vision2020
Re: Gay California teachers 'come out' in classroom
Well I have much to say about this one. And I don't apologize for it.
Political Correctness has be demonized to the point where a back lash is
at hand. When did it become so oppressive and inconvenient for people to
treat each other with respect? Why is it acceptable to use degrading
language and images?
Phil, the joke was disgusting. If there ever was a reason people decided
to be politically correct in the first place, this joke is the epitome of
those reasons. That is all I have to say, and all I hope I every have to
say about the joke. Disgusting.
Mr. Mark Rounds said:
"The post that started this thread was appropriate for this kind of forum.
I don't want anyone, gay, straight or celebate discussing their personal
sexuality in the class room. That shows a significant lack of judgement.
The joke below also shows a lack of judgement. People get AIDS from
tainted blood products, cheating spouses, sharing needles and straight
unprotected sex as well as gay sex. I know of no one in the medical
profession that would be as insensitive as the joke below describes.
Even if someone has made poor choices in their life, it is not the place
of health care professionals to judge, nor is it yours. There is a rather
important book that reads in part "Judge not lest ye be judged"."
I agree with your assessment of the joke, but this email and others that
followed have shown a serious fear of sex that I must speak out on. Why
is everyone so afraid of sex that we can't academically discuss it? I'm
not advocating discussing details of the actual sex act, but to not even
be truthful about who you love in front of your class? What is wrong with
that? If you can't allow homosexuals to talk about their partners, not
necessarily about sexual acts, but in terms of non-sex related issues,
like "Bill and Tom went to store to buy a chair for their son" then the
same restrictions should apply to heterosexuals. No mentioning of wives
or husbands, or children. Doesn't that seem ludicrus? I'm sure when
these teachers in California were allowed to "come out" it was to say,
"I'm gay and my partner's name is Bob" not to talk about sexual acts or
"sodomy."
Melynda Huskey has it right. Why not? Other than some "well I wanted to
be the one to tell my kid" reason. Why are you afraid to tell them? One
thing I have noticed is that those who tend to fight for human rights,
have at one time or another had their rights violated, to varying extents.
And, no one is saying that you should believe anything about
homosexuality, and its morality, but that people should not live in fear
of violence, a true "War on Terror." Too bad Bush doesn't see this.
John Harrell said:
"Why shouldn't they come out?
Because there are parents that want to be able teach their children
about sexuality without having other people thrust it upon their
children. To "come out" in front of children shows a lack of tolerance
and compassion for parents that desire to have that part of training
done by the parents. School should not be a place for sexual activism,
unless that is what the government school is really about -
indoctrination."
So are teachers thrusting math and reading on the students too?
Personally I feel that if a student doesn't know that not everyone is
exactly like them by age 4 or 5 (when they enter the school system) then
you are waiting too long. The "government school" (this term is totally
wierd to me, then you accuse others of indoctrination, I don't get it) and
centers of learning have always traditionally been centers of intellectual
liberal resistance to oppressive regimes. Activism has a haven in our
schools ("our" is used to denote us as members of humanity, not as
americans), not just gay rights, but womens rights, minority rights, peace
demonstrations, environmentalism. Sexuality can be academically examined
and protected too. As it should be.
"Please have compassion and tolerance for traditional families who are
loving and enjoying life and who don't want to have to deal with all
that goes into having their children being exposed to such behaviours."
Have compassion? You mean have compassion for overpriviledged white
heterosexual families with 2.4 children, 3.1 pets? What about the people
who are brutalized and live in constant terror? What about the people who
live as sub humans? I'm sorry, but life isn't this fairy tale exclusive
Christian Eutopia you seem to be wanting to protect? So better to educate
them now, before ignorance latches on to them too.
Dale Courtney said:
"But you miss the whole purpose of announcing one's homosexuality in the
classroom. It's to further the homosexual agenda. But this goes back to
post-modernism, worldviews, etc, that no one wants to hear about."
Apparently I missed the election when Dale was given the office of
Person-Who-Decides-What-Will-Heard-And-What-Won't.
Dale Courtney said:
"The difference is the approach to morality as if it were one's fondness
between vanilla and chocolate ice cream -- a preference. But what of a
preference by pedophiles? Infanticide? Euthanasia?"
Oh, goodie. I almost forgot about this part. I'm glad Dale brought it
up! Thanks! ;o)
I'm not really sure where people got the idea that being discriminated
again and beaten was something someone would choose or prefer. But lets
go with it. So if homosexuality is a choice, then it would necessitate
that heterosexuality was a choice. Do you, Sir Dale, choose to be
straight, gay, whatever? You don't? Funny, it doesn't work when I say I
didn't choose to be gay. How can you "just be straight" or "born"
straight, but I choose gay?
Maybe things would be easier if it were a choice. Because then people
wouldn't have a problem with it as much. I mean, we don't persecute
people who just chocolate over vanilla. Then everyone would be the same
and then we wouldn't have to live with that nasty diversity.
And you don't know how it just warms my heart to have my sexuality
compared to preying on children and killing babys. But then what does it
mean that 95% of pedophiles are heterosexual? And if heterosexuals were
the superior parents, then what does it mean that over 500,000 children,
results of heterosexual "superior" sex, are in foster care.
Statistically, gay couples are more likely to take in ALL children
regardless of race, color, ethnicity, disability, disease-status, or
whatever socially unacceptable child (as if one exsisted). Are we so bent
on forcing some rigid moral code that not everyone shares (this would be
an example of religious dominance over pluralism) that wheather or not a
child is loved become secondary? What God are you worshipping?
Well this is a lot for me. I had the afternoon off!! ;o) I'm taking a
break.
Yours
Daniel
Back to TOC