Resolved: Missouri should pass its "Don't Say Gay" Bill.

This debate turns on two questions: What is the intent of legislators working to pass House Bill 2051, dubbed the "don't say gay" bill? And what is the effect of HB 2051? I will begin by answering these questions, followed by some brief responses to Con's case.What is the intent of HB 2051?When questioned about the bill, House Representative Andrew Koenig responded: "When it comes to sexual orientation, that is a discussion that should be left for the most part up to the parents." He continued: "It is a pretty political subject. I know there are a lot of parents that do not want the homosexual agenda taught in the schools." [1]The intent of the bill thus coincides with the aspiration of liberalism, the aspiration of a political order in which moral, theological, and philosophical beliefs and values, notions of the good and specifications of the true, are relegated to the private sphere. The United States legal system is predicated on a procedural law that is substantively empty precisely because it is not supposed to reflect or condemn any someone's point of view.Because no set of beliefs concerning sexual orientation is held and affirmed by all parents and students, and because there is no independent and neutral mechanism for determining that one parent's doctrinal allegiances is superior to another parents doctrinal allegiances, public education should prohibit discussion of sexual orientation.Note: this is the same reasoning used to keep creationism from being taught as science in public schools. While many parents consider creationism the truth, it is not taught because it is contested by a significant number of parents who do not believe it is science or the truth. Teachers in public schools are not supposed to pass judgment on political or moral issues that have not been agreed upon by everyone. Hence, teachers are allowed to teach students about political procedure, the various branches of government and how they function, but they are not allowed to pass judgment on any of it. Likewise, with a topic as contested as homosexuality is, the only thing teachers should be teaching conerning sexual orientation is the facts that are not contested by anyone: hard science, which is to say, issues pertaining to sexual reproduction.What is the effect of HB 2051?The bill's effect is clear: discussion of sexual orientation, other than in the context of a scientific/biological study, would be relegated to the private sphere. Consider the following: what would happen if teachers in public schools were forced to discuss the political issues surrounding sexual orientation, the homosexual community and LGBT history?Teachers who think homosexuality is immoral would teach students a very different history and set of facts than the history and set of facts that would be taught by teacher who thinks homosexuality is moral. Some students would be taught that homosexuality was moral, other that homosexuality was immoral.For teachers to discuss sexual orientation, including its various political and social configurations, it would require the United States government to pass judgment on homosexuality. This is something that has yet to happen, and until it does, discussion of homosexuality among children should remain in the private sphere.Consider: the version of history taught in public schools differs in many important respects from the version of history taught in the academic context of a university. The reason is because, in college, students are exposed to every viewpoint. But in our public schools, primary and secondary school, the version of history that is taught is modified so that it does not reflect or condemn any person's particular moral beliefs or values.Teachers are not supposed to pass judgment on whether abortion should be legal or illegal. Teachers are not supposed to pass judgment on whether God exists or God doesn't exist. A parent teaching a student that homosexuality is moral, when that student's parent is teaching the student that homosexuality is immoral, would create huge problems for public education.Better to leave teaching of these subjects to the parents of students, as public school teachers are not qualified to teach or pass judgment on the beliefs and values of their students. Arguably, allowing teachers to discuss sexual orientation would open the way to a government establishment of religion, as it would require government to pass judgment on an issue whose moral fiber is clearly tied to religion for a great number of the people in this country.Re: Con's caseCon argues that excluding LGBT issues from education would be "counterintuitive to the general purpose of education." How so? The purpose of our public education is to provide us with an understanding of our political procudures, how elections work, how democracy works, why certain laws have been passed and why others have not, etc.The purpose of our public education is not to pass judgment on moral, theological, or philosophical specifications of the good and the truth. Sexual orientation, as it currently stands in the political marketplace of ideas, is a morally, theologicall, and philosophically contested site of values and beliefs. It is thus counterintuitive to the purpose of public education to teach LGBT issues, as that would undermine our democracy by imposing on students one viewpoint. Our democracy is supposed to preserve what John Stuar Mill calls the "marketplace of ideas," in which different conceptions of the good must go through our political procedure before it can be established as fact. At the moment, because LGBT issues are still being worked out, it is imperative that public education not influence this process by indoctrinating students to a particular viewpoint.Con claims that "full knowledge of history serves the purpose of history, warranting the need for knowledge of LGBT history." That is false. Public education does not teach "full knowledge of history" because "full knowledge of history" does not exist. There are a growing number of holocaust deniers in academia, does this mean holocaust denial should be taught? Of course not. The history that is taught in public schools is selective, meant to reflect the consensus of the vast majority of United States citizens.Con claims that knowledge on the homosexual community is necesary to "clear up some of the speculations that are false," such as "homosexuality is an illness, homosexuality itself is dangerous, etc," what but what Con fails to realize is that these speculations are just that: speculations. Public education is not the equivalent of Academia. The proper space for speculation is the academic context of the university, not the classrooms of primary and secondary school.Con's 2nd contention, that LGBT issues must be taught because otherwise it would be the equivalent of discriminating against the gay community, is clearly false. Do teachers ever pass judgment on Buddhism? Judaism? Catholicism? No. At least they are not supposed to. Would anyone seriously entertain the idea that public education thus discriminates against religious believers?I'd argue that if there were mandates on LGBT teaching in public schools, it would establish anyone who thought homosexuality was immoral as a second-class citizen for believing that. It turns out, however, that that would implicate the government in the establishment of religion, because it goes against the majority's religion to say homosexuality is not moral.The case for prohibiting discussion of sexual orientation in public education is clear: teachers are not qualified, nor should they be, to pass judgment on highly contested moral/political beliefs and values. As the Supreme Court decides more cases pertaining to sexual orientation, then teachers will have a better basis for discussing sexual orientation. As things currently stand, the best option is leaving discussion of sexual orientation to the private sphere.