Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I hope that our schools will educate the young about that as well as each and every of 37 genders, our kids must know all intricacies of gender identity and sexual orientation, a position of sex/gender identity guidance officer must become a staple in every school system, including Catholic schools.
Well, it's probably more applicable in day to day life than some of the stuff I learned in my academic career.
No need for a "guidance officer", though, it's pretty common sense stuff.
The new curriculum is introducing lots of things including history that might include LGBTQ community.
If you tell me Ben Franklin was married and had x number of kids, then it is consistent to tell me Sally Ride was in a long term relationship with a woman but they couldn't get married but would have (I don't know if this is the case but it's for argument purposes).
They aren't teaching the kids about sex...they are teaching the kids that there are Blacks, Gays, Mexicans, etc...that have stories and history in this country.
Why so threatened?
Couldn't rep you again, yet!
As I remember it, we learned a small amount of biographical stuff about important figures in history - I don't see why this would be any different.
I don’t get why it matters if someone if a member of the LGBTQ community if what they accomplished had nothing to do with that.
It doesn't matter at all. But some folks just like to have something to rub others' noses in. I've never quite understood it, but that is the way it is. I couldn't care less if anybody knows anything about my personal behavior. Just let me be and we'll all be fine. There are too many flag wavers in society today.
I mean, I'd like to think that I'm right, or else I wouldn't hold my position so strongly. I understand that others think they are right, too. In cases where there are disagreements over what is right vs. what is wrong, I'll generally go with the decision that advocates for tolerance and inclusivity over intolerance and a lack of inclusion.
There's nothing unreasonable about the idea that cultural norms are determined sociobiologically.
The problem is that it doesn't provide an ethical framework by which you can defend your world view cross-culturally.
For example, it doesn't equip you to criticize a community in which anti-LGBT persecution is what counts as being an upstanding citizen. The best you can do is simply accept that that is the sociobiological path that their culture has chosen to take.
It's also helpless against meta-ethics of any kind. That includes someone who argues that our notion of tolerance stems from the same ethical code that condemns LGBT as an abomination. Therefore, that inclusiveness should not extend to the LGBT community.
There's nothing unreasonable about the idea that cultural norms are determined sociobiologically.
The problem is that it doesn't provide an ethical framework by which you can defend your world view cross-culturally.
For example, it doesn't equip you to criticize a community in which anti-LGBT persecution is what counts as being an upstanding citizen. The best you can do is simply accept that that is the sociobiological path that their culture has chosen to take.
It's also helpless against meta-ethics of any kind. That includes someone who argues that our notion of tolerance stems from the same ethical code that condemns LGBT as an abomination. Therefore, that inclusiveness should not extend to the LGBT community.
Tolerance above intolerance is exactly what I'll continue to support, especially when what I advocate tolerance of doesn't involve any physical harm to anyone. This applies cross culturally, racially, religiously, etc.
In the case of a community in which anti-LGBT persecution (I'd imagine you meant LGBT persecution as the "anti" and "persecution" taken together can be read to mean non LGBT persecution), my position is consistent. That is I stand for tolerance above intolerance. Whether some believe that LGBT persecution makes one an upstanding citizen, there is no question that LGBT persecution is showing real intolerance against people who identify as LGBT. It is this intolerance, fundamentally, that I am opposed to.
Note, more to your point, while I stated previously that I believe that I am right (or else I wouldn't preach as I do), it is not inconceivable that others could be right, too. But that doesn't mean that I think others are right; no, I think I'm right, which is why I preach and advocate as I do.
Tolerance above intolerance is exactly what I'll continue to support, especially when what I advocate tolerance of doesn't involve any physical harm to anyone. This applies cross culturally, racially, religiously, etc.
So what do you think it is that makes the axiom of 'tolerance above intolerance' a cross-cultural virtue?
It can't be sociobiological evolution, given that many cultures have developed (even flourished) contrary to that standard.
For the left, intolerance is "holding a negative opinion." So anyone who "doesn't agree with XXX" is "intolerant" of XXX in the mind of a leftist.
But for a rational individual, not agreeing with something is not intolerance. For a rational individual, one can disagree with XXX, yet still be tolerant of XXX. So for instance, I can dislike liver and onions, yet be tolerant of those who engage in eating liver and onions. The problem with today's society is that those who eat liver and onions want to rub the fact that they eat liver and onions in my (and everyone's) face; and of THAT I am certainly intolerant. So you eat liver and onions. Whooptee ****. What do you want me to do about it? Cartwheels?
Illinois is the fourth state to include LGBTQ history into curriculum.
The state delegates content and age appropriateness to each district.
How does a school teach Civil Rights without including LGBTQ?
This where much of the rot started. Civil Rights, War on Poverty, Great Society, et al., aren't taught in an honest or balanced manner, if they were they'd mention the loss of property rights, the loss of forming voluntary relationships, the loss of individual freedom, the destruction of the family, the unemployment, increased poverty,loss of jobs, increased crime, etc. that are all by-products of these schemes.
If parents want their children to learn half the history or only the politician approved stuff, then by all means build your schools, fund them, send your kids to them, but dont make us all pay for them,dont make everyone send their children to them and don't require other schools to teach the same.
Education should be 100% private.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
