Published: Wednesday, July 6 2011 2:00 p.m. MDT
this is no different than desegragation and teaching about other races to stop
the hate.the problem is there are still a LOT of parents (mostly
religious ones) that teach it is sick to be gay. and then they wonder why their
gay child commits suicide.once everyone realizes that no one
actually chooses to be gay, then we can have some intelligent discussions.
Until then, we will be stuck in a repeat of the 60s civil rights era, where gay
children (and the children of gays) are constantly beaten up, berated, and
actually taught that they are sick and evil.now that's a sad world.
Jesus would be disappointed.
@ charlie91342This is vastly different from desegregation and teaching about
other races. Homosexuality is a completely sexual identification. There is no
way to explain homosexuality except in terms of sexuality, and sexuality is not
appropriate for most school-age children.If you define the word
"gay," then we might have an intelligent discussion. What do you mean
"no one chooses to be gay"? Do you mean no one chooses whom they will
have sex with? Or no one chooses to have gender identity issues? Or no one
chooses whom they will be attracted to? Do you favor
"gay" rights over "bisexual" rights? Bisexuals certainly
choose, and if they choose homosexuality, are they choosing to be
"gay"? Or should we allow bisexuals to blithely continue to have sex
with both sexes, not committing to either one, because they are "born that
way"? Transgenders aren't born that way, and they completely choose what
gender they are going to be, despite their birth. Are we to honor them for
contributing to society in other ways, or by changing their gender
surgically?By the way, how can there be children of gays? By
adoption, or by surgery?
Oh, the irony. It was claimed that PropH8 was necessary to keep school
children from learning about gay people. That was apparently untrue. Not only
did school children learn about gay people *because of* PropH8 (all those
"Yes on 8" signs the anti-gays were waving on every street corner) but
now Harvey Milk day and now this law. What's more, despite all the millions
contributed by Mormons and all the hatred lobbed at innocent gay people who
wanted merely to marry the people they love, it appears PropH8 will ultimately
go down in flames. And it's as it should be. If kids can learn
all about straight people in school they should learn about gay people. There
are, after all, gay and bisexual kids in every school. They have as much right
to learn their own history as every other kid. They have the right to be
treated fairly as every other kid, despite what some people think.
I am from California and have lived here for a number of years. I have seen and
heard this fight for too many years and am sick and tired of this issue. Why can
we not simply recognize the contributions of an individual for what they are and
what they mean to society? Why do we have to label it as a "Gay"
person in order to recognize their contribution to history? What difference does
it make and why do we have to emphasize their sexual orientation? Simply let the
merit of their actions speak for themselves. If a person contributes to their
community, society, nation, let it go at that and honor their work. It matters
very little to me what color, sex or sexual orientation a person has if they are
making a difference. What is wrong is to simply push an agenda because of sexual
orientation. This actually lessens the contribution of the individual when you
are trying to emphasize anything other than what they did to help. When can we
simply get past this issue. Yes, I have heard all of the crap about why and it
still makes no sense.
@MaggieW: Oh the irony! Gays SWORE that they had no agenda to change the
curriculum in schools to teach about homosexuality, but low and behold, they
were WRONG! Oops. And you display stunning irony in saying that it is the
pro-traditional marriage supporters who are "hateful." Really
stunning. What about all the "hatred lobbied at" those who support
Prop 8 and traditional marriage? Teaching about homosexuality and its
accompanying lifestyles should be done in the home. It has no place in schools.
to charlie91342: bi-sexuals choose everyday which side they will be on --on
any given day or week. They prove that choice is king. I do not choose to
hang around bars and night clubs and terrible music and smoke and alcohol and
drugs---and that is where people meet people. Perhaps some are born to be night
owls and to love darkness over the light of day.
re - Jeff | 4:38 p.m"If you define the word "gay," then we
might have an intelligent discussion""gay" means the
person would rather have a relationship with someone of the same gender as they
are more comfortable in that type of relationship.Your problem is
you equate "gay" with "sex". Tell me, how much of your
relationship is based on sex? If you are married, it is probably 1 hr a week.
So is that what defines your relationship?why does the bedroom seem
to define "gay" for all religious people. Can you not understand
that it is love and intimacy that defines it. and who you are most comfortable
spending your time with? when discussing relationships with
children, there is no need to bring up sex, and it would be very strange and
just wrong to do so. They are kids. But it is a gender issue. Perhaps instead
of calling it "same sex marriage" you should call it "same gender
marriage". it really has very little to do with sex.
Since we're on the topic of semantics. "Sex" defines being male or
female. "Gender" defines words. It's especially used in Latin-based
languages. Like in Spanish or French. Nouns in those languages have masculine
qualities or feminine qualities. "People have sex, and words
have gender," as the grammar books say.I think a lot of people
nowadays use the word gender to describe people, because they are uncomfortable
using the word "sex." And I'm not implying that any commentors here
shy away from using the word "sex." I agree with The
Deuce, there is no need to bring up sexual orientation when teaching about the
contributions of individuals. It's irrelevant. Just as the color of someone's
skin is irrelevant. Charlie01342 made an interesting point too at
10:50. We shouldn't define marriage relationships based on the bedroom. It's
not the only thing, but it's still important. And the parents
should have a right to decide when it's best to bring these issues up with their
kids and how to present it. And very important to follow it with, "We need
to be nice to everyone, no matter what choices they make, or how they look,
As educators we are required to have written parental consent before teaching
the maturation unit in elementary because it is a sensitive subject. The same
written consent should be required before talking about homosexuality in school.
It is not appropriate developmentally to be teaching any sexual
unit or component in the elementary years to begin with. The maturation program
for example, deals with body changes and not sexual behavior. It may be
appropriate teaching some children WITH parental consent during the middle
school years about homosexual and heterosexual behavior, but is a waste of
instructional time when I can be teaching math, science or literature. It shows
how FAR off the priorities of politicians differ with the electorate.In regards to bullying, there is NO reason for bullying of any kind to be
occurring. If it is find ways to INCREASE supervision and stop it when it
happens at school. Talk to all involved and work towards getting along.
Tolerance isn't what is needed. Respect IS.I would be interested in
seeing this curriculum for myself. I have a hunch it will advocate rather than
@charlie91342: There is much that you last wrote that I agree with. I agree
that homosexuals choose their relationships--they are not born into the
compulsion to make the choice--and that comfort has much to do with it.I am seeking a cogent definition of "gay" in order to have a cogent
discussion. I don't necessarily equate "gay" with sex, but if
"gay" means "homosexual," then a self-identification as
"gay" carries an implicit sexual connotation. If, however,
"gay" simply means effeminacy or tom-boyism, and there is no sexuality
involved at all, then the discussion is completely different (hence the
acceptance of domestic unions rather than marriage for many of us--a domestic
union need not be sexual).I usually call it "same-gender
marriage" rather than the other; I think it is a more proper description.
Marriage, however, is--again--implicitely a sexual relationship. Even among the
Greeks and Romans, who tolerated homosexuality (especially pederasty), marriage
was the relationship intended to create and nurture children. Insofar as "love and intimacy" do not necessarily involve sexual
relationships, I am supportive of domestic unions.
In Massachussetts elementary schools, they have "gay pride day." And
they talk with the children about how wonderful it is and that people who
disagree with it are bad and closed-minded.Perhaps the school had
written parental consent?In my own experience will say things,
sometimes, that pop into their heads. Which are inappropriate. They have our
children for most of the day. Who knows what's being said?My
elementary teachers said that we should do away with the 2nd Amendment. They
also vented to us about their political leanings. In high school, a
couple of history teachers voiced anti-Mormon sentiment and mocked the Church.
If it was any other religion, they probably wouldn't do it. One of the teachers
also said that an aborted fetus is "just a piece of meat" and of no
consequence. These teachers obviously had no written consent to
speak about such things, but they can say anything, really, and get a way with
it, because most kids are naive about reporting things to the school board.All I can say is, "Hello Homeschool."
"Gay" used to mean "happy," and it still should. Please
don't deign to use slang when writing a Deseret News article. Call it was it
is, "homosexual behavior." Then it will not be labeling people with
re - Jeff | 1:16 p.m"I agree that homosexuals choose their
relationships--they are not born into the compulsion to make the choice--and
that comfort has much to do with it."please do not put words in
my mouth. Gays have relationships with someone of the same sex because they are
born feeling more comfortable with someone of the same sex, and to be happy they
need to have that type of relationship. Of course everyone has a choice in who
they are with, but I couldn't be with another man any more than (I assume) you
could be. I am most comfortable in an intimate relationship with a woman. gays
are born with a propensity to be most comfortable with someone of the same
sex.I hope that clears it up for you. Of course who you are with is
a choice - but feeling the way you do isn't a choice. You are born that way.And it never ceases to amaze me when people try to say it isn't
something you are born with. I could hang out with gays my whole life and I
still wouldn't be gay. how about you?
As a teacher, I could not and would not teach something to my students that I
personally feel is a moral choice. I agree with the voice of others that this
type of discussion has no place in an elementary school setting.Schools
should be more about educating students the basics of reading and writing...let
the moral compass issues be taught at home.If it passes, you will
see a masive exodus of parents who leave the public school system, to either
form more charter schools or you will have an influx of homeschooled children.
As a parent...this type of education for young children is rediculous.
Ok take alternative sexual lifestyles out of the picture for a minute. Our
education quality is arguable already not up to snuff. We are weak in math and
sciences. Now we are talking about requiring people to take these types of
classes. I think everyone should take classes about mormonism because people
pick on us :(. Seriously? If a high school wanted to offer an elective of this
nature I really don't care(like any other history elective) but making it
mandatory is just pandering and not doing our children any favors.
California keeps adding wood to the fire.
I feel so very sorry for the sweet, innocent children upon whom this evil agenda
is being forced -- they are being brainwashed, in suttle ways, that that
particular lifestyle is ok. It is appalling!!! Homosexuals are NOT BORN THAT
WAY!!! It is a CHOICE. I recognize that we have all been given our free agency
by our Divine Creator to make choices in this life. But -- we do not have the
free agency to choose the consequences of our actions, be they good or evil.
It's obvious many of you only read the title of the article, and not the article
itself, which states:[The bill, "would require schools to teach
at all grade levels the historical contributions of gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgender people."...San Francisco Unified School District
has offered curriculum since 1992 that is similar to what Leno's act proposes.
"It's no different," Leno told the Examiner, "than instructing
students about the historical role of an African-American man by the name of Dr.
Martin Luther King Jr., fighting for civil rights and being assassinated for his
efforts than teaching students about a gay American man by the name of Harvey
Milk fighting for every man's civil rights and being assassinated for his
efforts."======================So stop with the
'innocent little children are being taught to be gay!' nonsense. And Jeff, you know perfectly well that gay couples who wish to have children,
do so just exactly in the same ways that heterosexual couples who are infertile
go about it.I didn't 'choose' to be attracted to boys. I just was.
I just am. If you really believe who you are attracted to is a 'choice', then I
guess you consciously chose.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments