Endearing anti-gay marriage interview

[merithyn]

Except that teaching that human sexual orientations are "equal" (unlike, say, pedophilia, which is a mutation of existing sexuality) is not a moral judgement but the understanding of modern psychology.

I have no problem adding "under the law" in there, because it's a statement of fact. Saying that one thing is equal to another, however, means that one has to assign value to both, which I just don't think a teacher should be doing. Not because I don't think that it's true (which you know that I do), but because I do not want a teacher who thinks otherwise to have the opportunity to assign value which finds homosexuality wanting. Don't open that door. Instead, just provide the information. Allow the kids to work out that they're equally valid lifestyles for themselves based on the fact that no one is assigning any kind of value to either of them. It just is, just as eating, breathing, and blinking just are.

As I said before, would you say that "homosexuality is not a choice" is a moral judgement, too? As this is a scientific fact but some religious idiots do not accept it.

I believe that's the case, but I have never seen anything that shows it to be "scientific fact". The last that I heard, any studies on that end have been ambiguous at best. I would absolutely love to see a study that shows definitively that this is the case. It would certainly shut up a few people that I know.

If those cannot be provided, however, then isn't it better to say, "Logically speaking, it is most commonly assumed that homosexuality is not a choice"? You obviously don't know kids if you think that stating something is scientific fact without a study - or three - that absolutely shows this to be true will fly for those who disagree. Imagine making a claim like that here without at least a single citation. Kids are no different, and most of them are worse than Raz when it comes to arguing for the sake of arguing if they hold a different viewpoint.

When you provide facts, you give them no opportunity to argue. It just is. It's not about whether it's right or wrong, morally acceptable or an abomination. It just is. This is life. Period.

That's how you change homosexuality from being seen as less-than. By simply treating it as a statement of fact, just like heterosexuality.

[Josquius]

You are an idiot. I meant directing them to brochures and the like, not to have an extracurricular lesson on gay sex. And obviously it would not be done at the age when you refer to the students as "kids".

If they're still in compulsory education they're still kids.
Sex education definitely comes on the borderline between body-wise (though definitely not mentally) being adults and kids. Leave it too late and they figure it out on their own and get each other pregnant.

If, for example, they are being taught about the method of vaginal penetration to e.g. not cause harm to the partner, then similar discussion should be provided for anal sex (but as I said, since this is, statistically, less likely to be of interest to the entire class, making brochures and the like available would be sufficient).

Clearly you know nothing about teenage boys if you think they wouldn't be interested in a class about anal sex. :p

[merithyn]

Considering that it can be emotionally damaging to stay in the closet - I'd hope schools wouldn't promote that.

The principal at the middle school that I worked at would absolutely have taught that if she had had a voice in things. Instead, the district had a very definitive, clear way of teaching sex ed that did not allow for any kind of moralizing. It was, "This is how things work. These are the different forms of relationships one has - parent/child, grandparent/grandchild, spouse/spouse, sibling/sibling, adoptive or fosterparent/child, etc. The definition of 'family' can be some mix of any of those relationships, and more still."

The principal was (and probably still is) extremely religious and did not believe that homosexuality should even be mentioned in school. Luckily, she had no say on it. The sex ed teacher believed firmly in gay rights. She wasn't allowed to vary from the curriculum, either. It was simply fact, fact, fact, test.

For those who had more questions/concerns regardling their sexuality, there were teachers who had rainbow triangles outside their classroom door so that the kids knew who they could safely go to. The principal wasn't pleased, but the district gave the teachers permission.

Was this an ideal situation? Of course not. Ideal would have been the principal to accept the reality of life rather than trying to create an environment that fit her narrow view of it. But this was a safe, fair, and healthy compromise for the kids.

[Josquius]

Middle school kids shouldn't be scewing each other anyway. They have the beginnings of their sexuality there but it isn't fully formed. A lot of what they get up to is just peer pressure enforced- they see older kids getting in relationships and having sex so decide to do the same despite it not really being what they entirely want.
So yeah. Staying in the closet in middle school seems pretty sane to me. Most kids remain pretty outwardly asexual at that time.
At high school though it should be fine to be what you are. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Well my experience with health classes were very different. Some moralizing:

Anal sex is terrible and dangerous (already mentioned here in discussion with Seedy)
Smoking kills, don't do it.
Drugs are terrible, here's what they can do to you, don't do them.
Rhythm method is a bad form of birth control (which also tacitly suggests that we as teens should be using birth control).

I'm sure there were more but those were the ones that sprung to mind.

Those aren't moral judgments - they are statements about risk.

Saying smoking is bad because it involves putting your own pleasure over the well-being and convenience of others is moral judgment.  Saying smoking is bad because it increases the chance of contracting various life-threatening diseases is not a moral judgment, just a statement about risk.  Saying anal sex is terrible because because God disapproves or because it is "unatural" is a moral judgment; saying anal sex is dangerous because it increases the risk of contracting STDs is a statement about risk.  Saying the rhythm method is a bad form of birth control is an unvarnished statement about risk - it is saying that compared to other forms of birth control rythm is less likely to actual control the likelihood of pregnancy.

It may be the case that the mental process behing the selection of statements of risk to present or not present may be informed by moral considerations, or perhaps it may not be the case.  It may also be that the statements themselves are not accurate.  But they aren't moral judgments in themselves.

[merithyn]

Middle school kids shouldn't be scewing each other anyway. They have the beginnings of their sexuality there but it isn't fully formed. A lot of what they get up to is just peer pressure enforced- they see older kids getting in relationships and having sex so decide to do the same despite it not really being what they entirely want.
So yeah. Staying in the closet in middle school seems pretty sane to me. Most kids remain pretty outwardly asexual at that time.
At high school though it should be fine to be what you are.

I'm sorry, but that's just plain assinine. You know that homosexuality is about a lot more than just having sex, right? Fuck, heterosexuality is about more than just having sex!

Middle School is when sex ed should be ending, not starting. By the time a kid is 11-12 years old and the hormones are raging, they should have a hell of a lot of information at their fingertips. Information about things like STDs, pregnancies, the emotional toll sex takes on a person, etc. Studies have shown that having that information helps them make the decision to hold off. The lack of education - or worse, teaching strictly abstention - results in a higher pregnancy rate and higher STD rate in kids of all age groups.

[merithyn]

Those aren't moral judgments - they are statements about risk.

Saying smoking is bad because it involves putting your own pleasure over the well-being and convenience of others is moral judgment.  Saying smoking is bad because it increases the chance of contracting various life-threatening diseases is not a moral judgment, just a statement about risk.  Saying anal sex is terrible because because God disapproves or because it is "unatural" is a moral judgment; saying anal sex is dangerous because it increases the risk of contracting STDs is a statement about risk.  Saying the rhythm method is a bad form of birth control is an unvarnished statement about risk - it is saying that compared to other forms of birth control rythm is less likely to actual control the likelihood of pregnancy.

It may be the case that the mental process behing the selection of statements of risk to present or not present may be informed by moral considerations, or perhaps it may not be the case.  It may also be that the statements themselves are not accurate.  But they aren't moral judgments in themselves.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to disagree. Saying something is "good" or "bad" is, by the very definition, a moral judgment. And it's completely unnecessary, and in fact, is the worst thing you can say to a teenager.

Instead, offer the information. "Having anal sex can cause tears, which increases the chance of STDs. Ways to avoid STDs during any kind of sex include the use of condoms, or by not doing it at all." Let the kids determine for themselves what to do. The moment that you label something "good" or "bad", the kids make a judgment call on whether to do it because they shouldn't, or not do it because it's "bad". The truth is that it's neither good nor bad, it just carries more risks that can be mitigated by something else.

Smoking kills. Period. There is no question that smoking kills. Why say, "It's bad because it kills."? Now you've given it a value to kids. "Oooo, I shouldn't do this... so I'm gonna!" Not all kids are like this of course, but enough are, and the terminology is so irrelevant, that it's best to not go in that direction whatsoever.

Drugs cause physical harm, addiction, and often leads to more serious charges and addictions.

Pregnancy before the age of 18 stunts growth, causes problems with hormone levels, alters your ability to get an education, and will change your life forever.

"Good" and "bad" is just unnecessary.

[The Minsky Moment]

The use of the word bad or good doesn't really change the substantive character of the statement.  There is no real difference between saying "smoking kills" and "smoking is bad because it kills" except that the latter does incorporate the trivial moral content that life is preferable to death.  Saying rhythm is "bad" form of birth control is just using linguistic shorthand to make a statement about utility.

whether strategically it is effective is eschew the use of those kinds of words when communicating to teenagers is another story.

[merithyn]

The use of the word bad or good doesn't really change the substantive character of the statement.  There is no real difference between saying "smoking kills" and "smoking is bad because it kills" except that the latter does incorporate the trivial moral content that life is preferable to death.  Saying rhythm is "bad" form of birth control is just using linguistic shorthand to make a statement about utility.

That's silly. The very use of the terms "bad" and "good" assigns value. That fact alone makes it a judgment. By saying, "Smoking is bad because it kills", you're taking away the right of the individual to have their own opinion on it. Sure, most likely they're going to agree because most people agree that life is better than death. That doesn't change the fact that it assigns value and makes a judgment on the issue.

whether strategically it is effective is eschew the use of those kinds of words when communicating to teenagers is another story.

This is something that is incredibly important, however. Teens crave power. Telling them what to think about a subject by assigning value while discussing it with them denies them the power to make that decision for themselves. That's incredibly important when you're trying to teach kids how best to deal with life, especially the potentially dangerous parts of life like sex, drugs, and personal care.

It may seem like a small thing to an adult, but it's huge to kids. You're saying, in effect, "I'm giving you the information, and I trust you to decide for yourself how best to use that information." Most of the time, the kids who would have rebelled against you will come to the same conclusion that you do, and they'll decide not to do the "bad" thing for no other reason than that they decided it for themselves. 

[garbon]

Except that it isn't a polite suggestion but rather a "do not do this". Pretty sure that's a comment on what's right and what's wrong.  See how I amended that anal sex one. Pretty much suggested to me at the time that it'd be wrong to have anal sex - which I recall struck me as rather homophobic.

Again, I see a difference between do not do this because of all the terrible consequences I mentioned and do not do this because it's a sin/depraved act/whatever.

Out of curiosity, did your guy say don't have unprotected anal sex or don't have anal sex at all?

She said the latter.

[The Minsky Moment]

By saying, "Smoking is bad because it kills", you're taking away the right of the individual to have their own opinion on it. Sure, most likely they're going to agree because most people agree that life is better than death. That doesn't change the fact that it assigns value and makes a judgment on the issue.

No - you are just relating a fact about smoking - that it kills while denoting that having that quality is negative.
One can still have the opinion that the benefits gained from smoking outweigh those negative qualities.  After all there are many things that have negative impact on health and yet many still think are worth doing - like driving cars, eating chips, or downhill skiing.

What you and garbon presumably find objectionable is that the information is presenting in a context that makes the statement seem judgmental and definitive.  Ie the statement you are objecting to is the unstated negative implication: " . . . and because smoking has no positive redeeming value, therefore you should not do it."  The value judgment arises from the context of the presentation not the statement itself.

[Neil]

Schools shouldn't be teaching that faggotry is acceptable because that's a lie.  Schools should strive to tell the students the truth, and should only do otherwise if there is a compelling societal interest in doing otherwise.  Not having Martinus' head smashed in with a thrown brick isn't a good enough reason.

[Josquius]

Middle school kids shouldn't be scewing each other anyway. They have the beginnings of their sexuality there but it isn't fully formed. A lot of what they get up to is just peer pressure enforced- they see older kids getting in relationships and having sex so decide to do the same despite it not really being what they entirely want.
So yeah. Staying in the closet in middle school seems pretty sane to me. Most kids remain pretty outwardly asexual at that time.
At high school though it should be fine to be what you are.

I'm sorry, but that's just plain assinine. You know that homosexuality is about a lot more than just having sex, right? Fuck, heterosexuality is about more than just having sex!

Middle School is when sex ed should be ending, not starting. By the time a kid is 11-12 years old and the hormones are raging, they should have a hell of a lot of information at their fingertips. Information about things like STDs, pregnancies, the emotional toll sex takes on a person, etc. Studies have shown that having that information helps them make the decision to hold off. The lack of education - or worse, teaching strictly abstention - results in a higher pregnancy rate and higher STD rate in kids of all age groups.

if you're doing sex ed wiith 12 year olds then that makes it all the more so that you shouldn't go too much into the sex side and kids shouldn't be declaring themself gay or straight.

and I dont know what you mean about it being more than sex. sex is central to what hetero/homo sexuality is about.

[Razgovory]

As I said before, would you say that "homosexuality is not a choice" is a moral judgement, too? As this is a scientific fact but some religious idiots do not accept it.

You mean "religious idiots" like the atheist People's Republic of China.  I'm sorry Marty but that isn't a "scientific fact", no matter what your body tells you.

[Ed Anger]

Breeders rule, gays drool!