Re: Gay California teachers 'come out' in classroom (fwd)

[Daniel Kronemann <kron4155@uidaho.edu>]

Hello once again!

On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, John Harrell wrote:

> Thank you for the discussion.

You are most welcome!  ;o)

> Thank you for your response. I will try to respond to most of your
> comments by also pulling from my bag of statistics and then try to
> bring us back on track as to the original purpose of these discussions
> which is school indoctrination, who decides what our children should
> be indoctrinated with, who should be paying for the indoctrination of
> our children - these last few issues you have not really addressed.
>
> First, my bag of statistics will obviously be a different bag.  After
> seeing some of the facts from my bag of statistics, the logical next
> step for you is to try to discredit the sources.  Well, guess what, I
> can do the same to your sources. So after I present some of the facts
> from my bag of statistics maybe we can stop the statistics games and
> get down to the real issues as mentioned above.

Well I agree that statistics can easily be used to support whatever
viewpoint on whatever issue almost.  I think one of the problems with an
issue like homosexuality and the nature of it is that its hard to find
reliable statistics because it is so socially tabu still and most people
have a belief about it, which probably comes through in any research about
it.  Actually I think that is true with all research, whatever it may be,
and researchers in every field are constantly having to deal with that.

> Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, a psychiatric professor at Columbia University,
> created a firestorm in May 2001, when he released the results of his
> research at a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.
> Spitzer, who had spearheaded the APA's decision in 1973 to declassify
> homosexuality as a mental-health disorder, says his findings "show
> some people can change from gay to straight, and we ought to
> acknowledge that." This seems to be interesting regarding your
> comments about the nature of homosexuality. Many homosexuals seem to
> bounce from gay to straight and gay and straight many times, it gets
> so confusing it doesn't surprise anyone that gays are so confused. The
> most well-known of these is the actress Anne Heche. There is no "gay
> gene". I could submit stat after stat after stat on this issue, but I
> think just the fact many homosexuals bounce around so much is enough
> for the moment; so again, lets not play stat wars, they will bore
> people to death.

Well I don't discredit this observation, but maybe offer an explanation
that may or may not differ from your view.  I think of sexuality as more
of a continuem with 100% straight and 100% gay on opposite ends.  I would
then say that I don't think anyone really exists that is 100% at either
end, although they may be so close they consider themselves 100%.  One
observation that I might offer in support would be that although a man may
consider himself straight, he still can appreciate physical beauty in
other men.  This might not provide any sexual attraction for him but he is
still aware of the beauty.  Same goes for women, gay men and gay women.
And then another wrench in machine is the phenomenon of bisexuality or a
position in the middle of the continuem.  But we hear so much of
homosexuality vs. heterosexuality, that I wouldn't deny sexual confusion
in a bisexual.  They don't know what the heck is going on.  Again, I
explanations are another example of how really statistics can be made to
fit any viewpoint.

> Why would anyone desire to have children become homosexuals,
> or to get then thinking about the "gay" lifestyle? I am saying
> this for the children. But here are the statistics on the
> dangers of the "gay" lifestyle. So after reading this, if you,
> or anyone really loved children or anyone else for that
> matter, why would you want to promote them into such a horrid
> state of mental health anguish, physical health anguish, and
> violent anguish.

Well I agree again.  Why would anyone CHOOSE this?  But I would say then
that its not a matter of choice but of what you are.  Much like African
Americans wouldn't have chosen slavery the United States, but they
couldn't choose not to be black to avoid it.  But we seem to disagree
fundamentally on what the nature of homosexuality is.  Something I don't
think we can get past and this discussion probably can't go much farther.
So we can agree to disagree, cheerfully no?  ;o)  But one more thing I'd
like to explore is, for the sake of argument, let's say homosexuality was
a mental disorder, as you have said many times.  Well like all mental
disorders, violent encounters from "healthy" individuals and social
ostracization is not the way to "cure" them.  But to provide understanding
and a safe place to exist which helps facilitation the "curing" process.
And if its something that can't be "cured" then at least they can live a
full and productive life, despite the "handicap."

And as for your list of statistics of the behavior of homosexuals, I don't
deny that it exists like that either.  But my method of remedying it would
be different.  You can't deal with problems like sexism, unhealthy sexual
practices, etc, in a group of society until you first deal with its social
ostracization of the group.  I think Melynda dealt with most of your
statistics for our prospective so I won't go into that either, due to your
desire not to bore readers.

> The idea of sodomy is what disgusts most people. It is
> disgusting. And that is why I say not in front of my children
> do you "come out." And I say this for the children. Now,
> you might disagree with this, which brings us to the next
> points in our discussion - indoctrination.

So if someone found Christianity disgusting, would we band that too?  And
no one says you have to like sodomy, but that doesn't mean you have the
right to make that decision for others.  And it looks like this highly
specific act is what you have more of a problem with than homosexuality,
because many heterosexuals practice sodomy, and its impossible for
lesbians.  I think how people view sodomy is based in how they view men
and women and their social gender roles.  I'll see if anyone wants more on
that before I elaborate.

> You agreed that indoctrination is what is occuring in the government
> schools.

You are right.  I don't disagree with the fact that indoctrination takes
place.  I'm frankly pleasantly surprised how much we do agree and I think
most people would be shocked (which is a good thing) how much most
seemingly very different people actually agree.  ;o)

> So who gets to determine what the values are for the indoctrination?

Well, ideally, everyone.  And I don't think that is happening in the
public schools.  But abandonment is that solution.

> Is true diversity allowed in the indoctrination?

Well I would say no but probably for different reasons that I'm sure are
obvious.

> For example, can the government schools teach that God says that
> sodomy is wrong?

They can teach that Christians believe God says that sodomy is wrong, but
they can't turn the value statement into a statement of fact.

> What about real tolerance for parents that disagree and dont want to
> have any part of the system or parts of the system?

Well parents would have a responsibility to get involved and try to help
change the system.  Again, abandonment isn't necessarily the answer.  And
not that I have the one answer that will solve it all.  A consequence of
living in an imperfect world.

> Why should money be forcibly taken from me to indoctrinate children
> into a value system that I disagree with?

No, but to solve that I would try a different approach than just saying
"screw them" and trying to work within the system, by including everyone's
opinions and ideas.

> With respect to my children they will eventually learn about
> homosexuality - but not until they are emotionally, mentally,
> sexually, physically, and spiritually mature enough to handle it. And
> I get to determine that time, not some teacher with an agenda.

Well I agree that maybe they don't need every dirty detail, but that maybe
a little discussion is necessary when little John comes home from
preschool and asks why his friend Tommy has two daddies or two mommies
when he only has one daddy and one mommy.

> Thank you for the discussion, I am enjoying it, Cheers!

Me too!  Another point of agreement.

Yours

Daniel