Frustrating fact...

[Hosscrazy]

Barnbum - as an educator, what is your opinion about the new California law requiring public schools (in California) to teach gay and lesbian history? Do you think this will lead to wider acceptance and do you thing other states will follow?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/us/15gay.html

Liz N.

 

[KanoasDestiny]

As an educator in California, I can answer your question. Truthfully, I don't believe many other states will follow suit. Like stated previously, I do support gay marriage. I do not however support this new law. I do not believe that education should be taught to our students centering on who people chose to sleep with. Granted if they are gay, then sure mention their partner, but why do the textbooks have to point out that someone is gay or straight? What does it matter? Was the person only important because they were gay or straight? For an example, when a president is discussed, their spouse may be mentioned, but the spouse doesnt really play a part in what they accomplished in their presidency. Since when is our character or importance to society based on our personal love for someone? I do however feel that homosexuality should be discussed in health classes and sex ed.

 

[KanoasDestiny]

Oops, my phone deleted half of my message. I know this law is going to get a lot of criticism from parents. I think it will be the parents in other states, not to mention the teachers, who will prevent this law from going countrywide. I think whether or not it leads to more acceptance depends on how detailed the textbooks get. My fear is that students will see this as a opportunity to come out, and if society doesn't embrace it as becoming more tolerant, it can lead to more violence and bullying.

 

[barnbum]

I honestly don't think it's a teachers job to 'teach lifestyles'..yes they are there to ensure kids don't bully, etc in these situations...but it's not a teachers job to teach morals or acceptance...that should be taught at home. Just my opinion.

Agreed! If lifestyles comes up in a story/book we read--it'll be discussed. I won't bring it up on its own.

There are many many lessons we touch on--such as it's not our job to be born expecting lots--a "gimme gimme" attitude, but it is our job to do what we can to make life easier for anyone around us--to make their walk more pleasant. A big ole smile is a great place to start.

I teach that life is all about the salt as well as the sugar--and if one's life were all sugar--he/she would not be a very strong person. The cake won't turn out well unless all the ingredients are there--the great and the gross. We say things like "What a salty morning I had!"

I teach that random acts of kindness have amazing results.

I model spending life doing something other than watching TV--many catch on to that every year! One girl said a few weeks ago "Mrs. Santoro! I haven't watched TV for a week!"

I model lifelong learning, keeping active and healthy.

We apply the 7 Habits.

AND my class has amazing test score results. One example: last year the 5th grade average of passing the state math test was 72%; my students scored a 92% and I did not have the top math group or even a high cluster. ELA was just as sweet.

They love me, they trust me, they learn. Simple equation.

 

[barnbum]

As an educator in California, I can answer your question. Truthfully, I don't believe many other states will follow suit. Like stated previously, I do support gay marriage. I do not however support this new law. I do not believe that education should be taught to our students centering on who people chose to sleep with. Granted if they are gay, then sure mention their partner, but why do the textbooks have to point out that someone is gay or straight? What does it matter? Was the person only important because they were gay or straight? For an example, when a president is discussed, their spouse may be mentioned, but the spouse doesnt really play a part in what they accomplished in their presidency. Since when is our character or importance to society based on our personal love for someone? I do however feel that homosexuality should be discussed in health classes and sex ed.

I agree with all of that! Well--not the gay marriage support part, but some kind of legal rights, yes.

Teachers won't tolerate being forced to teach something they don't believe should be their responsibility. But I could see a high school offering an elective on the topic. There's be issues that came with it though--protests and unwelcome attention. It's a more appropriate topic for college...an elective.

 

[Higgs Boson]

I honestly don't think it's a teachers job to 'teach lifestyles'..yes they are there to ensure kids don't bully, etc in these situations...but it's not a teachers job to teach morals or acceptance...that should be taught at home. Just my opinion.

 

[vickie gee]

Oh, I see you are back Higgs. I was getting concerned that a missing person's report would have to be filed.

I can just see it now: SEX: male or female: yes

hair: possibly

other characteristics: well-versed, articulate, mysterious, imaginative, clever, and witty

While I have chosen not to enter my two cents worth on this thread I must say Higgs that you make interesting.

 

[alongman]

But acceptance of ALL lifestyles is learned in the classroom as well - if something is taught in the schools (not necessarily a class), it can be enforced at home.

 

[Sonya]

I think it should be the other way around ...learned at home and enforced in the class...I don't have children but I know one thing if I did I wouldnt want the govt (public school system) raising my kid. And too many people expect (and want for some unknown reason) that.

 

[barnbum]

But acceptance of ALL lifestyles is learned in the classroom as well - if something is taught in the schools (not necessarily a class), it can be enforced at home.

It's not taught--it's modeled in every single classroom as the teacher builds a community of learners.

Honestly--as a teacher I want to teach--academics! Teachers are evaluated on the scores their students achieve on state tests. Higher scores--that's my job. Of course the character lessons/modeling is part of the package, but dang it--if parents would do their job better I could fit in more writing and math!

 

[Sonya]

Well said barnbum....teacher=teach, it doesnt mean babysitter /nanny.

 

[Higgs Boson]

If I wanted my children to have my values reinforced then I'd enroll them in a private school that was in line with them. I would NOT want the public school system even attempting to force their values on my child. School is for academics and not for teaching anything else unless it's a private school and I have the option of choosing.

 

[Mona]

If I wanted my children to have my values reinforced then I'd enroll them in a private school that was in line with them. I would NOT want the public school system even attempting to force their values on my child. School is for academics and not for teaching anything else unless it's a private school and I have the option of choosing.

Well, the way it stands already in schools, at least here in Canada, sex education is being taught in schools and I would not consider that to be an academic subject. AND, it is now being started younger and younger! So Higgs, do you have children, and if so, are they/have they been educated in a private school?

 

[LindaL]

How did this become a debate on education??? lol

 

[andi]

I think Jill had it right at the very beginning. The government should have no involvement in legalizing or regulating any religious ceremony or passage. I myself though don't see the term "marriage" as an exclusively religious word that ANYONE can claim ownership of or insist on its definition. Heck, I have married quite a few Ketchup bottles, some that weren't even the same brand.

The government has the responsibility to honor and protect the rights of all its citizens equally. If a religious group has to insist that Marriage is theirs to define and control, then fine, take it, it shouldn't need the governments’ involvement. But sorry, if you want the government to give you something, it needs to be available to everyone.

BTW, I know it has become more and more "acceptable" to use the term, but it is NOT a lifestyle. Lifestyle is defined as, "the habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic level, etc., that together constitute the mode of living of an individual or group." These things are all CHOICES and able to be changed, you choose your lifestyle. You certainly don't get a choice beforehand and can't change being gay.

 

[LindaL]

BTW, I know it has become more and more "acceptable" to use the term, but it is NOT a lifestyle. Lifestyle is defined as, "the habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic level, etc., that together constitute the mode of living of an individual or group." These things are all CHOICES and able to be changed, you choose your lifestyle. You certainly don't get a choice beforehand and can't change being gay.

You are correct James in the meaning of lifestyle. I do however use that term because as you said, it has become acceptable to do so in the way people mean it. My lifestyle (gay) is not a choice by definition, but my lifestyle IS the way I live...out and proud.

Even tho Deb and I are not "legally" married, we did sign a domestic partnership in Oregon and we had a commitment ceremony on the beach...In our eyes and our hearts we are as married as anyone with a legal document that says they are (in a lot of cases even more so). We call each other "wife" (sometimes "partner" depending on who we are talking to). No one can tell us that we are not "married" because that term means "COMMITTED" and we are that!

 

[Higgs Boson]

I think Jill had it right at the very beginning. The government should have no involvement in legalizing or regulating any religious ceremony or passage.

If marriage was a government only institution then all rights would belong to all parties. When religion is involved it's bible-based based on gods teachings and that's why we have the situation we have today with gay marriage. As I've said before god is against homosexuality that's pretty clearly written in the bible. Any gay rights initiatives trying to get onto the books have to run the gauntlet of an ever increasing religious right.

So Higgs, do you have children, and if so, are they/have they been educated in a private school?

Yes / Yes

 

[andi]

I never said that Marriage was a government only institution, but made the point that is also not a religion only institution.

I don't disagree that the religious right see this as a religious issue, and that they make up the majority of opposition against it.

I wish that people would understand that how strongly you believe something, right or wrong, has no bearing on if the government should pass laws to support it or enforce it on others. Nobody should have to "run the gauntlet" to stop others beliefs from limiting their rights. I support/believe in charity work, as do most, but does that mean that I should vote to force everyone else too?

 

[Mona]

I wish that people would understand that how strongly you believe something, right or wrong, has no bearing on if the government should pass laws to support it or enforce it on others. Nobody should have to "run the gauntlet" to stop others beliefs from limiting their rights. I support/believe in charity work, as do most, but does that mean that I should vote to force everyone else too?

James, and anyone else reading, before I say what I am about to, I want to make it VERY CLEAR that I am a strong supporter of Gay Rights!! I DO think that gay marriages should have all the same rights as straight marriages and also understand you are born that way, and that it is not a choice.

 

This said however, I need to question what you have just written James. The way I am reading it, it sounds like you are saying that it is wrong for the goverment to make laws that would stop people from doing anything the support/believe in. However, this cannot be the way to work it, otherwise there are plenty of criminals, murderers, child mollesters etc. that can all make claim to strongly supporting/believing in what they do, and this does not make what they do acceptable....TOTALLY WRONG and laws ARE needed for that. (and believe me, I am NOT comparing being gay to these scumbags!) We DO need laws, and with the way you are wording it, that could pretty much take in anything and everything.

I know you are going to say..."Well that is different"...we are not breaking any laws with our being gay or straight, which is totally true, but if the laws were never made by government in the first place (as it sounds like you are saying) making all those things illegal, they could say the same thing, that is is OK to do those things because the government has no right to stop people from doing anything they believe in or strongly support.. So I DO think the government needs to make laws, contrary to people's beliefs, but they should not be able to govern people's personal life decisions when they are not adversely affecting anyone else! I even hate to use that term "personal life decsions", because I also understand it is not a choice.

I totally understand what you are trying to say, but your comparison just doesn't work for me. In this quote, " I support/believe in charity work, as do most, but does that mean that I should vote to force everyone else too?" you are stating an example that is a personal choice that is not harming anyone. I know being gay is also not harming anyone. What I am trying to say, is the charity work example is a choice...that is your decision. Being gay is not a decision...you are born that way.

 

[andi]

No Offence at all Mona. I believe I meant the exact opposite, but obviously that is open for interpretation or misinterpretation. I might have used a double negative or something. LOL

My point was it is wrong for the government to pass laws enforcing or supporting people's beliefs. They SHOULD pass laws to protect us from our rights being taken away by others beliefs. The Criminals you mentioned have beliefs that directly harm us all and take away our rights, so there are laws against them and there should be.

I actually think you understood my point about a law forcing charity. It is a choice, that we all have the right to make, just like whether or not we support gay marriage. These choices and beliefs do not take away any ones rights, unless the government gets involved and tries to force them on others.

Edited to Add: I'm not sure if I made that any clearer