Appropriate, or no?

cho · Post by **cho** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 3:06 am

Saying someone is gay for taking a supportive side to this issue is really stupid. The same can be said for those taking a stand on anti side. I mean many times people try to convince themselves they arn't gay by gay bashing and etc, even though deep down they may know they are or they might even know they are.

nepenthe · Post by **nepenthe** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 4:42 am

The nature of homosexuality is not the issue. If this is a question of morality, then it should reflect in the explicitness of the material. Is the tale Bert and Ernie, Queer Eye or Gay porn. Is this argument even comparable to Timmy and Lassie....

With all due respect to those without children, it very much a parent's business how to shape the morality and ethics set of their offspring. This is not to say we should be permitted to raise sociopaths and it is improper to teach hate. Still, who is to say at what point children should be exposed to certain concepts and how to cope with them. Ironic how school systems wish to shift blame to parent apathy for the failings in their offspring, yet argue when they take the intiaitive to block what they might find offensive.

Perhaps we should all step back and reflect on the big picture. Is there a need for homogeniety (pardon the pun) of thought, morality and culture across this nation? If so, by whose measure are we being judged?

david

vinnie · Post by **vinnie** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 4:49 am

Originally posted by *cho*
Saying someone is gay for taking a supportive side to this issue is really stupid. The same can be said for those taking a stand on anti side. I mean many times people try to convince themselves they arn't gay by gay bashing and etc, even though deep down they may know they are or they might even know they are.

Well that sure improved the situation!

You just said "Calling people who supports homosexuals gay is stupid. People who don't support homosexuals are gay".

Can you see any irony or hypocrisy or anything in there?

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 4:57 am

vinnie I don't see the quotein your post in CHO's post. Did you quote the wrong reply?

vinnie · Post by **vinnie** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:40 am

Originally posted by YARDofSTUF
vinnie I don't see the quotein your post in CHO's post. Did you quote the wrong reply?

I mean many times people try to convince themselves they arn't gay by gay bashing and etc, even though deep down they may know they are or they might even know they are.

It's the same sentiment transposed to the opposite side of the debate. If you read back you'll see I hold the exact same opinion of the sentiment regardless of the individuals stance

It's quite possible to have an opinion either for or against homosexuals without being homosexual yourself.

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 6:07 am

Originally posted by vinnie
It's quite possible to have an opinion either for or against homosexuals without being homosexual yourself.

Obviously else there would be no heterosexual people.

The way you said it though, says all people, but Cho's comment said many, and its many hetero ppl, also many hetero people that speak out against gays. So overall its 2 different statements.

cho · Post by **cho** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 12:34 pm

Originally posted by YARDofSTUF
Obviously else there would be no heterosexual people.

The way you said it though, says all people, but Cho's comment said many, and its many hetero ppl, also many hetero people that speak out against gays. So overall its 2 different statements.

I said many not all, there is a difference perhaps few would be a better word then many, but reguardless both many and few are way different then all.

The Hartsells said they are keeping the book until they get assurances it won't be circulated.

What right do these parents that makes them the leaders of other parents. Why can they seize the book from other childrens' parents who many actually permit them to read this book? How is that fair?

I remember in Grade 6 my friend had a book taken off the shelf because a woman got date raped in it. Personally I don't see the problem with that book especially since date rape can be such a big problem in high school. Perhaps if more kids read that book it would be such a problem, but then again perhaps it would be a larger problem. Either way it is not up to one family to pull a book off a shelf. They should at least get a petition going or have a vote. If majority says pull it then pull it, it can go to a public library. If the majority says keep it, keep and if families have a problem with that you can pull your kid.

torsten · Post by **torsten** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 6:45 pm

Originally posted by nepenthe
The nature of homosexuality is not the issue. If this is a question of morality, then it should reflect in the explicitness of the material. Is the tale Bert and Ernie, Queer Eye or Gay porn. Is this argument even comparable to Timmy and Lassie....

With all due respect to those without children, it very much a parent's business how to shape the morality and ethics set of their offspring. This is not to say we should be permitted to raise sociopaths and it is improper to teach hate. Still, who is to say at what point children should be exposed to certain concepts and how to cope with them. Ironic how school systems wish to shift blame to parent apathy for the failings in their offspring, yet argue when they take the intiaitive to block what they might find offensive.

Perhaps we should all step back and reflect on the big picture. Is there a need for homogeniety (pardon the pun) of thought, morality and culture across this nation? If so, by whose measure are we being judged?

Some interesting thoughts there.
I agree that there is no obvious point at which some of these lines can be drawn. As an individualist, I have reservations about allowing the state to dictate specifically how the minds of children are to be shaped. But the potential for brainwashing seems even greater on the other side. To prevent as much of that as possible, I think there has to be some government role protecting the kid's right to an education where academic inquiry isn't stifled by biases lacking in proof.

You seem confident in saying it's improper to teach hate, but by what standard did you draw that particular line so firmly? Isn't using "morality" as an excuse to condemn others because of their sexual orientational quite similar to teaching hate? Or perhaps we're defining the word hate differently. The trouble with saying it should be a parent's right to shape a child's morality and ethics is that is the morality of some seems very hateful to others (or at least provides an excuse to hate). In my own school experience I witnessed quite a lot of hate (that resulted in behavior of intimidation and violence) that was implicitly sanctioned by the morality taught at their homes. That kind of "morality" creates victims. See Jamie Nabozny's story

To answer your question, no I don't think there's a need for rigid homogeniety of thought morality or culture, but from my point of view every child should have the opportunity to go through his most formative years without being restricted to only one point of view, especially if that point of view is without scientific basis or creates a climate of hate by condemning others.

nepenthe · Post by **nepenthe** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 11:34 pm

torsten,

Children learn from a myriad of sources, each with their own agenda.

In this particular case, I do not perceive the action as hate, but avoidance. Do you believe that a children's book with two princes will teach tolerance? It is just as easy to ridicule a well known feature as one that is misunderstood. Cruelty seems to be standard fare in youth.

torsten · Post by **torsten** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 11:46 pm

No it won't teach immediate tolerence but it may be one of many little things that sets a tone.... a start on the road to accepting the reality that people are who they are -- as opposed to their existence being something so shameful it's cleansed from approved reading lists. At first it always seems worse when you're breaking down the barriers. People do react against it, with ridicule or whatever, but over time the hostility usually lessens. It's better than it was 10 years ago.

nepenthe · Post by **nepenthe** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 11:59 pm

That change has little to do with a book that those who are likely to bully will read. Children and many adults will use the subtlest of differences as contentions. It is cruelty that needs to be redressed. The threadbare expression, "Walk a mile in another man's shoes" remains as a powerful tool of understanding. I can see reenforced role play as being somewhat efficacious. If for nothing else, to teach avoidance rather than confrontation.