Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vylo · 07-31-2003, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Should I question your motivations for posting this? "I have nothing against X.... but"

It was a response to a question earlier in the thread.

dk · 07-31-2003, 05:53 AM

I�ll try to answer the questions, but right off the bat I don�t think it is judicially imprudent for the US to return to a policy of �Separate but Equal�. That said I think it is a real possibility if we change the scenario just a little.

Does a 14 year old child have the capacity to really know his/her sexual orientation? Do schools have the right to promote an agenda of sexual exploration?
dk: First� Some 14 year olds are fully mature men, while others haven�t hit puberty yet. There are thousands of adults that change their sexual orientation. The question assumes the consequent i.e. or that adults know their sexual orientation. I know its wrong to answer a question with a question, but� How does a person know they are black? Some very prominent men answered, �One drop of black blood makes a person black� others said 1/16th. Your question on sexual orientation is as flawed as mine question on race. The truth is a persons identity and personhood can�t be expressed in terms of race or sexual orientation. In both cases the question of race and sexual orientation are meaningless, based on prejudice and error promulgated by culture and pseudo-science.
Second� I don�t think any schools in the US will admit they promote sexual exploration, rather schools will argue they promote diversity and science.
What are the requirements for being a "gay" student? Do you need to have actually engaged in homosexual activity? If this is the case wouldn't the school in fact be promoting homosexuality by forcing kids to engage in homosexual acts to gain admittance?
dk: The courts would have to come up with some absurd definition for sexual orientation, and for that matter bisexuals. I would suggest a different scenario, that bypasses all the legal difficulties. Gay and Lesbian custodians will eventually start a charter school to send children. This avoids all the legal hurdles.
If the requirment for admittance only specifies that a child must have gay feelings or something of that nature, what is to prevent any kid who simply feels harassed from trying to get into this school?
dk: Good point, but I doubt many natural parents would wish to send the kids to a charter school that teaches a gay or lesbian curriculum. 99.9% will simply opt out.
Which brings me to my next question: If the purpose of this school is to provide an environment free from harassment, why not extend admittance to all children who are beaten up, picked on or otherwise harassed? Why do gay students get such special treatment?
dk: Because children raised in gay and lesbian families are special, therefore have special needs.

Godless Dave · 07-31-2003, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
There are thousands of adults that change their sexual orientation.

Bullshit. Back up this absurd statement or retract it.

Alonzo Fyfe · 07-31-2003, 06:56 AM

Ultimately, I do not think that the capacity of an adolescent to know his or her sexual orientation is at all relevant.

What is relevant is whether other children are subjecting the child in question to threats, intimidation, and hostility that are interfering with the child's ability to learn.

If "yes", then steps should be taken to remove this barrier to the child receiving a good education. It would be best, all things considered, to tell the intimidators to sit down and shut up. However, the movement of late in this country is that to make such a demand on the intimidators interferes with their freedom to express their religious beliefs. So, this option is not permitted.

If schools are not permitted to tell the intimidators to "sit down and shut up," the next available option is to separate them from their victims.

And that is the purpose of such a school.

As long as the intimidators insist on threatening, intimidating, and harrassing even those who wrongly suspect that they might be gay, then the school is permitted in seprating those who wrongly suspect that they may be gay from those who would victimize them.

I have some concern that people may try to argue that the right of high-school-age intimidators to practice their religion may include a right to keep their victims handy.

[Note: I would argue for a separate school for atheists as well on the same grounds -- given the bloody experiences I had when I was in school at the hands of my Christian classmates. Imagine, a school where an atheist does not feel pressured to pledge allegiance to the Christian God and where he is not bombarded daily by signs that say "Unless you trust in God you are not one of us." (or "In God WE Trust")]

dk · 07-31-2003, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Godless Dave
Bullshit. Back up this absurd statement or retract it.

I did back it up, there's no test for sexual orientation, anymore than there's a test for race, ethnicity, or religion. Its absurd to think educrats could objectively segragate gay, bi, and straight children in public school.

Have we learned nothing from Jim Crow, Tiger Woods and MLK. We are a Union, formed to become a more perfect union, a nation concieved in liberty and dedicated to the proposition all men are created equal.

Bluenose · 07-31-2003, 08:14 AM

In their chronology section Hogan & Hudson (1998) say:

"April 1, 1985
In New York City, the Hetrick-Martin Institute opens the Harvey Milk School for 20 openly lesbian and gay teenagers in the basement of a Greenwich Village church. The city-funded high school provides a place of refuge for the students, many of whom have dropped out of other schools to escape repeated abuse and harassment." page 658

They started the institute in 1979 " when they heard about a gay boy who had been expelled from a home for runaway teens after he had been gang-raped by other boys at the facility." @ 594

'Sit down and shut up' will not heal the the problems of rape victims. IIRC I read years ago some of the girls who have gone to Milk High had also been raped. Big city children have problems never even thought about in other places.

dk · 07-31-2003, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Alonzo Fyfe
(snip)
I have some concern that people may try to argue that the right of high-school-age intimidators to practice their religion may include a right to keep their victims handy.

[Note: I would argue for a separate school for atheists as well on the same grounds -- given the bloody experiences I had when I was in school at the hands of my Christian classmates. Imagine, a school where an atheist does not feel pressured to pledge allegiance to the Christian God and where he is not bombarded daily by signs that say "Unless you trust in God you are not one of us." (or "In God WE Trust")] [/B]

Well, I wouldn't call them initiators, how about the "Omnipotent Apparatus". Of course this refers to our political, cultural, scientific and educational elite. Thier job is to plan ahead for our needs, wants, desires, and happiness. They alone have sufficient knowledge. Mark Twain said "all the human race loves a lord.In the Jardin des Plantes I have seen a cat that was so vain of being the personal friend of an elephant that I was ashamed of her." We need to...

leave education to the pedagogues!
leave agriculture to the agriculturalists!
leave industry to the industrialists!
leave labor unions to the national organization!
leave social development to the sociologists and the anthropologists!
leave the environment to the ecologists!
leave politics to the political scientists!
leave socialization and indoctrination to the social engineers.
so forth and so on.

themistocles · 07-31-2003, 10:22 AM

Quote:

dk
I don�t think any schools in the US will admit they promote sexual exploration, rather schools will argue they promote diversity and science.

Should schools promote sexual exploration? I don't know why "science" and "diversity" are put together as what "school should promote" (and, now that I think about, they seem quite opposite as science is loosely defined by it's rigidity), but I'm not sure what the basis for "promoting diversity" is, other than to socially balkanize society.

Quote:

Because children raised in gay and lesbian families are special, therefore have special needs.

What are those special needs? To be protected from society and reality? To be put in a homogoneous environment to "unprepare" them from real life? To put them in an environment in which sexual relationship is the basis for uniting a community? What are the special "needs"? Bigots have "special needs", perhaps we should consider them...

Quote:

Have we learned nothing from Jim Crow, Tiger Woods and MLK. We are a Union, formed to become a more perfect union, a nation concieved in liberty and dedicated to the proposition all men are created equal.

Exactly, which is why this "gay high school" idea is absurd. There is nothing socially advantageous by the creation of this school, rather the school district should crack down on school violence.

BDS · 07-31-2003, 10:38 AM

The stated reason behind the gay high school is to protect gay students, who are being beaten up every day in the regualr school system.

Of course, ideally, the schools could protect gay students without segregating them. In fact, Southern schools claimed that they couldn't be held responsible for violence if African-Americans were integrated, and excused segregation in just this way. So, there can be little doubt that the segregated school is not an ideal solution.

However, it is, apparently, voluntary, and it may, apparently, keep kids from being beaten. Public schools do have a responsibility to provide a safe environment for children. The Gay high school is surely not the ideal way to do this, but what are the alternatives? How much money would the schools need to protect kids in the regular schools? Where will they get it?

themistocles · 07-31-2003, 12:53 PM

Well, BDS, I certainly don't know the accounting or funding necessary for schools, but it seems to me that addressing disciplinary problems should be financially cheaper than funding an entire school for victim's of violence. I would imagine that disciplinary problems are dealt with more immediately in terms of time and effort, than the financial burden which would require the keeping of such a school.

Personally, I think it should be the kids who are beating up the homosexuals that should be singled out.

07-31-2003, 05:53 AM	#22
dk Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Denver Posts: 1,774	Re: Gay High School I�ll try to answer the questions, but right off the bat I don�t think it is judicially imprudent for the US to return to a policy of �Separate but Equal�. That said I think it is a real possibility if we change the scenario just a little. Does a 14 year old child have the capacity to really know his/her sexual orientation? Do schools have the right to promote an agenda of sexual exploration? dk: First� Some 14 year olds are fully mature men, while others haven�t hit puberty yet. There are thousands of adults that change their sexual orientation. The question assumes the consequent i.e. or that adults know their sexual orientation. I know its wrong to answer a question with a question, but� How does a person know they are black? Some very prominent men answered, �One drop of black blood makes a person black� others said 1/16th. Your question on sexual orientation is as flawed as mine question on race. The truth is a persons identity and personhood can�t be expressed in terms of race or sexual orientation. In both cases the question of race and sexual orientation are meaningless, based on prejudice and error promulgated by culture and pseudo-science. Second� I don�t think any schools in the US will admit they promote sexual exploration, rather schools will argue they promote diversity and science. What are the requirements for being a "gay" student? Do you need to have actually engaged in homosexual activity? If this is the case wouldn't the school in fact be promoting homosexuality by forcing kids to engage in homosexual acts to gain admittance? dk: The courts would have to come up with some absurd definition for sexual orientation, and for that matter bisexuals. I would suggest a different scenario, that bypasses all the legal difficulties. Gay and Lesbian custodians will eventually start a charter school to send children. This avoids all the legal hurdles. If the requirment for admittance only specifies that a child must have gay feelings or something of that nature, what is to prevent any kid who simply feels harassed from trying to get into this school? dk: Good point, but I doubt many natural parents would wish to send the kids to a charter school that teaches a gay or lesbian curriculum. 99.9% will simply opt out. Which brings me to my next question: If the purpose of this school is to provide an environment free from harassment, why not extend admittance to all children who are beaten up, picked on or otherwise harassed? Why do gay students get such special treatment? dk: Because children raised in gay and lesbian families are special, therefore have special needs.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-31-2003, 06:56 AM	#24
Alonzo Fyfe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO Posts: 3,515	Ultimately, I do not think that the capacity of an adolescent to know his or her sexual orientation is at all relevant. What is relevant is whether other children are subjecting the child in question to threats, intimidation, and hostility that are interfering with the child's ability to learn. If "yes", then steps should be taken to remove this barrier to the child receiving a good education. It would be best, all things considered, to tell the intimidators to sit down and shut up. However, the movement of late in this country is that to make such a demand on the intimidators interferes with their freedom to express their religious beliefs. So, this option is not permitted. If schools are not permitted to tell the intimidators to "sit down and shut up," the next available option is to separate them from their victims. And that is the purpose of such a school. As long as the intimidators insist on threatening, intimidating, and harrassing even those who wrongly suspect that they might be gay, then the school is permitted in seprating those who wrongly suspect that they may be gay from those who would victimize them. I have some concern that people may try to argue that the right of high-school-age intimidators to practice their religion may include a right to keep their victims handy. [Note: I would argue for a separate school for atheists as well on the same grounds -- given the bloody experiences I had when I was in school at the hands of my Christian classmates. Imagine, a school where an atheist does not feel pressured to pledge allegiance to the Christian God and where he is not bombarded daily by signs that say "Unless you trust in God you are not one of us." (or "In God WE Trust")]

07-31-2003, 08:14 AM	#26
Bluenose Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: small cold water flat Posts: 471	In their chronology section Hogan & Hudson (1998) say: "April 1, 1985 In New York City, the Hetrick-Martin Institute opens the Harvey Milk School for 20 openly lesbian and gay teenagers in the basement of a Greenwich Village church. The city-funded high school provides a place of refuge for the students, many of whom have dropped out of other schools to escape repeated abuse and harassment." page 658 They started the institute in 1979 " when they heard about a gay boy who had been expelled from a home for runaway teens after he had been gang-raped by other boys at the facility." @ 594 'Sit down and shut up' will not heal the the problems of rape victims. IIRC I read years ago some of the girls who have gone to Milk High had also been raped. Big city children have problems never even thought about in other places.

07-31-2003, 10:38 AM	#29
BDS Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Eugene, OR, USA Posts: 3,187	The stated reason behind the gay high school is to protect gay students, who are being beaten up every day in the regualr school system. Of course, ideally, the schools could protect gay students without segregating them. In fact, Southern schools claimed that they couldn't be held responsible for violence if African-Americans were integrated, and excused segregation in just this way. So, there can be little doubt that the segregated school is not an ideal solution. However, it is, apparently, voluntary, and it may, apparently, keep kids from being beaten. Public schools do have a responsibility to provide a safe environment for children. The Gay high school is surely not the ideal way to do this, but what are the alternatives? How much money would the schools need to protect kids in the regular schools? Where will they get it?

07-31-2003, 12:53 PM	#30
themistocles Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: las vegas, nevada Posts: 670	Well, BDS, I certainly don't know the accounting or funding necessary for schools, but it seems to me that addressing disciplinary problems should be financially cheaper than funding an entire school for victim's of violence. I would imagine that disciplinary problems are dealt with more immediately in terms of time and effort, than the financial burden which would require the keeping of such a school. Personally, I think it should be the kids who are beating up the homosexuals that should be singled out.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.