EDITOR’S NOTE: As with the preceding post, because of the length of this post, there will be a few days’ delay before the next post. The next post will appear January 24, 2009, Guam time.
Date: Sun Nov 30 21:11:37 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: Government Promotion
Very thoughtful responses overall. Lessee what we got...
“You sure you want to go down this road with me? Here we go....”
Not really, since it was just used as an example of "government promotion" in the schools, but I guess I got it anyway. (As though we needed another topic of discussion going simultaneously!)
Well, we could always quit our days jobs, eh?
“That's one clever third grader. Can you tell which "side" she's on?”
So, I guess the government indoctrination program worked on her. ; )
Can't tell how much you're joking. Obviously, the indoctrination on that subject came from home, if it was an introductory class on the subject.
“Now, let's lay some groundwork here: I don't expect you to answer this question, but much of the debate between the left and right involves a presupposition about the nature of homosexuality. Is is genetic or environmental? Nature or nurture? Something you're born with or a learned response? Modern scientific thought says that it's either genetic, or perhaps an abnormality in the embryonic or gestational process that causes it. Because I believe that no one in their right mind would deliberately chose to be oriented toward their own sex in the face of such rampant hostility and alienation in society, I believe that there is a scientific or medical explanation to why people are homosexual. In short, they are born that way.”
Well we agree here. Surprised? It is in the genes.
Pleasantly surprised. And I can appreciate your next step in the analysis.
But let me explain a little more fully. So is adultery, pedophilia, etc. It is inherited ... from Adam. It is called "sin." We all inherited the curse of sin. Now I know that is not what you wanted me to say, but it is the truth. A thief is not a thief until he steals something. You were not a husband till you ritual of marriage (public and private). In dealing with this subject, one must separate the person from the act. Whatever one desires, that is not what makes him what he is. I wanted to fly, but until I went through a process, I was not a pilot, regardless of how badly I wanted to be. We condemn actions, not people. Jesus Christ, our example, loved the sinner, but hated the sin. When it came to sinful actions, you bet he was intolerant.
All right. Very interesting. We all have urges that are societally unacceptable or that we subordinate for the good of the whole. Those that cannot subordinate those urges that we, as a society, determine are unacceptable can be dealt with accordingly. I'm with you so far.
With all due respects, Rob, you've been spending too much time on the wrong web pages! Your use of the term "homophobia" is rather surprising coming from you, an intellectual. That is the product of a sick brain of somewhere way, way out on the left. You can do better than throw out cheap stuff like that. Who, for crying out loud, is afraid of a homosexual?
I'll try and loosen up with the term, but you ain't got me convinced yet that the term ain't apropos. I think the essence of the answer to your last question is, to get talmudic, another question. What harm are we afraid of being caused by homosexuals? As between consenting adults, I perceive it to be harmless to society, a political call, to be sure. I do not believe that non-homosexuals will become homosexual from either learning how they "do it" or even from having a homosexual encounter. Lots of people experiment with all kinds of things that are "detrimental" to themselves. It does not remove the element of "choice" if they are not already predisposed toward homosexuality to begin with. Studies back that up well enough.
Let me loosen up on my definition of homophobe by redefining it to include anyone who draws negative conclusions about them without sufficient facts.
Certainly not me; no one I know. That is just emotional hatred from a low class of people that neither of us have any association with. You are better than that, my friend.
My original definition was "an irrational fear...." I'm not concerned with the word "fear" as much as the word "irrational." Irrational in the sense that conclusions are drawn based on speculation without facts. As to the word "fear," substitute the word "preconception," "reaction" or "attitude."
“They're all around and among us leading very productive, if sexually secretive to you, lives.”
I won't take that as a testimonial. I think a first cousin is, but that is about as close as it get with me. (Not a brag; fact.)
Gee, that's pretty close. It means you share the same grandparents.
You are right in that there are more around than we realize. My brother worked for one. I know a couple of folks who may be, but I don't care to know. We do our respective jobs, and that's okay. Am I tolerant, or what? ; )
Yes, I would say you're tolerant, by my definition of the extent of what the government ought to be able to "promote" as far as your behavior in regards to homosexuals ought to be.
I am not cutting down the contributions made by such people.
You may have missed the point of the last sentence. It relates to my "where's the harm" analysis earlier. I believe government wastes it's time going after "victimless" crimes. Yes, there are societal consequences and expenses when various segments of the population abuse drugs and (during prohibition) alcohol or engage in promiscuous sex, but I don't think they're best handled by criminalizing the underlying act. By the same token, I don't think we should confer privileges on people or make them "protected classes" merely because they engage in consensual conduct that otherwise offends. So, it's important to recognize I'm not going to that extreme either.
My focus on this part was trying to identify the exact nature of the societal harm in consenting adults engaging in homosexuality, so I could understand what your objection was to the "promotion" of alternative lifestyles, assuming that to be the effect of teaching tolerance (which I don't). The harm to marriage as a civil institution, perhaps? Perhaps. Except that, to generalize, homosexuals aren't going to marry the opposite sex regardless. So, I don't see the institution of marriage being threatened. But these are ways to separate the political from the religious aspects of the debate.
I had the pleasure of ensuring several never got the chance to be warrior while I was a basic training commander. Whatta you gonna do when a guy says, "I just can't take the temptation."? At least he was honest enough to admit it and ask to get out. Others didn't, but got caught in bed with another guy later on. Regardless of how I feel about homosexuality, those who practice it do not belong in the military. Neither do women belong in combat either, but that is entirely another issue. (No, I don't want to debate that topic now.) And when a minister succumbs to such temptation (like any other sexual sins), lots of people get hurt.
Interestingly, I originally had a small discussion of these two topics in my first reply that didn't get sent out. I remembered it, and thought of including it in anticipation of some of the harms you might articulate, but I left it out of the second reply, just because it was wandering off topic. We don't need to get into it. (Oh, just a little bit, just this one point.) You've been there, I haven't, I respect that. But the arguments against inclusion of homosexuals or women in the military are precisely identical to those employed originally to keep blacks out of the military and the officer corps. Also, I really don't believe that in the thick of battle, under enemy fire, your homosexual foxhole buddy is going to be looking for an opportunity to grope you. My two cents' worth, but again, that's a political matter, and we don't need to debate it now.
“A notion you must, if you possess it, disabuse yourself of is the idea that homosexuality and pedophilia are related. They are not. The incidence of pedophilia and child abuse by homosexuals is statistically no greater than by heterosexuals. In whole numbers then, your grandchild has considerably more to fear from an opposite sex pedophile than a same sex pedophile. More importantly on the subject of pedophilia, your grandchild stands a phenomenonally higher statistical chance of abuse by incest than by a stranger or non family member.”
You are, no doubt closer to statistical data to support those statements than I. I'll take your word for it, without asking the source of your information. (Picture that! A right wing fundamentalist Christian whacko TRUSTING a flaming liberal!?! ; ) But notice, I didn't say "lawyer" or "Jewish.") Unfortunately, you are probably right. My wife served on a grand jury last year. She said I wouldn't believe the high percentage of child molestation cases. Some crimes deserve frontier justice. Child abuse is one of them. Don't know how or if I could handle such should it occur with my grandchild.
Frontier justice sounds OK to me. Castration at least. Now, considering that you'll accept what I say for the sake of argument, what other "harms" do you identify other than biblical prohibition?
“My first reaction to the beginning of the article was surprise that third graders are learning about tolerance and sexual diversity. Upon reflection, I realized that the third grade is probably exactly the right age to start teaching tolerance. If they're old enough to call one another names on the playground, they're old enough to learn better.”
Tolerance for people? Yes. Of their acts (of homosexuality) and lifestyle? No.
Well, I would say that to tolerate the people, you are probably going to have to tolerate the lifestyle. Tolerate their acts? Naahhh... you don't have to do that if you can separate their acts from their lifestyle. And that's my point, whether you can do that. My point above was what the "acts" consisting of consenting adults do in private is not our business. Why should we involve ourselves in regulating that private conduct absent proof of some other harm to society?
It was a newpaper article. Are you saying we can't believe what we read in the newspaper?
I didn't see a ; ) after that last sentence. So, I don't know if you're serious. You've dealt with the press recently, you know how hard it is to get the real story with the real important facts in it. I think I made some pretty reasonable conclusions about facts left out of the article earlier. Yes, I'm saying you can't take for granted what you read in the papers. Absolutely.
Children need to be taught about AIDS. They ought to be made to be scared to death of it. But to teach tolerance of the homosexual lifestyle (as normal) along with it is taking advantage of one to promote the other. Yes, a deliberate use of the word "promote."
Using the word "promote" is OK. I'll grant you free license in this political discussion to use it, if what we're talking about is "promoting" tolerance and acceptance of a lifestyle that we find personally offensive. I do not believe that the existence of the lifestyle, be there one definable "lifestyle," (and there really isn't, other than what goes on in the bedroom), promotes, endorses, encourages or in any way creates a climate leading to homosexuality in the absence of a predisposition toward it to begin with. There is no study to show otherwise that I'm aware of.
Teachers who aren't qualified to address the topic of AIDS without the details of homosexual behavior, shouldn't be trying.
In a public health setting, what details are necessary? This one only: Anal sex can lead to AIDS because of the possibility that the skin will tear. It is the transmission of body fluid through that abrasion or cut on the skin, that increases the likelihood of transmission of the virus. Heterosexuals engage in anal and oral sex as well. Legally, that's sodomy, a crime even between married couples. And between consenting adults the prohibition against oral sex is honored more in the breach than the observance. What are we going to do about that, all those good husbands and wives committing oral sex sodomy on each other? It's just something that's foolish to try and regulate even though the laws are on the books. So, again, we ask the question, what is the harm we are attempting to regulate?
It should be left to someone who is qualified, or perhaps a team of a medical professional and a minister, accompanying the teacher. Kids that age now about "queers" and what they do. They need to be told not to engage in it, but leave the details of how much and what they can do "safely" out of the curriculum. Haven't we seen the result of the "safe sex" instruction? Telling them how far they can "safely go" with homo or hetero sex (I'll use your term) has the EFFECT of promoting it. Don't deny it.
I'm sorry, but this is where the analysis falters. I disagree that teaching kids about safe sex promotes it, as a matter of psychology. I don't agree that teaching kids that if they have sex without a condom they'll get pregnant or a disease automatically translates to telling the kids to go out and have sex, i.e., promoting it. I believe to think that is hiding our heads in the sand. If we need to balance that education with lessons as to why they should not have sex, fine, we should do so. But the failure to teach the kids why they shouldn't have sex is not an adequate reason not to explain to them what will happen if they do.
And a minister may have a role in a "teaching tolerance" class because of his background in counseling, but I can see no reason why he should have a role in sex education. The religious significance of pre-marital or homosexual sex is something that needs to be focused on in the home and the church.
It's kind of like that pessimist/optimist half full/half empty glass analogy. Your "how far they can 'safely go'" approach looks at it assuming that the educators teach, indeed, to "go have sex" but only go so far and with protection, or you'll get pregnant or a disease. I don't accept that premise, nor, I suspect would any educator admit that's the approach they take.
That's the jumping-to-conclusion part that I find irrational, which is what creates the "fear" that the kids will have premarital or homosexual sex if they're exposed to the facts of life or the fact that certain sexual conduct predominately identified with homosexuals (anal sex) will lead to disease. That's the phobia.
You said that the second grade teacher would be promoting religion (because of her position of authority) if she didn't handle the prayer suggestion just right. The same certainly applies here. The social experiment of safe sex has failed! It is time they heard "NO."
“Again, originally I found it somewhat surprising that this was discussed this early in school. The article mixes them somewhat, but here we're talking about AIDS as a public health question, normally confined to discussions of venereal disease in sex education class. Given the confines or articles and space limitations, the two paragraphs suggest that AIDS awareness and homosexual tolerance are taught together. I doubt it is true and explain why in a bit.”
As I said before, it shouldn't be taught together.
All right, looks like we're in agreement here. The kids need to focus on the issues separately. I do think both need to be taught.
Instructions in human sexuality and reproduction should be in segregated classes, unless the underlying motive of the curriculum (not necessarily the teacher, but the authors of the lesson plan, etc.) is one of promoting the activity.
OK, I don't have a major problem with this, considering that the lessons would be lost if the other sex is in the room. I wish it weren't so, but given the effect of puberty, we should probably experiment with separate sex classrooms.
Yep, there are those in education, I wouldn't trust out of my sight. And the secretive way such instruction is often given, further proves the point.
Sure, there are predators all over, in every walk of life. I don't see anything particularly secretive. Parents may be apathetic until they learn what the curriculum is when Johnny tells them what he learned in school that day. But I see no hidden agenda on the part of liberal establishment teachers to hide the ball from the parents in order to indoctrinate the kids.
“Considering the fact that girls are arriving at puberty at the age of 10-12 these days, compared to 13-16 when we were young, it makes sense to discuss it earlier than high school, say around the age of 10. On the issue of tolerance, it makes absolute sense the more I think about it, that third graders, around age eight, would be taught at that age. Rogers and Hammerstein said it best in "South Pacific":”
Wait a minute, Rob. Remember your logic. Even pre adolescent girls can be intolerant. What does puberty have to do with it.
Separate issues. Pre-pubescence is the time to teach human sexuality and tolerance, around the fifth grade for girls. The third grade or earlier is the time to teach tolerance to both sexes. They're not related, that was my point. I'm not the one that mixed the apples and oranges. The woman in the article did.
I am for, in the right setting with qualified personnel, teaching human sexuality, hygiene, and biological functions at the appropriate level for the children, but only with parental permission and if the course is open for parental preview and class monitoring.
Well, we pretty much have that right now. Most parents don't get up in arms about it until after the fact. It's a political question about "parental permission" for me, meaning I can take it or leave. Although I think parents who pull their kids from class are being stupid. Those parents who pull their kids out of the class are the kids who'll wind up pregnant or have a social disease, I Gair-ON-tee. I do agree that as a matter of policy, at least, parents should be notified well in advance of what they're kids are going to be taught and with what materials. That especially helps the parents put the science lessons in context in the home with the parents' own sense of morality.
I know you are going to jump on that one, so let me say a little more on it.
Nope. We were fairly in agreement on that one I think.
You don't see it relating to religion, and it may not yours. But it does mine. Homosexuality (the act) is a sin. The Old Testament scriptures are explicit about that. For the child of Christian parent to be taught what he can do "safely" with either sex is promoting an activity that is counter to my religion and the religion and values the parent is trying to instill in their child. Delaying such explicit knowledge during the more formative years can only be positive. That is what a lot of folks find objectionable about the DARE program. They have the kids "role play" doing wrong. Putting too much emphasis on something that shouldn't be done has the effect of promoting it.
As discussed earlier, I fundamentally disagree with your premise (that the primary focus is to teach what they can "safely do") and conclusion (that kids will think they've been given the "go ahead" to have sex) here. You have to teach people about the dangers in the world, otherwise they won't know how to avoid them and what to look out for. I don't believe that keeping people in ignorance will keep them safe. I don't believe in out of sight out of mind. If we don't take an aggressive approach on teaching kids to beware pregnancy, disease and drugs, then when the kids do wind up pregnant, sick or addicted, their first response is "why didn't anybody tell me?" It may be a fundamental difference in the approach to parenting and education. I just think kids grow up healthier if they're not treated like mushrooms (kept in the dark and fed bullsh*t).
Now, we may or may not be getting far afield here on the question you originally posed, about whether the same rules ought not apply to "promotion" of the left's political agenda with respect to viewing homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle and "promotion" of religion in the classroom. I addressed briefly why first amendment analysis doesn't apply to the political question of promoting homosexuality in another email. One's a political question that is open to debate, the other's a constitutional limitation on the actions of government.
“I agree with Clinton on this one, for reasons expressed above.”
But Rob, it's "government endorsement" of morals and values with which I may not agree!!
OK, I'll accept that. Consider though that I do see a distinction between morals and religion. The government does and should teach morality and values, civic virtue and pride, patriotism, and a host of other "feel good about your neighbor" ideas. Morality may often enough have a religious antecedent, but it has its place in the civil world too that is separable from religion. In this sense, I have no problem with the government teaching morality and values. But I also recognize that was immoral yesterday may not be immoral tomorrow (which I recognize would be a point you would want to make as part of what's wrong with the world today).
That is inconsistent for you to agree with Clinton. If someone's, morals, values, or religion, is promoted by the government, do you disagree with it only when it fails to align with your particular belief (or agenda, if the term fits)? I'm really not trying to be unkind or sarcastic here, but the inconsistency is very apparent. You may try to rationalize it, but it isn't likely to be very effective.
I don't think you're being sarcastic, but the idea that I can separate morality from religion in the sense we're talking may be a little difficult for you. We SHOULD follow the golden rule. That's a statement about morality to me that is not dependent on theology, that can and should be taught by the government. The government's promotion of that moral precept does not bother me at all, and is not inconsistent with the idea that the government should have no role in the promotion of religion just because the issues happen to overlap at times.
“Remember that quote from Pastor Neimoller on my web page? ‘When they came for the homosexuals I said nothing, for I was not a homosexual....’ If you can accept that there may be a medical basis to explain homosexuality, then it's only one step from discriminating against homosexuals on the basis of their orientation to discriminating against the disabled. From there to race. From race to religion.”
Please, not the "disabled" line with regard to homosexuals! You know better, and statistics of income and personal economics prove it.
I don't follow you here. If you agree that homosexuality is determined at birth, my only statement was that it is a condition, an orientation, that one does not voluntarily choose. You would say, "yes, but you choose whether to act on that condition." I understand, and don't disagree. Our debate has shifted though over to whether as a society we should continue to proscribe those actions (I don't think so, as between consenting adults), and then, inasmuch as we HAVE outlawed sodomy, whether teaching tolerance for people with that orientation is the same thing as promoting it and encouraging it to those not already predisposed to it (I don't agree with that conclusion).
Now, to add to my definition of separate morality regarding homosexuality in the civic sense, following my logic you would argue, correctly I think, that we have made the determination as a society, as a civic matter, that homosexuality involves acts that should not be encouraged in any way, specifically sodomy. OK. Fine. I think we can teach sex education and tolerance without promoting the homosexual act. My definition of "homophobes" is that they are not willing to indulge the same presumption. Bear in mind, as hypocritical or impractical as it may sound, the act of sodomy is the crime, but being a homosexual and living a homosexual lifestyle (whatever that is) is not a crime, unless you commit sodomy. I think you make that point below.
Perhaps your reference to personal income and economics is to say we should not create a protected or "suspect" class out of homosexuals, that we should not boost them to the level of blacks or women in the analysis of what rights people are entitled to, that we should not give them more "rights" than the average citizen. There is a lot of merit to this, and it is something I am re-thinking as I rethink the politics of the whole affirmative action debate. But, and this is really where we started, the debate isn't about creating additional rights that heteros don't already have. That's a fallacy. The debate is only about ensuring that homosexuals aren't singled out and denied equal treatment merely because of the orientation that they were born with. As you carefully point out below, you can prosecute them if you wish for committing sodomy, but you can't prosecute them for wanting to.
I am not tempted by robbery; some may be. Some of those who give in to the desire are robbers. They got that title by committing an act, not by having the desire, whatever the source of the desire. Notice carefully, that I have not condemned anyone for the thoughts or temptations running around in their heads. It is when they act on them and commit an antisocial act, is when I an intolerant of it (the act). Homosexual acts would still be repulsive to me, even without a belief in the Bible.
And I guess my question is: why? Why waste even a moment's thought on what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home? It's not our business. So why should we be thinking about objections to behavior that doesn't concern us?
I think I understand where you're coming from though. I just think it's unrealistic. If I understand your take, it's that although someone may be born that way, there's still a good chance, if they work hard enough against that original sin they were born with, that they can lead productive heterosexual lives, and that because that's what society says is normal, they should endeavor with all their might to do so. How'd I do?
I just don't see it as any big deal, and don't want to presume to judge whether it's a sin or not, even though enough authors of the Bible evidently thought so. So, we have a different take on the contemporary significance of certain biblical passages. Many religions today, including the Catholics recently, are encouraging their adherents not to judge. It's certainly not my place, if God made them that way. So, religious interpretation aside, what political reasons can we articulate against "promoting" the lifestyle of homosexuals as acceptable that aren't premised on and irrational fear of the unknown?
Unless they have been changed recently, some states still have laws against it. Out of consideration for your lack of belief in the Bible as Truth, I'm trying to avoid a biblical response. I hope you can appreciate that.
Yes, very much so. I think you've done a great job. Removing the Bible as an argument and requiring some semblance of causal connection does make it tough though, doesn't it?
Just don't try to make homosexuals a "protected minority" or "disabled" (before they get AIDS).
Until that parenthetical I was about to agree with you wholeheartedly. But that connection between AIDS and homosexuals, that parenthetical afterthought, gives me pause. You can't jump from homosexual to AIDS in one breath. That's why the teaching tolerance classes are so necessary. You can't presume that AIDS is a homosexual disease.
It is bad enough that my taxes go to care for folks with AIDS when over 90% of them got it through immoral activity and drug abuse, both of which are in violation with either man's or God's laws. I'm not advocating we stop and just let them die. The bad part is they become a burden to working folks like you and me because of their careless, immoral, or legal activity. They are still of the age they should be contributing to society, not taking from it.
Major step backwards here. Give back two points on the tolerance scale. There's no reason to try and prove studies to one another, but would you care to tell me where that 90% figure comes from? You made it up, right? That's the irrational part. Just pulling "facts" out of thin air to justify the attitude. It's hard not to read that paragraph and not think you'd be just as happy if they did go off and die. That they deserve it. Get some more facts, please Frank. Y'know we nearly wiped out a major part of the hemophiliac population in the world before the Red Cross took blood screening seriously. Did they deserve it? Do the children of the drug abusing mothers deserve it? The rabbi at the synagogue here, a woman, was a nurse in Calif. before she became a rabbi. She got stuck with a needle while attending to a patient. She's gone now, to B'ham to be close to friends and family, because her AIDS is getting worse, she can't work anymore, and she's going to die. Did she deserve it? Do all the victims of rape and incest deserve it? What about the plain old heterosexuals who contracted it before they "got saved," and passed it on to the rest of the world? Please get some facts.
And forgive me, you would know better than I, but what would Jesus say about your resentment at having to spend your hard earned tax dollars to care for the sick and dying? Should we treat those with AIDS like lepers because we're speculating they engaged in "immoral activity" and it's God's wrath? If we'd listened to the epidemiologists at the CDC, NIH and WHO 17 yrs. ago, and invested a little of your tax dollars into research back then, you'd be paying a lot less for it now. Frank, you're drawing irrational conclusions. The question is "why"?
“Absolutely and categorically ‘no.’ Homophobes would say ‘yes,’ but that is because they fear homosexuals and do not understand the message. When the president says we need to be tolerant of people who are different from us, he is not saying, ‘Hey! Try it. You'll Like It....’ He's saying, if they ain't bothering you, don't bother them.”
I say "Yes" and I am NO homophobe. I don't fear homosexuals... period. I shall not resort to expletives to emphasize that point.
You can use expletives with me. We're practically family. If it is not "fear" that causes you to indulge in conclusion and speculation without facts, perhaps you could enlighten me as to the cause?
Rob, you're buying into a technique that was used so effectively in Hitler's Germany. First they identify, then they isolate, then they vilify. Next comes passing laws against, then they act within those laws. Was it "unlawful" for the SS to drag Jews to the ovens? Taking your advice (not following your example), I am trying to refrain from name calling.
Hey, Frank. I wasn't calling YOU a homophobe. I was talking about THEM in the article. I'm not sure I follow your analogy. You're saying I'm vilifying people who politically disagree with me and calling them homophobes? Naahh... I'm calling people homophobes who draw irrational conclusions about people they have no knowledge about. People who have an opinion who aren't familiar with what they're talking about have to be justifying that on some basis. I simply haven't heard one that is either not biblically based (which I'll respectfully disagree with) or isn't based on some deep rooted fear of the unknown, i.e., phobia.
Unless you claim some kind of moral superiority, my view is just as valid as yours. To me it is closely related to the religion issue. See, you aren't prone to talk in such tolerant terms as "how we're all supposed to live in this world together" when it come to prayer in the school, before a ball game, or in a courtroom. God forbid that a teacher or principle mentions God in the "non approved" context, but it's okay for the same people to teach my kid all the dirty little details of the homosexual lifestyle, then have the audacity to tell him to accept it as normal, and it is against my religious convictions and done without my permission. You have your work cut out for you to make me believe that, my friend. And you won't get to first by using the tired expressions and name calling so typical of the left.
This is kinda' interesting. I was calling the people in the article homophobes. Why are you taking it personally? You call the "little details" of homosexuality "dirty." That woman in the article yanked her kids. She doesn't have a clue what the nature of the "details" of the "lifestyle" are, or what was being taught, let alone is she in a position to judge if they're "dirty." She heard the idea that tolerance was being taught with respect to people who are born sexually oriented differently than you and I. From that she leapt to the statement that her son would die of AIDS if exposed to the fact that other people who engage in dangerous sexual behavior can get it. That's just irrational. What can explain that kind of irrational conclusions she would draw without any facts, but fear? That's the definition of the word "homophobia."
If you say your objection and hers is solely religious, then it becomes a matter of religion, not politics. I'm trying to keep this to a political discussion, because that's ultimately what it comes down to. I have no problem repealing the sodomy laws. That's a political issue, because if there was a religious basis for them, it would violate the first amendment. In the political debate about what to do about the homosexuality question, yes, I am going to dismiss people like the woman in the article, because it's clear enough from the article that her conclusions are drawn without adequate information about what she's talking about.
Would you have given that same kind of argument to the parents of the Jewish kids in Pike County? "Hey, you all cool it. They weren't really putting you down because of your religion. We've all got to be able to live togther, now." Come on!
The difference here is, even assuming your analogy were apt, that I can show how that kind of treatment of the Jewish kids leads to overt discrimination and hostility on the basis of nothing more than what the kids believe at home. There is a causal link there, and I've illustrated the harm to you many times. The difference is that having a different religious belief is constitutionally protected from government entanglement; there is no constitutional right to be free from political agendas, unless the purpose of that agenda is to foster or promote religion (or a religion in the face of your exercise, which is a different clause from the establishment clause).
Here's a proper analogy. The woman in the article has a constitutional right to be a homophobe, if that's what she wants to be. That's a free speech right, though, not an establishment and religion clause right. The government isn't telling her what to say or what to think. She may very well have political objections protected under the free speech clause to what her kids are taught in school, but unless she can show that homosexuality is a religion, she has no claim under the establishment clause just because she has religious objections to what is being taught. Whatever religious objections she does have are in fact being "accommodated" when she is allowed to remove her kids from those classes.
You fail to see the wrong in what the school is doing because you find a way to rationalize that it isn't. That may fit fine and dandy in your world view, but you're losing site of the fact that we don't all share your world view.
That's my point. It's a political question what world view we adopt at any moment. That's today's $64,000 political question.
“It is not analogous to the ‘prayer crisis’ except that the religious right has that issue high on its political agenda. It is the right that mixes apples and oranges. To say ‘be tolerant of homosexuals’ is not the same as saying ‘go out and be one.’ Only people who are afraid of their own sexuality would draw that conclusion.”
You are getting close to making personal accusations here. Careful.
Wait a minute and back up the truck. I restate what I said in the next to last sentence. If the last sentence is hitting too close to home when I'm talking about someone else, give me another explanation to understand why people draw that conclusion. I'm saying there's no factual basis for the conclusion that being taught to be tolerant of homosexuals equates or leads to promotion of the idea that people should go out and be one. I think I can appreciate your religious views that being told it's "all right" for people to be homosexual means they won't be taught they need to fight against the original sin they were born with. And that therefore it could lead to active promotion if defined that way. I just don't accept that as a matter of religion or psychology. Now, I was careful in my original email to exempt you and your religious beliefs from this category of what I call homophobe, because I can accept a religious basis for the reason you may be against it. But I was also excluding people with those sincerely held religious beliefs from the discussion itself. That, however, begs the question of the politics of teaching tolerance and sex education.
Listen carefully, it is not the individual but the practice that is the object of intoleration. There is a difference. You can hate a child’s unacceptable behavior without hating the child. Try to see the difference. One is a sinner, the other is sin. The sinner needs salvation. Christ died for him too. The sin needs to cease. Please try to understand the Christian point of view on this and you won't be making "apples and oranges" mistake yourself.
I don't think I did mix them up. I saw a program on 20/20 or Nightline the night before I wrote that email. It featured a psychiatrist or psychologist who said he could "cure" homosexuals. He claims to have treated 60 or so homosexuals and a success rate of around 50% (I forget how much). His son is the chair of the president's task force on gays and lesbians, and is himself a homosexual. I appreciate (I think) your religious viewpoint, but I don't agree with it. Since religious reasons cannot be the sole bases for political decisions, the question remains how you can articulate objections that have a rational basis in fact. I'm open. Just ain't heard any yet that have a rational basis other than firmly held religious reasons (which I exempted up front from the homophobe definition).
“What I consistently find in the vocal opponents to homosexuality is they themselves have many ‘issues’ with their own sexuality. I have suspected on more than one occasion that those who object the loudest are fighting their own latent homosexuality. "Not me," they cry. Well as Hamlet said to his mother, ‘Methinks thou doth protest too much.’ ”
See the response above. Methinks you absorb unchallenged the bunk that the radical homosexual organizations publish. That isn't characteristic of you at all. Try substituting Christianity or religion in the above paragraph. It seems that it is those who need religion (salvation) the most are the ones being so vocal against it. Now that I would believe.
That's very clever. I did the substitution. And I think you're right to a large degree. That of course doesn't explain all the religious groups who object most strongly to prayer in school, etc., but I still think it's a very valid parallel. Indeed, I'd say that was a primary purpose behind the establishment clause, was in answer to those non-believers who hadn't been "saved" yet. Read Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance." I read it last night for the first time. Very prophetic about what's going on today. But you're getting us off on religion, not the politics of homosexuality.
“As a purely political matter, it may very well be a ‘left’ agenda. But make sure you understand the message before you criticize it.”
Good advice. Try it with my message regarding the difference in view of the homosexual and the practice of homosexuality, and with "not all prayer is inherently promotion of religion."
We're in the definitional problem of what is "prayer," "religion" and "promotion" again. You need to read the cases to get a better feel, because ultimately we're talking about the legal understandings of those terms.
“I defy anyone to produce evidence that any teacher has ever taught, let alone suggested, that anal sex is an acceptable method of birth control, or that homosexuals have ever said that. That's unadulterated hysteria, and should clue you in right away that what this woman has to say is inherently unreliable.”
You are grasping at straws!
How in the world can you say I'm grasping at straws? You can read between the lines of that article and make some pretty good educated guesses about what was going on as well as I can. I don't accept that woman's second hand hearsay about what she thinks was about to be taught in school. How can you? Proof is such an easy thing, a copy of the reading materials, a quote from a teacher or administrator. Why is that always completely and utterly lacking in articles like this? Because they *want* the woman to look like a whacko? Because it's not there. Otherwise Billy Graham or Pat Robertson would've showed it to us by now, and said "look at the filth they're teaching your kids." But it's always hearsay. I'm clutching at straws?
Mrs. Hoffman and her husband, Paul, have pulled their three children out of Broward County public schools and filed a class action suit against the school board to stop what they call the board's promotion of homosexuality in sex education courses.
“This woman's problem is as much that she doesn't want her children taught about tolerance as she doesn't want them taught sex education. They are distinct issues, but she's lumped them together. From a public health standpoint, sex education is necessary. No less so than is true of teaching about the spread of heterosexual venereal disease, or tuberculosis or any other communicable disease. We can't hide our head in the sand. One of the ways AIDS and HIV are transmitted is through homosexual sex. Another is sharing needles. But today the primary spread of AIDS is through heterosexual sex.”
I shall not challenge the truth of the last statement, but then we have the homosexuals and drug addicts to thank for it, don't we. I know that not all who get AIDS committed homosexual acts, but trace back the family tree of their particular virus, and you'll surely find a homosexual back there somewhere (a statistically high probablility).
And these probabilities would be based on ... what exactly? There's a lot of material on the subject of the origins and spread of AIDS. I see nothing but conjecture in that last paragraph. Why don't we table this part of the discussion until you've had a chance to read up on it some. If you want me to find it for you, I probably can, but your reading list from me is getting pretty steep as it is.
"I am furious and outraged that tax dollars are being spent to promote a lifestyle that if embraced will cut our son's life in half," says Mrs. Hoffman.
“The first time I read this I was truly baffled. She's made the quantum leap that tolerance of people who are oriented differently than you are will lead her son to homosexual encounters which will then automatically lead to her son contracting AIDS. Wow! Do you think if you're much more tolerant of me, you'll wake up Jewish and craving lox, bagels and gefilte fish?”
Try reading it again. That isn't what she said.
I'm sorry. Before commenting on something negatively I usually read it a number of times, as I did there. I gave it the best understanding I could. Can you clue me in on what she really said?
Don't you agree that a person who embraced or adopted the lifestyle (participated in the acts)would likely shorten his life?
Not if he's taught safe sex.
If it is so great, have you told your son to "take your choice, boys or girls"? Of course not. And for lots of reasons beyond avoiding AIDS.
If what's so great? We never put it in terms of "choice" because we don't view orientation as a matter of choice. I recognize that you do, despite any birth predisposition. But we don't view it as something that has to be fought, like original sin. We do say that if that's the way they are, we won't be ashamed of them and we'd love them just as much.
So, if you can't get aids from oral sex, and homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle, then oral sex with another man is safe and acceptable. And that isn't permotion?!? If it were religion, it certainly wouldn't pass the "effect" portion of the Lemon test, would it?
Just where does that come from? I see tolerance and public health awareness as entirely separate issues. Where does "homosexual oral sex is a safe alternative to birth control" come from? Did a teacher say that? I'm saying that never happened except in the overactive homophobic minds of people like the Hoffmans (not you, them). I've diagramed the article for you as to why I think she thinks that and why I think she's mixing apples and oranges. And you say I'm clutching at straws to prove she's a homophobe.
And yes, off the cuff, if it were religion, assuming that statement to be remotely true, it would not pass the "effects" test in Lemon. But the difference here is that government is promoting a political agenda, not religion. And I've explained separately why establishment clause analysis does not work with political ideas. It's anathema to the electoral process. On this one, if people like the Hoffmans ARE in the majority, they win by ousting the president and the local and state boards of education. And the first amendment has nothing to say about it.
"I’m not a nut, I'm not a foaming religious right winger or a fanatical bigot," Mrs. Hoffman says. "What I am is pro parent and pro family. I'm for my children.
“Ah, but she is all of those. And her saying that she's not doesn't make the converse true. She is afraid of homosexuals and translates that fear into a prediction that her son will die of AIDS if he is tolerant of them. That's the exact same kind of thinking that cause the burning of numerous alleged ‘witches’ during the times of the plague in the middle ages. It's hysterical nonsense.”
Let's see, calling folks names is step number 3, I believe. You condemn her automatically because she has an opposing opinion.
Wrong, I condemn her because her "opposing" political opinion has no foundation in fact, it is conjectural hysteria. I say it's fear of what she does not understand about either homosexuals or AIDS. Other than a sincerely held religious biblical prohibition, you give me another postulate. I diagramed the article to demonstrate why what she said is inherently unreliable and incredible. Now, if you want to say you read that article and conclude that you and she share the same religious beliefs as the reason for your objection, then fine. But I won't debate the theology of homosexuality with you either. I was addressing her political arguments.
I prefer to give her the benefit of the doubt as knowing the children, the school, and the situation. Remember, she has the responsibility for what her child turns out to be. The schools (meaning government) think they have the right to conduct one social experiment after another on our children with impunity. I personally know an individual that took part in the famous government LSD experiment. Fortunately, he got the placebo.
Gee Frank. We're all one big political experiment. I don't fault her for wanting to do what she thinks is in her kids' best interest. I'd just do it a lot different, and make sure I knew what I was talking about.
“That woman's daughter will be pregnant or have a venereal disease by the age of 15, and it won't be the school's fault for failing to teach the kid how to prevent either. Teaching kids about the causes of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases is a public health issue that Ms. Hoffman is clearly unqualified to handle. Neither is an endorsement of premarital sex.”
If she is pregnant at 15, she won't be alone. Have you checked the statistics on teen pregnancies to back in the 50's? Any explanation of the sharp trend upward around the 1964 timeframe, or the steep slope even with the current method of teaching sex ed? Obviously something isn't working well now. You'd fire your broker if he didn't do something to halt such an unfavorable trend. But the government keeps mandating more of the same failed methods. Speak softly, Dad, there may be a teenager in your house.
I tend to think that the methods you refer to are never really given a fighting or flying chance. We dabble in them and yank funding just when we're starting to get a grip on what works and what doesn't. We're in a constant state of flux in this big experiment. That's the price we're paying for the electoral and political process. Lack of long term continuity.
Now, I've seen the arguments that we can trace society's ills back to the early sixties. They're a major basis for the reason that people say we need religion back in school. I think that's too facile. There are too many factors that are omitted from that equation. It's worth keeping an open eye to, but at this point I've seen studies that have contradicted or analyses that refute the basis for a lot of those conclusions. I know you may not think so, but from what I've seen the jury is still out on the validity of those assertions.
“And teaching children tolerance of people who are oriented differently is not an endorsement of homosexuality as a lifestyle to be emulated.”
EFFECT! (Why not? It works against religion.)
Because there's no proof whatsoever that teaching someone who's not predisposed to be a homosexual about the fact of homosexuality or the idea that it's even an acceptable lifestyle for some people will create an atmosphere such as is described in the "effects" discussion of the prayer cases. I think I can see where you're coming from though. I've stated it a couple of times above.
Now here it is again in algebra: Homosexuality is a product of original sin, a negative value. Teaching tolerance of homosexual lifestyles is a positive value. Multiplied, that equals a negative value which you equate to "promotion." However, if you teach that the homosexual lifestyle is something that is, indeed, negative, then multiplied you have a positive, i.e, a person that will reject his original sin. How's that?
Well, we just have to agree to disagree on this.
© Copyright 1998 and 2008 by Robert M. Weinberg & Franklin L. Grose
All Rights Reserved
