NASHVILLE, Tenn.- Tennessee children will be shielded from the word homosexuality if one lawmaker has his way. It’s another contentious debate that could find its way to the State House this week. “We’re not going to teach about topics that I think should be taught at home in the first place. We’re not going to teach about homosexuality, the homosexual lifestyle, the lesbian lifestyle, the transgendered lifestyle. We’re going to leave that up to families to decide when it’s age appropriate, when it isn’t appropriate, and what they want to tell their children,” said State Rep. Stacey Campfield, (R) Knoxville.
Imagine that! Parents taking responsibility for their own kids’ moral instruction. No matter what anybody says, that’s the nature of this topic; it’s about promoting a narrow worldview, not facts. While some would like to present their point of view as cut-and-dry science, there’s really no definitive science to justify how they are instructing kids to look at the world.
Parent of three and former teacher, Lisa Howard said taking the word from textbooks doesn’t make homosexuality go away. “It’s really not fair to the student population to shun the topic, because of a lot of their peers are gay,” said Howard.
Somebody once said it’s the truths we’re expected to assume that are often the most dangerous and the least true. Ms. Howard’s simple statement is an example of one of those imposed assumptions: that people just are gay, it’s immutable, unchangeable, central to who they are, etc. And furthermore, she assumes teenagers should be thinking about themselves this way.
That’s the problem with a lot of the “science” in this area; most of the searching and inquiring and observing is done with the lens of this philosophical assumption already firmly in place.
I think Representative Campfield may be onto something here. Let families instill morals and truth. Educators should stick to facts.
12 responses so far ↓
1
Randy
// Feb 18, 2008 at 9:54 pm
That’s the truth.
2
Brandon
// Feb 19, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I think the subject of homosexuality should be discussed, or at least explained (not below the high school level), but that it should be looked at objectively. There shouldn’t be any teaching in schools as to whether it’s right or wrong. Now, the reason I think it should be discussed is because of my own confusion as a youngster. I didn’t know or understand what I was going through (and was too afraid to ask anyone close to me) until finally a high school health teacher explained during class what homosexuality is. He didn’t say it was right or wrong, but just explained it. I finally understood better what I was going through and realized I wasn’t some lone freak or monster because of that. But my morals were dictated outside of school by parental and church influence. Which, really, is how I think it should be. Discuss the topic in school, but leave the morality of it to those outside of school. Teachers shouldn’t be promoting it or discouraging it, I don’t think.
3
Scott
// Feb 19, 2008 at 3:14 pm
It’s a moot point at the moment. Campfield’s bill failed.
4
Mensley
// Feb 19, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Scott, the bill itself may be out of the picture, but the indoctrination of young people in schools is never a moot point.
5
Scott
// Feb 20, 2008 at 9:00 am
Explain “indoctrination” to me if you could.
6
Randy
// Feb 20, 2008 at 9:08 am
Scott, do you really need the word indoctrination explained? Is that the real question behind the comment?
7
Scott
// Feb 20, 2008 at 11:56 am
I know what the word means in the dictionary, however I would like Mike to define for me what he considers “indoctrination”.
It strikes me as a scare word, sort of like “agenda”. When you explain what concepts are behind the word you are using, a lot of people say “well that doesn’t sound so bad”.
If a gay teacher happens to mention their partner is that indoctrination?
Is it indoctrination when a straight teacher does the same?
I’d really honestly like to know what concepts are offensive enough to use that particular word.
8
Randy
// Feb 20, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Thanks for clarifying. It makes more sense now. Mike is on the road right now and I am not sure about his access to the Internet so it might be a few days before he can get back to you.
9
Mensley
// Feb 25, 2008 at 3:44 pm
They’re also sometimes subjected to intimidation by the proponents of these concepts. Groups like GLSEN have suggested that teachers use certain games to teach “tolerance,” yet the purpose is clearly to isolate and embarrass anyone who has a differing view about sexuality.
I think it earns the word “indoctrination” perfectly.
10
Brian
// Feb 26, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Might banning any mention of homosexuality and/or gay people in the classroom similarly “isolate and embarrass” students either are gay, have been taught to respect a diversity of sexual orientations, and/or have come to the conclusion that being gay is morally neutral?
11
Randy
// Feb 27, 2008 at 12:03 am
Brian, I will jump in even though I assume your question is directed to Mike and that he will answer.
I haven’t read the bill but from the post it seems that homosexuality is only being “banned” from being taught by the teachers or curriculum. So, I am not sure how deeply that goes or how it will be implemented.
That said, I have a lot of Christian friends who are school teachers. They are not allowed to teach their faith in Christ being Lord of all, but are allowed to talk about it if the student asks them specifically. So on that level it becomes interpersonal and a matter of opinion … not something you will have to take a quiz over and either conform or lie in recitation of the politically prescribed one sided answers.
12
Brian
// Feb 28, 2008 at 10:09 am
A science teacher might not give a quiz on Christian beliefs, but a religion teacher might. And in my Montgomery County, Maryland public high school, they did just that. Likewise, a health class, a sociology class, an anthropology class…, might discuss gay people/relationships/families in a matter-of-fact way while a religion class might discuss the differing theories of morality on the subject within various traditions.
Leave a Comment