Originally posted by Raptor22That sounds fun tbh, some people still get high in school but i haven't heard of people getting handjobs or anything like that. I'd be scared of getting caught if I did that lol
Lol. I must be getting old. In my day, high school at least, was for getting high in the bathroom, and getting handjobs in the band room during study hall. My how things have changed.Saving the best for last. I ike it.
Indeed. 🙂
Originally posted by |King Joker|
It isn't that hard. There's no room for opinion in terms of whether or not it's a choice people make -- it's pretty much the consensus of scientists that homosexuality is the result of genetic and environmental factors. It isn't a mental disorder or a choice, so in the context of teaching on a scientific, objective basis, there is no room for a varying opinion on homosexuality, such as the latter bullshit views that have been debunked. Religious views are not relevant in school, so I have no idea why you're bringing that up as if it means anything. But yeah, anyways, in all honesty, I would say the jury is still mostly out when it comes to trans issues, so I don't necessarily think that that should be taught in school until there's a more solid understanding of it. And lmfao, who the **** says I can't defend my views myself, because I certainly ****ing can, thank you very much, 'sweetie'.
So to sum up this paragraph, you're saying it's 'pretty much' a consensus, wildly claiming it's not a 'mental disorder' when the ****ing Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders says that it's nearly impossible to distinguish between 'results of genetic and environmental factors' and 'mental disorders' given the loose definitions.
Then you claim that you can teach it with a 'scientific, objective basis'? Jesus Christ, you really need to learn what the word objective means. Just because someone's using scientifically accurate definitions does not mean they are objective. If someone spent an hour lecturing eleven year old children on the fact that Homosexuality can be classified as a 'mental disorder' and 'disease', they are being scientifically accurate but sure as **** not objective. All of these arguments would be opinion driven but scientifically presented, which is precisely why leaving this education in the hands of people who have their own preformed opinion is beyond retarded.
If you think a teacher from the rural southern states could not adhere to the curriculum while essentially indoctrinating his class into thinking homosexuality is wrong, you're naive.
Well everyone knows gay people exist lmao, but the distinction more lies in people's views on the cause of homosexuality, and their dislike and hesitation regarding it springing from that. And obviously teaching about the issue isn't going immediately fix everything, but I don't think it's a stretch that if middle schoolers or high schoolers are taught about homosexuality with a scientific basis, they're less likely to peddle misinformation and hold negative views. I'm not under a delusion that there won't still be homophobia in schools and shit, but I have no idea why education on the topic would worsen the issue as you're suggesting.
Again though you're vastly overestimating the influence of science on modern culture and viewpoints.
You haven't laid out a convincing reason at all why it wouldn't work, basically your last paragraph was some convoluted bullshit you seemed to have made up on the fly. Teaching kids scientific facts about homosexuality is not such a big deal lmao, and it's hardly 'preaching'.
Honey if you think an explanation of the word 'echo chamber' is convoluted (ie, extremely hard and difficult to follow) then you're not ready for a debate like this. That was not hard to follow at all, and is clearly visible in a variety of different topics taught in schools. It is nearly impossible to give a child an unbiased education on a topic that has polarised opinions in society.
The only children who would need this education are those raised in backgrounds where homophobia is prevalent and homosexuality is rare. With your method of teaching these children (IE, Fact based: Homosexuals exist, conversion therapy does not work, it is not a choice) they are exposed to the facts, but their opinion (which is what you have claimed you want changed) is not formed until they discuss the issues with people actually willing to put forward an argument. They will not decide whether homosexuals are sinners, whether they want to actually be close to these people or view them as normal until an outside influence (like a family) weighs in on the topic. Then, as I said, those in stigma dominated areas with an undiverse community will have the same opinions they would have regardless of an intervention via the education system.
Simply giving unbiased facts does nothing to change the bias that you have claimed you do not want people approaching you already having. You want acceptance preached, you're just too afraid to admit it.
Originally posted by SelenialI don't think moving the goal posts here is a bad thing, instead just the opposite. This isn't like a comic debate where he asked for proof, u provide it, then he asks for more. This is more of an open disucssion in an attempt to find a solution to a problem, where having an open mind and willingness to alter ones stance (if that is indeed the case here) seems more like a virtue in a situation like this as opposed to a point of scorn.
So the suddenly dodge the teaching based around the Trans community is moving the goalposts, Joker.
The point isn't to teach "acceptance" Ant. The point is to introduce people to what homo/bisexuality actually is as oppose to misinformation spread by homophobes and blood-sucking Christians. It would make people more open-minded, but it won't force children to accept it.
And those 75 fake genders are exactly what you'd think they are: fake. Homosexuality and bisexuality are real, factual things that exist and impact daily life. Also, I do believe schools should raise awarness on people who suffer from Turner's syndrome or Klinefelter's syndrome or some such disorder which could technically fall under a completely different gender/sex than male or female, but that's another topic entirely.
Originally posted by MythLord
And those 75 fake genders are exactly what you'd think they are: fake.
At least in America, from what I have observed, the gay/lesbian community and then the transgender/gender fluid/Apache helicopter community is one of the same.
Maybe we have like a two-day health class on gays and lesbians, but anything more than that is not necessary as far as I'm concerned.
I also agree with Selenial that education won't change the existing area biases. Hell, forcing them to teach it might make the teachers hate it more.
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
That's not really my point. Regardless of it's actual status, that would obviously be what the LGBT community would push for next if they get their gay and lesbian stuff past.At least in America, from what I have observed, the gay/lesbian community and then the transgender/gender fluid/Apache helicopter community is one of the same.
They're not the same. In fact, if you actually think about it logically: they're fundamentally different. Homosexuality and transexuality in it's core is related specifically to the male and female relationships and their deviations which means a third made-up gender literally cannot be applied in that context.
So I don't know what you're observing, but try to observe it a bit better.
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Maybe we have like a two-day health class on gays and lesbians, but anything more than that is not necessary as far as I'm concerned.I also agree with Selenial that education won't change the existing area biases. Hell, forcing them to teach it might make the teachers hate it more.
The point isn't area biases. Obviously some people will still be against it. The idea is that people wouldn't be spoon-fed myths and lies about the gay community and come to baseless conclusions, but rather instead have a better understanding.
What Joker, Beni and I are arguing for is for people to first see what homo/bisexuality actually is then you can go ahead and love it for hate it. But it would certainly reduce the amount hate since most homophobes are just grossly misinformed and close-minded.
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
I also agree with raptor22 and not Selenial, since he brought up the point first and sel just piggybacked off his genius, that education won't change the existing area biases. Also I'd like to add that raptor seems like a very charming fellow who is undoubtedly very handsome and should be looked up to as a role model regardless of your own gender or sexual orientation.
Damn ant thanks. Tbh I didn't see any of that coming but it's appreciated none the less.
Originally posted by MythLord
So I don't know what you're observing, but try to observe it a bit better..
Do you stand on some high mountain with ultra-range binoculars and monitor USA/LGBT politics? 😬
Hell, T, for transgender, is the fourth letter in the LGBTIQ+ name. And I have yet to see just a "LGB" flag. 😂
I'd like to object to the concept of the "LGBT community" on principle. It's a demographic, and being gay bi or transgender doesn't magically sign you up to be a part of some organized group. Furthermore the "representatives" of the "LGBT community" aren't elected or appointed by all gay bi and trans people so they speak only for themselves.
I'm mainly posting this because I think it's bigoted of certain activists claiming to act in the interests of LGBT people to assume they're part of some homogeneous group with the same opinions and goals. And I don't think it's fair because it leads people to associate LGBT people with the cultural marxist post-modernist bullshit that's corrupting part of the left away from actual liberal values.
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Last time I checked, you lived in like some unknown country in the slums of eastern Europe.
And this affects my opinion... how, exactly? When I have relatives in the US, friends in the US and am consistently keeping up with the LGBT thing given that I am bi. I'd be doing far more research and observation on the topic than someone like you.
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Do you stand on some high mountain with ultra-range binoculars and monitor USA/LGBT politics? 😬
I have a thing called internet. And I'd obviously keep up more with that topic than you. 👆
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Hell, T, for transgender, is the fourth letter in the LGBTIQ+ name. And I have yet to see just a "LGB" flag. 😂
Are you reading what I'm saying?
Originally posted by MythLord
Homosexuality and transexuality in it's core is related specifically to the male and female relationships and their deviations which means a third made-up gender literally cannot be applied in that context.
I'm talking about gays, bis and trans and how you can't mix them up with the non-binary bullsh!t.
Originally posted by EmperordmbHow is that different from say the black community, Asian, Latin etc...? Being born black doesn't sign u up for some organized group, but they are still black, and part of the "black community".
I'd like to object to the concept of the "LGBT community" on principle. It's a demographic, and being gay bi or transgender doesn't magically sign you up to be a part of some organized group. Furthermore the "representatives" of the "LGBT community" aren't elected or appointed by all gay bi and trans people so they speak only for themselves.I'm mainly posting this because I think it's bigoted of certain activists claiming to act in the interests of LGBT people to assume they're part of some homogeneous group with the same opinions and goals.
Would a black activist be a bigot simply for the fact that he/she is fighting for equal rights, and feels they should go about in a way that not all blacks agree with?
Originally posted by Raptor22
How is that different from say the black community, Asian, Latin etc...? Being born black doesn't sign u up for some organized group, but they are still black, and part of the "black community".Would a black activist be a bigot simply for the fact that he/she is fighting for equal rights, and feels they should go about in a way that not all blacks agree with?
And yes there was weird bullshit where some people assume BLM speaks for black people when there are black people who stand against it, and some leftists who claimed that black people can't possibly support Donald Trump without having internalized oppression or something.
The point I'm making being that it's not healthy to view people as collectives based on their demographics and thus view political activist movements as being representative of or the voice of said demographics.
Originally posted by SelenialThat same source you just referred to removed homosexuality from being considered a mental disorder in ****ing 1974, so it seems like my claim isn't so wild. Get with the times, *****.
So to sum up this paragraph, you're saying it's 'pretty much' a consensus, wildly claiming it's not a 'mental disorder' when the ****ing Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders says that it's nearly impossible to distinguish between 'results of genetic and environmental factors' and 'mental disorders' given the loose definitions.
Originally posted by SelenialIf they want to keep their job as a teacher they'd have to be objective. It's almost like that's kind of what being a teacher is about. Teachers who teach American History, for example, may really ****ing hate Ronald Reagan, but they can't just shit-talk his entire administration and call him the worst President ever because they feel like it. I'm also really loving this comically over-the-top condescension from you Selenial -- it's especially amusing because your views on this topic are similar to those from the mid-20th century and you have honestly no idea what you're talking about. Almost as if you need a course in one of these gay classes, because even with you being an adult, you're still clueless. 🙁
Then you claim that you can teach it with a 'scientific, objective basis'? Jesus Christ, you really need to learn what the word objective means. Just because someone's using scientifically accurate definitions does not mean they are objective.
Originally posted by SelenialYeah you're full of shit, unsurprisingly. Homosexuality being a mental disorder is not scientifically backed up at all, your own aforementioned source removed it from that classification decades ago, the American Psychiatric Association and the World Psychiatric Association also concur with that and have a wealth of scientific evidence affirming that viewpoint, and they even denounce other countries that list homosexuality as a mental disorder. Anyways, I'm going to show you some scientific facts and consensuses, Selenial, and I do hope you read carefully and thoroughly.
If someone spent an hour lecturing eleven year old children on the fact that Homosexuality can be classified as a 'mental disorder' and 'disease', they are being scientifically accurate
"Since that time, the APA has passed numerous
resolutions supporting LGB civil rights and
psychological well-being (see APA, 2005a).
Other mental health associations, including the
National Association of Social Workers and the
American Counseling Association, and medical
associations, including the American Medical
Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics,
have passed similar resolutions. Gradual shifts began to
take place in the international mental health community
as well. In 1992, the World Health Organization
removed homosexuality per se from the International
Classification of Diseases (Nakajima, 2003).(http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resource...ic-response.pdf)
There is strong evidence that genes play a role in the determination of sexuality. Mustanski et
al., writing in the Annual Review of Sex Research, state: “Genetic research using family and twin
methodologies has produced consistent evidence that genes influence sexual orientation.” This
conclusion was reached after a comprehensive review of the relevant research of a 10-year
period ending in 2002. This and other studies suggest that genes do play a role, though not
necessarily the only role, in determining sexual orientation. And like most genetically
determined traits, it is likely that more than one gene plays a role.(file:///C:/Users/crl10/Downloads/APA-denounces-IPA-LGBT-classification.pdf)
A Finnish study involving 3,261 Finnish twins aged 34-43 years old, published in the Archives of
Sexual Behavior in 2007 notes that “quantitative genetic analyses showed that variation in both
childhood gender atypical behavior and adult sexual orientation was partly due to genetics, with
the rest being explained by non-shared environmental effects.” The authors further cite a Dutch
study of gender atypical behavior (GAB) in 7- and 10-year-old twins and later sexual orientation,
which found that genetic factors account for 70% of the variance in GAB for both boys and girls,
and that this phenomenon was substantially linked to homosexuality. (file:///C:/Users/crl10/Downloads/APA-denounces-IPA-LGBT-classification.pdf)
There is other evidence that, during fetal development, exposure to certain hormones also plays
a role. A 2011 review by Belgian researcher Jacques Balthazart and published in the journal
Endocrinology concludes that “homosexual subjects were, on average, exposed to atypical
endocrine conditions during development,” and that “significant endocrine changes during
embryonic life often result in an increased incidence of homosexuality.” (file:///C:/Users/crl10/Downloads/APA-denounces-IPA-LGBT-classification.pdf)
There's more evidence they use in the letter, those are just three examples of the evidence they use as to why homosexuality should not be classified as a mental disorder.
Originally posted by SelenialYup, like I pointed out, the 'varying opinions' you presented are horseshit and have been for decades, so teachers supposedly inserting their own view on homosexuality in the classroom would be factually baseless and not authorized by the schools anyway. I know you think you're a genius, Selenial, but teachers aren't actually allowed to start spouting off their own personal views on subjects. But I guess by your standards, global warming shouldn't be discussed in school either because the teachers would just insert their own partisan views on the topic, right?
and the but sure as **** not objective. All of these arguments would be opinion driven but scientifically presented, which is precisely why leaving this education in the hands of people who have their own preformed opinion is beyond retarded.
Originally posted by SelenialHe could do that if he wants to get fired, yeah, because spinning things to such a degree that he indoctrinates the class into believing homosexuality is wrong requires a significant deviation from the hypothetical curriculum and is extremely unprofessional conduct.
If you think a teacher from the rural southern states could not adhere to the curriculum while essentially indoctrinating his class into thinking homosexuality is wrong, you're naive.
Originally posted by SelenialIt isn't hard to explain, like, at all. But the reason why some kids may be dumbfounded on the topic of homosexuality is because people act as if mentioning it will intrigue them and turn them gay. That's literally what a lot of people think. And do you want to know why? Because parents are ****ing uninformed, uneducated fools. With this topic, everything is cyclical.
Young children don't necessarily understand what homosexuality is,
Originally posted by SelenialI didn't move any ****ing goalposts, LOL. I haven't been advocating for gender identity education, and regardless, this discussion is where opinions are more fluid and adaptable, compared to some Star Wars debate.
and the argument you are defending claimed 'There should be more education on the part of our schools in explaining Trans/gay people so they understand them better.' So the suddenly dodge the teaching based around the Trans community is moving the goalposts, Joker.
Originally posted by SelenialI doubt it tbh, since the falsehoods about sexual orientation peddled in the 20th century legitimized homophobia in that time, and the change in stance by the psychiatric institutions gave a foundation for pro-LGBT legislation and helped change the public's viewpoint.
Again though you're vastly overestimating the influence of science on modern culture and viewpoints.
Originally posted by SelenialI wasn't having a problem with 'echo chamber', the convoluted remark was in reference to your premise preceding the echo chamber argument, which you address more thoroughly here.
Honey if you think an explanation of the word 'echo chamber' is convoluted (ie, extremely hard and difficult to follow) then you're not ready for a debate like this.
Originally posted by SelenialHomophobia is prevalent literally everywhere in the United States. Contrary to popular belief, it isn't just red states.
The only children who would need this education are those raised in backgrounds where homophobia is prevalent and homosexuality is rare.
Originally posted by SelenialI'll concede that this is a plausible possibility, but the thing is, like I said, there is not much room for an opinion on homosexuality when it comes to teaching it in the manner I'm suggesting. You've falsely claimed that homosexuality being a disease or mental disorder is equally valid to it being genetic/environmental, and without that wiggle room you suggest there would be in a class, there would be far less of a chance for a homophobic teacher to indoctrinate children into their own point of view of it being immoral. A teacher properly explaining the truth that homosexuality is normal and natural undermines a lot of opposing arguments, believe it or not.
With your method of teaching these children (IE, Fact based: Homosexuals exist, conversion therapy does not work, it is not a choice) they are exposed to the facts, but their opinion (which is what you have claimed you want changed) is not formed until they discuss the issues with people actually willing to put forward an argument. They will not decide whether homosexuals are sinners, whether they want to actually be close to these people or view them as normal until an outside influence (like a family) weighs in on the topic. Then, as I said, those in stigma dominated areas with an undiverse community will have the same opinions they would have regardless of an intervention via the education system.
Originally posted by SelenialIt kinda does. People thinking I have a disease or a mental disorder are more likely to be distant and hesitant (on a good day) around me, that's common sense, and it's a situation I may not encounter if people are informed on the truths of homosexuality. Just read Wollf's post.
Simply giving unbiased facts does nothing to change the bias that you have claimed you do not want people approaching you already having. You want acceptance preached, you're just too afraid to admit it.
That same source you just referred to removed homosexuality from being considered a mental disorder in ****ing 1974, so it seems like my claim isn't so wild. Get with the times, *****.
You really should read more of the article you find before you post, dear. Homosexuality is not classified as a mental disorder because societal viewpoint is that there is nothing wrong with it. To quote: 'As these theories equate the normal with the natural, they define homosexuality as good (or, at baseline, neutral). Such theories see no place for homosexuality in a psychiatric diagnostic manual.'
Furthermore, just in case you're curious, it had this to say as well: 'For Pedophilia, Voyeurism, Exhibitionism, and Frotteurism, the diagnosis is made if the person has acted on these urges or the urges or sexual fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty'*
*(The definition has changed recently, but come under fire for introducing law into the equation, which would classify Homosexuality as a mental disorder in 74 countries)
This perfectly displays the world attitude towards mental disorders, they're only classified as such only when acting upon them harms the individual or those around them. Homosexuality's exemption from being a mental disorder is due to society's beliefs, there is nothing technically stopping someone from labeling it as a mental disorder and not being incorrect.
Yup, like I pointed out, the 'varying opinions' you presented are horseshit and have been for decades, so teachers supposedly inserting their own view on homosexuality in the classroom would be factually baseless and not authorized by the schools anyway. I know you think you're a genius, Selenial, but teachers aren't actually allowed to start spouting off their own personal views on subjects. But I guess by your standards, global warming shouldn't be discussed in school either because the teachers would just insert their own partisan views on the topic, right?
Whether it would be 'authorized' by the schools is kind of irrelevant, you cannot force the majority of teachers to tow the line given the laws in America about freedom of religion, and the inherent conflicts between Catholicism and Homosexuality.
Oh, and out of curiosity, how much has Global Warming education actually helped children in the southern states? Lmfao.
He could do that if he wants to get fired, yeah, because spinning things to such a degree that he indoctrinates the class into believing homosexuality is wrong requires a significant deviation from the hypothetical curriculum and is extremely unprofessional conduct.
'Homosexuality is wrong in the Christian faith. Acting upon your homosexual urges is a sin, and brings you further away from God.' All of that is factual, none of that is illegal, and all of it represses closet homosexual teenagers.
It isn't hard to explain, like, at all. But the reason why some kids may be dumbfounded on the topic of homosexuality is because people act as if mentioning it will intrigue them and turn them gay. That's literally what a lot of people think. And do you want to know why? Because parents are ****ing uninformed, uneducated fools. With this topic, everything is cyclical.
I didn't move any ****ing goalposts, LOL. I haven't been advocating for gender identity education, and regardless, this discussion is where opinions are more fluid and adaptable, compared to some Star Wars debate.
If you reply to, and start a debate with someone who's discussing primarily the Trans-gendered community, and then flip it to homosexuality because it's easier to defend, you're moving the goalposts.
Homophobia is prevalent literally everywhere in the United States. Contrary to popular belief, it isn't just red states.
That's because rural populations exist in every state, yes.
I'll concede that this is a plausible possibility, but the thing is, like I said, there is not much room for an opinion on homosexuality when it comes to teaching it in the manner I'm suggesting. You've falsely claimed that homosexuality being a disease or mental disorder is equally valid to it being genetic/environmental, and without that wiggle room you suggest there would be in a class, there would be far less of a chance for a homophobic teacher to indoctrinate children into their own point of view of it being immoral. A teacher properly explaining the truth that homosexuality is normal and natural undermines a lot of opposing arguments, believe it or not.
Even if you can rule out disease and mental disorder, (which you cannot, despite how much it might piss you, me, and every other normal person off) you sure as hell cannot rule out Religion, which is honestly the biggest game changer in regards to homophobia in the United States.
It kinda does. People thinking I have a disease or a mental disorder are more likely to be distant and hesitant (on a good day) around me, that's common sense, and it's a situation I may not encounter if people are informed on the truths of homosexuality. Just read Wollf's post.
The disease and mental disorder points are just cover ups, please tell me you understand that. No one actually believes homosexuality is a disease, people spout it because it cannot be fully debunked and it enables their homophobia. If you remove that from the picture, they'll simply move to distrusting you because you're sinful, and strange. You cannot tackle a prejudice that's solely based on emotion with science, I don't understand how you fail to see that.