Full Version: Same-Sex Marriage Debate
QUOTE
CNSNews.com) - All eyes are on Massachusetts this week as the state Legislature prepares to address the question of same-sex marriage. But even outside the State House in Boston, public schools across the country are being encouraged to debate the issue in their classrooms.
Teachers now have an easily accessible "curriculum guide" at their disposal. The six-point lesson plan is the work of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, which advocates an end to what it considers an anti-homosexual bias in schools.
Same-Sex Marriage Debate Moves Into Schools
Teachers now have an easily accessible "curriculum guide" at their disposal. The six-point lesson plan is the work of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, which advocates an end to what it considers an anti-homosexual bias in schools.
Same-Sex Marriage Debate Moves Into Schools
The lessons include:
Lesson 1: What Is Marriage For?
Lesson 2: The Rights of Civil Marriage
Lesson 3: Winning the Right to Marry--Historical Parallels
Lesson 4: The Notion of Influence
Lesson 5: A Spiritual Contract: Religious Unions and the Marriage Debate
Lesson 6: Maybe Marriage? Massachusetts Impending Marriage Legislation
The GLSEN cirriculum contains a wealth of excellent information. I personally believe it's a great idea to discuss this topic in social studies courses and government classes now that the amendment issue has been raised. But, what do you think?
Should teachers discuss the same-sex marriage issue with their students in public high school classrooms?
I think if it is included in a curriculum that shows both sides of the issue (even though I personally hate the opposite side on this one) and allows for critical thinking skills to evaluate one's position, then by all mean, yes!
I think it's an important learning activity to see the issue from both sides. It's also very relevant to current events.
I think it's an important learning activity to see the issue from both sides. It's also very relevant to current events.
Should teachers discuss the same-sex marriage issue with their students in public high school classrooms?
Wow! I read the curriculum guide, It's GREAT! AD goes to the schools! What a wonderful exercise in our living constitution. Waite I want to be a student!
The kids are going to walk away from this with an understanding of our system of government that took me most of my adult life to grasp. We do live in interesting times....
Wow! I read the curriculum guide, It's GREAT! AD goes to the schools! What a wonderful exercise in our living constitution. Waite I want to be a student!
The kids are going to walk away from this with an understanding of our system of government that took me most of my adult life to grasp. We do live in interesting times....
I think it is a great idea... and should be encouraged in courses that are discussing current events especially. I can't imagine why someone should be against this - as long as the teacher is halfway decent, it should be a good debate for the students. And besides, by the time the kids are in high school, its not like they aren't exposed to the ideas of different sexual orientations and/or identities (they just have to turn on the TV). My high school and my sisters (2 different schools) both had the Straight, Gay and Lesbian Alliance - basically a club for anyone who's purpose was to promote understanding and non-discrimination - so if the kids are even organized to start discussing the issue outside of class, the teachers might as well turn it into a good exercise in critical thinking and understanding historical application to the present as well as a good civics lesson.
I'm all for this kind of thing in schools. If teachers and schools would do this for more issues, we might actually have a population that cares about politics and exercises their political power appropriately.
I think that this kind of thing also encourages students to think for themselves instead of simply accepting the status quo. I am definitely all for that because I feel we have far too many people who are afraid or unwilling to think for themselves.
I think that this kind of thing also encourages students to think for themselves instead of simply accepting the status quo. I am definitely all for that because I feel we have far too many people who are afraid or unwilling to think for themselves.
I would agree that this is a good chance to show the students our government at work relating to a very current and hot topic and be able to make up their minds for themselves. As well as discussing other current issues relating to politics I would incourage in a social studies type of class.
I think that both sides of the issue should work together on the brochure/curriculum. The teacher guide shouldn't be put together only by Gay Rights people. The guide should also include input from the opposite side.
Of course I have my own motives for wanting the discriminatory point of view presented by the discriminators. The discriminators usually don't make sense to idealistic young people. And those young people who come from a family of discriminators would for once be the outcasts, the minority, the ones facing peer pressure to look at the facts instead of perpetuating the brainwashing they received growing up.
Of course I have my own motives for wanting the discriminatory point of view presented by the discriminators. The discriminators usually don't make sense to idealistic young people. And those young people who come from a family of discriminators would for once be the outcasts, the minority, the ones facing peer pressure to look at the facts instead of perpetuating the brainwashing they received growing up.
I would agree with you perspective I forgot to mention in the discussions there should be both sides of the issues.
Should teachers discuss the same-sex marriage issue with their students in public high school classrooms?
I wouldn't be opposed to it since its an important issue, however, I would just want students to consider if same-sex marriage is a contradiction in terms. First of all, the word sex literally means 'differance'. If you don't believe that just check the etymology. So for one thing what people of the same sex do is not even sex. Marriage has allways and will allways be by definition between a man and a woman because that is the only way that pro-creation happens in nature and that union is what the word marriage means.
Not to get too far off topic I wonder if we should consider if the marriage certificates being issued are even worth the paper they are written on. Terms like marriage and sex have no real meaning in these gay unions. Don't get me wrong, I know that they have committed serious relationships from time to time but its nothing reomotely simular to a marriage.
Discuss it in the context of public education? Yes. Promote it as if it were anything other then a distortion of what marriage is supposed to be is a big mistake.
I wouldn't be opposed to it since its an important issue, however, I would just want students to consider if same-sex marriage is a contradiction in terms. First of all, the word sex literally means 'differance'. If you don't believe that just check the etymology. So for one thing what people of the same sex do is not even sex. Marriage has allways and will allways be by definition between a man and a woman because that is the only way that pro-creation happens in nature and that union is what the word marriage means.
Not to get too far off topic I wonder if we should consider if the marriage certificates being issued are even worth the paper they are written on. Terms like marriage and sex have no real meaning in these gay unions. Don't get me wrong, I know that they have committed serious relationships from time to time but its nothing reomotely simular to a marriage.
Discuss it in the context of public education? Yes. Promote it as if it were anything other then a distortion of what marriage is supposed to be is a big mistake.
Should teachers discuss the same-sex marriage issue with their students in public high school classrooms?
I suppose so - though I would have serious reservations. It is inevitable in any school with a decent civics curriculum or any class in which current events are discussed that this issue will come up. Not every school, though, is blessed with a Gay/Straight Alliance - and I wouldn't count on that many having the "halfway decent" teachers that rebelkate imagines. My fear is that such discussions are far more likely to underscore the prejudices inherent in the community and, especially, among teachers themselves.
If some of the people I've seen posting to threads here on homosexuality had been my teachers in high school (and some of them are certainly literate enough) and were teaching the opinions they've expressed here, I may well have killed myself by the time I was sixteen. Indeed, as homosexuality is among the contributing factors to teen suicide (the third leading cause of death among teens) - estimated to account for up to 50% of suicide attempts among teen-aged males - I fear that such a discussion in the wrong hands could just exacerbate the problem.
The opinions - and prejudices - of role models like teachers can have a great impact on teens. Thius impact can be very positive - and it can be terminally damaging. As homosexuality is already stigmatized by society, do we need to add such stigma to the curriculum itself? There is no guarantee that the prejudices of the individual teacher will be kept out of the classroom and, depending on the level of that prejudice, it could do untold damage.
For example:
This is full of misinformation - and could well reflect the feelings of some teachers. First of all, off the top of my head, the English word "sex" is derived from the Old French "sexe", from the Latin "sexus" or "secus", the noun form of the infinitive "secare", meaning "to cut" or "to divide". The origin of the English word was in the "division" of living things into two types. Etymologically, there is no implication regarding how living things, so divided, should bring themselves or each other to orgasm. Nor is there anything implied about marriage - on any level whatsoever - in the definition or etymology of the word "sex".
Second, marriage in much of the west has usually - though far from always - referred to opposite sex unions, but the notion that this will "allways [sic] be by definition between a man and a woman" is demonstrably wrong. As has already been pointed out elsewhere, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language already includes in its definition of the word "marriage" this: "union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage". And Merriam-Webster already includes in its definition of the word "marriage" this: "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage". I guess "allways" ended a bit sooner than some of us expected.
Third, using the argument from nature (in which homosexuality is gloriously rampant) is patently absurd. It need hardly be pointed out that, in nature, marriage is non-existent - and even monogamy is rare.
Were this contributor a teacher, would we want such prejudiced misinformation being passed on to students in the guise of "education" - especially to students who may be so depressed by societal, familial, and peer stigmatization or so confused by the emergence of their inborn sexual desires that they may already be contemplating suicide? I sure as hell wouldn't.
Following a completely irrelevant digression (Note: If one must preface a thought with "Not to get too far off topic..." one might wish to consider posting to a different thread), this contributor concludes:
The operative word here is "supposed". Yes, indeed: "supposed" by some. But if that supposition is the prerequisite to what should be an objective discussion, the purpose of "discussion" is defeated before it takes place.
Suppose that the person responsible for leading such a supposed discussion before impressionable young people were prone to the sort of suppositions supposed by the participant quoted above. As a student, would you want such a teacher leading the discussion with such "supposed" presumptions? I would long since have been a drop-out. As parents, would you want your child to be subjected to such suppositions masquerading as facts? I'd be home-schooling within seconds.
Unless and until there is some guarantee that such discussions can be conducted in an objective fashion, examining all sides without prejudice, I think they should be approached with a lot of caution - if at all.
I suppose so - though I would have serious reservations. It is inevitable in any school with a decent civics curriculum or any class in which current events are discussed that this issue will come up. Not every school, though, is blessed with a Gay/Straight Alliance - and I wouldn't count on that many having the "halfway decent" teachers that rebelkate imagines. My fear is that such discussions are far more likely to underscore the prejudices inherent in the community and, especially, among teachers themselves.
If some of the people I've seen posting to threads here on homosexuality had been my teachers in high school (and some of them are certainly literate enough) and were teaching the opinions they've expressed here, I may well have killed myself by the time I was sixteen. Indeed, as homosexuality is among the contributing factors to teen suicide (the third leading cause of death among teens) - estimated to account for up to 50% of suicide attempts among teen-aged males - I fear that such a discussion in the wrong hands could just exacerbate the problem.
The opinions - and prejudices - of role models like teachers can have a great impact on teens. Thius impact can be very positive - and it can be terminally damaging. As homosexuality is already stigmatized by society, do we need to add such stigma to the curriculum itself? There is no guarantee that the prejudices of the individual teacher will be kept out of the classroom and, depending on the level of that prejudice, it could do untold damage.
For example:
QUOTE(phaedrus @ Mar 4 2004, 12:05 PM)
I wouldn't be opposed to it since its an important issue, however, I would just want students to consider if same-sex marriage is a contradiction in terms. First of all, the word sex literally means 'differance'. If you don't believe that just check the etymology. So for one thing what people of the same sex do is not even sex. Marriage has allways and will allways be by definition between a man and a woman because that is the only way that pro-creation happens in nature and that union is what the word marriage means.
This is full of misinformation - and could well reflect the feelings of some teachers. First of all, off the top of my head, the English word "sex" is derived from the Old French "sexe", from the Latin "sexus" or "secus", the noun form of the infinitive "secare", meaning "to cut" or "to divide". The origin of the English word was in the "division" of living things into two types. Etymologically, there is no implication regarding how living things, so divided, should bring themselves or each other to orgasm. Nor is there anything implied about marriage - on any level whatsoever - in the definition or etymology of the word "sex".
Second, marriage in much of the west has usually - though far from always - referred to opposite sex unions, but the notion that this will "allways [sic] be by definition between a man and a woman" is demonstrably wrong. As has already been pointed out elsewhere, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language already includes in its definition of the word "marriage" this: "union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage". And Merriam-Webster already includes in its definition of the word "marriage" this: "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage". I guess "allways" ended a bit sooner than some of us expected.
Third, using the argument from nature (in which homosexuality is gloriously rampant) is patently absurd. It need hardly be pointed out that, in nature, marriage is non-existent - and even monogamy is rare.
Were this contributor a teacher, would we want such prejudiced misinformation being passed on to students in the guise of "education" - especially to students who may be so depressed by societal, familial, and peer stigmatization or so confused by the emergence of their inborn sexual desires that they may already be contemplating suicide? I sure as hell wouldn't.
Following a completely irrelevant digression (Note: If one must preface a thought with "Not to get too far off topic..." one might wish to consider posting to a different thread), this contributor concludes:
QUOTE
Discuss it in the context of public education? Yes. Promote it as if it were anything other then [sic] a distortion of what marriage is supposed to be is a big mistake.
The operative word here is "supposed". Yes, indeed: "supposed" by some. But if that supposition is the prerequisite to what should be an objective discussion, the purpose of "discussion" is defeated before it takes place.
Suppose that the person responsible for leading such a supposed discussion before impressionable young people were prone to the sort of suppositions supposed by the participant quoted above. As a student, would you want such a teacher leading the discussion with such "supposed" presumptions? I would long since have been a drop-out. As parents, would you want your child to be subjected to such suppositions masquerading as facts? I'd be home-schooling within seconds.
Unless and until there is some guarantee that such discussions can be conducted in an objective fashion, examining all sides without prejudice, I think they should be approached with a lot of caution - if at all.
Wertz This is by far the nicest way anyone ever told me I'm full of it:
I have no idea what you are trying to say here except that my statement concerning sex literally meaning 'difference' and marriage being based on the sexual union is wrong . Lets try a dictionary definition:
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
My main point was that homosexual is a contradiction in terms since the first part means 'same' and the second part means 'difference'. The one thing that gay unions cannot produce is children which is what 'sex' does in nature. Therefore what gay couples do is not even sex. Also one of the most often made points in the legal debates is that marriage is by definition between a man and a woman. This is not a prejudiced opinion, this is how it has been defined legally and biologically.
Now let me see if I am following your line of reasoning. If we teach kids that sex and marriage is between a man and a woman and what goes on between gay couples is something else, then it might tend to make them more suicidal. I really must of missed something here. I understand that often suicide is brought on by guilt. But lets consider if the cause of guilt is due to prejudice against gays thrust upon them or an absense of moral direction resulting in wrong behavior? Dosen't it make more sense to offer then a clear distinction between the natural use of the body and an alternative lifestyle like gay unions? Would such an approach create suicidal guilt or help to avoid it? You might want to think about that one because telling them they have no choice in whether or not they are gay is bogus.
Marriage has allways been and will allways be between a man and a woman. Mind you, this line of reasoning did not originate with me, it has been argued before the Supreme Court, who, by the way is barred from judging on matters of conscience. When they struck down the sodomy laws it was a privacy issue, sex and marriage was still understood to be between a man and a woman.
As far as marriage being based on the sexual union I find this impossible to reconcile to time tested principles in our common law. For instance impotence is often grounds for divorce and failure to consumate the marriage sexually is grounds for annulment. The only reason I would not want this issue addressed by the public schools is because of the prejudice that allready exists against traditional Judeo-Christian values and time tested common law principles would be diminished if not ignored entirely.
QUOTE
There is no guarantee that the prejudices of the individual teacher will be kept out of the classroom and, depending on the level of that prejudice, it could do untold damage...This is full of misinformation - and could well reflect the feelings of some teachers... The origin of the English word was in the "division" of living things into two types. Etymologically, there is no implication regarding how living things, so divided, should bring themselves or each other to orgasm. Nor is there anything implied about marriage - on any level whatsoever - in the definition or etymology of the word "sex".
I have no idea what you are trying to say here except that my statement concerning sex literally meaning 'difference' and marriage being based on the sexual union is wrong . Lets try a dictionary definition:
QUOTE
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin sexus
1 : either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male
2 : the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of living things that are involved in reproduction by two interacting parents and that distinguish males and females
1 : either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male
2 : the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of living things that are involved in reproduction by two interacting parents and that distinguish males and females
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
My main point was that homosexual is a contradiction in terms since the first part means 'same' and the second part means 'difference'. The one thing that gay unions cannot produce is children which is what 'sex' does in nature. Therefore what gay couples do is not even sex. Also one of the most often made points in the legal debates is that marriage is by definition between a man and a woman. This is not a prejudiced opinion, this is how it has been defined legally and biologically.
Now let me see if I am following your line of reasoning. If we teach kids that sex and marriage is between a man and a woman and what goes on between gay couples is something else, then it might tend to make them more suicidal. I really must of missed something here. I understand that often suicide is brought on by guilt. But lets consider if the cause of guilt is due to prejudice against gays thrust upon them or an absense of moral direction resulting in wrong behavior? Dosen't it make more sense to offer then a clear distinction between the natural use of the body and an alternative lifestyle like gay unions? Would such an approach create suicidal guilt or help to avoid it? You might want to think about that one because telling them they have no choice in whether or not they are gay is bogus.
Marriage has allways been and will allways be between a man and a woman. Mind you, this line of reasoning did not originate with me, it has been argued before the Supreme Court, who, by the way is barred from judging on matters of conscience. When they struck down the sodomy laws it was a privacy issue, sex and marriage was still understood to be between a man and a woman.
As far as marriage being based on the sexual union I find this impossible to reconcile to time tested principles in our common law. For instance impotence is often grounds for divorce and failure to consumate the marriage sexually is grounds for annulment. The only reason I would not want this issue addressed by the public schools is because of the prejudice that allready exists against traditional Judeo-Christian values and time tested common law principles would be diminished if not ignored entirely.
The question of what "should" be taught in mandatory public education depends upon several other questions.
1. What does the law say?
2. What does the community say?
3. What do the parents say?
The subject is irrelevant. Whether it be homosexual relationships, exterior commode manufacturing design, or maths, a school's curriculum must first take into account the laws regarding educational requirements. Community involvement with the curriculum is also warranted because the community essentially funds the school, thus community values must be given priority over the parents' wishes. And finally parents can be given a voice due to both their membership in the community, as well as being responsible for the upbringing of their children.
I would hasten to add that what the parents want would be considered paramount in an ideal situation, but public education is not an ideal situation for parents. If it is a public school, then the community values should be given priority over the parents' wishes because the community pays for the education of the community's youth.
1. What does the law say?
2. What does the community say?
3. What do the parents say?
The subject is irrelevant. Whether it be homosexual relationships, exterior commode manufacturing design, or maths, a school's curriculum must first take into account the laws regarding educational requirements. Community involvement with the curriculum is also warranted because the community essentially funds the school, thus community values must be given priority over the parents' wishes. And finally parents can be given a voice due to both their membership in the community, as well as being responsible for the upbringing of their children.
I would hasten to add that what the parents want would be considered paramount in an ideal situation, but public education is not an ideal situation for parents. If it is a public school, then the community values should be given priority over the parents' wishes because the community pays for the education of the community's youth.
QUOTE(Beladonna @ Mar 3 2004, 06:00 PM)
Should teachers discuss the same-sex marriage issue with their students in public high school classrooms?
I would most emphatically say-YES!! How can you not talk about such an issue in a current events or other social studies class? Of course, you can't have a teacher who "preaches" a certain "message" to students, but if the kids don't learn hwo to disagree and formulate opinions for themselves by airing out controversy, then when will they??
QUOTE(phaedrus @ Mar 5 2004, 07:47 AM)
I have no idea what you are trying to say here except that my statement concerning sex literally meaning 'difference' and marriage being based on the sexual union is wrong . Lets try a dictionary definition:
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
My main point was that homosexual is a contradiction in terms since the first part means 'same' and the second part means 'difference'. The one thing that gay unions cannot produce is children which is what 'sex' does in nature. Therefore what gay couples do is not even sex. Also one of the most often made points in the legal debates is that marriage is by definition between a man and a woman. This is not a prejudiced opinion, this is how it has been defined legally and biologically.
Now let me see if I am following your line of reasoning. If we teach kids that sex and marriage is between a man and a woman and what goes on between gay couples is something else, then it might tend to make them more suicidal. I really must of missed something here. I understand that often suicide is brought on by guilt. But lets consider if the cause of guilt is due to prejudice against gays thrust upon them or an absense of moral direction resulting in wrong behavior? Dosen't it make more sense to offer then a clear distinction between the natural use of the body and an alternative lifestyle like gay unions? Would such an approach create suicidal guilt or help to avoid it? You might want to think about that one because telling them they have no choice in whether or not they are gay is bogus.
Marriage has allways been and will allways be between a man and a woman. Mind you, this line of reasoning did not originate with me, it has been argued before the Supreme Court, who, by the way is barred from judging on matters of conscience. When they struck down the sodomy laws it was a privacy issue, sex and marriage was still understood to be between a man and a woman.
QUOTE
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin sexus
1 : either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male
2 : the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of living things that are involved in reproduction by two interacting parents and that distinguish males and females
1 : either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male
2 : the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of living things that are involved in reproduction by two interacting parents and that distinguish males and females
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
My main point was that homosexual is a contradiction in terms since the first part means 'same' and the second part means 'difference'. The one thing that gay unions cannot produce is children which is what 'sex' does in nature. Therefore what gay couples do is not even sex. Also one of the most often made points in the legal debates is that marriage is by definition between a man and a woman. This is not a prejudiced opinion, this is how it has been defined legally and biologically.
Now let me see if I am following your line of reasoning. If we teach kids that sex and marriage is between a man and a woman and what goes on between gay couples is something else, then it might tend to make them more suicidal. I really must of missed something here. I understand that often suicide is brought on by guilt. But lets consider if the cause of guilt is due to prejudice against gays thrust upon them or an absense of moral direction resulting in wrong behavior? Dosen't it make more sense to offer then a clear distinction between the natural use of the body and an alternative lifestyle like gay unions? Would such an approach create suicidal guilt or help to avoid it? You might want to think about that one because telling them they have no choice in whether or not they are gay is bogus.
Marriage has allways been and will allways be between a man and a woman. Mind you, this line of reasoning did not originate with me, it has been argued before the Supreme Court, who, by the way is barred from judging on matters of conscience. When they struck down the sodomy laws it was a privacy issue, sex and marriage was still understood to be between a man and a woman.
Where to begin...
Okay, how about that Merriam-Webster definition. As long as you're going to play that game, you might want to look up "marriage" on m-w.com. (emphasis added)
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
What gay couples do is not sex? Yes it is. It's just not sexual intercourse. I will not go into further detail unless you ask.
No, if you teach children that sex and marriage is between a man and a woman, it will not DIRECTLY lead to them being suicidal. But basically you're telling them that what they are doing is wrong because it doesn't fit the norm. Yes, guilt. Making them feel that what they are doing is unnatural and wrong, makes them feel guilt. You are making your argument seem that it is RIGHT to tell them they're going in the wrong "moral direction." And telling them they have no choice whether they are gay or not is NOT bogus. It's true. Honestly, you can't think that people choose to be homosexual. "Little Jenny, you aren't really a lesbian. It's unnatural and wrong. I know you CHOSE to be one, because you like being ridiculed and harped on for being 'immoral.'"
Always.
QUOTE
Don't get me wrong, I know that they have committed serious relationships from time to time
Oh. My. Goodness. Committed relationships from time to time.... making this sound like some rare phenomenon does nothing to further the argument. Heterosexuals date around, heterosexuals cheat on each other, get divorced. But I guess THEY have some serious relationships from time to time also... not that common though.
Yes. This should be discussed in schools. It will be a nice way for students to learn viewpoints other than what their parents/ministers are preaching at home. Or of course, it would be a good ways for the heathens to learn that what they are doing is sinful
(that last sentence was sarcasm.)
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.