Sex-Ed vs. Gay-Ed
Here's a controversial news link: Toronto schools are having a bit of debate about whether parents have a choice about their grade school children being taught about same-sex families in school. The one argument says that kindergarden and the youngest grades are being taught according to their age level and that this constitutes necessary anti-homophobia education. The other argument, mostly prominantly vocalized by Muslim parents, says that parents should have the right to excuse their children from these classes in the same way that they can excuse their children from sex-ed classes. Similar to the term sex-ed (for sexual education in physical education courses), these classes were labeled "gay-ed" in this article.
My parents took both approaches when it came to sex-ed classes for me and my siblings when we were growing up. For the first few years I was allowed to take the classes but my parents later decided that my younger siblings and I would not be allowed to do so. In either case my parents taught us about these issues as needed at home. It's a good thing, too, because I remember coming home one day as a grade-schooler and telling my mom that I had learned that a fetus was neither male or female but was only an "it." My mom promptly corrected that and explained to me that the fetus was a living child and was male or female, even if they were still too small to identify their gender. (Um, but not in those words since I just a kid.)
This article notes that one of the arguments against allowing children to be removed from gay-ed classes is that this sends a negative message to the other children about homosexuality. And yet, I faced ridicule whenever I was excused from sex-ed classes in school. In the end, I think that the decision about gay-ed classes should be left up the parents, in the same way that sex-ed classes are.
15 comments:
Hmm...as far as sex-ed goes, I think kids need it. At what age I'm not sure, but if their parents are pulling them out of classes then they better be prepared to show them how to put condoms on bananas too, or else send a strong message regarding abstinance.
Gay-ed? What exactly is gay-ed anyway? I mean kids already know from watching Burt & Ernie on Seasame Street what "Gay" is so I'm not sure what exactly they would teach. Perhaps gay-ed elements could be incorporated into sex-ed teaching since people should still use precautions in same-sex sexual relations as diseases can still be spread.
I don't see why parents are raising a fuss actually. Being gay is a part of our society, whether we morally agree with it or not, and we should accept it, like we should accept everyone no matter who they are. We are still free to choose whatever lifestyle and beliefs we have, but we shouldn't put blinders on our children to protect them...it just sounds a bit like discrimination or something.
Interesting topic, a bit of a touchy one though.
Cheers,
Yeah that's all fine and dandy to teach not to be hateful towards gays, but do we need to devote a class to it? The basic thing they want to get across is to accept gays for who they are right? Well we're to accept EVERYONE. So should we devote a whole class to educating children on hermaphrodites? Transvestites? Your religion? My religion? Bob's religion down the street? No. Kids should be taught not to discriminate in general. They don't need to add their own special class. No, I don't dislike homosexuals at all. Do I agree with their decision? No. But I don't agree with a lot of other people's decisions either.
Devote an entire class to this? I don't think so. Incorporating it into the already existing sex-ed seems a bit more reasonable. But yes, I say go ahead and teach about same-sex relations...it is always and forever the parents responsibility what their children are taught so they can either choose to teach it themselves (or not) or rely on the school system. But trust me, a kindergartener does not need to learn about different sexualities at such a young age - it's not age or developmentally appropriate. If for some reason, say a child in the class comes from a same-sex family then all that's necessary is for the teacher to simply accept this family much like s/he would do for any family. Special treatment is not required and may only further discrimination.
~ Laura
Premier Dalton McGuinty weighed in and said that parents should tolerate this kind of gay-ed. It was one of the lead articles on www.TheStar.com this morning.
Here's another perspective. I'm not saying I fully agree with it, I'm just tossing it out there as food for thought.
Don't any of you remember how rampant grade schools are with shouts of "You %*#@ fag!" (oooh, censorship!)? Think back, people. Back to a time when homosexuality wasn't a vague moral issue, but to a time when accusations of homosexuality were like being called a communist by Joseph McCarthy.
How many gays spend their teen years rejected by everyone around them, including their parents?
Is it really so terrible to suggest to kids that it's a bad thing that gay kids lead such horrible lives?
Re: "Is it really so terrible to suggest to kids that it's a bad thing that gay kids lead such horrible lives?"
I think the times have changed Mike. People are gay, and it's pretty much accepted. There's not as much teasing anymore. I think people are happy finding their true partners in life, same sex or opposite sex.
I'm still wondering exactly what gay-ed is though, is it like teaching kids that being black is okay and that we treat everyone equally or what?
Cheers,
aka Mike.
Do you really think so? Our high school is only 6-7 years behind us, and homosexuality was about the worst accuastion possible. Have things really changed that much in 7 years?
And if things have changed, what is the reason?
Is it because we're teaching young people to tolerate homosexuals?
Somehow, I doubt "love the sinner, hate the sin" has anything to do with this alledged upgrade in the status of gays.
I think that being gay was accepted while we were in high school. In fact there was one popular guy who came out in his senior year and he still has all the friends he had in high school.
I'm not sure about the whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" way of thinking. Sins are often looked at subjectively. Anyways we shouldn't go around all day telling people what their sins are...we have to let them decide for themselves. We should just accept everyone as they are I suppose...
Cheers,
I had a discussion with a Christian guy in my cell group last week. He has a gay classmate that he has been talking to about God this year. To theorize about this and that is fine, but to see how it plays out in real life is where all this talk actually means something.
And to clarify, I think the primary Christian principles are to "Love God" and "Love others." "Love the sinner, hate the sin" isn't the guiding principle. Love is.
*just wondering*
Why was he talking to the gay guy about God?
Was he trying to show him that God loves everyone no matter what, or showing him that it says in the bible "God hates homosexuality"...
I know I have different beliefs about God than most of the people reading this blog, but I somehow believe that God can be happy with people who are gay. Like I said, we all have to decide for ourselves what we believe sins are according to our own understanding of God/the bible.
Cheers,
When my friend has discussed God with this other guy, it was in the hopes that he would eventually commit his life to God, and he said that in so many words. The issue of homosexuality wasn't directly addressed, the fact that he wasn't a Christian was addressed in a friendly manner.
It's a different kind of conversation when I discuss this question with you, Amanda, because you're a Christian. I would refer you to 1 Corinthians 6:9, although there are many other verses that directly refer to the issue of homosexuality. Remember, homosexuality was quite prevalent during various Biblical periods.
Hey Jamie,
Well, perhaps I should clear something up. I'm a very spiritual person and I believe in a God. Who or what that God is I'm not sure of sometimes.
There are a lot of issues in the bible that I don't agree with, but I still beleive in God. I suppose I'm at a point where I have to question if the bible is really God speaking to us, or us trying to decipher what we think God would want us to hear.
It's nice that your friend had a convo about God and not the issue of homosexuality. Ultimately God is the more important subject.
Cheers,
I'm inclined to view traditional Christian beliefs on homosexuality with less and less respect, for two reasons.
First, Christians rarely even attempt to justify saying that homosexuality is wrong with anything other than a Bible verse. There are exactly zero reasons for saying it is harmful to anyone involved directly or peripherally, and Christians seem to understand this.
I also don't think Christians are honest when they apply specific verses to the issue. More liberal readings of the Bible discuss the direct references to homosexuality (what tiny few of them there are) in terms of language and culture. For example, they would argue that Paul's primary concern was pederasty - men with boys.
I know that the traditional Christians who read this will dismiss that argument as an attempt to dismiss Biblical truth, but remember this: traditional Christians use IDENTICAL reasoning and arguments when they dismiss Paul's commands against women speaking in church.
Basically, traditional Christians try to have their cake and eat it too. Women can talk in church despite an explict and direct command not to, but homosexuality is still a strict abomination?
What I'd like Christians to understand here is, it's not really an, issue worth picking a fight over. Don't split your church if a pastor turns out to be gay. Don't waste your time picketting gay marriage. Don't tell anyone to "pray out the gay".
Unless, of course, you make sure women stay silent while inside church.
Thanks Mike,
I think I take a more liberal view of the bible. There are so many ways that the bible can be interpreted and it makes it confusing if you try to follow every single rule that it says, ie: women silent in church. I think we have to apply what we can to the this day and age. Also makes more logical sense that way too.
Homosexuality can be a touchy subject for sure, but I don't think we should avoid it. Our society has changed somewhat, and that's the way it is.
Cheers,
Post a Comment