From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Samegender Families))
Date: 2 Jan 93 16:16:13 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec31.172225.2131@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman) writes:
>
>Show me where a value is being attached to the fact that something (such as
>homosexuality) exists.  Yes, young people must be taught to "accept" that
>they exist, just as we must "accept" that Aryan Nation exists and has a
>right to exist, but simply stating the fact does not automatically imply
>that one must approve of them.

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.

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 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.  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.

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

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.  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.

It's NEVER going to work!

PSG 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton