Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MonkeyHead]

Teaching kids to accept homosexuality and the whole pantheon of LGBT orientations, including the subtle variations within hetero, as a normal thing is so not the same as promoting homosexuality as a superior choice - I worry that this "fear" is born out of some kind of fearmongering and ignorance. Nobody is suggesting we do such a thing. Nobody is suggesting we should push any particular orientation on anyone. What is being pushed though is the idea that we should inform people well enough in order for them to make their own choices, and then to support them in that choice - not assume that hetero is the default "better" option for all, and to engineer things in such a way to push that agenda.

[martinuzz]

So long as said support is available, I wouldn't say the child's right to support supersedes the biological parent's right to be left the hell alone, y'know

I think we can agree to disagree there. In my opinion, setting a child into this world is a choice as well as a responsability.
If you want to be left the hell alone, then don't have children.

That aside, your response did make me think of this good old song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1BJfDvSITY

[Frumple]

I think we can agree to disagree there. In my opinion, setting a child into this world is a choice as well as a responsability.
If you want to be left the hell alone, then don't have children.

Maybe, maybe. There's definitely a difference between a surrogate parent or sperm donor and someone who was just incautious or whathaveyou, though. I'd say enabling someone that wants kids, but can't, to have them is a good thing, y'know? Hopefully in the near future there'll be an iron womb equivalent for folks that cuts out the proverbial middleman, but until then it's good stuff.

But as I mentioned, I pretty strongly devalue the importance of biological connection. What's important for a kid is who raises 'em and how, not whether there's an immediate genetic connection involved. Who donated genes is irrelevant (barring genetic diseases and whatnot, anyway, ha), imo. It's certainly not something I'd try to nix sperm donation or surrogate parenting over. Or even the anonymous part of it.

[Darvi]

The problem, as I see it, is that as long as it is not proven that homosexuality is completely non-related to exposition to such worldview, I would rather keep my children away from it.

Which is the problem with the "born that way" movement : it doesn't adress the root of the problem, namely, why would you want your children heterosexual and not homosexual?

Well, and why would I want them other way around? Why would I not care? Give me a choice - and the let the kiddo choose for himself when we, as a society, agree that he is ready (probably after hitting 18/21 years of age). If you want your kids homosexual, go ahead, send them to school where they can learn about that. If not, don't send them here. You don't care? Great for you, you can just send them to school across the street, whatever they are teaching there. It is the best solution, at least in my mind: just let the education be privatized. And everything else, too, for that matter, but this is (again) different topic.

The answer to "why would I want to have my kids to be *insert sexual preference here*?" is "Because it's not your responsibility, or even right, to micromanage your children down to the level of who they should or shouldn't like.", just like you shouldn't be allowed to, say, dictate which sports club they join, or what medication they will take.

This stuff should be basic SexEd anyway, during the early teens or whenever it is that they stop believing in cooties. Any later, such as your suggested 18/21, will just cause years of needless confusion and grief.

[Sergarr]

The problem, as I see it, is that as long as it is not proven that homosexuality is completely non-related to exposition to such worldview, I would rather keep my children away from it.

Which is the problem with the "born that way" movement : it doesn't adress the root of the problem, namely, why would you want your children heterosexual and not homosexual?

Well, and why would I want them other way around? Why would I not care? Give me a choice - and the let the kiddo choose for himself when we, as a society, agree that he is ready (probably after hitting 18/21 years of age). If you want your kids homosexual, go ahead, send them to school where they can learn about that. If not, don't send them here. You don't care? Great for you, you can just send them to school across the street, whatever they are teaching there. It is the best solution, at least in my mind: just let the education be privatized. And everything else, too, for that matter, but this is (again) different topic.

The answer to "why would I want to have my kids to be *insert sexual preference here*?" is "Because it's not your responsibility, or even right, to micromanage your children down to the level of who they should or shouldn't like.", just like you shouldn't be allowed to, say, dictate which sports club they join, or what medication they will take.

This stuff should be basic SexEd anyway, during the early teens or whenever it is that they stop believing in cooties. Any later, such as your suggested 18/21, will just cause years of needless confusion and grief.

What if the medication they chose will kill them?

[Darvi]

Well that's what I mean with parents not being allowed to decide that sort of thing. It's not their responsibility to do a professional doctor's job.

[BlindKitty]

Well, so let's get some thing straight here, please, because it is important that we discuss the same thing, and not two different.
One important thing is that I don't advocate teaching kids about homosexuality at age 18/21/whatever else. I just say that from that moment on, they should be allowed to choose their own education, with all assorted ideological worldviews, whether on sexuality, creationism/evolution or any other topic. Up to that moment, it is parent responsibility - and right - to choose for them. Not whether or not they learn about it, because it is obvious that such an issue exists and as such should be learned (excuse me for maybe bad analogy, but similarly to evolution/creationism - it is an undisputed fact that there are many species on Earth, but there are conflicting views as to why), but how they are learned. I want my school to teach kids about things that I believe in, and I think are right.
So either is sexuality genetic ('born that way') and whatever I do to keep my kids from propaganda (not knowledge!) is not going to change who they are - so there is no difference as to which school I will send them to, or there is some difference, and I should have right to influence that part, just as I am trying to raise my kids in my religion and sharing my worldview.

-snip-

Well, there are a few points where I disagree with you. First of all, I don't want my kids to 'accept' homosexuality (and assorted stuff, I'm using homosexuality as a kind of mental shortcut). I want them to 'tolerate' it, which is a different thing. That's because - another thing to mention - I *do* think that hetero is better option, because it is default, natural option, allowing the species as a whole to survive and thrive.
Moreover, from my experience - but it is only my experience, I want to stress that, because it may be native to Poland (and our colony-minded government), or even be more confined than that - every attempt to allow some form of LGBT organization to teach kids about tolerating/accepting other orientations and whatnot ends up in blatant propaganda formed along the 'gay' lines. That is, that being LGBT(QI?) is more 'cool' and 'European' and 'trendy' than being heterosexual. Again, I'm stressing the fact that is a) my experience, though not only personal, but also second-handed reports from various media and b) not argument against tolerance, but against forcing anything on anyone and lack of choice.
I do not doubt that there ways to reasonably teach kids about value of tolerance and various non-heteronormative behaviors, it is just the fact that I've seen other ways being used when it comes to actual, existing school.

- snip -

- snip -

I will have to side with martinuzz on this one - setting a child into this world is a responsibility, even more so than a choice. And, even more importantly, I would say that the fact that somebody wants kids isn't all that important. Children are not property or a human right; they are other, autonomous beings. The mere fact that someone wants them doesn't automatically warrant they should be allowed to do so. I'm not saying that people who - for one reason or another - can't have children should not be allowed some ways around it. But it is very important to remember that there is no such thing as a right to child; just as there isn't right to a partner. The fact that I want a wife doesn't warrant me one, and it is the same with children.
Also, while you might not consider biological connection important, who is to say that the children born would share this view? There are numerous stories about children raised by non-biological parents seeking the biological ones, so it is obviously a thing to consider.

[martinuzz]

Well that's what I mean with parents not being allowed to decide that sort of thing. It's not their responsibility to do a professional doctor's job.

Agreed. Too many children die because their parents did not want to have them vaccinated.
But what if the professionals offer a cure that has a 50/50 chance of either curing, or killing?

[Darvi]

Frankly, I have a problem with people deciding on what their children learn. People are badly informed, biased, or just plain unknowledgeable in a large number of subjects, as laymen tend to be. What one person sees as right, another sees as left. A uniform education for everybody, with the curriculum decided by a board of specialists who know their subjects, or something like that, would not only ensure that everybody would learn what is generally accepted to be right (e.g. evolution over creationism), but also ensure that everybody has access to the same standards of knowledge.

And I find a kid's right to this overrides a parent's right to decide what they learn, which has the potential to be, to use your words, propaganda.

But what if the professionals offer a cure that has a 50/50 chance of either curing, or killing?

Irrelevant. The media outrage alone would ensure they wouldn't bring such a cure on the market in the first place.

[BlindKitty]

Frankly, I have a problem with people deciding on what their children learn. People are badly informed, biased, or just plain unknowledgeable in a large number of subjects, as laymen tend to be. What one person sees as right, another sees as left. A uniform education for everybody, with the curriculum decided by a board of specialists who know their subjects, or something like that, would not only ensure that everybody would learn what is generally accepted to be right (e.g. evolution over creationism), but also ensure that everybody has access to the same standards of knowledge.

And I find a kid's right to this overrides a parent's right to decide what they learn, which has the potential to be, to use your words, propaganda.

Well, I will start with an apology, but... I'm always willing to take a thing to a logical conclusion, because I think people don't do that nearly enough, stopping halfway through their thinking (not that it doesn't happen to me).

If we assume that people are generally not wise (again, using a shorthand for badly informed etc.), and we want to institute a uniform education, why do we give people the right to vote? I think it would be problematic to reason that people don't know a thing about biology, but they do know everything there is to know about economics. Or international diplomacy, for that matter. And yet, we allow the people to vote; all of them, not just the knowledgeable ones. What is more, their kids live in a country shaped by the very politicians they elect, so their biased, uninformed decisions matter no only for their own children, but for all children in a country. Shouldn't we limit the right to vote to a board of specialists who know the subjects of politics?

On another, yet related, note - uniform education with curriculum dictated by a board of specialists with given views leads to teaching people that view. Some of them will become specialists, and they will be sharing the view. And then they will become part of the board, and a cycle closes and we end up with people repeating the same views over and over again. Are we confident enough to assume that is a good thing, that modern view on science (especially social science) is the ultimate, best one and nobody will ever come up with better ideas?

[Darvi]

why do we give people the right to vote?

Believe me, I have no idea either.

Shouldn't we limit the right to vote to a board of specialists who know the subjects of politics?

I do like the idea of a meritocracy, yes. Anarchy sounds better, but I trust humanity without restraints less than Oddysseus with a wooden horse. _{My way would of course make these issues into non-issues, but I doubt anybody would think that would be a good idea so I won't even discuss it.}

On another, yet related, note - uniform education with curriculum dictated by a board of specialists with given views leads to teaching people that view. Some of them will become specialists, and they will be sharing the view. And then they will become part of the board, and a cycle closes and we end up with people repeating the same views over and over again. Are we confident enough to assume that is a good thing, that modern view on science (especially social science) is the ultimate, best one and nobody will ever come up with better ideas?

Academia has ways of handling this. Peer reviews, the scientific method, that kind of stuff.

[10ebbor10]

Shouldn't we limit the right to vote to a board of specialists who know the subjects of politics?

[/quote]
Well, technically one of the effects of a representative democracy is that you limit the execution of political stuff to a board of people who know a lot about it, and the voters just choose the general goals. This however, assumes that the politicians know what they're doing.

[scriver]

I'd like to point out here that in more conservative countries (or parts of countries) sex ed itself might be a controversial issue. If your sex ed consists mainly of anatomy, pregnancy, and std information, the idea that they need to "teach about homosexuality in sex ed" can come off as out of place. Without knowing at which level some some state's education is at and what it contains, it gets a bit strange to argue about what it should add. What I mean is that while they might need to add "homosexual" education, they might also be lacking "heterosexual" education to begin with.

In quotes because I'm not entirely sure what people mean by those terms, beyond normalcy and tolerance stuff - which to me strictly belongs in sex ed.

[Darvi]

How can you have Sex Ed without the babby forming bits?

[Frumple]

Awkwardly, without much useful information, and poorly. Plenty of places in the states manage it!