Quake3World

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:and i deeply believe that schools should and do try to teach morality... if you tried to remove moral content from education there's a lot of stuff that would disappear from current curriculum... i.e. shakespeare

Erm, slippery slope there, chief.

quite

R00k wrote:Before we go any farther here, at what grade level are they trying to introduce this into curriculum?

Because the comparisons of to a fairy tale led me to believe it is a young child's book.

Of course schools touch on issues of morality and such - but you're not analyzing Shakespeare in pre-school now are you? That material comes later, when you've developed your own sense of morality enough to understand it.

point.
i didnt learn about hom0s and lesb0s when I was 4. at least not at school

i learnt it from my Uncle Rob! *rimshot*

Immo wrote: Leave the sexual orientation issue for when children are less easily influenced and can think for themselves.

That's the whole point.

The existing state of affairs is that we're taught that all relationships are heterosexual, before we even know what sex is. There are loads of books and movies with princes and princesses.

To make it clearer: currently we don't "leave" the issue of sexual orientation at all, we teach that there is only one.

MKJ wrote:i didnt learn about hom0s and lesb0s when I was 4. at least not at school

i learnt it from my Uncle Rob! *rimshot*

don't you mean *rimjob*?

iambowelfish wrote:

Immo wrote: Leave the sexual orientation issue for when children are less easily influenced and can think for themselves.

That's the whole point.

The existing state of affairs is that we're taught that all relationships are heterosexual, before we even know what sex is. There are loads of books and movies with princes and princesses.

To make it clearer: currently we don't "leave" the issue of sexual orientation at all, we teach that there is only one.

Teaching by inference and teaching by explicit example are two entirely different things. And despite what a very noisy minority would have you believe, a very small percentage of the world's population is gay.

iambowelfish wrote:

Immo wrote: Leave the sexual orientation issue for when children are less easily influenced and can think for themselves.

That's the whole point.

The existing state of affairs is that we're taught that all relationships are heterosexual, before we even know what sex is. There are loads of books and movies with princes and princesses.

To make it clearer: currently we don't "leave" the issue of sexual orientation at all, we teach that there is only one.

So when kids who have two dads come to school, we try to indoctrinate them into thinking their way of life is wrong?

No, we don't. We teach history - which, arguably, is slanted to make it look that way - but that's about it.

We teach health and sexual reproductive education, which shows men and women coupling to create babies.

Can you tell me of a textbook you had that taught kids that men and women were supposed to be together? I don't recall anything of the sort.

Kids with a mom and a dad grew up believing that was the way of things, and kids with two dads grew up believing that was the way of things. Until they talked to some kid at school, who told him he had a different kind of parents, it was never a question to be addressed.

And that, my friend, is the wonderful world of social interaction and expanding your worldview. At which point, the kid goes home, asks mommy and daddy about kids with two dads, and mommy and daddy get furious and tell him that that is wrong and evil.

Even if the school had taught him otherwise, do you think that would change the reaction he got from his parents? And do you think it would override his parents' authority? And do you think it should?

I don't see how the teaching that some people are gay is or would be in any way harmful to young children.

Out of curiosity NS, what % of the population do you think is gay?

R00k wrote:

iambowelfish wrote:

Immo wrote: Leave the sexual orientation issue for when children are less easily influenced and can think for themselves.

That's the whole point.

The existing state of affairs is that we're taught that all relationships are heterosexual, before we even know what sex is. There are loads of books and movies with princes and princesses.

To make it clearer: currently we don't "leave" the issue of sexual orientation at all, we teach that there is only one.

So when kids who have two dads come to school, we try to indoctrinate them into thinking their way of life is wrong?

No, we don't. We teach history - which, arguably, is slanted to make it look that way - but that's about it.

We teach health and sexual reproductive education, which shows men and women coupling to create babies.

Can you tell me of a textbook you had that taught kids that men and women were supposed to be together? I don't recall anything of the sort.

Kids with a mom and a dad grew up believing that was the way of things, and kids with two dads grew up believing that was the way of things. Until they talked to some kid at school, who told him he had a different kind of parents, it was never a question to be addressed.

And that, my friend, is the wonderful world of social interaction and expanding your worldview. At which point, the kid goes home, asks mommy and daddy about kids with two dads, and mommy and daddy get furious and tell him that that is wrong and evil.

Even if the school had taught him otherwise, do you think that would change the reaction he got from his parents? And do you think it would override his parents' authority? And do you think it should?

But aren't you suggesting that it should not be taught in school? If we are teaching history, then we ought to teach that, historically, there have been gay people. If you rely on social interaction to teach kids about gays, then you end up with the sort of folks who believe hom0sexuality is contagious.
Schools should teach facts. Why should teaching about hom0sexuality be left to the parents when, say, the Holocaust isn't?

I do think that homosexuals in history should be included right along with everyone else.

And if kids ask why this man was with another man, then the teacher should reply to that question with the best answer science has to offer (probably that it is determined at birth, and everyone is different, or something similar).

I'm certainly not trying to argue that homosexuality should be omitted from historical teachings. I did say that history is arguably slanted to make it look biased toward heterosexuality - but that seems to be a separate discussion, IMHO -- i.e., would we like to have all history curriculum changed to reflect the homosexuals in history, and who would be making the decisions on what to change?

seremtan wrote:

MKJ wrote:i didnt learn about hom0s and lesb0s when I was 4. at least not at school

i learnt it from my Uncle Rob! *rimshot*

don't you mean *rimjob*?

no i meant *fuckoffnerdolo*

seremtan wrote:

MKJ wrote:i didnt learn about hom0s and lesb0s when I was 4. at least not at school

i learnt it from my Uncle Rob! *rimshot*

don't you mean *rimjob*?

rofl

R00k wrote:

iambowelfish wrote:

Immo wrote: Leave the sexual orientation issue for when children are less easily influenced and can think for themselves.

That's the whole point.

The existing state of affairs is that we're taught that all relationships are heterosexual, before we even know what sex is. There are loads of books and movies with princes and princesses.

To make it clearer: currently we don't "leave" the issue of sexual orientation at all, we teach that there is only one.

Can you tell me of a textbook you had that taught kids that men and women were supposed to be together? I don't recall anything of the sort.

We're not talking about textbooks here. The thread is about "gay fairytales." I would hope that textbooks teach the facts and only include sexuality where it's relevant.

Do our established fairytales teach that men and women were supposed to be together? Taken as a whole, they do.

I was referring to the story being added to school curriculum. I mistook your post as addressing the same thing.

So to restate my position: I have no problem with this being published and widely distributed. Just not as school curriculum.

those pesky words agin

What are you talking about?

you confused agin

right. :icon27:

I'd have to read the book to make a decision. Like any other book, it may or may not be suitable for children.

i'm bet they can make more of these tales of fairies to counter act these other fairly fairy tales no?

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:I don't see how the teaching that some people are gay is or would be in any way harmful to young children.

Out of curiosity NS, what % of the population do you think is gay?

I would say less than 10%, maybe slightly more.

the figure the gay community usually goes with is 10-15% so you're probably about right

I'll refrain from making the obvious joke.

which is?

Come on, even I know this one.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:Aretha Franklin
Grammy Best R&B Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal (with George Michael) (1987)

she has the voice of an angel