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 agree that gay sex will be taught in public schools but I disagree that it will have anything to do with the passage or failure of the marriage amendment. From what I hear, we've been on that path for some time now.
Really? You're quoting a columnist as evidence? You do realize columns tend to lack objectivity, right? They're opinions that often use loose interpretation of the facts to shore up support on one side or the other.
And if we pretend the link has any credibility--which, frankly, it doesn't have much--it didn't address teaching kids about "gay sex". Most kids don't get sex education until much later in their school years. This is just about not teasing Johnny because he has two moms or leaving Susie alone because she might like girls.
Teaching "gay sex" should, however, be included in sexual education curriculum. When a kid is struggling with a lot of identity issues, he or she might make some rash decisions in their sex life. They need to know the risks and proper ways to mitigate those risks. A student who identifies as GLBT has as much right to know the risks and protections available associated with their sex life as the straight student sitting next to them.
Really? You're quoting a columnist as evidence? You do realize columns tend to lack objectivity, right? They're opinions that often use loose interpretation of the facts to shore up support on one side or the other.
And if we pretend the link has any credibility--which, frankly, it doesn't have much--it didn't address teaching kids about "gay sex". Most kids don't get sex education until much later in their school years. This is just about not teasing Johnny because he has two moms or leaving Susie alone because she might like girls.
Teaching "gay sex" should, however, be included in sexual education curriculum. When a kid is struggling with a lot of identity issues, he or she might make some rash decisions in their sex life. They need to know the risks and proper ways to mitigate those risks. A student who identifies as GLBT has as much right to know the risks and protections available associated with their sex life as the straight student sitting next to them.
I linked to the column because I found it interesting. My information sources on what is taught in the public schools are my friends who have children there.. From your description of what you think is taught in these anti bullying curriculums, it would seem that you do not have children in Minneapolis' public elementary schools. Would that be a fair assumption?
I linked to the column because I found it interesting. My information sources on what is taught in the public schools are my friends who have children there.. From your description of what you think is taught in these anti bullying curriculums, it would seem that you do not have children in Minneapolis' public elementary schools. Would that be a fair assumption?
It is a more than fair assumption.
Unfortunately, up until this point, you've been posting articles that don't at all relate to what we're debating. I assume your question about me not having kids in MPS is an attempt to make me appear less credible (having gone to public schools in the not-so-horribly-distant past, I'm aware of the similar efforts of other schools, thanks). From what I understand in previous posts on these forums, you don't either. So your accounts are, at best, secondhand information from other parents (who also have their own agenda, no doubt).
Instead, I can only go off the teachings I had in school, the descriptions of these classes elsewhere, and the articles you're sharing. Is it to be implied that students are being taught gay sex rather than simply the fact that gays and gay families exist? That is not apparent in that article...and I have absolutely no doubt that if they were teaching little kids about the birds and the bees at such a young age, that article would have addressed it. After all, Ms. Kersten is hardly going for a fair-and-balanced effect in her article.
So I'm curious...based on your second-hand knowledge, is gay sex being taught to students outside of a sex ed class? Because if so, the message certainly hasn't been disseminated to the most adamantly opposed, as they're not writing about it, screaming about it, or even saying it's happening (after all, this is apparently what will happen if we have gay marriage legalized, right?). And if that's the case, we really need to alert someone so the Minnesotans for Marriage can pull those ads and put out new ones ("They're already teaching your children about gay sex...if you vote no, they'll probably move on to human-animal love next!")
I assume since the rest of my post was ignored that you agree that students--regardless of sexuality--should have access to useful advice about their own bodies in sex ed or at least see it as a non-issue. Which seems to indicate that assuming "gay sex" is taught in a sex ed class, it's within the bounds of topical issues.
Unfortunately, up until this point, you've been posting articles that don't at all relate to what we're debating. I assume your question about me not having kids in MPS is an attempt to make me appear less credible (having gone to public schools in the not-so-horribly-distant past, I'm aware of the similar efforts of other schools, thanks). From what I understand in previous posts on these forums, you don't either. So your accounts are, at best, secondhand information from other parents (who also have their own agenda, no doubt).
Instead, I can only go off the teachings I had in school, the descriptions of these classes elsewhere, and the articles you're sharing. Is it to be implied that students are being taught gay sex rather than simply the fact that gays and gay families exist? That is not apparent in that article...and I have absolutely no doubt that if they were teaching little kids about the birds and the bees at such a young age, that article would have addressed it. After all, Ms. Kersten is hardly going for a fair-and-balanced effect in her article.
So I'm curious...based on your second-hand knowledge, is gay sex being taught to students outside of a sex ed class? Because if so, the message certainly hasn't been disseminated to the most adamantly opposed, as they're not writing about it, screaming about it, or even saying it's happening (after all, this is apparently what will happen if we have gay marriage legalized, right?). And if that's the case, we really need to alert someone so the Minnesotans for Marriage can pull those ads and put out new ones ("They're already teaching your children about gay sex...if you vote no, they'll probably move on to human-animal love next!")
I assume since the rest of my post was ignored that you agree that students--regardless of sexuality--should have access to useful advice about their own bodies in sex ed or at least see it as a non-issue. Which seems to indicate that assuming "gay sex" is taught in a sex ed class, it's within the bounds of topical issues.
I reject your premise that the place for educating children about sex is the school, but since I'm generally a minimalist when it comes to government programs, and you're a more of a statist, that difference should not be a surprise.
In the end, what we know of what's being taught right now comes from my current, albeit second hand, accounts, or your outdated experiences, neither of which is going to change anyone's mind on the topic.
And as I said initially, I disagreed with the substance of the radio ad because I don't believe the proposed amendment has any bearing on what is or will be taught in schools anyway, and from re-reading your posts, I believe we agree on that.
Last edited by Glenfield; 11-01-2012 at 04:03 PM..
It's important to address this issue in the schools because it aids kids who are confused (because of our heterosexist culture [amirite?]) or having potential body image issues (because they have male/female parts but feel female/male....does everyone understand the biology behind genetic sex typing and gender?).
If school leaders are trained to address these issues, it develops a safe space for kids to go to if they have questions and concerns - unfortunately this is not always their own home! And it is better than the internet.
I'm also trying to think of what gay sex they will be teaching and how it differs from sex acts that heterosexuals may be having. Besides the fact that the participants may be the same gender.
I am Christian as well (active Catholic) and there is no way that I am going to vote to allow an interpretation of the Bible to dictate our laws and allow the church to force their views on all residents. Even if I did believe that gay marriage was some horrible sin, so what!?! Then the Catholic Church will not marry homosexuals. But, what gives me or my church the right to force others how to live. Are we also going to pass laws to ban premarital cohabitation and premarital sex? Forbid divorced people from ever marrying again? Those items are no-no's according to the Bible.
While we're at it, lets force all to abstain from alcohol and pork and go by way of the Koran.
It seems to me that people voting yes are voting on an emotion because they are "uncomfortable" with homosexual couples and believe there is some sort of "gay agenda" to turn the whole world gay. Selective, naive and hypocritical.
you mean it's not illegal?! great, now you tell me.
It's important to address this issue in the schools because it aids kids who are confused (because of our heterosexist culture [amirite?]) or having potential body image issues (because they have male/female parts but feel female/male....does everyone understand the biology behind genetic sex typing and gender?).
If school leaders are trained to address these issues, it develops a safe space for kids to go to if they have questions and concerns - unfortunately this is not always their own home! And it is better than the internet.
I'm also trying to think of what gay sex they will be teaching and how it differs from sex acts that heterosexuals may be having. Besides the fact that the participants may be the same gender.
Oh, my! No, I'm sure it's exactly the same! See, the boy puts his.... wait.... that doesn't work....I don't think you should be teaching any of these courses! LOL!
As a gay person myself, I am thankful for the state-wide conversation that has resulted from this proposed amendment (even if half of that conversation consists of dueling lawn signs ).
What I don't understand, though, is how any intelligent, thoughtful person from either side of the political aisle would think it is best for the majority to vote on the rights of a minority population. I did not choose to be gay, just as the posters on this thread did not choose their race. To me, it seems like the prospect of having people vote on whether a certain racial minority should be able to have presidential voting rights.
Regardless, whether the gay marriage issue is decided by voters or by the courts, the outcome will be the same in a decade, or three. In thanks to my generation's thoughtfulness on this issue, sooner or later heterosexuals and homosexuals will have equal rights; this is certain. Of course, I hope it comes sooner rather than later .
As a gay person myself, I am thankful for the state-wide conversation that has resulted from this proposed amendment (even if half of that conversation consists of dueling lawn signs ).
What I don't understand, though, is how any intelligent, thoughtful person from either side of the political aisle would think it is best for the majority to vote on the rights of a minority population. I did not choose to be gay, just as the posters on this thread did not choose their race. To me, it seems like the prospect of having people vote on whether a certain racial minority should be able to have presidential voting rights.
Regardless, whether the gay marriage issue is decided by voters or by the courts, the outcome will be the same in a decade, or three. In thanks to my generation's thoughtfulness on this issue, sooner or later heterosexuals and homosexuals will have equal rights; this is certain. Of course, I hope it comes sooner rather than later .
I think that is a very reasonable concern, and probably the best argument for a no vote that I have heard. I can only say that I believe that determinations of law are best made by the legislature. That process incorporates some public input, some deliberation, and some distance from the emotional side of things. It also allows the executive to overrule a majority, and require a super majority where he objects.
Unfortunately, I feel like the courts have usurped the power of the legislative and executive branches of our government in making these decisions, and though we do vote for judges, they don't campaign and we don't know much about them. As a result, we cannot rely on the normal channels for things that are clearly hot buttons for certain political factions, and gay marriage and voter ID are two of them. For that reason, change has to be done in a way that is beyond the reach of the courts, and the way to do that is to change the one law that they cannot overturn (at least so far) and that's the constitution, and that's done through the ballot box.
I do agree that if the amendment passes, nothing will change. People can love whom they choose, live with whomever they like, have children, and raise families. They can still receive benefits from employers, be married by their religious organizations, if those organizations are so inclined. They may leave their estate to whomever they choose, and the state will continue to recognize the same marriages that it has .. none of that changes. The yes vote is a vote to preserve the status quo, not to change anything, or take anything away.
Thank you for your post, and for provoking some thought on my part. I appreciate your courtesy.
Last edited by Glenfield; 11-02-2012 at 04:44 AM..
Only a false Christian would vote yes. You know, the ones who say a "no" vote equates to redefining marriage which would require their adherence to the government definition of marriage holding greater importance than their church's/denomination's definition of marriage by their own admission. And it's not like marriage was originally one man and one woman, but however many women he wanted, and/or even girls. Now that's an even more traditional definition of marriage than that comparatively newfangled one man and one woman thing.
I also love how these same Christians will say marriage is a "holy union" when the government already redefined traditional Christian marriage (say it ain't so!) as a purely secular venture when it comes to getting married at city hall in an official government recognized marriage: atheists have routinely usurped this sacred matrimony and have been routinely rejecting any sort of Christian theology in their acts of god-less marriage for decades. But then, not everyone can excel at critical thinking to distinguish between what the state allows vs what one's church allows being two very different things.
I suggest local gays and lesbians take note of where the "vote yes" signs are for lots of future PDAs in front of these homes just as a reminder that you can't vote homosexuality away, which is the naive and futile undercurrent of this ballot measure. And if the ballot does pass, just go your local Unitarian Universalist church, among others, where they'll be "marrying" not "civil unioning" gay and lesbian couples anyway: just like they have done and continue to do.
Pretty good advice there....DO something that might get you hurt and break the law
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.
.
