The promotion or disparagement of homosexuality in schools

Of course they do, but not to promote or disparage homosexuality. Just to stop violence or bullying.

Promotion of tolerance of homosexuality is a more apt description than the promotion of homosexuality.

I don't think the former is outside the pale.

Ah, that's different. Well, of course. Whether you approve or disapprove, that's no excuse to make life hell for a fellow student. And I say this as someone who was bullied for supposedly being "gay" (I'm not, I like women).

I didn't know what you meant.

You're not the first, I blame the thread title being unclear and a bit misleading.

I think one of the main points of argument is that people often hide behind this line of reasoning when they really mean "don't you dare tell our kids anything about those disgusting blasphemous homosexuals."

Which is why people have, or at least I have, been specifying that homosexuality should get no more attention than heterosexuality in sex ed.

Hardly a contentious statement unless someone really does dislike homosexuals, I should think.

edited 26th Jul '11 8:11:28 PM by deathjavu

Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.

This

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

This. Bullying has implications far beyond mere homophobia, and confronting the former is much more crucial than confronting the latter. I'd have more respect for someone who held slightly homophobic views but objected to bullying than for some bully or bully apologist with non-homophobic views.

edited 27th Jul '11 5:10:57 AM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

People are still getting murdered for being openly gay or supportive of gay rights. Not in the 60s, not in Africa, 2011 in America:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/05/02/man-arrested-over-murder-of-us-gay-pride-activist/

I wouldn't say there's anything 'mere' about that, nor would I consider treatment between gays and straights close enough to equal in society right now that you can just say that teaching that 'all murder is bad!' is enough to cover gay people, too. Run that one by me again when the hate crimes are down and I'll reconsider it anew.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

People get murdered for all kinds of reasons. Doesn't mean that the opinions associated with such murders cause violence. It's Guilt by Association to take that approach, not unlike approaches associating Christianity with violence.

The issue is partly one of homophobia, but also of being willing to murder at all in the first place. People can be "homophobic" (which to me comes across as an oversimplifying label, but it applies to different levels thereof) while still believing that murdering gays is not justified.

Again, it's an issue of moral character. Regardless of your attitudes on homosexuality, obviously attitudes on violence are more important in the long run.

edited 27th Jul '11 10:16:47 AM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

For God's sake, man, if a bunch of people in white sheets burn a cross on a black man's lawn, are you going to assume that they're non-racist pyromaniacs? At what point are we allowed to make reasonable assumptions? You're working far too hard to avoid coming to obvious conclusions and sweeping pivotal human rights issues under a blanket disparagement of the human condition.

Don't act like DADT was repealed last century.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

People do get attacked for being homosexual, that much is true. But whether an attack is homophobic depends on motives. In the story you linked no motive was known at the time. The fact that the victim was a gay rights activist gives a possible motivation for the attack but without knowing whether that was the case we can't say for sure the motives were homophobic. There could be any number of motives (I should look into whether any was found for this case).

But like I said at the start there are people out there who think it is ok to attack homosexuals for any number of reasons which it would pain me to even think about. People carry all kinds of ideas and misconceptions which can lead them to do horrible things and where misconceptions exist we should do our best to correct them.

I want to pursue accuracy here. Someone who is anti-gay may or may not want to kill gays. It is inaccurate to accuse everyone who's anti-gay of wanting to kill gays. (I know and like both people who are gay and people who hate gays.)

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

I've met a couple flaming racists in my time. I wouldn't say they'd be willing to murder a black man with their own bare hands, but perpetuate a belief system that makes a black man's life worth less than a white man's? Sure, they'd do that. And believe it or not, other than the racism thing, they were nice people. I liked them. But that didn't make what they believed any less wrong or any less destructive.

Just like a lot of conservative Christians I'm not very proud to be sharing a religion with lately will talk about how whenever a gay person dies, it was obviously punishment for his sins.

There's active and passive ways involvement in murder, which typically starts by dehumanizing the victim.

Don't like that first example? Let's try this one.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2011/summer/murder-of-ugandan-again-focuses-spotl

Don't like that one? Let's try this one.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/15/politics/main563247.shtml

I could go on forever, but the point is that you don't treat shit like that with some pussy tiptoeing around it with 'Violence is bad mmkay?' Strong attacks merit equally strong defenses or you might as well not even bother. Relying on general anti-violence lectures to curtail specific human rights issues is like relying on abstinence-only education to make kids stop having sex.

edited 27th Jul '11 7:32:26 PM by Karkadinn

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

I don't think I actually disagree with you, Karkadinn, I'm just focusing on different things. I'm not sure what you've had the most experience with, but I've had the most experience with people who think that the world is divided into people who are tolerant and people who are evil scum. I'm therefore most focused on opposing that mindset.

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

That's a position I have no problems with. I mentioned the racists specifically because they were, in fact, fine and outstanding people aside from that one severe flaw. Dividing the world, Disney style, into heroes and villains doesn't allow you to deal with moral issues with any amount of practical application.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

And you believe that mindset is more pernicious and destructive than the mindset of the intolerant and bigoted?

That seems a misguided priority to me.

^ I think it's functionally equivalent. Both paint many people into a single homogenous blob, denying their differences.

(I think the first step in determining a course of action, whether to fix a broken pipe or to fix a broken world, is to understand the situation as accurately and in as much detail as you can.)

edited 27th Jul '11 8:53:01 PM by feotakahari

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

I don't think they're at all equivalent, sorry, and that's even assuming you are correct in your perceptions which I do not necessarily agree with at all.

I believe you're manufacturing a problem at worst, and at the least, ignoring a real problem to focus on a minor one.

To use your leak analogy, you can look for the source of a tiny drip, or you can shut off the water spraying out a busted pipe.