From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Samegender Families))
XXXDate: Mon, 4 Jan 93 19:57:23 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A76DE4B36F080614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 04 Jan 93 19:58:22 GMT

In article <1318@blue.cis.pitt.edu> Paul S Galvanek, psg+@pitt.edu writes:
>Simply by bringing homosexuality, or any specific group, into the class
>room you make a value statement.  By teaching it you're saying; this
>is worthy of our time and the special attention it's being given.

Which, like any other topic (especially topics constitute significant
current events), it is indeed worthy of.  To believe otherwise is to
acknowledge that there are things "we just don't talk about."

>If tolerance is really the goal, and I don't believe it is for a moment,
>then why mention homosexuality in any way shape or form?  Why not simply
>teach in social studies, or like classes, that no one has the right to 
>attack or abuse or mistreat other people for no reason (I believe the
>"golden rule" might be a good place to start) You can teach tolerance
>for people without teaching tolerance for gays, straights, this group or
>that group.  The very fact that people insist that homosexuality be given
>"equal time" is a sex ed class implies that this type of behavior is
>the moral equal of heterosexuality.  You may believe that, fine but
>it's not your right to make that determination for everyone else.

The only thing remotely resembling "equal time" is enough time to teach
people how to be sexually responsible.  That doesn't require much school
time.  Most sexual education is independent of sexual orientation.

>The basic problem with the idea that tolerance for gays should be mandated
by
>law and taught in schools, is that it flows from the false notion that ALL
>discrimination is wrong.  It's not!  To dicriminate is nothing more than
>to make choices, it's the ability to discern what we like from what we don't
>like and distance ourselves from what we don't.

This is perfectly acceptable.  However, there is a big and important
difference between distancing yourself from someone and depriving them of an
equality of opportunity.

>Sometimes we as a society 
>have decided that SOME types of discrimination are based on false prejudice 
>or lack of accurate information  Blacks are all lazy uneducatable thieves, 
>was a fairly common  description of an entire race up until recently and
>it was simply false, so we stop it.

Just as we are coming to the similar realization that our stereotypes about
gays are similarly unfounded.

>Where discrimination of gays, to the extent that it even exists, differs
>is that it's based on mostly accurate information about known behavior.

OK, just what are these behaviors that justify the descrimination against
gays?

>Tell a person what it means to be a homosexual and you will get a reaction.
>Behavior, that's the key word!  People always have and always will make 
>judgements about others based on behavior and will usually choose not to 
>make relationships with those who engage in behaviors or acts they find 
>distasteful.  The simple fact is most people find homosexual behavior to
>be anywhere from unacceptable to outright repulsive.  Sorry but like
>it or not you can never make people accept what you do. 

Nor should one expect to.  However, it is a circular argument to justify
discrimination of homosexuals because people don't like them.

>This past summer, I believe, either the New York Times or the Wall Street
>Journal (I'll try to find out which) had an article on what the actual 
>impact of education concerning AIDS and homosexuals usually is.  The 
>jist of the story was that some studies indicated that often time the
>more information given to people about these subject, the more like they 
>were to be intoleratant and view gays in a negative light.  

If the "education" is fact based, then I'm willing to take the risk and let
the chips fall where they may.

>People simply
>know what behavior they consider acceptable and which they don't and you
>can not force people to accept someone else value judgements on behavior
>or the people that engage in that behavior.

However, I =can= expect them to grant all people the benefits of our
society, regardless of whether they share the same tastes or behaviors.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    | having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             | things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                | piss you off.