,
-V.

(N.N., donning the old asbestos underoos, as us atheists are so often wont to do…)

At best, it’s teaching the truth. You don’t know for certain that it’s not, you just believe atheism is a more rational explanation.

Teaching that homosexuality exists is therefore accurate, while teaching that God exists mignt not be.

I certainly think that children should be taught about God and the major religions - but from a standpoint of history, literature and social studies, not from a standpoint of “God definitely exists.”

meanwhile, proving the existence and humanity of homosexuals is trivial. so, Vardibidian’s analogy just doesn’t hold up, no matter what we think about deities.

Yabbut, here we get back to the whole choice/nature thing. *We* can accept that homosexuality is a trait like blue eyes, or handedness. It, like Pooh, just is. Other people see it as a choice, and view the public schools’ implicit validation of that choice — even in the form of value-neutral, non-judgmental, not-a-big deal acceptance of the existence of homosexuals — as anathema.

In other words, where we see the schools simply recognizing reality, others may see the schools as putting the official state stamp of approval on deviant behavior and sin deliberately chosen against the will of God.

Besides, God is dead.

Teaching children that gay couples have relationships as loving and as strong as straight couples is simply teaching the truth. It imposes no agenda anymore than teaching algebra, physics or biology. (That goes for evolution, too, despite what some folks in Kansas might argue.)

or maybe the old “homophobia as repressed gay urges” argument is wrong, and homophobia’s actually repressed bisexuality? or do i just not know enough about bisexuals to see some obvious flaw in that assumption?

Let’s get the amendment 36 issue off the table; I agree with Barry, it’s a scummy tactic to scare people into thinking the Gay Agenda is going to march in and take away their precious babies if they don’t stop gay marriage in Oregon.

Regarding Charles’ point about socialism and capitalism: Through a long process of civil debate, discourse, individual discussion, Constitutional law, court rulings, etc. we have decided together that certain questions are entirely under the control of the political process. For example, will we organize our economy along capitalist or socialist lines? The institutions of culture will be expected to more or less go along with those judgments, within very broad bounds. So it is basically too bad for little pink babies; if their parents organize and convince and change the system, it’ll be too bad for little Adam Smith babies.

I recognize that this societal decision/quasi-consensus does impose very real costs on people like Charles. Accordingly. I think that the schools should be cool about it. We don’t have Marx-Was-A-Moron Day, when all the fourth-graders bring eggs to throw at an effigy, which we then soggily burn.

There are other questions that we have decided are Out Of Bounds for public civic institutions. Religion, for one; the schools are supposed to be neutral territory. Wear your cross if you want, say your prayer if you want, but no position is supposed to be privileged. The contention and arguing that surrounds even the perception of minor infringements one way or the other (”you taught them about Mohammad!”, “you wouldn’t let our Cindy organize a Bible study!”, etc.) show the wisdom of this policy.

Then there’s a big middle grey area of things that are not well-mediated by the political process, or considered out of bounds. Sexuality, to my mind, falls in this zone. These questions have tended to be culturally and socially mediated; fifty years ago there was social silence on questions of homosexuality, and so there was silence in the school as well.

Now questions of sexuality have become very public and very much part of the open debate. So how to handle them in the schools?

I don’t pretend to have the answer to that question.

However, I do have a practical observation to make, which I was trying (badly) to get at in my original offhand comment. That observation is this:

The public schools are a lever of limited strength. We may decide with all righteousness on our side to have the schools teach something, or do something, or change in some way that comports with our social values. However, if those changes are beyond the strength of the school, it is the schools that will break, not the rock of public belief they are trying to shift.

I am from the deep south. Go to Mississippi, and you will not find strong, integrated public schools. The reason is that with every good intention in the world, an attempt was made to force white people to racially integrate at school. The result was a terrible catastrophe that doomed at least two generations of black children to academic failure, and an entire region’s social fabric to acrimony and bitterness. If people are required to do things in their schools that they profoundly disapprove of - however wrong they are to disapprove - then they will pull their kids out of those schools and create alternatives, the same as the white folks did in Mississippi 40 years ago.

I suggest that it is important to reflect on the strength of feeling that people have, and the number of people who have it, when considering what change is to be implemented. If there were 50 million socialists and they all burned with an intense inner fire, we would have to be a lot more careful with our school systems’ approach to economic questions.

Nor is telling someone that there are homosexuals going to make them be one. There are those who think this, but they are the ones who seem to think homosexuality is so deliciously inviting how could anyone resist? And their motives, therefore, might be questionable.

Seems that public schools’ curriculum have to be built on ‘community standards’ in some way, right? We can’t teach every religion, or (probably) even every sexual orientation–there simply isn’t enough time. So, some values are chosen over other values.

I think that the view given by Trey makes perfect sense, and Trey is notably ok with dealing with a community standard, i.e. there are all sorts of values (shame, for one) that will be taught to his daughter that he doesn’t approve of. Also notably, the ‘other side’ isn’t as accomodating.

But who sets the community standard? This is the question that I think the open-minded people are asking. Does majority rule? (I don’t see a good way around that it ought to.) What about ‘minority rights’? Now, I admit that the ‘other side’ doesn’t seem to care at all about this particular minority’s right to educate their children according to their values, but let’s pretend for a moment that each side did care, that each side wanted fairness in this issue. We’d still have a problem, because there may be too many positions to be discussed. And then we are back at square one.

The problem/opportunity of large numbers of incompatible viewpoints is often offered as a justification for privatizing schools, and using state money to fund students at the same level the schools get now. (Vouchers, in other words.) You want your kids to learn all about same-sex relationships, you send them to that school; you want the issue left out of the curriculum, you send them there instead.

It solves this problem very neatly. It does impose other kinds of costs, though.

Or, would you rather say that whichever party is more enlightened has the authority? Or do parents have some authority to over their children’s education, but the state also has some? (for example, the state should teach children to be tolerant and generous, but parents have authority in other areas - like imparting cultural values and what-not)

You seem to be very angry at the thought that someone who believes differently from you might be allowed to pass on their beliefs to their children at your expense. How is your attitude different from that of the fundamentalists who are outraged that some children are learning things THEY find objectionable?

Perhaps I give myself too much credit, but I would like to think that even if my values were 100% enforced in the public system, people who dissent would not be prevented or penalized for doing so. That’s the main reason I like a voucher-type plan; people get to make their own decisions.

However, I would point out that (speaking as a landlord of sorts myself) renters do indeed pay property tax - because if I wasn’t paying property taxes, I’d charge them somewhat less. So they just pay it indirectly rather than directly.

Lukas, it’s a bit confusing that you use the word “state” - I’m not sure that you mean “state of the union” or “government,” in this context.

For myself, I think that mandated minimum standards set by the state (of the union) government (i.e., all schools must teach math, writing, literature, etc), but letting local school systems set the details through a system of elected representatives, seems like a system that works.

I don’t think there’s an either-or question to “who has the authority - parents or the state?” I do think parents should be free to home school, for example (I’m a big fan of home schooling). But I also think that even home schools should be required to meet reasonable minimal standards of education (e.g., I don’t think it should be legal for home-schooled children to not learn how to read or do long division). And even for parents who use the public schools, they should be free to pull their child out of particular classes they disapprove of, so long as the child’s education is still meeting those reasonable minimum standards.

(I.e., if a parent has an objection to Health class, I don’t see any problem with that parent pulling their child(ren) out of Health class.)

Similarly, athough I favor local town or city governments having a lot of power to set curriculums, I think this should happen through elected representatives (that is, a school board) - and the school board is likely to be composed mostly of parents, and the people who care enough to vote and be active in school board elections will be mostly parents. So the state has the power, in my system, but at the same time parents are not powerless.

Please don’t use the word “goddamn.”

I’m not sure if you were responding to my post. I’ll act on the assumption that you were.

I wasn’t asking about vouchers. Rather, I was asking, “Why the state allow parents to send their children to schools that teach that homosexuals do not exist?” I would like to know how much authority parents have in educating their children.

Lukas