Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should Children learn about sexual orientations in schools

Announcements Posted on
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)

    okay, fine - but people can change their sexuality with help.
    That's an ignorant view that's destroyed far more lives than homosexuality itself ever has. People shouldn't want to change their sexuality and they certainly shouldn't be told by anybody that it's possible. It's a very cruel thing to say to someone because it's a potentially damaging lie.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    If this happens, then don't expect the kids to take it seriously. If me and mates had been told about this, we would have laughed our heads off, like we did in the one off puberty class we had in year 6. And don't be surprised if it just leads to more prejudice. If you want something to be accepted, don't make an issue of it. Especially if it is preached to the kids, they'll find themselves hating it just for the fact that they are being preached about it.

    And lastly, I think this stuff should be left to the parents.
    All my opinion of course
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
    The general consensus is that there is at least a strong biological/genetic factor, which can has been demonstrated many times using twin studies and the like. As far as chemical imbalances go. Just because hormones are involved in the development of sexual organs does not necessitate their involvement in sexuality. I'm not going to claim that they have no factor at all but I have yet to read a study that suggested that they had any major significance.

    As far as your "gay gene" rant there...you are comparing someone being prone to an illness...to an immutable characteristic....there is a significant difference genetically. Whats to say that the genetic makeup that helps to cause homosexuality is a 'defect' or 'imbalance'? You can only make that claim if it is detrimental to the individual which homosexuality is not.

    As far as your rant on genes....there clearly isn't going to be "gay gene" as it is far more complex than that and
    I believes hormones do play a crucial part in sexual attraction and possibly homosexual attraction?

    You can only make that claim if it is detrimental to the individual which homosexuality is not.
    Ahhh a homosexual person may be happy, but technically the purpose of life is to reproduce and homosexuality could be quite detrimental in that aspect.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chaofan88)
    Yes, some people hate people simply for being a minority. But, most homophobes I know have no problem with disabled people or ethnic minorities. I would infer that a significant majority of homophobes are more tolerant to other minorities and that it's a minority of homophobes that hate lgbt people just for being lgbt and those people are utter idiots.
    They "tolerate" other groups because lgbt is so vocal in trying to stand out. It is also very easy to target and mock. From my experience, it has been a 50/50 mix of people trying to get on with their life and simply wanting equal opportunities, and the other half want to go round dressed as gimps and shouting that they are different. These people cripple any success the more dignified groups had obtained.

    I understand that lgbt people will always be persecuted as a minority. That's absolutely no excuse to sit back and do nothing. Being both mixed race and bisexual, I can say form general observation and experience that lgbt people are persecuted much more than ethnic minorities and I would suspect that's to do with a longer history of rights struggles that have allowed ethnic minorities to be accepted to the extent they are today. In the UK, gays have roughly equal rights (albeit, still not exactly the same) but legislation is not the whole battle. Lgbt people still aren't treated the same, and not even by a fraction like some ethnic minorities, but often by quite a significant degree. It's not uncommon to be chucked out, lose friends, lose family ties, recieve death threats and worst be murdered for being gay. Obviously death threats and murder is generally exacted by hate-blinded morons you refer to, but the former few heartbreaks are often caused by people who aren't that
    moronic and could probably have sense instilled in them.
    But there is nothing that you are willing to do that will rectify the problem. Persecution has always existed, so you would have to implement something utterly new and radical to change human society for the first time.
    You also have the problem of choice.
    I have known people who were gay the day they were born - as it should be. For what ever reason, the person is gay. Fair enough.
    But then you have the gays who have "phases" of being gay, which is simply the person is too insecure to deal with their issues with the opposite sex so decides to be gay. A lot of people will never be comfortable with that choice as it goes against natural instincts.


    Seriously, what's wrong with just telling children that some girls fall in love with boys, some with girls and some with both (and vice versa)? It's not going to be of any detriment and can only shape people to become more accepting.
    Because I was not taught that and have no problem with the lgbt community. The problem is not in the school, but at the home from parents passing on their bigoted views to their children, or that some kids are just too stupid to accept that people are different.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    No, they should learn at home. Sadly too many parents are uninformed or bigotted so it falls to the school to fill the gap.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I strongly believe they should be, however it would have to be done properly. There's a lot of ignorance about the subject among a lot of people, and I know some of my teachers would have been dire at doing it in a sensitive and knowledgeable manner. They weren't homophobes, but that doesn't mean they were as well informed as they should have been.
    • 21 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pr0view)
    Well this awkward...

    Homosexuality is NOT or shouldn't be the result of a dominant gene. Can we agree on that?
    Certainly, but that doesn't change anything.

    Your argument is that it must be a mental illness because it doesn't serve an evolutionary purpose.

    But,

    (1) There's no reason to suppose that it doesn't have an evolutionary purpose
    (2) It does not logically follow that something which does not serve an evolutionary purpose is automatically a mental illness.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Pretty sure I read somewhere that children decide upon what sexual orientation they prefer at around 15 and once they have decided it is stuck, in most cases anyway. They may not realise this till later on but they will eventually.

    It should not be taught to children in primary school, like someone said it would potentially encourage homosexuality. Let me make this clear, there is nothing wrong with that but children that age really don't need to know about things they really don't care about at that age.
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    However, polygamy is illegal. You don't want schools teaching illegal activities.
    I was just thinking about it in a sense of: 'some people love more than one person and they sometimes all live together happily but most families are not like this because a lot of people get a bit jealous and that's ok too.'
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pr0view)
    I believes hormones do play a crucial part in sexual attraction and possibly homosexual attraction?
    I can tell thats what you believe. But like I said I have yet to see any scientific evidence to show that and see no reason to believe it to be the case.


    Ahhh a homosexual person may be happy, but technically the purpose of life is to reproduce and homosexuality could be quite detrimental in that aspect.
    So you are saying anybody who doesn't has children for whatever reason is mentally ill? And that not having children is detrimental to that person? I don't see how not having children is detrimental to either the individual or society. Please explain?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    Certainly, but that doesn't change anything.

    Your argument is that it must be a mental illness because it doesn't serve an evolutionary purpose.

    But,

    (1) There's no reason to suppose that it doesn't have an evolutionary purpose
    (2) It does not logically follow that something which does not serve an evolutionary purpose is automatically a mental illness.
    Well it certainly doesn't help someone reproduce.

    I think the main reason homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness is to do with political reasons rather than scientific ones.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    They either laugh at it anyway, or get turned gay eh.
    • 22 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lonelyknight)
    If this happens, then don't expect the kids to take it seriously. If me and mates had been told about this, we would have laughed our heads off, like we did in the one off puberty class we had in year 6. And don't be surprised if it just leads to more prejudice. If you want something to be accepted, don't make an issue of it. Especially if it is preached to the kids, they'll find themselves hating it just for the fact that they are being preached about it.

    And lastly, I think this stuff should be left to the parents.
    All my opinion of course
    This is a good point (that is, about the chances of the children taking the lesson seriously). However, I think a lot of that depends upon the age at which such a lesson takes place, and the manner in which it is taught. My experience has been that my parents have never even touched upon any matters of sexuality and it's all been left to the schools. I don't think it's fair to generalise, either. There will be some morons and ignoramuses who dislike whatever they learn at school, but if a strong message is put out in an appropriate manner, it should have a generally positive effect.
    • 21 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pr0view)
    Well it certainly doesn't help someone reproduce.

    I think the main reason homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness is to do with political reasons rather than scientific ones.
    Firstly, evolutionary purposes are not solely constrained to reproductive success or purposes.

    Secondly, homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness because of research on the topic done by psychologists and sociologists over the past few decades.

    Heterosexuality and homosexuality function in the same way - a natural expression of sexual orientation.

    Homosexuality does not, in and of itself, cause distress or dysfunction to those people who are homosexual.

    For something to be a mental disorder, it need cause distress or dysfunction to the experiencer.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
    I can tell thats what you believe. But like I said I have yet to see any scientific evidence to show that and see no reason to believe it to be the case.



    So you are saying anybody who doesn't has children for whatever reason is mentally ill? And that not having children is detrimental to that person? I don't see how not having children is detrimental to either the individual or society. Please explain?
    As far a evolution is concerned someone who is homosexual or just doesn't have kids is effectively a failure. What i am saying is that why are people homosexual, if it is not a mental illness then surely is a genetic one? It is in no way beneficial for an creature to not want to naturally reproduce.

    If it is "just a sexual orientation" yet the purpose to sex is to reproduce, leaving us with the conclusion that homosexuality is some kind of disorder/illness...
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    Firstly, evolutionary purposes are not solely constrained to reproductive success or purposes.

    Secondly, homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness because of research on the topic done by psychologists and sociologists over the past few decades.

    Heterosexuality and homosexuality function in the same way - a natural expression of sexual orientation.

    Homosexuality does not, in and of itself, cause distress or dysfunction to those people who are homosexual.

    For something to be a mental disorder, it need cause distress or dysfunction to the experiencer.
    I beg to differ on the first two points.

    What do you mean by "a natural expression", it isn't just the way things as everything has some kind of purpose.

    And it does cause dysfunction in reproductive aspects.
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pr0view)
    As far a evolution is concerned someone who is homosexual or just doesn't have kids is effectively a failure. What i am saying is that why are people homosexual, if it is not a mental illness then surely is a genetic one? It is in no way beneficial for an creature to not want to naturally reproduce.

    If it is "just a sexual orientation" yet the purpose to sex is to reproduce, leaving us with the conclusion that homosexuality is some kind of disorder/illness...
    As far as evolution is concerned...you clearly have a very narrow view of evolution. The thread I posted earlier already discussed it. In addition to theories of population control. So...as far as evolution is concerned it makes sense and is in no way a "defect." It serves an evolutionary purpose that isn't reproduction. Because unlike what you seem to think evolution has many more aspect to it than reproduction.
    • 22 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pr0view)
    I believes hormones do play a crucial part in sexual attraction and possibly homosexual attraction?



    Ahhh a homosexual person may be happy, but technically the purpose of life is to reproduce and homosexuality could be quite detrimental in that aspect.
    Reproduction cannot be seen as an objective purpose. 'Purpose' implies premeditation, and premeditation doesn't exist with regards to life. If one wishes to adopt a gene-eye perspective, then one could loosely say that humans act as survival vehicles for their genes, and a gene's main 'concern' is prolonged survival - but that's not the same as life having a predetermined purpose.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    Heterosexuality and homosexuality function in the same way - a natural expression of sexual orientation.
    That's a completely meaningless circular statement.

    I think you mean libido instead of orientation.

    Anyway speaking of social science, Foucault thought that sexual orientation was probably a construct.
    • 21 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pr0view)
    I beg to differ on the first two points.

    What do you mean by "a natural expression", it isn't just the way things as everything has some kind of purpose.
    Natural expression would be taken to mean something along the lines of, acceptable, non-harmful, stemming from non-dysfuncion, etc. I.e. homosexuality isn't caused by different things than those which cause heterosexuality. In case that isn't clear, it's saying that homosexuality is caused in the same fashion as heterosexuality, such that both are acceptable, non-harmful, non-dysfunctional expressions of sexual orientation.

    (Original post by pr0view)
    And it does cause dysfunction in reproductive aspects.
    No it doesn't. A homosexual can reproduce in just the same fashion as any heterosexual - they just don't typically have a desire to.

    It's not a dysfunction, it's merely a desire to not reproduce in the exact same fashion.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: July 2, 2012
New on TSR

What do you think of the BBC?

UK Parliament wants to hear your views

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.