FCKing Fail

Back when the Deepwater Horizon was flowing fast and furious and ruining the gulf, a not particularly clever T-shirt company made a video hawking their product and using some colorful language in the process. You can view their masterpiece here.

Well, another cause celebre, another chance at some profits, and this time they get to hide behind the gay rights movement.

 

So what do you think?

 

My initial criticisms reflect that of their other video, it creeps me out to see toodlers throwing around f-bombs, ditto with those old enough to be my grand mom. I understand the teenage attraction, rebelling against the establishment, oh, “and we get to swear in a video, how cool is that?”. See, despite their attempts, I don’t see this as that cutting edge. I get the profit motive and all that, but children using profanity? yep, that will get me on their side. It also drives me crazy that, in the liberal world, if you are against anything, you are a hater.

Most clear thinking adults would be on their side anyway, their lame attempt to repulse notwithstanding. I think most people are sympathetic to most of the gay cause, everyone should be treated the same and should not suffer discrimination, this is a given, but venture into special treatment land and we got a problem.

The offending law in question would ban teaching homosexuality in schools (I didn’t know that sort of thing was taught, I thought you just knew it naturally):

A Tennessee State Senate committee has approved a bill that would prohibit elementary and middle school teachers from discussing homosexuality in their classrooms. Time magazine reported that the legislation, which has been nicknamed the “don’t say gay” bill, “would mandate that before ninth grade, teachers not ‘provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.’”

OK, first of all, we have to remember, this is Tennessee, they have a history of being behind the times. And I understand the noble intentions, that some (most) parents want more control over what their kids are exposed to sexually. The problem is that we passed that bridge years ago where schools only teach what they are suppose to teach. From kindergarten on the kids are victims of the social experiment, indoctrinated about politics, values, morals, and sexual propriety.

Then, on the flip side we have the other extreme:

A landmark bill passed Thursday by the California Senate requires gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people to be added to the list of social and ethnic groups that public schools must include in social-studies lessons.

Oh boy, gay history taught right after the American Revolution, “Class, today we are going to learn about Albert Jones, that gay man that invented anal beads, and tomorrow we are going to study San Francisco bath houses and their link to the AIDS epidemic”.

I get the fact that bullying in schools is a problem and everything should be done to combat it, but I would bet that for every boy that talks with a lisp or likes the color chartreuse, there are 100 kids bullied because they are fat, or funny looking or have big ears, or dress funny.

I’m looking for a company to print up some “FCK those FCKH8.com people” T-shirts, I’ll get me one of those. Oh, and did everyone catch the SEIU purple in the background? Yeah, just my imagination.

  1. When they start school I certainly want my kids to learn about the reality of the world at school, at age-appropriate levels. The thought that certain real-world topics are legally off-limits strikes me as absurd. I believe these things can be discussed without ‘doctrination’. In fact if certain important aspects to living on Earth are actively avoided, I would consider THAT to be doctrination.

    I completely agree that getting toddlers to swear is irresponsible and inappropriate.

    (I didn’t know that sort of thing was taught, I thought you just knew it naturally):

    How would anyone know about homosexuality ‘naturally’? What we know as children is entirely dependent on what we are told by others. If you live in a household which pretends that homosexuality doesn’t exist, or is evil, then that’s what they’ll consider ‘natural’.

    Oh boy, gay history taught right after the American Revolution, “Class, today we are going to learn about Albert Jones, that gay man that invented anal beads, and tomorrow we are going to study San Francisco bath houses and their link to the AIDS epidemic”.

    Is that the reality of what is likely to happen though? Isn’t it more likely that the issue will just no longer be ignored when it might be relevant?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  2. Is that the reality of what is likely to happen though? Isn’t it more likely that the issue will just no longer be ignored when it might be relevant?

    More likely, it will just be a lot like my American Lit class several years ago, taught by a self-hating straight white bread militant feminist. Walt Whitman will be taught to 4th graders, just to teach them about gay artists, Flannery O’Conner will be taught to make sure that the students hate the South, and people like Hemingway will be posthumously outed as latent homosexuals.

    OK, first of all, we have to remember, this is Tennessee, they have a history of being behind the times.

    FCKTN! Oh, wait…

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  3. When they start school I certainly want my kids to learn about the reality of the world at school, at age-appropriate levels.

    And there lies the rub, age appropriate levels, sorry, but you do not get to make that call, at least here where I live. Am I recalling correctly that you live in New Zealand? Here in California the almighty teachers union decides what social mores are taught, and at what age levels. Sexual behavior, morals, values and what they deem appropriate is taught at such early ages that confusion is more apt to be the outcome, not tolerance. The progressive (liberal) agenda is front and center in all things academic, everything from global warming, wealth redistribution, America’s past imperialism, even political indoctrination, it’s all good, the earlier they get their hooks in the kids, the better.

    How would anyone know about homosexuality ‘naturally’?

    Oh, I don’t know, maybe when Mrs. Smith bends over you are thinking about recess but when Mr. Jones does this in front of you, the nether regions of your trousers gets a bit snug?
    Seriously, do you honestly think that school is the only place where kids will be exposed to the word “gay” or know what it is?

    Isn’t it more likely that the issue will just no longer be ignored when it might be relevant?

    What is the relevance anyway? Was Alexander great because of the empire that he built, or because he was a switch hitter? Can’t the kids study John Maynard Keynes for economic theory, Aristotle for his Greek philosophy, and Walt Whitman for his prose, without injecting into the mix who they like to sleep with?

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  4. What is the relevance anyway?

    Despite myself being of alternate sexuality, I was thinking this myself. Y’know, maybe it would be different if the history classes I’d had had been more open to this sort of thing, but I’m simply not sure where homosexuality, bisexuality, or transexuality would figure into the vast majority of school classes.

    Perhaps the only thing I can think of at least after a cursory perusal of my memories is teaching about the Stonewall Riots during the period where students learn about civil upheaval… which I doubt most public school history courses would get into all that much and it would be a difficult topic to cover without shading it horribly.

    I get the idea in concept, but yeah, I just don’t entirely see the point. Maybe the only possible benefit would be colleges that receive public funds being able to mention these subjects in the course of their classes, where it’s possible for them to be more focused to certain periods or subjects and thus the relevance might be there but…

    … Yeah, just don’t see the need.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. Jim, OT, but I like that new “private messages” tab up top, but is that used basically for you to contact us? Is there a way for any of us to use this to send a message to another member? I’m asking this here just in case other members had the same question.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Yup, you can send to each other. The one drawback is that you need to use their user name, not their screen display name. Shit. I didn’t know that until just now.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. And there lies the rub, age appropriate levels, sorry, but you do not get to make that call, at least here where I live. Am I recalling correctly that you live in New Zealand? Here in California the almighty teachers union decides what social mores are taught, and at what age levels. Sexual behavior, morals, values and what they deem appropriate is taught at such early ages that confusion is more apt to be the outcome, not tolerance. The progressive (liberal) agenda is front and center in all things academic, everything from global warming, wealth redistribution, America’s past imperialism, even political indoctrination, it’s all good, the earlier they get their hooks in the kids, the better.

    Yes, NZ is correct. Here you’d probably think it’s even worse, as we have a national curriculum, set by the Ministry of Education. I have no significant issues with it. I would certainly hope that climate change, different thoughts on economic theory, colonialisation, sexuality, and all other topics relevant to the world we live in will be taught. I can’t think of a good reason why they wouldn’t be. I don’t want to grow up in a country where a significant proportion of people have strongly held views on important issues simply because they’ve been protected from the wide range of views that exist. I’m not even remotely religious, but I’m certainly not going to do anything to shield my children from it. I want them to learn about religion and what it is and then figure out for themselves if they want to be religious. It’s part of the world, it would be ridiculous to try to hide it from them, or explain it in a way that either denigrates it or promotes it. That’s what my parents did with me (they are both religious).

    It’s all about age-appropriateness. If topics are introduced early, the level and type of information and delivery must certainly be appropriate.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  8. Oh, I don’t know, maybe when Mrs. Smith bends over you are thinking about recess but when Mr. Jones does this in front of you, the nether regions of your trousers gets a bit snug?

    There’s obviously far more to the topic/concept of homosexuality than confused feelings by a 12 year old. You said:

    The offending law in question would ban teaching homosexuality in schools (I didn’t know that sort of thing was taught, I thought you just knew it naturally):

    Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by ‘naturally’.
    ‘Teaching homosexuality’, to me, means discussing it when it is relevant (including as a small part of a sexuality class/discussion). As opposed to never actively bringing it up, or completely shutting down discussion, because you’re not allowed to talk about it.

    Seriously, do you honestly think that school is the only place where kids will be exposed to the word “gay” or know what it is?

    I think this is the very reason the topic shouldn’t be avoided at school. If it’s avoided at school, they’re left with whatever they’ve picked up from other places. Which is, in my opinion, FAR less likely to be accurate. And FAR more likely to lead to discriminatory opinions and homophobia. That’s not saying that I think what is taught at school is going to be perfect, or that I have blind trust that what is taught is always going to be 100% appropriate. Same as the safe-sex part of sex education. We can’t always rely on parents to teach their kids what to do and why. If the kids already know, great, it’ll be reinforced. If they didn’t, then they’re finding out (before they get into trouble).

    As I say, deliberately leaving out these topics at school is what I would consider ‘doctrination’.

    What is the relevance anyway? Was Alexander great because of the empire that he built, or because he was a switch hitter? Can’t the kids study John Maynard Keynes for economic theory, Aristotle for his Greek philosophy, and Walt Whitman for his prose, without injecting into the mix who they like to sleep with?

    In those examples, there would be no relevance. That doesn’t mean that it won’t be relevant to other discussions. An actual discussion about homosexuality as part of a few classes about sexuality in general would obviously be entirely relevant. So long as it’s at the right level.

    I don’t see that this issue needs to be about ‘liberal doctrination’.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  9. Yep, civil rights is a general topic where it would be relevant. Race, gender, sexual.

    Is ‘not seeing the need’ the same as supporting a ban? Just asking (before you fly off the handle again).

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

  10. I would certainly hope that climate change, different thoughts on economic theory, colonialisation, sexuality, and all other topics relevant to the world we live in will be taught.

    Who’s view on climate change, Al Gores? and regarding sexuality, sexual health or the appropriateness of sexual conduct in general?

    It sounds to me ( I could be wrong) that you view the school system as that vehicle that prepares kids for the real world, many people including myself feel that the school system should stick to a certain education standard and leave the moral/ethical training for the parents.
    Certainly if there is a health class in the curriculum where sex is covered, the homosexual lifestyle should be discussed there, but parents have the right to raise their children by their ethical and moral standards, not the schools.

    And I’m glad you brought up religion, do you want the schools teaching religion to your child? That would be consistent with your view that the school should cover “all other topics relevant to the world we live”.

    There’s obviously far more to the topic/concept of homosexuality than confused feelings by a 12 year old.

    Yes, I know, I was couching the question of is the school needed to teach one to be gay?, it was a poor joke, sorry.

    I think this is the very reason the topic shouldn’t be avoided at school.

    Nor do I, within the rigid confines of say a health class where sexuality is one of the topics, but what I am against is a history class where a prominent figure is discussed with the addendum of ,”Who BTW was gay”, or a math class where Pythagoras or Isosceles is discussed with the requite ,”Yep, you guessed it, gay”.

    I talked about this new California law above where it will be mandatory to teach gay history, what the hell does that even mean? Are they going to discuss sodomy laws? No history class is taught involving only heterosexuals, again, what is the relevance of such a silly law?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. No.

    Jesus, you are a passive-aggressive little hypocrite, aren’t you?

    Edit: And for god’s sake, before you start whining about what that has to do anything else, please do us all the favor of not going through the painfully trite and transparent effort of acting like you were asking an honest question and just trying to keep things on track, when it’s ridiculously obvious that your little addendum was all about sniping at me and trying to get a rise out of me, right after your snide little comments about personal attacks meaning the person has nothing of substance to say and accusing me of trolling.

    You did get a rise out of me, but it’s not your comment… it’s the blatant two-facedness with which you prance around the comments acting like the embodiment of reasoned discourse and noble good humor in the face of a storm of intolerance and rage, while slinging thinly-veiled limp-wristed backhands at every opportunity. Either have the ball-balls to step up and call someone a bad name like a real man or actually try living up to the things you claim you believe.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  12. Well you do seem to be ultra sensitive. But clearly even explaining that my question didn’t have any hidden meaning or ulterior motive is enough to set you off. Happy days.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

  13. I we did not have this government school system, this discussion would largely be irrelevant.
    Sexuality. wither it be Hetro, Homo, switch hitting, or that donkey show in TJ, should be confined to any health or sexual education class that should be offered as a choice for the students to take.
    As for teaching of Homosexual in history, It would only be relevant if that homosexuality has something to do with what made them famous or infamous. full stop.

    Oh any one here the new one that Ghandi was gay and had a jewish lover? WTF?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. Who’s view on climate change, Al Gores?

    A basic backgrounder on the theory and the science behind it (the multiple lines of evidence) including the uncertainties. Sure, a mention can be made that some people dispute the science, and some think it’s a large conspiracy theory, but that should be nothing more than a mention. After all, 97% of the specialists are in agreement on the fundamentals.

    and regarding sexuality, sexual health or the appropriateness of sexual conduct in general?

    Yep, this is more subjective. But it can still be predominantly about facts.

    It sounds to me ( I could be wrong) that you view the school system as that vehicle that prepares kids for the real world, many people including myself feel that the school system should stick to a certain education standard and leave the moral/ethical training for the parents.

    No, I think that parents will also be the primary vehicle for teaching their kids morals and ethics and preparing them for the read world. But I think school also plays an important part too. I can achowledge that this comes from my concern that some kids are victims of the stupidity of their parents. I’d prefer that a kid who is told some clearly dodgy shit at home is faced with questioning it when they’re told something different at school.

    Certainly if there is a health class in the curriculum where sex is covered, the homosexual lifestyle should be discussed there, but parents have the right to raise their children by their ethical and moral standards, not the schools.

    All I’m looking for is that aspects of the real word aren’t hidden away or ignored. The parents can counter what is taught at school if they like. Ultimately, they’ll always have much more opportunity to instill ethical and moral standards than any other person/institution. I think schools need to cover the basics though – there will be kids with fucked up parents who either give them no guidance, or bad guidance (e.g. that gay people are evil, or that pulling out won’t get her pregnant).

    And I’m glad you brought up religion, do you want the schools teaching religion to your child? That would be consistent with your view that the school should cover “all other topics relevant to the world we live”.

    I wouldn’t want a school to ignore religion, which means I think it should be taught at some point. What is religion, what are the main religions, what does it mean to be religious, what is aethism, what does it mean to be agnostic. Give them the basics, give them the ability to investigate further if they like. Again, age appropriate. Not wanting to indoctrinate one way or the other. Just like with sex, ignoring the issue is just weird. I don’t want my kids to have weird ideas about things because people tried to hide them from those ideas.

    Yes, I know, I was couching the question of is the school needed to teach one to be gay?, it was a poor joke, sorry.

    Ok, cool. Thanks for clarifying.
    However I do think some people actually believe that by teaching kids about homosexuality, it might turn them homosexual. Just like they think that by teaching kids about sexualit will make them have sex. I think this is where some of the opposition comes from (although certainly not all, as some of it is based on fundamental principles as you’ve mentioned earlier.).

    Nor do I, within the rigid confines of say a health class where sexuality is one of the topics, but what I am against is a history class where a prominent figure is discussed with the addendum of ,”Who BTW was gay”, or a math class where Pythagoras or Isosceles is discussed with the requite ,”Yep, you guessed it, gay”.

    Totally agree. Your examples would actually make being gay out to be something special, or worthy of attention. Nobody would say “and by the way, they were black”, unless it was specifically relevant. It just is what it is. It should be discussed only as it comes up, and as part of a series of lessons on sexuality and sexual health and decision-making in general. Going out of the way to make a big song and dance (Big Gay Al style) about it isn’t what I’m after.
    So I’m in the middle. I don’t see why it should be made into a big subject, or something that needs to be actively brought up at any given opportunity. But neither should it be banned. Both just say to the kids that it’s weird, or that there is something wrong or special about it. No need to make a big deal out of it. No need to make out that it doesn’t exist.

    I talked about this new California law above where it will be mandatory to teach gay history, what the hell does that even mean? Are they going to discuss sodomy laws? No history class is taught involving only heterosexuals, again, what is the relevance of such a silly law?

    I’ll look into it (not saying this is what happened, but sounds like something that could easily be misreported to get people riled up). Presumably something prompted the law, just like it must have in Tennessee.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  15. Keynes is certainly gaining in popularity again since the meltdown. Perhaps he ideas weren’t so weird after all…..

    Out of interest though, why would being gay explain why people might have ‘weird ideas’ on human behavior?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. I disagree that it should be optional. I think it should be compulsory. Just like I think a class in basic economics, and how to manage money, should be compulsory.
    I think the education of children is the overriding responsility of the parents, but I think that we need to ensure that all kids get the basics in important areas of life. We need to protect some kids from idiot or moronic parents. I’m not going to draw a line as to who is or who isn’t an idiot or moron. If I know the kids are at least going to get the basics at school, I don’t have to.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  17. it should be optional, since it heavily delves in to social, religious and personal area, there are area that the government should be prying its fingers.

    We need to protect some kids from idiot or moronic parents.

    That is a very dangerous area, to be deciding on, parents have that right to make bad decisions, even if it effects their children. If this is a area where child services needs to be applied, i think we got a bigger problem than how the child views gays or such.
    given our modernized world, and advances in communications, and social media exposure, im pretty sure that most children would have no problem learning about how to masturbate or why is or is not gay behavior, and find a support group for it.
    I see no reason to authorize a government employee to shovel a “socially acceptable” perspective down their throat.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. it should be optional, since it heavily delves in to social, religious and personal area, there are area that the government should be prying its fingers.

    I still think it’s too important for schools to ignore. I think it can be done in a way that doesn’t offend social or religious beliefs that parents want to instill in their kids. If you think it will, I’d be interested to know what those social or religious beliefs are, and how it would be inconsistent with them.
    I’m talking about basic factual shit, mixed in with messages about respect, and privacy, and tolerance about people that are different or have different values.

    That is a very dangerous area, to be deciding on, parents have that right to make bad decisions, even if it effects their children. If this is a area where child services needs to be applied, i think we got a bigger problem than how the child views gays or such.
    given our modernized world, and advances in communications, and social media exposure, im pretty sure that most children would have no problem learning about how to masturbate or why is or is not gay behavior, and find a support group for it.
    I see no reason to authorize a government employee to shovel a “socially acceptable” perspective down their throat.

    Learning how to masturbate? Determining what is, or what isn’t, gay behaviour? Wow, I think my idea of educated kids about the basics of sexuality and respect is substantially different from yours! My views are much more consistent with taking the stigma out of homosexuality, and ensuring that kids have the tools (pun intended!) and confidence and knowledge to make good basic decisions about sex, and so they can perhaps form more realistic and informed views when bombarded with sexual messages everywhere they seem to look. And so they understand what is happening to their bodies, and what will happen next.
    I agree that there are bigger problems. But bigger problems doesn’t mean we should stop schools from discussing the existence of homosexuality in our society, or explaining to kids what is happening to them, and why feeling like they do (sexual) isn’t abnormal or dirty or wrong. Or pretending that sex doesn’t exist. Or failing to teach kids respect for the decisions others make. I also don’t see how those are ‘political’ at all.
    If kids get all that at home already, awesome. If they don’t, and schools are banned from discussing any of it, where can (and often does) that inevitably lead?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  19. Please re read my post I never said anything about banning, or stopping the discussion, i said its should be optional for parents and their children, if they choose so.
    I think you are misunderstanding me, here. I have no problems with the discussion of sexuality being taught, or the basics mechanics, heh which should be done in biology class, but many parents do not like or want the federal Gov, to impose their views on their children. right or wrong, it should be a option.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. I don’t want to grow up in a country where a significant proportion of people have strongly held views on important issues simply because they’ve been protected from the wide range of views that exist.

    That’s far preferable to a significant proportion of the people have strongly-held views on important issues because they’ve been shown how to believe by schools and teachers from the time they entered school. If the schools don’t teach “views,” the kids will get their information from the source where they should: their parents. It should be up to the parents to talk to their children about things that might be controversial or uncomfortable.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  21. It’s a common thread in the last day or so it seems. CM is either doing a terrible job of understanding what people wrote, or a great job of trolling.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  22. Sexuality, religion, morality are all subjects that should be discussed in school. Just like math and history. Pretty much regardless of what the parents want. Otherwise where do we draw the line? Shouldn’t parents then be able to decide on math as well? If not, why?

    I’m not suggesting that schools should impose views, but even moral issues need to be taught and discussed.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  23. Ahhhh, Its nice to see that CM, thru all of the technical changes that have happened here at Right-Thinking and Moorewatch, has not changed his self inflating hypocritical ways.

    All is right with the world…

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  24. I’d rather the History classes taught history, irregardless of the sexual bent of the person being discussed. Both sides (in this debate, not the general public for the most part) make a great to do about the sexual orientation, before getting to the strong points about the historical relevence of the person.

    I may not have explained that clearly lets try this (this is a paraphrase example, this may not actually be what is taught):

    Homo – Alexander the Great, who was a Homosexual, did blah blah blah

    Hetro (version1) – Alexander the Great, despite being a Homosexual, did blah blah blah

    Hetro (version2) – Alexander the Great did blah blah blah, if he wasnt a Homosexual he could have done more blah blah blah.

    Reality – Alexander the Great did blah blah blah

    When both sides preface, or emphasize, the Sexual Orientation, as part of the Historical discussion, they lessen the impact of the Historical Nature of the person. For both sides, its not that the person did something that made a Historical Impact, its they did it while being Homosexual.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. Moronic…. Based on who’s values?

    Yours?

    I think your a moron, does that mean any kids you may have propogated should be taught based on my subjective value system?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  26. I’m sorry but thats idiotic. Schools should definetly NOT teach Morals.

    Morals are fluid and subjective. Who’s morals get taught? What is the resolution when the Morals of a Teacher differ from the Community? Parents? School? What about the Morals of the Parents of the Students being taught?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  27. Teaching about morality, not imposing morality. Surely, ethics studies don’t need to be controversial?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  28. Kimpost, out of curiosity, where do you reside? Your questions are good ones but some clarification is needed first.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  29. The last one you sent is marked as “Submitted on 2011/05/12 at 10:09 am | In reply to richtaylor365.” so it should be threaded. BTW, I think you got pulled as spam because of too many edits too quickly, or maybe it thought you were duplicating content. I had to manually approve this one.

    *edit*
    Oh and also if you are replying it should say, *just* under the “Leave a Reply” thing, it should say “cancel reply.” If it says that you are indeed replying in a way that will thread the comment under the one you are replying to.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  30. What is the relevance anyway? Was Alexander great because of the empire that he built, or because he was a switch hitter? Can’t the kids study John Maynard Keynes for economic theory, Aristotle for his Greek philosophy, and Walt Whitman for his prose, without injecting into the mix who they like to sleep with?

    Validation: the left is all about validation of whatever bucket they can put people in. They aren’t looking at anyone based on their achievements or historical significance, oh no, we are focused on inconsequential crap like their sexual orientation, their gender, their race, or their, social class – you know all the special interests that make up the left’s grievance mongering industry – and decide based off of that whom is worth looking at. Old white dudes and all that’s just so yesterday, for example. That is, unless they are gay, marxists, or can be painted in a negative light. And then we wonder why the same old historical mistakes that plagued great societies throughout history seem to all be coming our way, as if this is all new too, and trying to reinvent the wheel. Heh.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  31. Sexuality, religion, morality are all subjects that should be discussed in school. Just like math and history. Pretty much regardless of what the parents want.

    What if the “discussion” you call for actually are done by a ssytem that portrays gays negatively, irreligious people as immoral and doomed to hell, and people are told abortions, because they kill kids, are immoral? I have a feeling you wouldn’t like those “discussions” then. My guess is that you think they should be “discussed”, because you like the way that the “discussions” are happening.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. You had to manually allow my 10.09 comment? That’s weird because I saw that one immediately. I used the Request Deletion link on the 9.58 comment below, after which I first saw it displayed as “awaiting moderation” (or something similar).

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  33. OK, cool, my wife is Swedish.

    The reason I asked is because here in the states people have a different opinion about what areas the schools should delve in, and what areas should be left to the parents.

    Here in the states we have this wall of separation between church and state and people take this very seriously. Although I am religious, I am a firm believer, like the stanchest of atheists, that the schools have no business going into this area, so no, teaching religion is not appropriate.

    Keep in mind that this thread has, as many do, taken a few detours. When first discussing the gay/school relationship I had the early years in mind, grammer thru maybe middle school, this would cover ages 5 to say 14. Most parent would agree that at these ages the only things the school should be teaching are the basics, reading writing, math, English, science, social studies, music and the arts, and some physical education. Social skills like sharing, getting along, respecting others, manners and politeness, all of these are also welcome. But morals, ethics, sexuality, religion, nope. In middle school there were some health classes that discussed sexuality and that is perfectly acceptable, but even with these, permission slips go out and parents have to buy off on it.

    It might be that liberty and freedom thing that has resonated with this nation since its inception but people are leery of ceding any authority or control to a body outside their home. This attitude has been pretty much bulldozed over by the schools who for the last 20 years has felt that they were the primary authoritarian with the children, that they knew better, and that the kids would be much better off if the parents just got out of the way, being more of a hinderence then help.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. I mostly agree with you on what should be taught, especially for younger children. The basics are important. But how do you for instance avoid bringing up sexual orientation in social studies? And you mentioned that you welcomed teaching respect and politeness. Surely that requires teaching tolerance?

    If indeed the school system is bulldozing over parents then that’s wrong. Parents should be recognized, and their roles should not be downplayed. I don’t think one necessarily has to lead to the other. Educate, even on semi-controversial matters, but don’t indoctrinate.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  35. Well gosh, I’m sure he just feels that if it was taught in a neutral manner, people would naturally come around to his way of thinking. What with reality having a liberal bias, and all.

    Ultimately I think it’s a good thing if we do something to say “These subjects are not taboo. You can talk about them if it becomes relevant, but you’re expected to be as respectful of them as any other group you teach about or would be asked about.”, but that pushing for “compulsory education” about the subject is just going to cause backlash, among a variety of other good reasons not to.

    Like, say, the Alexander the Great examples. Just teach “Alexander the Great did blah blah blah”, but then if some kid raises their hand and asks “I heard he was gay, is that true?”, then the teacher can say “There is some historical evidence to indicate that, and-” without worrying that they’re going to lose their jobs or have angry parents kicking in the door. There’s neither reason to brush it under the rug nor to thrust it into the limelight.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  36. Surely that requires teaching tolerance?

    Of course, that is all part of respecting others. Any social skills that facilitate getting along with others, its all good.

    Educate, even on semi-controversial matters, but don’t indoctrinate.

    If only it was that easy. Take sex ed for instance, you would think that not only would they cover the mechanics, what goes where and why, but they would discuss the different points of view regarding the appropriateness of sexuality, activity especially among kids. Now you would think that since knowledge is power, the more information given on the subject, the better, right? A good example of this in the concept of abstinence. This can not be talked about or discussed. And it’s not something as innocuous as, ‘”kids are going to do it anyway, why bother?” It’s more insipid then that, to admit to it’s validity would empower the moralists and religious people out there, those that view premarital sex as wrong, totally discounting those non religious people that might practice abstinence because it is really the only 100% effective method of birth control and of avoiding STD’s. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think abstinence should be elevated to the exclusion of everything else, only that it should at least be talked about, that’s all, not only from a health stand point but to bolster self esteem, that only you get to decide what you want to do with your body.

    The other thing to remember that there is a not large now but growing percent of parents that are really fed up with the public school system , “They are teaching kids what? not on my watch” and opting for charter schools, private schools, even home schooling. I don’t know if Sweden has these or not, but here, the fight is on and the teachers unions see their very survival at stake.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  37. Please re read my post I never said anything about banning, or stopping the discussion, i said its should be optional for parents and their children, if they choose so.
    I think you are misunderstanding me, here. I have no problems with the discussion of sexuality being taught, or the basics mechanics, heh which should be done in biology class, but many parents do not like or want the federal Gov, to impose their views on their children. right or wrong, it should be a option.

    I apologise, my intention was not to insinuate that YOU were calling for a ban. I was responding to your comments but also talking generally (banning is part of the overall discussion).

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  38. It’s more insipid then that, to admit to it’s validity would empower the moralists and religious people out there, those that view premarital sex as wrong, totally discounting those non religious people that might practice abstinence because it is really the only 100% effective method of birth control and of avoiding STD’s. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think abstinence should be elevated to the exclusion of everything else, only that it should at least be talked about, that’s all, not only from a health stand point but to bolster self esteem, that only you get to decide what you want to do with your body.

    Well said. I’m not even remotely religious and I’m very cynical about abstinence, however I would also expect it to be discussed.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  39. Kimpost, we seem to be in agreement on this. Sexuality, religion, morality – these concepts and the ideas behind them can be taught without imposing one school of thought over another. Unless respect and tolerance is considered a ‘school of thought’?

    Personally, I consider that my kids will be more ‘free’ if they’re exposed to these issues at an appropriate way in a careful and considered way*. To me, a key part of ‘freedom’ is information and the the ability to make decisions based on as much quality information as possible. Teach them how to make good decisions, but don’t make the decisions for them. I don’t think some kids should be restricted in their ability to make good decisions for themselves.
    Again, I’d emphasise age appropriateness though. I’m not looking to try and get kids growing up faster than they already do (it’s damn fast enough!).

    EDIT: * By ‘careful and considered way’ I mean a basic cirriculum carefully determined by relevant professionals, with full recognition all the way through that these are sensitive issues, and the main point is to present information not to indoctrinate into a particular way of thinking (other than the basics of respect for others and their decisions, , personal responsibility, etc).

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  40. I am pretty sure the intention of the law is not to ban any mention of the word gay in the classroom but is directed at health classes that might be teaching about sex. Of course, the law may well be poorly written and therefore construed as banning Alexander the Great Poo Puncher references.

    Crap it’s late-I’m tired from a week of state mandated testing (that is another topic my freinds-it’s all fucked up).

    Will come back later . . .

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  41. That is the problem with vaguely-worded laws or laws that are extremely all-encompassing but stated they will have “common sense” enforcement. Or rather, it’s a problem for the people, and a positive for the people enforcing it.

    Laws like this one, or a recent Florida law which, in an attempt to ban any possible bestiality technically makes sex between humans illegal, can be used as whoever is in charge on some level sees fit. The Florida one… okay, that would be a little more ridiculous for them to try and use against someone and would probably just succeed in getting the law thrown out.

    But things like this, it’s the vague wording that could let it be wielded like a weapon. A teacher who’s laying low can talk about Alexander’s… … proclivities (“poo puncher”? Seriously?) all the live-long day and never worry about it. Some teacher gives a city councilman’s kid detention and then gets overheard even saying the word “gay” (or that sounds like “gay”), suddenly they’re out on their ass.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  42. (“poo puncher”? Seriously?)

    From the master:

    (scroll down to comment 6 or 7)

    And the Florida law imbroglio is much about nothing. It references another Florida statue that for legal purposes defines the word “animal” to not include humans.

    And the most likely revenge scenario is a principal or other school administrator trying to get rid of a teacher.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  43. And the Florida law imbroglio is much about nothing. It references another Florida statue that for legal purposes defines the word “animal” to not include humans.

    Ah, does it?

    And the most likely revenge scenario is a principal or other school administrator trying to get rid of a teacher.

    Which still isn’t that great. While I’m no great fan of public school teachers, I’m also no great fan of finding new ways to fuck them over when they may not actually deserve it.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  44. I don’t quite get what possible good that could come from this law? Can they still discuss heterosexuality? Assuming they can, why would that be fine, while homosexuality would not? It makes no sense.

    If it’s a question of homosexuality being wrong, according to some peoples beliefs, then subscribing to such feelings is nothing short of bigotry, isn’t it?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  45. Sure, homosexuality is all-natural most everywhere on earth but the US.

    So, someone tell me how and why so many good people, who simply know there is no god, only global love and understanding, not only adore the likes of, say, Bono as “god”, but also “defend” his videos against negative comments on youtube by using racist epithets, sexist slurs and death threats?

    In other words, for all their enlightenment, Euros still use “fag” “cocksucker” etc. as insults. Surely they enjoyed sex ed studies in school, the way it should be?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  46. Because he quite obviously did not know how the majority of the people behave or think.

    Keynes was an idiot, his economic theories totally worthless, and those that follow them are doomed to failure. Even a casual reading of his work shows that he had zero concept of actual human behavior. Basically, just do the opposite of everything he said to do to ensure economic success.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  47. Because he quite obviously did not know how the majority of the people behave or think.

    Because gays are so different from the rest of us, right? :)

    P.S. Keynes was not gay, as far as I know.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  48. Regarding my PS. He might have been gay after all, according to Google. Hadn’t heard that before, so disregard my post scriptum.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0