely what we are discussing and the fact that we are arguing about it and that this has been a major argument in American culture for decades now rather demonstrates that I am correct - and that this is a moral issue.

i don't pay teachers to teach my kids about sexuality or it's role in society. that's my job. i hired them to teach the kids how to read.

when our school system becomes awesome enough at that that we don't have significant portions of the populace that are functionally illiterate, can't perform basic mathematical equations without aid, and have no understanding of our nations' history - then i'll re-listen to the guy who is also convinced that they will just do a super-duper bang-up job of handing sensitive material that touches on deeply-held beliefs. i will be unlikely to agree with him that school is the proper format, but at least I won't consider him a fool for giving one of our most important jobs to one of our failing institutions.

Your Star · May 21, 2011

cpwill said:
no, you can't. you teach kids about multiple different approaches to sexuality without distinguishing any moral difference between them, and all you have managed to teach is their moral equivalency. tell a kid it's nieither right nor wrong for him to have sex but here's a condom and what he learns is that his decision to have sex is morally unweighted - it is his decision to use protection that is important.

:shrug: and the fact is that if you don't have sex you are even less likely to experience all these things. obviously if we want to avoid these things we should be hammering home abstinence only?

of course not - because that is a moral position. i happen to agree with it, but your kids are not my kids and i have no right to impose on you teaching them your values.

but i think it comes down to this - because you find sexuality to be morally equitable, you treat it as such and recognize the wrongness of trying to impose a specific "one way" for sexuality.

but being equitable is a measurement too. if two items each weigh a pound, they don't cease to have mass, they remain both weighted. that items are presented without drawing moral distinction is just as much a moral decision as presenting them with a specific moral distinction.

which is why you get laws like this. because parents get tired of arguing with each other when each is sure that they are "right" and only being "reasonable" about this critical part of humanity and how we should pass it on to the most precious things in our lives. for both sides it becomes a jihad - you fight to prevent aids, i fight to prevent promiscuity.

until we get tired, and we all meet together and pass a law that says "**** it"; no more of anybody's system in school.

which is apparently what Tennessee has done.

This is an inaccurate analysis of the situation. Morality has nothing to do with sex education. Sex education is about giving kids all the facts, so they know what they are going to be getting themselves into eventually. This isn't a moral issue, it is a health issue, our teen pregnancy, and STI rates are too high, and the way to lower them isn't to leave it up to the parents, but by having a more comprehensive sex education. It's about giving these kids facts, and leaving the moral ideas up to them. We shouldn't leave this up to the parents because the majority of them are not experts in the field of human sexuality, and alot of parents don't want to talk about this with their kids. I know mine didn't, and my sex education was crap, I had to learn about this stuff on my own. I was lucky, and found the right information, but alot of kids won't be so lucky, and this is a serious health risk you would be putting these kids in.

Barbbtx · May 21, 2011

Your Star said:
What are you talking about? I don't want the morality of sexuality to be taught it schools, I want the facts about not just homosexuality, but sexuality in general to be taught. By professional sex education teachers, just like I want math, and history to be taught by professional teachers in those fields.

You know it's no wonder more and more people are talking about home schooling.
When I was in school, what i recall was one chapter on "sex" education. It was in our health book. Maybe a little more than that but not much and we had to have a permission slip from home. Nothing was taught about homosexuals and in my opinion none was needed. Some things are a need to know basis at that age in my opinion. I had a gay uncle. It wasn't hard to figure out on my own. He'd lived with same man for 30 yrs. Never went out with women.
I wish the government would get out of the business of raising children. That's all I gotta say.

cpwill · May 21, 2011

Your Star said:
This is an inaccurate analysis of the situation

no, it is an analysis that you disagree with. to say that it is inaccurate is to make a judgement call, which is something you are promising us you can somehow avoid doing. so either you are wrong then, or you are wrong now.

. Morality has nothing to do with sex education.

and that is a value judgement on which we utterly disagree.

Sex education is about giving kids all the facts, so they know what they are going to be getting themselves into eventually.

which is a moral assumption as well as an assumption of my role as a parent to prepare my child for life.

This isn't a moral issue, it is a health issue, our teen pregnancy, and STI rates are too high, and the way to lower them isn't to leave it up to the parents, but by having a more comprehensive sex education.

really. fascinating. so would you argue that since we have instituted sex education in our schools, teen pregnancy and STD rates have gone down?

if it was about "keeping the kids from pregnancy or STD's", then we would be teaching them the one system that does so - which is abstinence.

that we arent and that you don't want to is because you recognize the moral claim in that curriculum - and you recognize it because it is not your own, you are a fish out of water in it. you don't recognize it in your system because it is how you view sexuality - but i'm not a fish, and I know when I'm covered in water.

It's about giving these kids facts, and leaving the moral ideas up to them.

exactly. and since equivalency is a value, there you are. make your own decision, one is as good as another, there is no judging... those are arguments based on the premise of moral equivalency.

We shouldn't leave this up to the parents because the majority of them are not experts in the field of human sexuality, and alot of parents don't want to talk about this with their kids.

:roll: amazing. how did we ever survive as a species if children never learned about reproduction from parents that themselves had no idea?

wait a minute, if the parents didn't have the basics of sexuality down.... where did the kid come from....

I know mine didn't, and my sex education was crap, I had to learn about this stuff on my own. I was lucky, and found the right information, but alot of kids won't be so lucky, and this is a serious health risk you would be putting these kids in.

not at all, we're going to teach them the actual way to avoid all that, which is abstinence until marriage to a single member of the opposite gender who is themself a virgin, remember?

don't worry, no moral values involved. I promise, I won't teach any morals. Just that that is the only guaranteed way to avoid STD's and premarital pregnancy.

Your Star · May 21, 2011

Barbbtx said:
You know it's no wonder more and more people are talking about home schooling.
When I was in school, what i recall was one chapter on "sex" education. It was in our health book. Maybe a little more than that but not much and we had to have a permission slip from home. Nothing was taught about homosexuals and in my opinion none was needed. Some things are a need to know basis at that age in my opinion. I had a gay uncle. It wasn't hard to figure out on my own. He'd lived with same man for 30 yrs. Never went out with women.
I wish the government would get out of the business of raising children. That's all I gotta say.

Homosexuality should be taught because there are gay kids in schools, I was highly confused when I was in school, and a "hey this exists" would have been nice. Not a moral judgement, but just an acknowledgment, and the scholarly opinion on the subject.

CaptainCourtesy · May 21, 2011

cpwill said:
biology can, certainly; and the reproductive cycle of the various life forms belongs in biology.

sexuality, no it cannot. you merely think that because you separate sexuality from morality.

And if I can, then it can be taught that way. Thank you.

alright, convince me. tell me about your sexuality curriculum which makes no moral weights at all including the weight of equivalency.

because that is a weight.

YOUR description of morality is from the receiver. I can provide information, but how you take it is on YOU. If I say, there are several types of sexual orientations, and you think, "hey, he's saying that all are morally equivielnt", that is YOUR perception, and has nothing to do with what I am saying. I can provide plenty of information. I am not responsible for how you judge or perceive it.

indeed it is precisely what we are discussing and the fact that we are arguing about it and that this has been a major argument in American culture for decades now rather demonstrates that I am correct - and that this is a moral issue.

No, we are not arguing over whether it should be taught because of the moral implications. YOU are arguing that. I am telling you that is not the issue, that morality is separate from education. Some folk, erroneously, want to make it a moral issue.

i don't pay teachers to teach my kids about sexuality or it's role in society. that's my job. i hired them to teach the kids how to read.

I pay teachers to teach information that is useful. Sexuality is useful information. YOUR job is to teach the values of the information that is taught in school.

when our school system becomes awesome enough at that that we don't have significant portions of the populace that are functionally illiterate, can't perform basic mathematical equations without aid, and have no understanding of our nations' history - then i'll re-listen to the guy who is also convinced that they will just do a super-duper bang-up job of handing sensitive material that touches on deeply-held beliefs. i will be unlikely to agree with him that school is the proper format, but at least I won't consider him a fool for giving one of our more important jobs to one of our failing institutions.

Ah... reverting to the 'ole "reading, writing, and arithmatic first" argument, now. I disagree. Firstly, there is value in learning about sexuality, and culture and the arts, amongst other things. Secondly our educational problems are not solely the fault of the educational system. They are the fault of a combination of factors: the educational system, lack of parental involvement, and student apathy, for starters.

Your Star · May 21, 2011

Barbbtx said:
You know it's no wonder more and more people are talking about home schooling.
When I was in school, what i recall was one chapter on "sex" education. It was in our health book. Maybe a little more than that but not much and we had to have a permission slip from home. Nothing was taught about homosexuals and in my opinion none was needed. Some things are a need to know basis at that age in my opinion. I had a gay uncle. It wasn't hard to figure out on my own. He'd lived with same man for 30 yrs. Never went out with women.
I wish the government would get out of the business of raising children. That's all I gotta say.

Homosexuality should be taught because there are gay kids in schools, I was highly confused when I was in school, and a "hey this exists" would have been nice. Not a moral judgement, but just an acknowledgment, and the scholarly opinion on the subject.

Your Star · May 21, 2011

cpwill said:
no, it is an analysis that you disagree with. to say that it is inaccurate is to make a judgement call, which is something you are promising us you can somehow avoid doing. so either you are wrong then, or you are wrong now.

You could say the same thing about history, why should this version of history be taught over this one? Because the majority of educators in that field say so, that is what should be the determination of what is taught in schools.

and that is a value judgement on which we utterly disagree.

which is a moral assumption as well as an assumption of my role as a parent to prepare my child for life.

really. fascinating. so would you argue that since we have instituted sex education in our schools, teen pregnancy and STD rates have gone down?

if it was about "keeping the kids from pregnancy or STD's", then we would be teaching them the one system that does so - which is abstinence.

that we arent and that you don't want to is because you recognize the moral claim in that curriculum - and you recognize it because it is not your own, you are a fish out of water in it. you don't recognize it in your system because it is how you view sexuality - but i'm not a fish, and I know when I'm covered in water.

My whole premise is that sex education isn't good enough, and that is why I think STI's, and teen pregnancy numbers are too high. And you are making judgements about my views without knowing what they are, big mistake. I do want abstinence to be taught in schools, it should be an important part to any comprehensive sex education curriculum, I don't think it should be abstinence only though, because that is making a moral judgement, and taking morality out of the hands of the students. Which is who we should be thinking about the most in regards to this issue.

exactly. and since equivalency is a value, there you are. make your own decision, one is as good as another, there is no judging... those are arguments based on the premise of moral equivalency.

Teaching all of the facts, is not making a moral judgement. A moral judgement is about right, or wrong, and this does neither.

:roll: amazing. how did we ever survive as a species if children never learned about reproduction from parents that themselves had no idea?

wait a minute, if the parents didn't have the basics of sexuality down.... where did the kid come from....

This is a over simplistic view of the issue. Obviously we know how to reproduce, this is teaching them how to do it safely, if they decide to have sex, and teaching them about various other issue's with regards to human sexuality. Obviously you will say as a species, our issues regarding sexuality is more complex then just the survival of the species.

not at all, we're going to teach them the actual way to avoid all that, which is abstinence until marriage to a single member of the opposite gender who is themself a virgin, remember?

don't worry, no moral values involved. I promise, I won't teach any morals. Just that that is the only guaranteed way to avoid STD's and premarital pregnancy.

You are making a moral judgement by allowing them to only teach this, by teaching everything, you are leaving it up to the students, and giving them the power of knowledge, which is what school should do.

cpwill · May 21, 2011

CaptainCourtesy said:
And if I can, then it can be taught that way. Thank you.

and success!

YOUR description of morality is from the receiver. I can provide information, but how you take it is on YOU

provision of information comes along with presumption of presentation.

for example, if i were to give you two competing scientific theories in a book, without telling you which one was or was not correct, you would merely assume that they were competing theories - that difference scientists back each and that the debate was ongoing. you would perceive equivalency as a judgement between them because that is how i have presented the material to you - in a equivalent fashion. they could be as mis-matched as heliocentrism and flat-earthism, but if what you are given is the material presented without difference between the two or conclusion, you will perceive equivalency. you may not accept or agree with it, but that is what is being presented.

If I say, there are several types of sexual orientations, and you think, "hey, he's saying that all are morally equivielnt", that is YOUR perception, and has nothing to do with what I am saying.

actually it does - specifically it has to do with how you are saying it.

for example, if i say "here are the major forms of human sexuality: homosexuality, bi sexuality, heterosexuality". that's an equivalency presentation. the student writes all three down on the list and there they all sit, coequal and each taking up it's own line on the page.

however, i go to the next class and i say "the major form of sexuality used by humans is hetero sexuality. now, some claim that homosexuality, bi sexuality, bestiality, necrophilia, and all other manners of sexuality should be treated as no better or worse than hetero sexuality, but the fact remains that these are very, very, very small minority groups within human sexuality" then that is a format that presents a moral call. Certainly I didn't say this is right or this is wrong, but I separate hetero sexuality alone, first, and above all - and then make a point to list homosexuality in the same format as bestiality; which I imply is inferior due to it's numbers. I could throw pedohophelia in there too. The presentation implies that these things all belong together - there is a fundamental equivalency between them. They all "belong" on the same list, and Heterosexuality does not belong on that list. Which is why homosexuals come down so hard on attempts to put homosexuality in the same list as pedophilia - because they know that the presentation presumes a moral judgement even if one is not highlighted.

I can provide plenty of information. I am not responsible for how you judge or perceive it.

anybody aware of the "lies, damn lies, and statistics" quote ought to know that's bullhockey.

No, we are not arguing over whether it should be taught because of the moral implications. YOU are arguing that. I am telling you that is not the issue, that morality is separate from education. Some folk, erroneously, want to make it a moral issue.

and some folk, erroneously, think that you can pretend it isn't.

hooray for a priori arguments!

I pay teachers to teach information that is useful. Sexuality is useful information. YOUR job is to teach the values of the information that is taught in school.

gosh, if only there were some way for us to pick and choose how to send our children to the schools that reflected our differences here....

Ah... reverting to the 'ole "reading, writing, and arithmatic first" argument, now. I disagree. Firstly, there is value in learning about sexuality, and culture and the arts, amongst other things.

these kids are kindgergardeners through 8th grade. we're not event talking about high school here - much less college. you have to be able to read above a third-grade-level before you can read, analyze, and appreciate shakespeare.

Secondly our educational problems are not solely the fault of the educational system. They are the fault of a combination of factors: the educational system, lack of parental involvement, and student apathy, for starters.

that is certainly true.

cpwill · May 21, 2011

Your Star said:
Homosexuality should be taught because there are gay kids in schools, I was highly confused when I was in school, and a "hey this exists" would have been nice. Not a moral judgement, but just an acknowledgment, and the scholarly opinion on the subject.

the problem being you can't discuss it without implying equivalency, superiority, or inferiority.

winston53660 · May 21, 2011

cpwill said:
the problem being you can't discuss it without implying equivalency, superiority, or inferiority.

And the problem with that is what?

cpwill · May 21, 2011

Your Star said:
You could say the same thing about history, why should this version of history be taught over this one? Because the majority of educators in that field say so, that is what should be the determination of what is taught in schools.

and now you know why the fights over history are so fierce as well. because they are value battles.

no one get's bent out of shape over the acceleration of gravity - it's not a value system. we get bent out of shape at books that ignore the founding fathers slavery, or accuse them all of being racist rich whites, because those two things imply value judgements.

My whole premise is that sex education isn't good enough, and that is why I think STI's, and teen pregnancy numbers are too high.

and I agree, which is why I want to get away from teaching the kids second-best methods and instead teach them the best method to avoid these things.

yet - odd - when I argue that we should do that you accuse me of making a moral judgement, and it just so happens that that particular system is not the one that you agree with.

now gosh, where could you have gotten the idea that teaching just abstinence only entails a moral judgement? why would I want to teach the kids something that I know will produce worse results for them?

And you are making judgements about my views without knowing what they are, big mistake. I do want abstinence to be taught in schools, it should be an important part to any comprehensive sex education curriculum, I don't think it should be abstinence only though, because that is making a moral judgement, and taking morality out of the hands of the students.

except - again - by implying equivalency between the systems you teach that as their relative moral worth.

Which is who we should be thinking about the most in regards to this issue.

why do you think parents care so much about precisely this issue? it's not your kids being given lessons antithetical to your belief system.

Teaching all of the facts, is not making a moral judgement

except that it does because - again - equivalency is judgement.

This is a over simplistic view of the issue. Obviously we know how to reproduce, this is teaching them how to do it safely, if they decide to have sex, and teaching them about various other issue's with regards to human sexuality. Obviously you will say as a species, our issues regarding sexuality is more complex then just the survival of the species.

quite so. but the more complex and intimate the issue becomes, the less I want another dictating to me or my child how it should be handled.

You are making a moral judgement by allowing them to only teach this, by teaching everything, you are leaving it up to the students, and giving them the power of knowledge, which is what school should do.

when you teach, you enable. that is, after all, the entire point of an education system in the first place.

cpwill · May 21, 2011

winston53660 said:
And the problem with that is what?

those are value judgements. given that people will hold deeply held beliefs over the relative correct value judgement with regards to this fairly intimate yet critical topic... and given that we are discussing it in the context of the things we hold most precious in this world (our children).... the best solution is to let each of us go their own way without trying to force "our" preferred approach onto anothers' kids.

GPS_Flex · May 21, 2011

Temporal said:
I guess don't talk about being gay and maybe less people will turn out gay, is the idea?

I know it breaks your little artistic rainbow heart to admit it but yeah, fewer children will claim to be gay if fewer people are trying to push it on them as an alternative lifestyle.

CaptainCourtesy · May 21, 2011

cpwill said:
and success!

Yes... that we agree that I am correct.

provision of information comes along with presumption of presentation.

No, it does not.

for example, if i were to give you two competing scientific theories in a book, without telling you which one was or was not correct, you would merely assume that they were competing theories - that difference scientists back each and that the debate was ongoing. you would perceive equivalency as a judgement between them because that is how i have presented the material to you - in a equivalent fashion. they could be as mis-matched as heliocentrism and flat-earthism, but if what you are given is the material presented without difference between the two or conclusion, you will perceive equivalency. you may not accept or agree with it, but that is what is being presented.

And everything you just said proves my point. The pronoun you used was "YOU". What is perceived is MY perception and how I evaluate and judge the information. If all that is provided is information, what values judgments come from it are MINE. This is the second time you have proven me correct. Thank you.

actually it does - specifically it has to do with how you are saying it.

Of course it does. That is why it is important to present it, informationally.

for example, if i say "here are the major forms of human sexuality: homosexuality, bi sexuality, heterosexuality". that's an equivalency presentation.

No, it is not. It is a list with no values presented. The "equivelency" is on YOU, the receiver.

the student writes all three down on the list and there they all sit, coequal and each taking up it's own line on the page.

As a lst. The judgments that the student places on that list are his/hers.

however, i go to the next class and i say "the major form of sexuality used by humans is hetero sexuality. now, some claim that homosexuality, bi sexuality, bestiality, necrophilia, and all other manners of sexuality should be treated as no better or worse than hetero sexuality, but the fact remains that these are very, very, very small minority groups" then that is a format that presents a moral call. I separate hetero sexuality alone, first, and above all - and then make a point to list homosexuality in the same format as bestiality. I could throw pedohophelia in there too. the presentation is that these things all belong together - there is a fundamental equivalency between them. which is why homosexuals come down so hard on attempts to put homosexuality in the same list as pedophilia - because they know that the presentation presumes a moral judgement even if one is not highlighted.

Sure... here you presented a value judgment, presenting a right/wrong dichotomy to the student. In the other situation, you left the value to the student themselves.

anybody aware of the "lies, damn lies, and statistics" quote ought to know that's bullhockey.

Information is information. One can present it objectively or subjectively. I would think that anyone would know the difference between these two.

and some folk, erroneously, think that you can pretend it isn't.

hooray for a priori arguments!

Ah... a straw man argument. Never said it wasn't a moral issue. What I have said is that it isn't ALWAYS a moral issue. Some folks seem to erroneously think it ALWAYS is.

gosh, if only there were some way for us to pick and choose how to send our children to the schools that reflected our differences here....

Actually, I think there is. A school sets a curriculum. You don't agree with it, you don't send your child to that school. Seems pretty simple to me.

these kids are kindgergardeners through 8th grade. we're not event talking about high school here - much less college. you have to be able to read above a third-grade-level before you can read, analyze, and appreciate shakespeare.

Of course. And these other things I mentioned would be taught on those levels.

that is certainly true.

Agreed.

Tenn. Senate OKs ban on teaching of homosexuality

cpwill

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

cpwill

cpwill

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

Your Star

Rage More!

cpwill

Your Star

Rage More!

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

cpwill

cpwill

Your Star

Rage More!

Barbbtx

cpwill

Your Star

Rage More!

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

Your Star

Rage More!

Your Star

Rage More!

cpwill

cpwill

winston53660

cpwill

cpwill

GPS_Flex

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo