Freshman orientation isn't what it used to be.
When I was in school, I don't even remember any type of freshman orientation, but if we did have it, it would have revolved around who the teachers were, what kind of supplies and schedules we could expect and what new rules we might have to follow. Stuff like that...normal stuff...helpful, basic rules for highschool survival. The one sure thing that it did not include was a presentation from the "Straight and Gay Alliance". I'm pretty certain I would have remembered that.
Ahhh how times have changed.
Deerfield High School in Illinois, has recently come under fire from parents who are angry about the mandatory freshman orientation which includes, among other things, a presentation from a school club, the Straight and Gay alliance, that touches on topics such as bullying homosexuals and being a good friend to homosexual students. The discussions include talks from self-professed homosexual students.
Parents are understandably upset about the class, and some have opted to pull their students out of any discussions on homosexuality, but they are unhappy with the whole premise of the class. One parent, Lora Sue Hauser, who heads the North Shore Student Advocacy group, wants to put a stop to the discussions. She says, "...sexuality issues are better addressed by parents and trained counselors...the panel is one of several ways that Deerfield High and other schools treat homosexuality as morally acceptable without presenting the viewpoints of those who disagree."
The Chicago Tribune reports that "many parents are upset over the homosexuality discussion, saying it denounces religions that believe homosexual relations to be wrong or immoral."
This is a disturbing story, in part because it's one I'm hearing more and more often. Schools and the media and tv and movies are all intent on pushing their secular and often sexual agenda at all costs and to increasingly younger, more impressionable audiences. The information is often inaccurate and based on secular beliefs rather than actual facts, all of which point to the dangers and health risks involved in promiscuous and homosexual behaviors. No wonder there are many parents, myself being one of them, who are concerned that our children are being inundated on every front with dangerous and potentially harmful information, all in the name of tolerance.
11 comments:
WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?
But seriously, what's your point here? I don't understand what the big deal is about schools merely acknowledging the existence of gay people.
Is it that schools shouldn't concern itself with the sexual habits of its students? Because I would agree if that was your point.
Is it that anti-gay students should also be heard? Because, as odd as it might sound, I wouldn't really object to this either. It seems fair that if you allow one group to give their views and not an opposing group. I wouldn't really want some nutcase to tell me off for something as superficial as being gay, but that's what free speech is all about.
Is it that schools shouldn't even mention gay people, and should just pretend that they don't exist? If that's what you think then, whatever. I'm not going to hold it against you, but I can't really imagine what good it would do to anyone.
Is it that gay students should be made to simply "put up" with bullying behaviour because that's their "choice"? If so, then here I would really disagree with you. I hate to use a personal example, but what if your child turned out to be gay - would you want people harrassing her at school?
Is it that you think that merely hearing about gay issues will instantly make them vile lesbians and faggots just like that? Cause, lady, that's as absurd as it is wrong.
I don't really care what you think of gay people. It's just one aspect of a person, and it's really not any reason to judge a person - whether positively or negatively. They and I don't need or want your approval, but it really does get on my nerves when mentally bankrupt individuals try to preach prejudiced nonsense under the guise of "family values."
PS. As an afterthought: don't you think that banning pro-gay groups in schools might also be like trying to push a particular sexual agenda? Or does this only count when it's someone who you disagree with?
**prepares for barrage of "BUT IT'S WRONG AND UNNATURAL!!!!" type sentiment**
It seems fair that if you allow one group to give their views and not an opposing group.
That should be "unfair." My bad.
Jacob,
Actually, I think you and I would generally agree, but like you said, my point wasn't clear. (I've had a sick baby and little sleep...what can I say?)
To answer your question...my frustration is that:
A. Only one side is presented. Rarely are both sides presented in today's American sexual debate and often the information is misrepresented.
B. I do not think that schools should be involved in the sex discussion. It should be the parents' right and responsibility to educate their children as they choose. I do understand, however, that many parents don't take on that responsibility, which leaves the school to teach kids about sex. I understand the need for it sometimes, I just wish there was a balance.
C. I have no tolerance for bullying period...of anyone, whether I agree or disagree with their lifestyle or choices or behaviors. That's not the issue here.
My number one problem is that there is an obvious agenda, not just in our schools, but in the media, and that is that if it feels good, do it. Whatever you want is fine. There are never discussions about the consequences of the choices that we make. Frankly speaking, if a group wants to teach my child about the homosexual lifestyle, then let's hear the good, the bad and the ugly. Don't only talk about how natural it is and how we should all tolerate this lifestyle choice. Talk about the risks associated with risky sexual behavior. Talk about the facts and the alternatives, don't just push an agenda.
Bullying is wrong, period. But where are advocates for the "short" kids? The "geeks" and the "nerds" needed an advocate when I was in school. How about (which was my case in junior high) the "mature" girls? Not that I wanted to be singled out and have the student body told not to tease or bully me. If anyone didn't realize I was "blessed" they surely did now.
Jacob, you claim gays don't want or seek "approval" from the "breeders" of this society, then why even make it an issue? Keep your sexuality to yourself. Like it or not, it's unnatural and not the norm and like most afflictions should be keep private. Introducing the gay lifestyle to teens and pointing out the fact that makes them "special" does force acceptance only because they're gay. The gay community keep pushing their agenda to normalize this lifestyle. It will never be normal and by asking for special rights does sound like you're seeking approval.
There are never discussions about the consequences of the choices that we make.
Ehh, what? That's a bit of a blanket statement, don't you think? As far as I'm aware, most of the sex education in American schools is based around discouraging promiscuity and encouraging safe sexual practices when it does occur. Particular emphasis is placed on issues of immaturity, legal age, consent, potential health risks that arise out of bad sexual practices - not to mention children (quite possibly the worst consequence of all*)
*A joke. Besides, we all know that abortion can solve this problem.**
**Another joke. Don't hate me.
I can't exactly see where you're coming from when you say that education programs don't focus on the consequences of their actions. To me it looks like the exact opposite.
Frankly speaking, if a group wants to teach my child about the homosexual lifestyle, then let's hear the good, the bad and the ugly.
Yes, but you can't just single out gays. Unhealthy sexual practices apply to every single person, and to me it justs seems like common sense that having unprotected sex with lots of random people is risky no matter whether it's between same- or opposite-sex partners. There's nothing inherently dangerous about gay people, just bad choices. This I can attest to.
Janice,
You raised one good point and then it all turned into a bunch of impotent personal digs.
Most lame, Janice. Most lame.
But for the sake of pointless argument (I'm in a bit of a mood today) I'll address some of your points.
But where are advocates for the "short" kids? The "geeks" and the "nerds" needed an advocate when I was in school.
Yes, absolutely. No disagreement here.
And now it gets personal:
You claim gays don't want or seek "approval" from the "breeders" of this society, then why even make it an issue?
My original objection to Christina's argument was that nothing can be gained from ignoring the fact that gay people do exist. It simply makes no sense to say that there's this big insidious "gay agenda" out to claim your children when it's a real issue and that ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Allow a pro-gay organisation to speak, along with all the others who want to air their views, and I don't see how any intelligent person can have an issue with it.
Like it or not, it's unnatural and not the norm and like most afflictions should be keep private.
Well, I don't know about unnatural. I definitely don't remember deciding to be gay, so I'm inclined to think that it's just one of these weird aberrations of biology that shouldn't be a problem. Who cares if it's "unnatural"? Polyester is unnatural, too. I don't hear anyone trying to ban polyester.
Not to put too fine a point on it, I would challenge your view on the unnatural-ness of homosexuality by saying that it occurs across all human societies, through all time, and even in other species. If it were so unnatural, don't you think that it would happen a lot less than it already does?
Who knows, maybe your god made people gay for a reason. Just putting it out there.
Also: "afflictions" - LOL. Janice, homosexuality isn't a disease. Read a book or something first before you make crap like that up.
Introducing the gay lifestyle to teens and pointing out the fact that makes them "special" does force acceptance only because they're gay.
First: acknowledging the existence of gay students does not amount to "introducing the gay lifestyle to teens." That's ridiculous.
Second: being gay doesn't make anyone special. I don't consider myself special because I'm gay. That would be like saying that I'm special because I'm tall. This, too, is ridiculous.
The gay community keep pushing their agenda to normalize this lifestyle.
The far-right community keep pushing their aagenda to normalise homophobia. What's your point?
It will never be normal and by asking for special rights does sound like you're seeking approval.
Asking for the same rights and recognition as others is not asking for special rights. Asking for special rights would be asking for marriage equality, PLUS a free holiday to the Bahamas with every gay marriage.
Look, Janice, the plain and obvious truth is that gay people will not go away just because you think that you're better than them just because you happen to function slightly differently to them. It's insane, and in a liberal secular nation like America I would think that gay equality would be a no-brainer. Seriously, even if you don't like gays or just disapprove of their behaviours, that's no reason to declare that subordinating them to a lower class of citizen (and that's what it is) is the right and honourable thing to do. You always say that each person is responsible for their own actions, so why don't you practice this message and let your own beliefs simply be your own and let gay people get on with life like every other person. You don't have to like it, but the least you can do is accept that gay people are tax-paying, law-abiding civil citizens who should be treated exactly the same.
Actually, that last bit goes for everyone who bothered to read it. Seriously, the whole anti-gay thing is getting really old. Why don't you find a better cause; one that actually benefits people?
You claim gays don't want or seek "approval" from the "breeders" of this society, then why even make it an issue?
My other point in response to this spectacularly facile argument was that the "breeders" (who I assume you mean is the people who conceive naturally, and not livestock or something) is that many straight people simply think that homosexuality is fine. Arguing that society's fertile people are all against gays is stupid and inaccurate.
PS. Christina: this word verification thing is really getting on my nerves. I know spam is annoying, but I took mine off and I haven't had any ads in months.
I agree with Jacob on the word verification thing.
But, I must object to only one of his rebuttals, it's a time issue. Gays in this country have the EXACT same marriage rights as straight folks. I cannot marry a woman and neither can Christina. Chris cannot marry a man and neither can you. Under the law, none of us can marry someone who's already married. These sound like the same rights to me.
"But I can't married the person I love, Janice, and you can!" I know, I've heard that before. How do know I've married the person I love? You don't.
The gay community IS asking for special rights. If you wish to live in a committed relationship, fine. Pay an attorney and draw up documents for your property, buy a house, have children and move on with life. In your home and in front of friends/family act like a married couple. However, it sounds to me like you're seeking "approval" from society via the government. I thought "liberals" wanted to keep the government out of your life and bedroom, by demanding special rights because of your sexual orientation brings about more government involvement.
Let's see...
Avoid arguments? check.
Repetition of refuted arguments? check.
Personal insults? check.
I'm not sure what you think you're achieving, but telling me that I'm wrong and to shut up isn't a compelling reason for me to do so.
I did no such thing Jacob. When did I insult you? When did I tell you to shut? Where's the personal attack?
Address my points please.
You continue to claim that marriage equality is a special right, when it isn't. It's the exact same right. I've addressed this point once before and I won't again. This, to me, is tantamount to a personal attack. You're effectively claiming that I think I'm better than you by wanting special privileges when this is completely untrue.
The same can be said for the point about seeking your approval when I don't. You keep saying this when it's absolutely false, and I do take this as an attack on me. My point is that I don't want or need your approval - there's a difference between asking for approval and asking for removal of discrimination in the law. I don't need your permission to get married, just like I don't need your permission to vote, buy a house, get a job, start a family or do anything you do. It's not about approval.
Also: you went on a bit of a tangent about going about my activities without ever voicing conern or lobbying for change. That's a big 'shut up' in my opinion.
But Jacob, you have the exact same marriage rights as everyone else. By seeking permission or approval to marry someone of the same sex is asking for special rights.
I'm not attacking you, only your opinion and stance on the issue.
Post a Comment