Originally posted by Skydude

---

Seeing as I'm not conservative, nor do I use those supposedly "traditional" arguments, there's no reason for you to bring that up with me, and it's if anything merely more proof of your making unfair assumptions rather than using any evidence whatsoever. Which you need to do in order to advance a point, since you have no evidence.

---

Originally posted by Skydude

---

And homosexuality is not inherently political...but at the moment, it is, and as such, like any issue of that sort, it's not the place for school teachers to be teaching the morality of it and superceding the parents.

---

Originally posted by Skydude

---

To respond simply to both points, I don't think the teachers should take it upon themselves to decide what moral values to teach children. As for Dr. Suess, I would have opposed teachers foisting it upon children when the books first came out, yes. If the parents approved, fine. If not, then those parents who wanted to anyway could still get the book. I'm not for censorship at large, after all. In this case, if the parents are alright with it, fine, but otherwise, no, I don't think it's right. Perhaps eventually it can move towards the model you suggest, but I hardly think it's this teacher's place to decide when to do that.

---

Originally posted by Skydude

---

No, they decided they were alright with gay marriage. They didn't decide they were alright with the teacher teaching that morality.

---

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

I won't go off on my own tagent because Skydude is pretty much approximating how I feel about this. It's not a matter of being pro- or anti-gay, it's a matter of morality being taught to young children in schools. To address your question directly: no, teachers should not read "whatever they want" to their grammar school-age students. Especially if the content they propose to use has material that some parents might find objective.

---

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

No, because heterosexuality is the "norm" and, as such, acts as a sort of control group. It describes the overwhelming majority of America's population and, even so, appears as a neutral rather than an influence in one direction or the other. However, since the homosexual issue has yet to be settled here in America, it is still politically charged (as was pointed out earlier) and so it carries with it the sense of a teacher imposing a political or moral standard on his students.

---

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

I was operating under the impression that you were sexually attracted to both sexes.

But, you've corrected me and said that you feel that way for females only. So, you're homosexual. You are female, and you are attracted to females.

You are whatever sex your mind tells you that you are. It so happens that people are sometimes born with ambiguous physical characteristics, but they will invariably identify themselves more strongly as one sex than the other. Although in most cases it is reasonable to base a person's sex on his or her physical attributes, it is also reasonable for a person to contest that his or her mental state does not match the body he or she was born into. So, you were born into a body with which you do not identify and, even though you retain some of that body's sexual anatomy, you are no more a man than any "real" woman is.

Anyway, I guess I better stop talking now and start hating you, because that's what homophobes do, and Ziff's vibes have proven that I am a homophobe.

---