dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
25

dirtyjeffer0
Posers don't use avatars.
Premium Member
join:2002-02-21
London, ON

dirtyjeffer0 to urbanriot

Premium Member

to urbanriot

Re: Necessary to introduce young students to LGBT orientations?

i think it should be up to the parents to properly educate their children on such subjects...different children have different levels of maturity/understanding, so setting a specific age might be difficult...but i agree, this was a bad move by the teacher.
Expand your moderator at work

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone to dirtyjeffer0

Premium Member

to dirtyjeffer0

Re: Necessary to introduce young students to LGBT orientations?

said by dirtyjeffer0:

i think it should be up to the parents to properly educate their children on such subjects...different children have different levels of maturity/understanding, so setting a specific age might be difficult...but i agree, this was a bad move by the teacher.

My only issue with this is that if we leave something like this strictly in the hands of parents, we will only continue to have generation after generation of bigots passing their prejudices down to their children.

It's a tough one, because despite how open minded I am on this subject, I probably wouldn't like a teaching doing this when kids are so young, either.

urbanriot
Premium Member
join:2004-10-18
Canada

1 recommendation

urbanriot

Premium Member

said by MyrddinEmrys:

Some times eating a banana is just eating a banana, unless you give it meaning.

At the breakfast table, sure... but concerning this topic, a clip promoting homosexuality has given meaning to a banana.
said by Gone:

My only issue with this is that if we leave something like this strictly in the hands of parents, we will only continue to have generation after generation of bigots passing their prejudices down to their children.

Is it really that bad though? You portray it as a never ending cycle of bigotry yet it seems to me like LGBT people are accepted in our society in ways that are a stark contrast to decades prior.

And really, who teaches teenagers what to tolerate and not tolerate? Parents? Hmm...

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

said by urbanriot:

decades prior.

And really, who teaches teenagers what to tolerate and not tolerate? Parents? Hmm...

It should be a parents and not a teachers job.

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone to urbanriot

Premium Member

to urbanriot
said by urbanriot:

Is it really that bad though? You portray it as a never ending cycle of bigotry yet it seems to me like LGBT people are accepted in our society in ways that are a stark contrast to decades prior.

While things have certainly improved, particularly in the United States, there's still a lot of closed-door bigotry and apprehension to members of the LGBT community.
said by urbanriot:

And really, who teaches teenagers what to tolerate and not tolerate? Parents? Hmm...

Yup, which is all the more reason why tolerance should be taught in school. We do it for people of different ethnic backgrounds from a very early age, I see no reason to teach it to children about sexual orientation as well. My only issue - as I said before - is sexualizing stuff before it needs to be. It's one thing to teach a child that a man can love and be married to another man. It's another to teach kids what they do.

So long as it isn't sexualized, parents who don't like it can go stuff it.

urbanriot
Premium Member
join:2004-10-18
Canada

urbanriot

Premium Member

said by Gone:

Yup, which is all the more reason why tolerance should be taught in school.

Since we do have a large 'chapter' in the Ontario public curriculum concerning Canada's 'multicultural tapestry', taught to students around the age of 10 (Grade 5), and how we (society) must accept people of differing colours, religions, customs, etc., you offer a good point.

I'm not in agreement when it concerns sexual orientation but it's still a good, debatable point.

I would argue that it's easier for society to encourage kids to accept people of other colours, religions and ethnicities than it is to encourage them to accept people of differing sexual orientations when those differences are biologically repulsive to most of us. Based on that hardwired element, it's tough for me to consider how one could neutrally present this topic to students.

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

2 edits

1 recommendation

Gone

Premium Member

There are many people who would advocate that people of different ethnicity are biologically inferior and, in turn, repulsive as well. Ask David Duke, and I'm sure he would say people are hardwired to find black people, jews and anyone who isn't white biologically repulsive as well. We would *never* consider that kind of viewpoint as acceptable in the society we live in today, but at one time it was the norm. Likewise, these same feelings toward homosexuality will be viewed in the future as the same ignorance and bigotry that we view those people who felt the same way toward people of different ethnicity decades ago. Attitudes are already starting to change, and in the case of the USA it's happening at a rate quicker than most people thought possible. The "biologically repulsive" argument, as a result, simply doesn't fly.

Baring the sexual aspect, full and total equality should still be taught in public schools. Parents who don't like it - regardless of whether it's homosexuality or [insert certain ethnicity here] - can pound sand.

Edit - I should qualify the whole repulsive thing in case it came across as harsher than I intended - sure, people may find the concept of gay sex repulsive. Fair enough. A gay person may feel the same way toward straight sex. As a more extreme example, I also find the whole concept of my Mother and Father having sex repulsive, too. It doesn't mean that I believe that my Mother and Father should not be afforded the same equality as everyone else, or that they themselves shouldn't be allowed to think of it as the *gag* most beautiful thing in the world.

urbanriot
Premium Member
join:2004-10-18
Canada

urbanriot

Premium Member

said by Gone:

The "biologically repulsive" argument, as a result, simply doesn't fly.

You had to go out far on a limb there to suggest the argument doesn't fly, so much that I'd say the comparison doesn't fly. David Duke? How about the majority of males in our society, ask them to spend some time thinking about chuggi... i can't even want to finish that sentence.

I'm pretty sure the majority of our male population would not want to finish that thought with any sort of detail, and I'm pretty sure that's not something that's taught to us by our parents and certainly not something that teachers can affect. Just as we can't 'beat the gay' out of gay people, you can't knock some gay into straight people.

With that being said, I don't see why we can't leave it up to the individual to think what they will think on their own. Sex-ed already covers various topics that could be interpreted gender-neutral, such as anal sex in grade 8, and while it was presumably to cover hetero encounters when it was created, I don't see how it could be interpreted differently by different people.

I don't want to go off on a tangent outside of the context of this post as you could easily misinterpret what I'm saying, but I'm suggesting that teachers should not promote one orientation over the other or push students to feel any way or the other from what comes naturally to them. If a student is naturally repulsed by the thought of homosexual forms of intimacy, is it a teacher's job to teach him he shouldn't be? Where do we draw the line on this curriculum topic?

If they want to say, "here kids, here's what's out there... you have your straight people, you have your cross dressers, you have your men that date other men, you have your women that like other women, men that marry multiple women, etc... this stuff's all out there and you should accept the people no matter what they choose... " and leave it at that, I guess I'm fine with that. They're going to learn anyhow, especially if they spend any time in Montreal.

Are you suggesting the same, just a simple presentation to what's out there, or are you suggesting something beyond that?

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone

Premium Member

As I already said, this isn't about sexuality. It's about teaching differences. We share and explore different cultures with younger kids, we shouldn't prevent teachers talking about two mothers or two fathers just because some people might find sex acts between the two repulsive.

To which - if a child naturally finds a black person or an arab repulsive because their skin colour isn't the same as theirs, should it be a teacher's job to teach him that he shouldn't be? This is why I brought up David Duke, because to a man like him the fact that we aren't all repulsed by it makes us, in his mind, mentally ill. Yet, we're all smart enough to know that the world doesn't work like that.

The argument is no different. However, seeing as how you summarized my thought perfectly in your second-to-last paragraph (haha, Montreal) I think we're in agreement here. Kids in Grade 4 probably shouldn't be learning about sex in that detail that young - period. That's something for the older grades. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be taught about the social aspects of it.

You can be repulsed by gay sex all you want, no one here is obviously going to convince you or most other straight guys otherwise. Alas, like I said in my previous message, I may be repulsed by the idea of sex between my parents, but regardless of how repulsed I may be it doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it.

urbanriot
Premium Member
join:2004-10-18
Canada

urbanriot

Premium Member

Yea, you're kind of right there as both thoughts make me cringe with a psychological pain. I think I liked it better when I thought babies came from parents hugging...
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

1 recommendation

MaynardKrebs to Gone

Premium Member

to Gone
said by Gone:

It's a tough one, because despite how open minded I am on this subject, I probably wouldn't like a teaching doing this when kids are so young, either.

Kids at that age are already calling other kids 'homo', 'queer', 'faggot' and 'dyke'. Lots of them have more than a clue, and lots just know that calling other kids those labels is hurtful - yet they do it anyway.

So, yes, I agree that kids should be taught in school because lots of parents won't broach the subject, and lots of parents will simply pass on their own religious-based intolerance.

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone

Premium Member

said by MaynardKrebs:

Kids at that age are already calling other kids 'homo', 'queer', 'faggot' and 'dyke'. Lots of them have more than a clue, and lots just know that calling other kids those labels is hurtful - yet they do it anyway.

I would go so far as to say that a lot of kids use those words without actually knowing what they mean or why they're hurtful, just that they are hurtful.

If you teach a child when they're young enough that it's just as bad to use those words as it is to use a word of racial hatred, you break the cycle of ignorant name calling.

urbanriot
Premium Member
join:2004-10-18
Canada

urbanriot

Premium Member

You suggest that kids are using these labels because they're hurtful, so you feel that you should teach a child that they really are hurtful... so they'll stop using them? Just think about that for a second.

Juggernaut
Irreverent or irrelevant?
Premium Member
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC

Juggernaut

Premium Member

To use your analogy, we shouldn't tell kids that hitting or punching hurts, because then they'll do it more?

Not sure if I get your logic on that one.

A Lurker
that's Ms Lurker btw
Premium Member
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N

A Lurker to urbanriot

Premium Member

to urbanriot
said by urbanriot:

How about the majority of males in our society, ask them to spend some time thinking about chuggi... i can't even want to finish that sentence.

Ack, that's a gender thing. Ask those same guys about two women together and you would get a different answer. So they're not against homosexual sex, just depends on the gender.

Grade 4 is pretty young for explicit examples either. Definitely should be raised at some point though.

urbanriot
Premium Member
join:2004-10-18
Canada

urbanriot to Juggernaut

Premium Member

to Juggernaut
said by Juggernaut:

To use your analogy, we shouldn't tell kids that hitting or punching hurts, because then they'll do it more?

Not sure if I get your logic on that one.

That's okay, Gone will. Re-read his post and my response, it was regarding name calling not physical violence.

Juggernaut
Irreverent or irrelevant?
Premium Member
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC

Juggernaut

Premium Member

No, I got that. But, if you don't teach children, they may not know. Now, whether they listen or not is a different story.

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone to urbanriot

Premium Member

to urbanriot
said by urbanriot:

That's okay, Gone will. Re-read his post and my response, it was regarding name calling not physical violence.

Actualy Juggernaut summed up my thoughts perfectly.

urbanriot
Premium Member
join:2004-10-18
Canada

urbanriot

Premium Member

Oh, weird, I didn't think I'd have to point out the glaring, obvious fact that physical violence is... physical violence and name calling is words but I was hoping you'd clue into the higher brow aspect of what I wanted you to think about, unfortunately we were disrupted. Let's break it down...

Why do kids name call?

Well, stand by a kid while he's playing Xbox 360 and it's a continual 'noob', 'fag', 'fuck' over and over. Those words are words without meaning, without the intention to hurt anyone, they're just casual words uttered while the focus is on capturing a zone, flag or just plain racking up frags. No one, whether straight or gay, would project a meaning to those words outside of the casual nature of those words.

But let's say a kid is really wanting to hurt someone. Well, 'fag' is one of those words that you call your buddy when he's pissing you off in Xbox 360 so obviously you should call this other kid something bad. Is he coloured? Drop an n-bomb, you know that pisses black people off because everyone makes a big deal about that word. He's Italian? Call him a dirty WOP, Italian grandparents make a huge deal out of that insult. Oh, but wait... our teachers are now telling us that there's this word that's just as bad and we should never use it... "you faggot!"

You get what I'm saying here?

When kids want to hurt other kids, they use whatever's in their arsenal of insults that they know will have an effect. If you tell a kid that 'this word is really bad', they're going to go out of their way to use that word when they want to hurt someone.

You think, "I'm going to tell my son never to use this word because it's really bad." Your son thinks, "I'm going to save that word for when I really need it".

We empower these words to mean more than they need to mean. You're basically suggesting that we stop the casual harmless use of these words and we upgrade them to be used only when a kid wants to seriously emotionally upset another kid. That's what I wanted you to realize, that your suggestion was ironic in a way.

If you want to phase out these words the best thing you can do is to stop blowing them up into something they're not, especially if you're not amongst the people you allege these words affect. If you, Gone, are gay and you get offended every time you hear a kid say 'fag' when he's playing Xbox 360 then perhaps... well, I'd probably still tell you to stop being so uptight.

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone

Premium Member

So you'd never tell you son how horrible the N-word is or why it should never be used?

... k.

urbanriot
Premium Member
join:2004-10-18
Canada

urbanriot

Premium Member

Not sure why you wrote '... k.' since I didn't answer, and that wouldn't have been my answer. Unfortunately you completely missed a number of points despite how well I tried to lay them out for you, possibly because you're guilty of what I'm referring to.

Oh well, perhaps our society will evolve to this level in the next century, when people stop empowering simple words into a greater meaning than those involved are connoting to it. Hopefully our kids are smart enough to ignore it.

Ian1
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18
ON

1 recommendation

Ian1 to Gone

Premium Member

to Gone
said by Gone:

So you'd never tell you son how horrible the N-word is or why it should never be used?

... k.

Are you suggesting that maybe parents ought to be the ones providing moral guidance to their children, rather than the school system? I agree! Again, I'd rather the schools just stuck to the the basics of education. Especially at ages 8 and 9. Children that age have no context to put "Orientation" issues education into use. Have extra time after teaching them math, science, art, history, languages, etc? A few more hours a week on the the soccer field would do many of our young fattys a lot more good than LGBT sensitivity training.

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone to urbanriot

Premium Member

to urbanriot
said by urbanriot:

Not sure why you wrote '... k.' since I didn't answer, and that wouldn't have been my answer. Unfortunately you completely missed a number of points despite how well I tried to lay them out for you, possibly because you're guilty of what I'm referring to.

Oh now that's rich, start throwing out accusations, probably because you can't legitimately defend your view when brought into the proper context.

Listen, we teach kids not to go around throwing racial slurs at other kids because it's bad. We don't expect them to start using it more because they now know how hurtful it is (maybe you would? I don't know). Yet, despite this, you seem to think that we shouldn't teach children just how hurtful slurs regarding sexual orientation are, for fear that they will start using them more?

Could you please, in this exact same context here, explain how you can justify one without the other? Or are we seeing more deep-seeded issues regarding sexual orientation that causes you to think that calling someone a slur regarding sexual orientation isn't as bad as calling someone a slur over their race?
Gone

Gone to Ian1

Premium Member

to Ian1
said by Ian1:

Are you suggesting that maybe parents ought to be the ones providing moral guidance to their children, rather than the school system? I agree! Again, I'd rather the schools just stuck to the the basics of education. Especially at ages 8 and 9. Children that age have no context to put "Orientation" issues education into use. Have extra time after teaching them math, science, art, history, languages, etc?

Great. Let's not teach them anything about culture, differences or diversity when they're still young and impressionable in school, then they can receive all the "moral guidance" in the home they need to be molded into the exact same black/jew/gay-hating bigots their parents are. You may be fine with something like this. I'm not. To which, if you have a problem with this kind of stuff being taught in school you can go pound sand.

Ian1
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18
ON

1 edit

Ian1

Premium Member

said by Gone:

To which, if you have a problem with this kind of stuff being taught in school you can go pound sand.

Uh huh. Or I can exercise my right to vote, or to voice any concerns to the school system, the same way you can.

It's your way or the highway? Yeah......speaking of "diversity".. Opinions have that too Gone See Profile. You may not like it, but it's actually the case.

urbanriot
Premium Member
join:2004-10-18
Canada

urbanriot to Gone

Premium Member

to Gone
You're missing the point and aggressively pushing the conversation down the wrong path. I have no need to legitimately 'defend' any views, there's no defense required as I spent enough time laying it out in a way that you may be purposely misinterpreting.

It all falls under the same category as our inability to use "Christmas Tree" or "Merry Christmas" in public, Canadians have upgraded the words to mean more than they really mean, to apply to perceived offense felt by 'other people'. What other people? Well, there's enough of these perceived people to change the way our society works... or is it really just uptight domestic Canadians that have fabricated an issue that didn't exist?

As soon as we take away that perceived power these words have, they'll no longer have an effect. Won't happen in our lifetime but I have a strong feeling that in about 20 years, the word 'fag' will have zero power since so many kids use it while playing video games. And n-bombs? I certainly wouldn't write the word now because it still has that power, but in 100 years when people of colour are no longer refurring to the subjugation their parents went through, it will certainly have less power... unless we continue to give it power.

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone

Premium Member

I see your point, but seeing as how we're all (I assume?) straight men I don't think any of us are exactly qualified to comment on the psychological power homosexual slurs may have on the target they are intended for, and this power may vary from individual to individual.

For that reason, I am of the strong opinion that those slurs for which you had no issue writing in a previous post are just as detrimental and just as obnoxious as the n-word that you refused to write just recently now.

Robert4
Premium Member
join:2002-03-11
St John'S, NL

Robert4

Premium Member

To elaborate on Gone's point, there is an N-word that I know too well. It is deeply offensive to some, and not offensive to others. It was used with great frequency by American service men in the world wars.

Newfie

urbanriot
Premium Member
join:2004-10-18
Canada

1 recommendation

urbanriot to Gone

Premium Member

to Gone
said by Gone:

For that reason, I am of the strong opinion that those slurs for which you had no issue writing in a previous post are just as detrimental and just as obnoxious as the n-word that you refused to write just recently now.

"Christmas Tree" and "Merry Christmas"?