CHIPS should be allowed to be taught in classes.

Round 2 | Rebuttal | by Eav | 5/11I am a bit short on characters today, so I'll stick to a Rebuttal Overview[Rebuttal 1] Everyone is born straight1a: CHIPS fosters gay kids1b: Gay kids are bullying victims1c: Being gay is dangerous[Rebuttal 2] CHIPS is sexual education R1: Everyone is born straightCon makes the fundamental mistake to assume that people are "born straight". There is no prove for that but rather many sighs that indicate that this isn't the case.According to the American Psychology Association (APA) most people experience "little or no sense of choice" regarding this matter {1} and though only 40% of all gay people share, what some call the Gay-Gene {2}, we have more and more reason to believe that being gay is a matter so complex that a same-sex-play-date can't really make the difference. Animals and old human tribes (that basically live like they did hundreds of years ago) all show signs of homosexuality and therefore that you can't prevent your child from being gay just by having it not knowing about gay people. A complex matter of genes, prenatal hormones and/or environmental influence are way more likely to have a hand in this. On a note here, that socially acquired and environmental are not the same; first one is one of many sub-categories found under environmental influences {2}.Thus CHIPS is not able to make a child gay. 1a: CHIPS fosters gay kids Nor does CHIPS want to make kids gay. It wants to show kids that the family structure they have is not superior or less worthy than those others live in. If kids are comfortable gay people, they are less likely to develop hostile behaviour against kids from a gay background. It opens their mind from believing that families are only worthy if they have a mother and a father. Which means that CHIPS actually doesn't only help LSGB but also Single parent families, divorced families, etc. to deal with their situation in a way that it won't affect the kids social life in schoolThe program is not a quest to glorify gayness, it aims to show why there is no need in suppressing kids that want to play gay (which they sometimes do, as long as parents don't start to tell them that it's unnatural and that they can't play family together). CHIPS aims to work against harmful and one-sided conditioning that they often get from home. Parents themselves are often confused and disaffected around homosexuals and they are passing that on, often unknowingly. Homophobia is a big problem and we can best prevent it, by making people able to understand that it is not frightening. Which doesn't mean to encourage Homosexuality. It means to make kids experience homosexuality in a non-sexual way so they won't fear homosexuals. An example: The review from Round 1 complains about the story of a cockerel that can't crow and later saves the day by making a non-natural sound as manipulative way to show kids that "unnatural behaviour is positive and heroic" {3}. But this is wrong; the book only shows that even if you can't behave natural you are not less of person and as able as everyone to do good. The cockerel doesn't get voted the head of the clan, he only once saves his fellows and shows that what he can do can make up for what he can't. With the arguments of that review kids in wheelchairs would be worth excluding because they are even less able to do what "nature intended for them". And that's what most anti-CHIPS arguments do: they twist a harmless story that supports equality and open minded thinking into something it doesn't want to show. Even kids could get the difference1b: Gay kids are bullying victimsSummary: gay is not a choice and CHIPS targets homophobia not homosexuality. That means it is a good way to end bullying. Cons argument here is that CHIPS makes you gay and being gay makes you a victim. But as CHIPS doesn't make you gay but gay-friendly, CHIPS helps gay people and kids from gay families to not become victims. If the bullies don't fear and despise them, they don't attack them (see 1a) . 1c: Being gay is dangerous and negativeUnsourced, unexplaind, not scientific claim. Studies show a higher health risk for (male) people having unprotected gay sex but that is a different issue, because unprotected gay sex is a choice. R2: CHIPS is sexual educationThe CHIPS activities never involve sexual behaviour. It doesn't teach you how to have save gay-sex or touch each other. The activities rarely involve roleplays and more often stories like the one with the cockerel. The key word vocabular from an example lesson {4} is community, difference, diversity, not sex, desire or kissing. CHIPS is no sex-ed and therefore not a topic that violates the kids youth.{1} http://www.apa.org...{2} http://www.telegraph.co.uk...{3} see Con's review Round 1{4} http://www.ellybarnes.com...