Just to pull a reductio-ad-absurdem on that argument: "People who are different than me make me uncomfortable, so I [want them to be like me | want them not near me]".

I think that most kinds in my school make me VERY uncomfortable, so, they should not be allowed to live. Don't say it is wrong, because it follows the same logic

*kids, and do you mean because they bully you?

Or give death threats to my calc *shudder*

RAM-Clearing threats? That's why you need to do daily backups.

No, throw-out0the-window-or-smash-it-on-the-floor threats


apparently, my being happy while programming on the calculator makes them very, very upset

Aww, sorry to hear it. :'(

Getting this a bit back on topic, do other people have thoughts and/or opinions on the topic of same-sex marriage?

Can we stop focusing on the easily refutable argument of "the bible says it's wrong" and instead focus on the argument of "I(and a large portion of Americans) believe it's wrong, therefore the Public schools my kids go to shouldn't teach that it isn't wrong"?

The easy response would be to bring up the end of institutional racism, which meant schools had to teach that everyone was equal, which some people believed to be wrong, and didn't want taught to their kids. However, I would like to know how you guys would counter that argument.

Teach what? What are you talking about? Public schools don't teach whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong.

I think he's referring to sexual education. i.e., including details about human sexual orientation in that sort of curriculum, instead of merely focusing on procreation and venereal infection. If schools included gender studies in sexual education curriculum, it would more or less help normalize the issue of homosexuality. These students might not otherwise be exposed to the sciences behind sexual orientation, and would simply be inclined to believe whatever nonsense their parents or religion have to say about it.

IMO, sexual education should occur sometime during early Middle School; and aside from covering pregnancy and health risks, students should be exposed to a wide array of gender studies, detailing everything from homosexuality to transgenderism. There's just no reason to continue alienating children who deviate from perceived sexual norms. Knowledge of female anatomy serves little purpose to Gay Johhny. Further, condoms should be made freely available to students at all times.

All my hopes are riding upon Obama to make it so; but I won't hold my breath.

Well, I think the parties on both sides of the argument would agree that Obama is certainly more likely to make it so than the previous president, and for that matter (statistically speaking) the following one, for better or worse. I agree that such broad-based and encompassing sex ed would be a good solution, but it's a chicken-and-egg problem of getting it implemented and widely accepted. Think of all the teachers in the Midwest would would consider it nearly (or even literally) sacrilege to have to teach such subjects to their students. The coasts are one thing, we've always been more progressive and open-minded, but I think not so much in the interior of this great nation. Children who learn what they learn under the current system grow up and try to force a maintenance of the status quo, their children end up learning the same, ad infinitum. I think that in that case it has to be a gradual process, and (very unfortunately) will take several if not many generations. Just my somewhat pessimistic two cents, also my 6:30am two cents, in case any of this post is incoherent.

We can't forgo certain sciences or subjects because it makes somebody uncomfortable. Like any other job, you put-up with things that you may not necessarily agree with, or you move on to another career. The notion that education should make adjustments to its curriculum to appease personal beliefs is reactionary. I honestly don't care what anyone believes. They're entitled to express or feel whatever they like; I don't, however, agree with anyone using those beliefs to deny younger generations a right to a quality education. There should never, ever be any such thing as forbidden knowledge.

If parents aren't comfortable with their children being exposed to certain ideas, there are a couple of things I think they really need to consider:

1.) It's outright censorship. If you're going to shield your children from life, then at least acknowledge what you are doing - that is, that you are literally indoctrinating them with no respect to their personal will. If you can acknowledge this and still consider yourself a good / fair parent, then please stop procreating.

2.) If someone is still insistent on sheltering their children, then send them to a private school that shares your values. Alternatively, you can consider home-schooling. Don't encroach on the rest of society by trying to brute-force your values into public education. Your beliefs aren't considered suitable for conventional education for a very good reason: They're pseudoscience. Until you can establish the existence of God via the scientific method, don't expect it to appear in textbooks. Same goes for any notion that homosexuality is wrong, is a personal choice, is detrimental, etc.

I personally feel that the subjects of homosexuality are beyond the scope of what in school sex ed were designed to cover and I personally feel that while it should just be ignored it also does not have a place in the core curriculum for those courses. Then again I am from that midwest region Kerm just spoke of. :/

God shouldn't appear in science textbooks. There's nothing wrong with including those and other beliefs in a philosophy and/or world cultures class.

This isn't true, because there are going to be LGBT students who aren't benefiting from sexual eduction that isn't inclusive of gay studies. You're completely excluding them, as if they don't matter at all. I think a premise to your conclusion is also that a majority of people are heterosexual. I contest this, because surveys indicate that same-sex attraction (at least, in a bisexual sense) are sizable. I tend to believe there is some considerable prevalence of people who engage in same-sex relations at some point in their lives, or with some regularity.

Yup, and likewise religion should appear in a number of other subjects, such as history (*cough, crusades, cough* ). Because the simple fact is that religion has had a massive impact on this world, philosophically, politically, economically, etc...

Religion has no place in science classes, though, including sex ed (which falls under biology). It would be a disservice to kids to not include what we know about homosexuality - including that it isn't a choice, isn't limited to humans, and is natural.

*1.5 year necrobump*

I'm curious if anyone's opinions have changed in the course of a year, as well as if the general population that has just joined Cemetech is for or against gay marriage (A term I wish would go away, as it's no different from regular marriage). I am completely for marriage of any type. With that, I want the discrimination to go away. Discrimination of gay people, of asexual people, of transgendered people, of anyone underneath the GSM umbrella. We're to a point in society where we shouldn't care who someone wants to have sex with, or who they decide to be romantic with.

I'm hopeful that the discrimination our current, and previous, generations endured will go away in the course of the next century. Even more hopeful because I want to eventually marry the girl I love, and neither of us want to be harassed as we transition into our actual genders. When it's all said and done, it will be a heterosexual marriage, but we'll still be hit by the gay marriage campaign. Regardless, I have many friends who will need for gay marriage to be legalized for them to marry the boys or girls they love.

What are the rest of Cemetech's opinions on this now? (And, don't go looking up what your old ones were until after you say your current ones )

I'm against marriage as a governmental thing.

Well, as long as we can keep all hard feelings aside, I'll share my view. I'm against gay marriage, but I'm against discrimination of gays that doesn't involve marriage. Besides sexual orientation, they're just like everyone else, and should get the same opportunities as everyone else, besides that one. Religious reasons, please don't ask what they are, since I can write pages about it and debate it for hours (I actually took part in a long, slightly-heated debate about that yesterday elsewhere, and I honestly don't want to do it again.)

My views really haven't changed. If society is going to accept this, it has to be forced at the educational level, just as the acceptance of black people as equals was.

On the subject of gay rights, I recently signed this petition on change.org

http://www.change.org/petitions/boy-scouts-of-america-reinstate-cub-scout-leader-who-was-removed-for-being-gay#

Now, if the local troop as whole was concerned or didn't want to accept this woman as a leader, I would understand. It's still a d!ck move, but I could understand them wanting that right. In this case however, the local troop was totally accepting of her, and even wanted her to be a den mother, and it was some disconnected national leader at the top that forced this decision. While it wouldn't be a perfect solution, the BSA should at least allow the local troops and packs to make their own hiring and membership determinations, even if the organization's center keeps the national policy in place for the time being.