Anti-Bullying Day is Gay Indoctrination?

[Moontanman]

The American Family Association has come out condemning a day set aside to fight bullying as Gay indoctrination. They claim the idea of suggesting that students spend a day hanging out with someone they normally do not spend time with is an effort to indoctrinate our children into homosexuality.

 

 

[Phi for All]

I see a problem with the "go sit with a group you don't normally sit with" day. If everyone is supposed to do that, then there would be no normal "groups" to sit with. Everyone would be individuals, stripped of their group identity, and while that's not a bad thing, it doesn't really follow what the organizers say they're trying to accomplish.

 

The gay indoctrination accusation is, of course, ludicrous. It's always amazing to me how much these "family" groups feel threatened by homosexuality. They're so afraid they might get some of that gay on themselves.

[GlassPilot]

How the AFA gets away with hijacking these things to the point we're talking about it on a science forum is beyond me. Shameful.

[John Cuthber]

Maybe it's just me, but, as far as I recall, the group that I hung out with at primary school was largely male.

If I had been looking for a "different" group to join, an obvious one would have been the girls.

Now encouraging boys to go and talk to girls is not, as far as I can see, part of a homosexual agenda.

[ajb]

I do wonder how much, for example sex education and gay-rights awareness etc. at school can be seen as "normalising" gay behaviour to the point of encouragement? I am not saying it is, or that such a thing is right or wrong, just wondering...

[John Cuthber]

I wonder why people think it might make much difference.

Practically any gay man (at least in the UK) will, during his early life have met people who are profoundly biassed against homosexuality.

But that exposure didn't affect their preferences in later life.

Why do people think that sexual orientation is driven by, for example, what kids are taught at school?

If that was true then there wouldn't be any gay folks left. Nobody was "encouraging" them during most of the last few centuries, so how come they are still here?

 

Perhaps I'm overthinking it: when did xenophobia ever need a reason?

[randomc]

I do wonder how much, for example sex education and gay-rights awareness etc. at school can be seen as "normalising" gay behaviour to the point of encouragement? I am not saying it is, or that such a thing is right or wrong, just wondering...

 

Careful now, you live in the UK, right?

[StringJunky]

I do wonder how much, for example sex education and gay-rights awareness etc. at school can be seen as "normalising" gay behaviour to the point of encouragement? I am not saying it is, or that such a thing is right or wrong, just wondering...

 

ajb, a person is gay or not, one can't encourage it. The law in the UK allows for the freedom of expression of ones gender preference and if that represents normalisation then more power to that law. I think it is important that it is put across to the youngsters that same-sex attraction is normal; what's the point of having law declaring equal rights if the establishment doesn't visibly act as though they are equal? We are still in the learning curve, as a society, trying to bring this aspect of human relationships to point where it's a non-issue and that's why it's brought to light in the classroom. At the most, regarding your concern, some essentially heterosexual youngsters may try it in the spirit of experimentation but ultimately their own biology will kick in and they will pursue heterosexual relationships...no big deal.

 

I've read enough to know that being surrounded by gay people or gay information does not make a person gay. You don't like onions, say; is being surrounded by them and understanding their life cycle going to make you want to eat them? You won't concern yourself about anyone else eating them will you? It's not my cup of tea but for some people it is and I really don't think they should have any status in society less than mine. As a society in Europe we are in transition, slowly embracing behaviours that were once not acceptable and the education system is bringing that to reality. The system is only encouraging those with gay aspirations to feel normal...it is only bringing those, like who once stood in the shadows, into the light.

[randomc]

Gender essentialism is slanted. Sexual preference essentialism is slanted.

[StringJunky]

Gender essentialism is slanted. Sexual preference essentialism is slanted.

 

What does that mean?

[randomc]

That sexual preference is no more entirely biological than gender is.

 

I was adressing this...

 

a person is gay or not, one can't encourage it.

 

which you in no way qualified.

[ajb]

I wonder why people think it might make much difference.

 

No idea but people must think that way.

 

The only thing I am genuinely worried about, and this is wider than homosexuality, is exposing children to things before they need to be. For example, my nephew was told about various drugs and glue sniffing by a local policeman who visited his primary school. Not that I think my nephew was totally oblivious to drugs, but in my opinion telling him the names of drugs and what they look like was not necessary at his age, and given his social surroundings. Not that this will necessarily encourage him to take drugs, but he did not need to know more about drugs at that time. It was simply not relevant to his immediate world.

[iNow]

But maybe it was relevant to the kid in the chair right beside him?

[ajb]

ajb, a person is gay or not, one can't encourage it. The law in the UK allows for the freedom of expression of ones gender preference and if that represents normalisation then more power to that law.

 

I pretty much accept that.

 

However, when did tolerating something you personally don't like, and in a democracy one is allowed to not like something, become the need to promote something?

 

This I think is something that gets confused with homophobia.

 

But maybe it was relevant to the kid in the chair right beside him?

 

I would say unlikely, given the location of the school and its catchment area.

[Moontanman]

I would say unlikely, given the location of the school and its catchment area.

 

How old is your nephew ajb?

[Phi for All]

The only thing I am genuinely worried about, and this is wider than homosexuality, is exposing children to things before they need to be. For example, my nephew was told about various drugs and glue sniffing by a local policeman who visited his primary school. Not that I think my nephew was totally oblivious to drugs, but in my opinion telling him the names of drugs and what they look like was not necessary at his age, and given his social surroundings. Not that this will necessarily encourage him to take drugs, but he did not need to know more about drugs at that time. It was simply not relevant to his immediate world.

This is an important issue with sex, drugs, maybe even rock and roll. Can we always afford to wait until a child expresses an interest in more knowledge about these subjects? Since we can't be with them all the time, and they aren't always forthcoming about their inquisitiveness, do we try to put these issues in front of them tentatively and see what the reaction is, or do we wait until they either approach us for more information or it becomes a problem we need to deal with?

[ecoli]

I do wonder how much, for example sex education and gay-rights awareness etc. at school can be seen as "normalising" gay behaviour to the point of encouragement? I am not saying it is, or that such a thing is right or wrong, just wondering...

 

you could come to the opposite conclusion as well. By 'normalizing' gay identity, students won't seek to 'become gay' as a way of rebelling against society or to counter-signal to peers. By encouraging openness and acceptance as part of normative social influence, kids will be less likely to use sexual identity, as much as it is a choice, as a hipsterism. Which is just one argument of the anti-gay right that fails on its face.

 

The only thing I am genuinely worried about, and this is wider than homosexuality, is exposing children to things before they need to be. For example, my nephew was told about various drugs and glue sniffing by a local policeman who visited his primary school. Not that I think my nephew was totally oblivious to drugs, but in my opinion telling him the names of drugs and what they look like was not necessary at his age, and given his social surroundings. Not that this will necessarily encourage him to take drugs, but he did not need to know more about drugs at that time. It was simply not relevant to his immediate world.

 

Adults are generally oblivious to what children are exposed to in this day and age (the internet... heard of it?)

 

Having an adult provide a different frame of references for exposure to drugs, sex, alcohol, rock n roll then what a kid will get "on the street" is helpful. Even if most kids will roll their eyes at 'authority' they are not likely to hear about the costs from anywhere else. At what age this is appropriate is up for debate, I agree.

[ajb]

How old is your nephew ajb?

 

About 7 at the time.

 

This is an important issue with sex, drugs, maybe even rock and roll. Can we always afford to wait until a child expresses an interest in more knowledge about these subjects? Since we can't be with them all the time, and they aren't always forthcoming about their inquisitiveness, do we try to put these issues in front of them tentatively and see what the reaction is, or do we wait until they either approach us for more information or it becomes a problem we need to deal with?

 

There is some kind of informed judgement here as to what should be said and when. In the case I gave, I think too much was said too soon.

 

Not that I claim to be an expert on any of this.

 

you could come to the opposite conclusion as well. By 'normalizing' gay identity, students won't seek to 'become gay' as a way of rebelling against society or to counter-signal to peers. By encouraging openness and acceptance as part of normative social influence, kids will be less likely to use sexual identity, as much as it is a choice, as a hipsterism. Which is just one argument of the anti-gay right that fails on its face.

 

Interesting and a good point. Probably true.

 

Adults are generally oblivious to what children are exposed to in this day and age (the internet... heard of it?)

 

True, and some of this parents have less control over than others.

 

 

Having an adult provide a different frame of references for exposure to drugs, sex, alcohol, rock n roll then what a kid will get "on the street" is helpful. Even if most kids will roll their eyes at 'authority' they are not likely to hear about the costs from anywhere else. At what age this is appropriate is up for debate, I agree.

 

This I think is key.

 

I think that children should be exposed to all of society, "warts and all", but exactly what you tell them and when is the issue. This may well also depend on the individual child.

[Moontanman]

About 7 at the time.

 

 

I have to agree, 7 seems a bit too young to be told that stuff unless they ask, i always answered any questions my sons's had honestly and sometimes they were lulu's but I figured if they can ask the question they deserve an answer.

[StringJunky]

I agree with Moon, seven is too early. I think it wants to be just before high school or at the start when matters of sex and relationships are most likely starting to enter their awareness naturally. I'm all for allowing naivete to prevail as long as practically possible; one is an adult a lot longer than one is a child.

[ajb]

I'm all for allowing naivete to prevail as long as practically possible; one is an adult a lot longer than one is a child.

 

That is really my stance on such issues.