Children to be taught 'heterosexuality not the norm' in Australian schools project

reply to post by Philodemus

My apologies. I had opened the link and got confused as to who exactly had posted it.

reply to post by Phage

Not everywhere. Certainly not by the early Hawaiians (among others).

Well, they're special, because even amongst primitives it's still recognized to be contrary to natural law, as amongst the Shamanic peoples of Russia (for instance, to be gay, or dress as a woman, made you foolish in the eyes of the community).

Even in ancient Greece, despite homosexuality being practiced amongst the upper classes, overall, it was seen to opposed to certain values within society. It's no coincidence that the Dionysiac revelries made homosexuality a type of sacrament.

homosexuals do reproduce.

Homosexual mammals? How? If by diseases, yes, I agree.

reply to post by dontreally

Well, they're special, because even amongst primitives it's still recognized to be contrary to natural law, as amongst the Shamanic peoples of Russia (for instance, to be gay, or dress as a woman, made you foolish in the eyes of the community).

I'll take your word for it. That's one.

Even in ancient Greece, despite homosexuality being practiced amongst the upper classes, overall, it was seen to opposed to certain values within society.

"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce."

www.fordham.edu...

Homosexual mammals? How? If by diseases, yes, I agree.

Through heterosexual intercourse. Reproduction can be carried out through disease? That's a new one on me.

I will say that there are many gay people (some I know in real life), as well as some celebrities that I truly admire, for the many great qualities they possess. What they do in private sexually between consenting adults, is none of my business, and I respect that they have their freedoms to choose. I may not agree with it morally , but again it is none of my business, and it certainly doesn't mean I hate them, or don't admire many of the characteristics and values they may have.

I'm sure there are gay people out there who are called prudish , and phobic by other gays, because they do not believe in group sex, or having multiple gay liaisons ...or because they think that S&M sex is a turn off.

There are heterosexuals that may consider gay sex to be some sort of taboo, but they scoff at other heterosexuals who won't indulge in "partner swapping" or engage in various types of sex acts.

All of them could be making an issue about what they engage in as being considered natural, and normal sexual behavior, and demand respect and equality for their behaviors.

It seems to all boil down to ones personal beliefs and what they see as being normal, and or moral.

But like other posters have stated , when they start making it my business by trying to teach my children or grandchildren what is morally correct , and natural..it becomes an issue, because that can be taken far beyond the simple issue of being gay.

Children learn, and develop by what they see around them, and it is the right of the parents to some extent, to guide their children as they see fit. What I mean by "to an extent", is that unfortunately there are parents out there, who have no moral boundaries whatsoever, and think nothing of pimping out there children to do almost anything, just for profit.

reply to post by WhisperingWinds

Children learn, and develop by what they see around them, and it is the right of the parents to some extent, to guide their children as they see fit.

It is ok for kids to learn from other kids that gays are abnormal and it's ok to ostracize them because of it? As someone pointed out, most kids learn more about sexuality from their peers than they do from any other source.

reply to post by dontreally

In nature, heterosexuality is the norm

Just to tell you that this view is probably wrong. It depends on many factors to be given any real meaning, the issue starts from how you define sexuality or sex. In general terms in nature the norm is asexuality, sex differentiations in regards to genders only happens in life at higher complexity.

In case of natural in humans the concept fails if we look to our existing relatives especially the more social complex like the Bonobo. Sexuality also is not defined only by reproductive sex, but of course that all reproductive sex so far in humans is heterosexual at the core, but no longer a real necessity, this should make some people more attentive on the implications in the long terms.

Males ultimately have become mostly outdated in out technological world, starting from the problem that we all are born girls XX chromosome are the perfect human the XY (males) happens by an error in the encoding. For those interested in the subject do some reading regarding how sexual differentiation happens in uteri. How hormones affect sexuality and even about the Evolution of sexual reproduction. This is a very interesting subject to explore and to extrapolate where we are headed...

Our main issue like I have stated before is cultural and social allied with pollution and lack of interference from natural selection, since we are not anymore living in a natural environment several aspects have taken over previous selective methods. For instance in the economic view it is easier to cater to a single type of customer that two a multitude of interests, this is why the concept of the androgen male has become prevalent (it is not new, but before it was mostly due to esthetics and rarity especially in male centered societies that body image had greater importance) but the new metrosexual ideology can even points toward a future where males will risk even becoming extinct.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

Again: From a scientific point it's definitely NORMAL as it happens in nature all the time, not just in humans. Since it isn't a choice or disease it HAS to be normal by its very definition

Just because something occurs in nature doesn't mean it's normal. What's normal is a statistical average. Or do you think median and average mean (pun intended) the same thing?


reply to post by Phage

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

but children going through puberty should not be told homsexuality is normal and a part of what is normal, because it almost certainly is not.

Why? Because you think that straight children might choose to become homosexual otherwise? It's better for a homosexual child to be taught that they are abnormal? Good plan.

edit on 10/21/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Stating that heterosexuality and homosexuality are each equally valid will almost certainly encourage youths who have thought about bisexuality to act on the idea, even should they have a stronger preference for the opposite gender. Halfoldman has the right of it. "I'm also not sure why kids should be taught that only heterosexuality is good and natural. Perhaps it's better to stay silent than teach untruths and lies?"

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by WhisperingWinds

 

Children learn, and develop by what they see around them, and it is the right of the parents to some extent, to guide their children as they see fit.

It is ok for kids to learn from other kids that gays are abnormal and it's ok to ostracize them because of it? As someone pointed out, most kids learn more about sexuality from their peers than they do from any other source.

edit on 10/21/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I don't think its right for any children to learn to "ostracize", condemn or bully anyone, but children need to learn how to stand up for what they believe in as well.

Kids need to be taught to care about other humans, but that does not have to include accepting their sexual behaviors as ok.

reply to post by Phage

"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce.

Yes, statements such as that are part of pleasantries in reading Plato, Aristotle, Xenephon. They make a moral statement here, and then a verse later, they make a reference to homosexuality in the most normal sense.

But again, it was not an accepted feature of Greek society, contrary to what's claimed. It was widely practiced, yes, but by those "educated" in "philosophy"; apparently sticking your penis in unsanitary places made one 'sophisticated'.

I almost feel those old views are still held today. To advance an 'esoteric' idea; homosexuality has philosophical meaning to some people; the idea that all is utterly indistinguishable, that subject-object differentiation into a dualism is 'illusory', is part of this prejudice. Therefore, heterosexuality "perpetuates" the dualistic framework, while homosexuality is an expression of monism; it is pure pleasure without the biological effect of reproduction.

This may have been a philosophical subtext beneath the Greek practice of homosexuality. As said, in the Dionysus frenzies where one loses all sense of self, homosexuality was widely practiced (as well as eating the blood and flesh of a living creature). Socrates himself said "The only thing I know is that I know nothing", like the 'fool' card in the tarot deck, ignorance is a state of total undifferentiation of reality into subject-object. Thus, homosexuality can be seen to consonant with socratic thinking.

As I mentioned earlier, Allen Ginsburgh, himself a homosexual, tried to make buddhism, nondualism, etc, a part of the school systems in San Fransisco. The gay movement in inextricably linked to amorality. To 'transcendence' of nature.

Through heterosexual intercourse. Reproduction can be carried out through disease? That's a new one on me.

I was making a joke.

You said homosexuals could reproduce. Care to explain how?

Originally posted by Philodemus


So, you believe in evolution, yet you don't even understand how it works. If you did you wouldn't be so preachy to me.

Let's start with the some of the simplest lifeforms on this planet, bacteria. The organism that is credited for really starting the whole game of evolution off. Bacteria reproduce by binary fission. Through the process of bacterial recombination, they introduce genetic information from other bacteria, so that they don't run into the problems you must have been referring to in your “that's sane” comment. Bacteria belong to the domain, prokaryotes. Now, within your body all the cells that aren't prokaryotes are eukaryotes. Those are the cells that reproduce only in the way you clearly seem to think is “natural”.
Now, if you add up all the cells in your body that are prokaryotes and all the cells that are eukaryotes the ones that reproduce without needing “mommy and daddy” way out number the ones that do. So, sorry the number of living organisms that reproduce this way out number the ones that don't. The ones that don't simply have a larger bio-mass and that is what is confused by macroscopic “visionaries” such as yourself, as being “the norm”.

If I continue to a slightly higher life form, fungus, we can see a continuing trend. They produce asexually. They too are a member of the eukaryotes.

What about hermaphrodites? The list of hermaphroditic flowering plants is too long to get into, but among the hermaphroditic creatures there are snails, slugs, flukes, worms and other invertebrates. Something like 15 or 20% of all creatures that roam this planet live a hermaphroditic lifestyle. Many, many creatures including some fish start as one gender and then switch to the other as they mature. I've even seen a chicken turn into a rooster with my own eyes. Basically, it adds up to somewhere between 18 million and 100 and-some-odd million species that are hermaphrodites. There is actually a species of lizard that only produces females. Go figure that for “sane” and purposeful.

I urge you to go to this site and read up on some of your claims. www.adherents.com...

You seem to be sure you know why heterosexuality exists in the first place. Interesting. There are many professors that could use your insight.

But hey, far be it from me to say that perhaps we shouldn't bark up the heterosexual reproduction tree perhaps so fiercely. So, when little Timmy is raised a boy that then in young adulthood “switches teams”, let's further ostracize him and make him/her feel like a biological outcast, even though he isn't.

Thank you for explaining the biology to me. I understand now that I came from bug farts.

It seems I belong to the domain of Paranoiacoyotes. However I am unsure of how my paranoiacoyotes differs from my ukeleleites. I don’t really know how many Paranoiacoyotes I have compared to my ukeleleites but I am sure they are fairly balanced because my shoes are the same size on both feet. I do know my daddy was not a coyote and my mommy played the tuba and not the ukulele.

As far as fungus goes, I do have fungus between my toes. I do hope it is not a progressing trend since there are places on my body that I do not need nor want a fungus. (They make a salve for that don’t they?)

I have tried asexual reproduction but I find I am much happier with a partner, preferably the ukulele playing kind and not the paranoid coyote. However, not being able to find any ukulele players in the Midwest, asexual reproduction appears to be my usual option on Saturday night.

I do know someone named Herman but he seems to more of a flake than a fluke.

I too have seen the evolution of the rooster from a proud barnyard cock to Sunday dinner. I think Col. Sanders may have been a macroscopic visionary that you have spoken of.

As far as switching sides, I see nothing wrong with it. They do it all the time on TV. Why just tonight, I watched the football teams switch sides every quarter of a game. The announcer never did mention how many Hermans were in the stands but based on your science, I am sure it was overwhelming.

Thanks again for your insight and assistance. Herman.

Originally posted by WhisperingWinds


Kids need to be taught to care about other humans, but that does not have to include accepting their sexual behaviors as ok.

It doesn't need to include teaching them that their sexual behaviours are not OK either.

In fact why does it need to involve sexuality at all??

Given that homosexuality does not actually affect anyone who is not homosexual, what actual business is it of anyone else's in the first place?

reply to post by TheMalefactor

Stating that heterosexuality and homosexuality are each equally valid will almost certainly encourage youths who have thought about bisexuality to act on the idea, even should they have a stronger preference for the opposite gender.

Is that what is being taught?
An adolescent who is going to have sex is going to do it with whom ever they feel comfortable with, no matter what anyone says but if they experiment with homosexual sex how is it different from experimenting with heterosexual sex? Are they going to be "ruined" by the experience or are they going to learn that it wasn't their cup of tea and move on?

reply to post by WhisperingWinds

Kids need to be taught to care about other humans, but that does not have to include accepting their sexual behaviors as ok.

Why should the sexual behaviors of others be of any concern at all? I think that is the point here. "Billy, you know Georgie likes other boys and that's bad but you be nice to him anyway." Don't you think that puts an emphasis on sexuality over any other aspects?

"Billy, you know Georgie likes other boys but that really doesn't mean anything. He can still be your friend."

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by TheMalefactor

 

Are they going to be "ruined" by the experience or are they going to learn than it wasn't their cup of tea and move on?

Do you always place words in other peoples mouth? Refer back to the previous post and reread the following paragraph ten or so times till it sinks in:

'Halfoldman has the right of it. "I'm also not sure why kids should be taught that only heterosexuality is good and natural. Perhaps it's better to stay silent than teach untruths and lies?"'

There's a way to talk about heterosexuality and homosexuality in a way that's completely independent of preference or what is 'morally' right. Teachers should talk about the biological aspects, the social factors, and promote tolerance. There's no reason to emphasize one over the other. Or is getting out of the way to let kids decide for themselves too "progressive" for your tastes?

reply to post by TheMalefactor

There's no reason to emphasize one over the other.

Then we agree. The point is children are being taught that there should be no stigma attached to homosexuality. Some people seem to have a problem with that.

But what you said before seems to contradict what you just said.

Stating that heterosexuality and homosexuality are each equally valid will almost certainly encourage youths who have thought about bisexuality to act on the idea,

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by WhisperingWinds

 

Kids need to be taught to care about other humans, but that does not have to include accepting their sexual behaviors as ok.

Why should the sexual behaviors of others be of any concern at all? I think that is the point here. "Billy, you know Georgie likes other boys and that's bad but you be nice to him anyway." Don't you think that puts an emphasis on sexuality over any other aspects?

"Billy, you know Georgie likes other boys but that really doesn't mean anything. He can still be your friend."

edit on 10/21/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

First off, kids are too young to be concentrating on sex, in whatever gender they prefer, but I blame society and our media for making it front and center at such young ages.

Now ..tell me..what would you say to your daughter, if she came home and said to you.."Billy likes girls daddy, and he likes choking them , and whipping them, and says it is sexy...can I go to his birthday party on Friday."

Now you honestly tell me what you would say to your daughter...because after all who are you to ostracize the boy ? (By the way, Billy learned it from his parents, and they have tons of sex toys in the house..but they aren't gay)

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

How would the human race exist if this was the case? It is not the natural way.

I wonder how we've managed to survive.

but children going through puberty should not be told homsexuality is normal and a part of what is normal, because it almost certainly is not.

Why? Because you think that straight children might choose to become homosexual otherwise? It's better for a homosexual child to be taught that they are abnormal? Good plan.

edit on 10/21/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Well when you consider many kids of 12-15 are maybe unsure about 'who they are' due to puberty, then thisis not the time to be telling them being gay is natural.

Is it just me or did I just read somebody coming out? If you were still having doubts about "who you were" by the time you hit 15, then you are probably not heterosexual. I don't know anybody who didn't know their own sexual orientation by that age. I can assure you that a kid that age can handle knowing that homosexuality is normal without it affecting own sexuality.

Is this why you feel this will be bad for kids? Is it because you were still on the fence at that age?

Australia is in 2012. The US, 1012.

Amen.

reply to post by WhisperingWinds

First off, kids are too young to be concentrating on sex

I agree.

"Billy likes girls daddy, and he likes choking them , and whipping them, and says it is sexy...can I go to his birthday party on Friday."

No. I would say "Don't go anywhere near Billy." I would then tell the school what my daughter had told me. But what does that have to do with being gay?

reply to post by Phage


I don't mind you ignoring my question.

You said "homosexuals do reproduce." which sounds absurd to me.

How do homosexuals - not asexuals - reproduce?