Adventures in censorship
Four South Windsor students sent home for anti-gay T-shirts
Early last week students at South Windsor High School in the South Windsor School District participated in the Day of Silence, a project organized by the national Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network. On that day participating students refuse to speak; a symbolic gesture meant to highlight discrimination and harassment toward homosexuals. The school accommodates these silent students and the project. Last Friday a group of four students wore T-shirts with a contrary message and were sent home.
The boys, who wore white T-shirts with the statement, “Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve,” say their constitutional right to free speech was violated.
“We were just voicing our opinions,” said Steven Vendetta, who made the T-shirts with his friends, Kyle Shinfield, David Grimaldi and another student who was not identified by the Journal Inquirer of Manchester. “We didn’t tell other people to think what we’re thinking. We just told them what we think.”
The t-shirts also had bible verses pertaining to homosexuality. Other students claimed to be frightened and threatened by the shirts. They sparked conversation and debate that started to get out of hand. Instead of moderating, Principal John DiIorio sent the boys home.
See Precinct 333 for an in depth analysis of this scholastic failure.
So a shirt is more distracting than a group of people not talking for a day? I kind of find that hard to believe.
This “project,” “day,” whatever it is, is so devisive I don’t see how it can possibly be held again next year at this school. It truly disrupted the school day, and we all know how upset school officials can get when someone or something “disrupts the education process.” I bet that more than one day is going to be disrupted, given the publicity this has gotten.
One of the girls who helped sponsor the day was quoted in an article as having spent the day crying in the office, getting into arguments with people, and to top it all off, she no longer “feels” safe at the school. A couple of students have been sent home for refusing to participate joyfully in the festivities. They actually had the temerity to criticize the DAY OF SILENCE. Ah, “the love that dares not speak it’s name.” Shouldn’t that be “the love that never shuts up”?
Sometimes I think that some public schools deserve all the grief they get. They are certainly run by people who have absolutely no judgment whatsoever. Maybe school officials’ heads should roll in this school. Is the school board listening? No? I didn’t think so.
Let’s see what happens next year LOL.
I don’t understand why both sides of an issue can’t be fairly represented in a respectful way. I use to think that was the goal of education.
Why can’t both sides of the issue be represented fairly? You know the answer — one is a specially protected class, and the other is a group of heterosexual Christian males. As such, you add up the victim points and the straight kids lose.
The worst part is that the young lady who organized the one event was permitted to spend the next day seeking censorship and inciting disruption.
Last week, a principal in CA confiscated T-shirts that were less than appreciative of the Day of Silence and its participants and actually had the gall to say the students were picking on a “protected class.”
It’s unfortunate that people believe it is necessary to control education and the media in a effort to protect their rights. It’s such a weak position, no one believes that stupidity can collaspe under it’s own weight or that people really earned their own respect. The worst thing is kids who are actually coping with homosexuality aren’t learning that most people will actually like them regardless of what they think. In fact I’m sure this does more harm than good.
Y’know the shirts I’d like to see?
“Judge not lest ye yourself be judged.”
“Love thy neighbor as thyself.”
see i have a problem with both sides of this. my gut reaction is that both of these things should not have been supported by the school. but then ideally any school would be a place in which everyone would be welcomed and accepted, regardless of their sexual identity, gender, race, religion, or political viewpoint.
part of the problem is, some political/religious viewpoints are hell-bent (pardon the pun) on exclusion. there’s a reason “protected groups” have historically needed to be protected. but far better than a “day of silence” and protest would be some sort of activity to foster understanding and respect. when i was in high school (ten years ago, now), there was no gay/straight alliance. there was, however, a “tolerance group” that i helped to form and which had the goal of getting people to respect each other and celebrate diversity.
i don’t think it helps anyone to go to the reactionary opposite pole of the zero tolerance debate and advocate for no restrictions whatsoever. i think it’s important to know what sort of lessons a school wants to be teaching its students (i’d hope that inclusion, diversity, and how to be a better human being would be top priorities), and to make policies based on those lessons. i will say that it’s one thing to go silent for a day to protest the treatment of a group of people, and quite another to spend a school day telling people that they’re going to hell. ultimately, both ideas need to be challenged. there needs to be more communication in the schools about differing beliefs, not less.
I think this pretty much explains it: http://www.idrewthis.org/2005/bigotry.html
(it’s a cartoon)
Bettina, in CA, legally speaking, it IS a protected class.
Christina, you said you’d like the schools to teach “inclusion, diversity, and how to be a better human being.” That’s indoctrination, and not the job of public schools. The merits of inclusion and diversity, and the definition of what constitutes a better human being, are philosophical tenets. The controversy in this case is one in which BOTH sides amount to belief structures, i.e. religions.
The school allowed one side to express their beliefs, but not the other. This is CLEAR viewpoint discrimination, which only serves to compound the denial of free speech and make it even more egregious. I find it ironlic that some people here are having trouble with unambiguously condemning the school’s conduct here, or feel the need to qualify their disapproval, when their posting history indicates they’d be all over this if the suppressed message was on another issue. People, free speech isn’t a question of whether it’s your own ox the message is goring.
When I went to school (ok elementary school was in the 60’s), we were friends a family headed by lesbians. They had 4 kids, the father’s had died. It never occurred to us there was anything ‘funny’ going on. The neighborhood was conservative Christian and they attended church. My family was conservative Christian and had we business ties to the gay community from WWII because we worked in the flower business and relied on good relationships to cut delivery costs. We went camping together, we shared holidays, there was no different treatment. I think it would be a good thing for children dealing with homosexuality to have social support outside of the church. But I am sure this kind of confrontation isn’t helping them, blaming the church doesn’t help either.
There’s plenty of gut-renching grief in this world, but I’ve never found a way for another person to shoulder the pain.
If one side gets to express themselves, the other side must be allowed to be. I’m not really for or against homosexuality, but it seems that they’ve been given lots of protection and freedom over the last 15 years while Christians are told that we need to sit down and shut up.
If the gay community has the right to express themselves, which I don’t begrudge, the Christian community must have the same right.
Dweeb, I know it’s a “protected class” in CA and that is one of the many, many reasons my nieces no longer attend California public schools — too much indoctrination, not enough academics.
And as far as homosexual students are concerned for anyone who cares to read this post, I have nothing against homosexual students expecting tolerance from their classmates. I certainly don’t want to see them bullied or called names. I have a real problem when they aggressively demand blind acceptance of their lifestyle, something which they have no right to expect of students who for one reason or another don’t choose to accept it. Tolerance and acceptance — two different things.
Bettina, I think there are probably a few boundaries people find difficult. I noticed that GLAAD is advocating the need to create a positive image of homosexuality in the media in order to protect the rights of gay people. It’s tough to accept because I think of migrant workers as ‘oppressed’, and it seems we should be more sympathetic to rich kids experimenting with their sexuality in public. But I do think there’s more to it than that. These kids do need to be more open about who they are without feeling they could be hurt or harassed. Teenagers can be so immature anyway, I think they may need some support in schools to accomplish that. It wasn’t a problem until they attempted to display their affections openly. Maybe that’s something people have to get use to.
I don’t know how it fits in with law, but the need to portray gay role models to pre-pubescent kids seems offensive to me. We really portray a desexualized picture of all adult life to children because sexual activty is abnormal at this age. It doesn’t bother me to think of two adults of the same sex raising a child, but I don’t think children will think of their sexual relationship unless they are taught to.
Teens are going to think a lot about sex and need to know what the boundaries are. So, I think it’s ok to tell them a lot about all kinds of fair tolerant behavior and law. Since adults do not intervene and offer appropriate and fair intervention, these situation get very strange. Like several people have already said, I’m dissapointed advocacy means finding someone to blame instead of showing your merit.
SWP, To quote you:
“It wasn’t a problem until they attempted to display their affections openly”
….You appear to be missing the point. Only one group of students was allowed to express their opinion. How come?
in response to that comic posted, i think this is more true
I am not sure how refusing to speak all day could not be disruptive to the educational process (not that some teachers wouldn’t appreciate students who can’t speak), but in light of the Supreme Court ‘’student speech which disrupts the educational process may be suppressed by administrators in the interest of preserving the mission of the school.”
Wouldn’t this cut both ways? I mean doesn’t the day of silence interfere with the anti-gay students’ ability to focus on scholastics that day?
The ”See you at the pole” stuff happens before school. So no class time is affected. Why not this? Why is it OK to indoctrinate one set of beliefs that are clearly not Readin’, Writin’ and ‘Rithmetic during the school day, and the other kids are labeled bigots?
How nice if the principal could have moderated, but honestly, there are some issues that are too much for some people to deal with and keep a cool head.
That comic is not what happened here; the gays got an open forum for a day, and those who disagree (not necessarily religious) didn’t. You could attempt to say that the rest of the year is de facto hetero day of silence, but there is not a special moment set aside for bashing gays. The rest of the year people are just being people. In fairness, why can’t these other kids express a quiet soundless response?
It can not be simply about indoctrinating one set of beliefs, both sides of an issue should be presented.
but honestly, there are some issues that are too much for some people to deal with and keep a cool head.
Social change can be very violent, but not much different than racial integration. These kids were not prepared for the reaction they got; a reaction that was very tame. If the principal needs heavy-handed authority to handles this maybe he should go back to teaching math.
What many people in this country seem to miss is that BOTH sides of this issue amount to worldview/religious tenets. This is no different than if the Buddhists had a day to promote their beliefs in the school and the next day, the Muslims were suspended for advocating competing beliefs.
dweeb,
That is not really true. In the hypothetical case of the Muslims and the Buddhists, neither stance can be confirmed to be more or less valid. In this instance, there is a clear distinction in the validity of each party’s message. The participants in the day of silence were trying to raise awareness about the stigma associated with homosexuality; the students in t-shirts were expressing their approval of the stigma. I realize that the punishment was excessive, but It’s a stretch to say that they are being unjustly censored.
TJ, you need to better learn the difference between objective fact and belief/opinion. The proposition that the stigma you mention is wrong, or a social problem, is, ultimately, an element of a philosophical worldview. The proposition that homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable alternative lifestyle with no moral liability is no less a religious tenet than the proposition that it is an ‘abomination’ and “objectively disordered.” There is no objective basis for confirming that the day of silence groups stance is more valid.
There are two legally equivalent sides to this issue, and to suppress the expression of one but not the other is the EPITOME of viewpoint discrimination that the First Amendment prohibits. Look at Tinker v. Des Moines - 35 years later, people STILL debate both sides of the issue those students were expressing.
dweeb,
Let’s take a closer look at this debate. People who are homosexual are not making a conscious decision to be that way; it is an aspect of who they are that they really cannot control. Their orientation only affects their own personal lives, causing no particular harm to anyone; basically, their lifestyle causes no more harm than a heterosexual lifestyle. Saying that homosexuality is wrong is tantamount to denying their right to experience things that heterosexuals are perfectly free to experience, but back to the matter at hand. The day of silence was merely meant to draw attention to the fact that a certain segment of society has been ostracized for a harmless characteristic that is not under their control. Homosexual individual have every right to engage in their lifestyle. The reactions to the other students t-shirts was a bit much, but to be frank, their stance was pretty weak. They may BELIEVE homosexuality is wrong but what is most important is that they have no GOOD reason for believing it. The idea for school officials moderating a debate is certainly interesting; maybe then the boys could have analyzed their reasons for believing what they do and re-evaluate their position.
On a side note:
Many people seem to be associating philosophy with religion here, but they are really quite different. Philosophy is the study of REASON and LOGIC; it’s purpose is to instigate critical analysis of our beliefs and determine their validity. Religion focuses less on analysis and more on practice and faith.
OK, TJ, let’s take a closer look, point by point:
-Your assertion that people do not choose to be that way is one opinion. There is a case to be made for both sides of this question.
-Your assertion that their lifestyle causes no harm is also an opinion. There is an opposing opinion that such behavior, when it becomes open, damages the fabric of a society.
-Saying it is wrong doesn’t deny anyone any rights. There are millions of people who believe sex outside of marriage is wrong, who readily voice that opinion, and it doesn’t violate anyone’s rights. There is no enumerated right to sexual gratification, and certainly not to such gratification by any means one prefers. This is another point - whether people choose a nature which prefers one form of behavior over another is irrelevant. Kleptomaniacs don’t choose their nature, but that does not obligate society to embrace the resulting behavior. We can’t all do the things that turn us on - that’s life. Every single argument you have made here can be made, and HAS been made in serious academic circles, including books published by the University of Minnesota, for pedophilia. More to the point, there is no right not to be stigmatized, called names, or hated by one group or another.
(Continued)
A segment of society has not been ostracized for a characteristic. The characteristic is not observable or discernable, only the resulting behavior is. The fact that a POSSIBLY immutable characteristic creates a desire or compulsion to engage in certain behaviors does not obligate society to tolerate, accept, endorse, or embrace those behaviors. There are any number of behaviors compelled by unchosen characteristics that no one objects to ostracizing or even criminalizing.
Whether people have a right to engage in a lifestyle is, once again, a question of worldview. It is by no means settled as fact.
You really don’t know what those students’ basis for believing it is wrong was, and they could have excellent reasons. More to the point, in our country, government bodies don’t have the option of choosing one viewpoint over another based on anyone’s judgment of the reasons for those viewpoints - that’s what the First Amendment is all about. It’s disturbing that you seem to think the school’s role is to facilitate a way for those with unpopular opinions to have their minds changed. I believe the Soviet term for this was “re-education.”
-”Your assertion that people do not choose to be that way is one opinion. There is a case to be made for both sides of this question.”
If you think there is a case to be made against as to why someone chooses to be homosexual then I would like to hear it; considering that homosexuality is widely denounced as some defect, I find it hard to think of a single reason why anyone would CHOOSE to be gay.
-”Your assertion that their lifestyle causes no harm is also an opinion. There is an opposing opinion that such behavior, when it becomes open, damages the fabric of a society.”
If it truly harms the fabric of society, then perhaps you would like to offer a reason as to why society has been improving over the span of history. After all, homosexuality is nothing new; it has existed since as long ago as the beginning of the Tokugawa Shogunate in medieval Japan, maybe even as long as the Middle Ages in Europe.
-”Saying it is wrong doesn’t deny anyone any rights. There are millions of people who believe sex outside of marriage is wrong, who readily voice that opinion, and it doesn’t violate anyone’s rights.”
I was not referring to the actual stripping of rights, but rather that such a statement denies that gays have the right to pursue their lifestyle.
-”There is no enumerated right to sexual gratification, and certainly not to such gratification by any means one prefers.”
This is about more than just sex; this deals with who people fall in love with.
- “Kleptomaniacs don’t choose their nature, but that does not obligate society to embrace the resulting behavior. We can’t all do the things that turn us on - that’s life.”
A Kleptomaniac’s behavior IS harmful to others, where homosexuality is not.
-”Every single argument you have made here can be made, and HAS been made in serious academic circles, including books published by the University of Minnesota, for pedophilia.”
This analogy is just as poor as the kleptomaniac analogy. Pedophiles are engaging in behavior that is clearly harmful to a child and is just plain selfish. A homosexual relationship does not hurt anyone.
-”More to the point, there is no right not to be stigmatized, called names, or hated by one group or another.”
Tell that to some regular posters on this site. I have seen plenty of people here who have thought that schools should enforce stricter rules against bullies.
-”A segment of society has not been ostracized for a characteristic. The characteristic is not observable or discernable, only the resulting behavior is.”
I don’t know about you, but widespread assertion that someone’s inborn traits are a sin seems a lot like ostricization to me
-”Whether people have a right to engage in a lifestyle is, once again, a question of worldview. It is by no means settled as fact.”
Now it’s MY turn to point to the constitution.
-”You really don’t know what those students’ basis for believing it is wrong was, and they could have excellent reasons.”
Let me briefly cover the two most popular arguments against homosexuality.
It’s a sin/The bible says it is wrong: I assume that this was the students’ main reason, based on their t-shirts. Unfortunately for them, their is more than on holy scripture (the Quran, the Vedas, the Avesta, etc.), and these different scriptures often contradict each other. Since no one can be justified to be more true, it is foolish to refer to the bible as the sole reason for your stance. In addition, the Bible has many historical inaccuracies (ex. according to archaeological excavations, the Israelites were never in Egypt and did not wander the desert), making it even more questionable.
It is unnatural: This refers to the biological role of procreation. Many people think that sexual anatomy is meant solely for the longevity of the species, and using it for any other purpose is wrong. However, would it be wrong to use your lips to whistle, or to kiss? What about snapping your fingers to keep a beat? Our natural anatomy can have many purposes, not just one; therefore, saying homosexuality is unnatural is meaningless.
If anyone can think of another argument, then let me know so I can explore it.
- “More to the point, in our country, government bodies don’t have the option of choosing one viewpoint over another based on anyone’s judgment of the reasons for those viewpoints - that’s what the First Amendment is all about.”
I think you just described the process of law-making.
- “It’s disturbing that you seem to think the school’s role is to facilitate a way for those with unpopular opinions to have their minds changed. I believe the Soviet term for this was “re-education.”"
I don’t think it’s a big deal to let someone know that they are wrong when they are, you know, wrong.
T.J., I would be glad to address your logic here.
”considering that homosexuality is widely denounced as some defect, I find it hard to think of a single reason why anyone would CHOOSE to be gay.”
People choose to spank others naked and practice bondage and weird fetishes. People tend to view that behavior as abnormal, however, people choose it anyway.
”If it truly harms the fabric of society, then perhaps you would like to offer a reason as to why society has been improving over the span of history”
This is a false analogy. Society has been improving to due many factors; the gayness or non-gayness of society has been a small input into the overall society, while improvements in technology have revolutionized our lives.
‘’such a statement denies that gays have the right to pursue their lifestyle.”
I don’t want to argue semantics; I think your point is clear there, if not your words.
”A Kleptomaniac’s behavior IS harmful to others, where homosexuality is not.”
I guess that goes back to your philosophical and/or religious view. If encouraging the creation of families that are not made to procreate or at least in the model thereof is considered wrong, then logically homosexuality is harmful.
”Pedophiles are engaging in behavior that is clearly harmful to a child and is just plain selfish. A homosexual relationship does not hurt anyone.”
However, a strong gender identity seems to provide a core of a person’s self-worth and self-identity, so if people feel confused, that is counter-productive to their own emotional maturity.
”widespread assertion that someone’s inborn traits are a sin seems a lot like ostricization to me”
Some homosexuality may be inborn (some are clearly choice), what is the right response? We seek treatment for glaucoma, Down’s syndrome, hemophilia, sickle-cell, etc. But for a species that operates through sexual (male/female) reproduction, we do not seek treatment for this potential genetic trait.
Being black doesn’t hurt anyone; having green eyes doesn’t hurt anyone; but the gay issue is not so clear cut. Perhaps there are other things we need to focus on more than this, after all, the massacres this past century in Sudan, Rwanda, Germany, Russia, and Japan (to name a few) hurt and killed MILLIONS upon millions, and no one can blame that on gays.
A friend of mine says ”wrong is never right”. We shouldn’t let wrong happen if we can right it, but we also shouldn’t let best get in the way of better.
Scott,
Welcome to the discussion. I don’t feel like quoting, so just match my responses to your points in order.
-Fetishes may be looked down upon, but the negative attitudes toward homosexuality are for more severe. Let’s not forget the guy who was dragged from a car by a rope because of his orientation.
-Um, it’s not really an analogy at all(Analogies compare two things). Also, I was not really implying that the sexuality of members of society could improve society; I was just explaining that if homosexuality were going to damage society, it would have happened a long time ago.
-ok
-It’s not so much that gay relationships need to be encouraged, just accepted/tolerated. If encouraging such a family structure
is wrong, then homosexuality would indeed be harmful; however, there is still no reason to assume such a family structure would be wrong, nor is there any reason to believe homosexuality is harmful.
-Yes, confusion about one’s orientation can have a negative impact on one’s self-esteem, though keep in mind that this has little relevance if someone is not confused about themselves (if they are certain they are gay, for instance).
-What kinds of homosexuality would you not consider inborn?
Thanks for the time and attention.
wow,
Um that was deep. Hey what If D O G spelled cat.
If a school is going to recognize one side of an issue than they realy need to respect the folks on the other side and give them a a forum as well.
Is homosexuality harmfull to society, well yes it has harmed us as a society, but so has heterosexuality. Now I dont know if it is gentic or not, if it is then Perhaps they should find a way to get the genetic flaw from from our race, personally I think it is a choice people make and they have every right to make it. hey power to them, if it makes them happy. and if is genetic then it will eventually be bred away.
TJ, there are two issues here:
1. people’s right to engage in a given set of behaviors
2. People’s right to hold and express an unpopular opinion as to the acceptability of those behaviors.
These days it is fashionable in certain circles, including many high schools, to experiment with and adopt alternative lifestyles. However, whether the characteristic in question is chosen is irrelevant to either question 1 or 2. Society clearly restricts behaviors that are compelled by characteristics which are not chosen, and people are free to condemn various forms of compulsive behavior.
Your assertion about historical trends and harm to society is fallacious. First of all, you’d be hard pressed to objectively show that society, as society, has improved. Second, the current level of public acceptance of such behavior is unprecedented among your historical name-dropping allusions
(continued)
“I was not referring to the actual stripping of rights, but rather that such a statement denies that gays have the right to pursue their lifestyle.”
Yes, it does, and in America, we are free to make such statements. I am free to stand in the public square that three brass monkeys created and run the universe, and that those monkeys have declared all left handed people inherently and morally inferior, and the only legal response is to say otherwise - speech for speech. The statement that marriage is a requirement denies that straight people have the right to pursue their choices, and yet it is legal to make that statement.
The assertion that a kleptomaniac’s behavior is harmful to others depends entirely upon the capitalist moral construct of private property. Theft is a meaningless concept in a truly Marxist society. Thus, your definition of harm is every bit as dependent upon a belief structure as the one you are denying.
TJ, let me clarify something - the scholarly works, published by a state university, that I referred to, assert that what pedophiles do is NOT harmful, and that your assertion that they are harmful is just an outdated taboo, placing you squarely in the ‘intolerant’ pigeonhole you are so fond of placing others in. What you seem to miss is that all these questions of social policy have TWO sides, both of which are equally protected by the First Amendment.
Let’s look at what SEICUS, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, is seriously advocating. One article published in its SIECUS Reports periodical actually encouraged society to overturn the “taboo” against sex among 9-year-olds. Another SIECUS Reports article urged society to re-examine the “social taboo” against incest, suggesting many girls victimized by it are, “in the truest sense of the word, their father’s lovers.” Seems one of your most reasonable points is headed for the same historic dustbin as the views you are condemning
The fact that some posters here think schools should enforce stupid rules doesn’t in any way establish a right not to be stigmatized, for any reason, any time. Heck, kids are stigmatized these days for speaking in complete sentences. The government can’t force people to be your friends..
No one has asserted that someone’s inborn traits are a sin. It has been asserted that these traits are disorders. No one can know what is in another’s mind. As Skinner pointed out, all we can observe is behavior. There can be no ostracizing without a behavioral observation upon which to base it, unless you believe that people are tossing a coin, and it happens to come up tails only when the person being considered has the UNOBSERVABLE trait. It has been asserted that the BEHAVIOR is a sin, and again, in America, we are free to make this assertion. I can also freely assert, on a t-shirt in high school, that eating pork is a sin, eating any meat is a sin, that working on a Sunday is a sin, that wanting other people’s things is a sin, etc.
“Now it’s MY turn to point to the constitution.”
Actually, you never got around to a meaningful citation. I will point out that you haven’t offered a single non-ideological argument for the viewpoint you seem to want the government to impose.
You attempted to equate government choosing one viewpoint over another with law-making. You seem to have missed the part of the First Amendment where it says “shall make no law respecting…” The government may restrict ACTIONS which MATERIALLY INFRINGE upon the rights of others. The government may not establish an official orthodoxy and prohibit the expression of contrary viewpoints, which is what we are talking about here.
“I don’t think it’s a big deal to let someone know that they are wrong when they are, you know, wrong.”
Neither do I, and you’re free to do so, as a PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, and that person is free to let you know that you are wrong. The government, as represented by the schools, doesn’t get to decide a winner in that debate.
dweeb,
I realize that people have the right to express their opinions and viewpoints, and I do not suggest that any measures be taken to limit this right. I simply believe that people who hold a certain viewpoint should be aware of their reasons for holding that viewpoint; if they have no objective reason for holding that viewpoint (or if there are indeed reasons that they shouldn’t hold such a view), then it would simply be sensible to adjust their beliefs accordingly. In this scenario, people are holding a view that acting on homosexual tendencies is wrong. What I want to do here is show that the reasons for thinking homosexual relationships are wrong are inferior to the reasons for thinking that they are not wrong. I’ll talk about this more, but first I will address your latest sophistries.
“These days it is fashionable in certain circles, including many high schools, to experiment with and adopt alternative lifestyles.â€Â
It is true that people in these scenarios are making a choice to engage in a certain behavior; however, these people are not homosexual for the mere fact that they have engaged in such behaviors. Homosexuality is defined as an ATTRACTION to members of the same sex. Whether or not one has engaged in behaviors associated with homosexuality does not guarantee that they are actually homosexual. This is especially relevant to your example. If it is being done simply because people are curious or they think it is ‘fashionable’, then it does not imply that these people are homosexual. You stressed this point before, when you stated that homosexuality was a characteristic and not a behavior. I still don’t see why you insist that people can’t be ostracized for having this trait though. Imagine this scenario:
A person meets a complete stranger, and upon this meeting the stranger divulges that s/he is gay. The person has no means of knowing whether or not the stranger has engaged in any associated behavior. Let’s also assume this person is adamantly against homosexual relationships. One can infer that the person in question would begin to feel negatively towards the stranger, even without knowing what behaviors s/he has or has not engaged in.
In addition, the fact that homosexuality is based on attraction excludes the possibility that being homosexual is a matter of choice. It is foolish to say that we can choose who we are attracted to, because attraction by its very nature is unconscious.
“TJ, there are two issues here:
1. people’s right to engage in a given set of behaviors
2. People’s right to hold and express an unpopular opinion as to the acceptability of those behaviors.â€Â
“However, whether the characteristic in question is chosen is irrelevant to either question 1 or 2.â€Â
This statement is also correct, although it is really an argument in my favor. One does not have to ponder whether or not homosexuality is a matter of choice to decide whether or not people have a right engage in certain behaviors; if these behaviors do not violate the rights of others, then people have every right to practice these behaviors.
“Your assertion about historical trends and harm to society is fallacious. First of all, you’d be hard pressed to objectively show that society, as society, has improved.â€Â
Let’s look at some of the ways society can be considered to have improved since the distant past of medieval and colonial times:
-People are more able to treat health complications than in the past
-People have more opportunities to pursue their life goals and aspirations
-People have more rights than in the past
-People have access to more knowledge (and more accurate knowledge) than in the past
-Improved technology has made daily life easier than it was in the past
These are about as objective as standards of societal improvement can be. Society has most certainly improved.
“The assertion that a kleptomaniac’s behavior is harmful to others depends entirely upon the capitalist moral construct of private property. Theft is a meaningless concept in a truly Marxist society. Thus, your definition of harm is every bit as dependent upon a belief structure as the one you are denying.â€Â
Actually, a kleptomaniac’s behavior would be just as unwelcome in a marxist society as in a capitalist society. Marxism is based on the equal distribution of wealth; a marxist would be completely opposed to the accrual of material wealth by the few. Thus, a kleptomaniac who hoarded property for himself would also be denounced by those who support Marxism.
“TJ, let me clarify something - the scholarly works, published by a state university, that I referred to, assert that what pedophiles do is NOT harmful, and that your assertion that they are harmful is just an outdated taboo, placing you squarely in the ‘intolerant’ pigeonhole you are so fond of placing others in.â€Â
“Let’s look at what SEICUS, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, is seriously advocating. One article published in its SIECUS Reports periodical actually encouraged society to overturn the “taboo” against sex among 9-year-olds.â€Â
This is just pathetic. I decided to check out the SIECUS website. Looking through the available information on the website, I couldn’t help but notice a distinct contrast to the ideas that you claim SIECUS is advocating. The articles I found do not support pedophilia in any way; rather, they assert what anyone with half a brain can figure out – pedophilia is wrong. This leads me to believe that you are either:
a. Unintentionally misinterpreting or leaving out critical information
b. Intentionally misinterpreting or leaving out critical information
c. Lying
On an interesting side note, I found out that SIECUS also speaks out against discrimination of homosexuals.
“The fact that some posters here think schools should enforce stupid rules doesn’t in any way establish a right not to be stigmatized, for any reason, any time. Heck, kids are stigmatized these days for speaking in complete sentences. The government can’t force people to be your friends.â€Â
It isn’t about forcing people to ‘be friendly’, it’s about common decency and respecting people’s rights. If people truly didn’t have a right not to be stigmatized, then why was segregation declared unconstitutional?
“Actually, you never got around to a meaningful citation.â€Â
Earlier, you had stated that:
“Whether people have a right to engage in a lifestyle is, once again, a question of worldview. It is by no means settled as fact.â€Â
I was merely pointing out that at the very least, people have a legal right to engage in any lifestyle that does not infringe on the rights of others.
“I will point out that you haven’t offered a single non-ideological argument for the viewpoint you seem to want the government to impose.â€Â
First of all, I made no statement that suggested I wanted the government to impose this viewpoint. I am simply pointing out that the reasons for supporting the view that homosexual relationships are not wrong outweigh the reasons for supporting the opposing view. Secondly, my arguments rely on objective inferences and logic. My arguments can’t really be ideological in nature; I can’t use my ideology to justify my ideology.
“You attempted to equate government choosing one viewpoint over another with law-making.â€Â
The government does not have the right to stifle the expression of unpopular viewpoints, but the fact is that the government does indeed support certain viewpoints on a very basic level. The idea that is wrong to murder someone is a viewpoint after all. This runs completely contrary to what you said earlier:
“More to the point, in our country, government bodies don’t have the option of choosing one viewpoint over another based on anyone’s judgment of the reasons for those viewpoints - that’s what the First Amendment is all about.”
(continued)
Now, on to the main point. We have two opposing viewpoints here:
-homosexual relationships are wrong
-homosexual relationships are not wrong
It seems to me, dweeb, that you think these statements are equally plausible, but this simply cannot be true. These two statements directly contradict each other; if one is considered valid, then logically the other must be invalid. So how does one go about judging which is valid and which is not? Our best bet is to look at some of the positive and negative aspects of accepting gay relationships in society.
Positive:
-Homosexual individuals would receive the same relational opportunities as heterosexual individuals. In other words, experiences accessible to heterosexual individuals in a romantic relationship would be accessible to homosexual individuals as well.
- More potential home would be available for children who would otherwise remain in child services.
Negative:
-???
This is where my argument finds its greatest strength; I have not ever been presented with one single negative aspect of homosexual relationships that would be specific to homosexual relationships. Those who claim that homosexual relationships are wrong fail to present any objective reasons as to WHY they are wrong. Until someone can find some reason as to why homosexual relationships are wrong, then this view could never be seen as valid.
I think that neither of the two groups should have got in trouble because they are both right. If homosexuals want it to be equally excepted and are going to wair a “Gay Pride” shirt, then, being equal, heterosexuals should be able to voice their opinion and wair a shirt thats says “Straight Pride” or ” Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve”…Serious