Should Discussion of Sexual Orientation Be Banned in Classrooms?

E. Witzen April 21, 2012 at 05:16 pm

Don't Republicans support freedom and free speech? If so, why are they pushing this bill? Parents can instruct their children in whatever their beliefs and values may be, and the students will bring those values to school. Discussing sexual orientation or gender or anything else shouldn't be an issue if students are firmly rooted in values transmitted in the home and in church or synagogue or mosque. This doesn't mean the children may not change their beliefs or become more open to the lives and experiences of others, but the foundation should be in the home. Stop trying to regulate public and school speech based on vary narrow understandings of human life and experience.

Holston Black Jr. April 21, 2012 at 07:54 pm

Mark, you have a right to your opinion, but you should not be afraid to use your full name. This is like a group that uses sheets because they want to hide their identities. My analogy is probably a little crass but when you don't step up, all the way. with your opinions you leave yourself open.

Noel Weichbrodt April 22, 2012 at 12:25 am

It is not an attack on free speech (because kids don't have such a right), but there (almost) no type of discussion that should be off limits in the classroom—and the type of discussion that should be especially encourages is discussion regarding how kids behave and what their parents and peers and society tells and pressures them to do with their bodies and hearts!

Jean Whitney April 22, 2012 at 01:15 am

I'm thinking it's measures like these that often hold MO up to ridicule, like Arizona, and put us dead last in keeping and drawing science, educational and creative talent to our fair state.

Rockwood 25 April 22, 2012 at 01:23 am

What is with these legislators? Want less and less restrictions on businesses -- which worked so well in "phase one" bringing us the Great Recession and the BP Gulf Spill, yet the most intimate parts of our personal lives are to be regulated and outlawed?!

Rockwood 25 April 22, 2012 at 01:28 am

Noel, agree with most of your comment but not that kids don't have a right to free speech. If not, then exactly when does it kick in? an age? level of schooling? At any rate, you're right that no discussion should be off limits in the classroom and I do see this as a limit on speech on something that youth are having to navigate in the real world.

Mark F April 22, 2012 at 01:36 am

Noel that's right They should be able to explore Necrophilia with a deceased individual. Or how about Beastieality with a local animal. Maybe a little Sado Masochism or Communisim for your soul. Get real, What planet are you on, You clowns will never get it. We have to have rules otherwise chaos insues.. But that is how you like it right. The Occupy movement from what I hear is about to go off on any Tea Party event. Is it going to be the Chicago of 68, or are we civil people, each with a voice. But a voice of Reason in our hearts.

Paul Stanley April 22, 2012 at 02:37 am

For a second put aside political ideology and party loyalty. Think about the implications of the bill on a practical level. If you do, whether you are a liberal or conservative, the bill makes no sense.
You would have to end the teaching of Psychology and Sociology at the high school. There is no way to teach either without discussing gender roles and sexual orientation. Educators teaching current events courses would have to ignore student questions related to sexual orientation. This would include ending any student debate or discussion concerning issues that SHOULD be debated and discussed in our democratic system such as gay marriage, hate crime legislation, bullying in schools, etc... Government/Civics teachers would have to refrain from discussing all court decisions, proposed constitutional amendments, and laws that pertain to gender and sexual orientation. What will a teacher do in an high school government class when the Supreme Court takes up the issue of gay marriage? Tell the students, "Oh, I am sorry, but the state of Missouri forbids me to speak of cases before the highest court in our land"? 4.) History teachers would have to exclude all references to any past cultures in which gender roles differed from the modern western ones. They would not be able to discuss how the Nazis targeted homosexuals during the Holocaust. Mark F pretends that discussion=indoctrination. He is wrong. By resorting to name calling he confirms the lack of logic in his position.

Noel Weichbrodt April 22, 2012 at 02:58 am

Laughing at you, Mark F. Laughing at You.

mormit April 22, 2012 at 04:36 am

I propose that we only ban our state representatives from discussing sexual orientation since it is a subject they are obviously not mature enough to discuss.

mormit April 22, 2012 at 04:38 am

He'll be out of a job soon enough. Wisconsin will recall him because of the shameful way he handled the teachers situation.

Rene Weseman April 22, 2012 at 04:44 am

I agree with you 100%, they need prayer back inthe schools more than sex education classes!

Layla Azmi Goushey April 22, 2012 at 12:25 pm

Good discussion with good points to consider. I support free speech in the classroom at any level. When my son was in kindergarten, his teacher allowed a discussion of blended families because not all kids were from intact, traditional families. A few were from single parent homes and a few had step parents. His worldview was expanded, and we had a discussion at home about it too. However, not all parents agreed with the teacher's choice.
I am more concerned when a teacher uses sarcasm or other poor, interpersonal behaviors as teaching tools. This aspect of middle school has been a surprise to me. The best teaching stance is of a facilitator of discussion to invite all points of view, and I would recommend professional development for that instead of legislation of topics. In any case, I'd like to share an op ed piece that was in the Washington Post today for some perspective on the topic of free speech. I think the less legislation of speech in the classroom the better. Others in our world are working toward basic rights to have a discussion in their own living rooms or post a comment on twitter without the threat of arrest as is the case in Saudi Arabia, for example. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/steadfast-in-pursuing-a-freer-saudi-arabia/2012/04/20/gIQAoAiUWT_story.html

Layla Azmi Goushey April 22, 2012 at 12:28 pm

Correction, the Washington Post Op Ed was published on the 20th.

America home of the Brave April 22, 2012 at 01:59 pm

I think they just bring up issues like this to divide people. The know (or think) that gay people are only 10% of the population, so they can easily pass something like this and energize their base. Since when do we all have to be one-minded, what is wrong with people having a difference of opinions, isn't that what makes us the greatest country in the world? Kids like to participate in adult conversations, and the more talk about things like this could save lives of some gay student that feels so bullied or ashamed of how they feel, when this happens in nature.

jeffery leathers April 22, 2012 at 02:24 pm

Well said.

David Smith April 22, 2012 at 03:37 pm

This bill is a provides two shining examples of what the US Constitution's 1st Amendment prevents: Government abridging it's citizens' rights to freedom of speech and freedom from religion. I propose a new amendment to the MO Constitution: that before any legislative session begins, all legislators must receive and pass a course in Constitutional law; and if any bill is proposed during that session that clearly violates the Constitution, Missouri and/or Federal, that the sponsors and co-sponsors of that bill would lose their legislative rights and compensation for that legislative session.

Dan April 23, 2012 at 02:50 am

Saw this late but want to comment. Why should my kids have to deal with sexual orientation in school. I want my kids to learn what they need to prepare them for college and the work place. Math, science, reading and critical thinking skills. Not issues that classify people on how they have sex. If we are going to allow the teaching of sexual orientation in schools then out of fairness to all groups we must teach about every sexual orientation group including those who like it with animals, multiple partners and other objects human or not. Everyone knows what is right and wrong. What is healthy and unhealthy and what is one person or groups agenda. Anything but the basics of education (reading, writing, math science and the constitution) is only to accomplish some groups agenda.

Striek April 23, 2012 at 03:27 am

Meh- this government nitpicking over curriculum is yet another farce. And the people involved with these bills are the ones with the agenda -partisan extremist joke of legislature offering up yet another wedge issue.

Bill McKenzie April 23, 2012 at 12:58 pm

Why does everyone assume that teachers will promote homosexuality in their comments? How would you feel about a teacher condemning homsexuality in the classroom? Isn't there any wisdom in this proposal? What about providing a peaceful classroom? We have a diverse society. The public school should serve the full range, not just the promoters of the cause of the day.

David Smith April 23, 2012 at 01:32 pm

@Jim Murphy: Lesson One (Corrected version) Can the government force you or anyone to join a religion? No. Then I stand by my original comment; we do have freedom from religion. Deny it or re-word it if you like, that does not make my statement false.
@Dan: Animals or inanimate objects cannot give informed consent, which is one of principle constructs used in cases involving bestiality. Informed consent is also used in cases of statutory rape and incest; that's why states have Age of Consent laws. As far as multiple partners, I think that as well as bestiality and other forms of sexual congress are important matters that need to be discussed; but they are completely separate from the topic of homosexuality; which is what the proposed bill addresses. Right and wrong are important topics as well, but they more of an ethical issue, not a legal one. As far as anything other than educational basics being taught, well that's an agenda for both sides of this topic. Personally I'd rather that the issue of homosexuality be discussed in an open and honest way, so that high school students, no matter what their future plans, can go forward with good information on important issues.

Vernon weathers April 23, 2012 at 06:07 pm

Wow, this is unbelievable....how could any one ever be ok with this bill....you know ten suicides are on the rise? And most of them do it because they are homosexual? So you want to alienate them more?...that's not going help them we need clubs like the gay straight alliance so that they don't feel completely alienated and cast out from society. And who ever mentioned the union conspiracy HAHA get involved! I can tell that you're oblivious to how things work, sorry

jeffery leathers April 23, 2012 at 06:12 pm

You and Jean said it all with out having to say a lot..

trail gal April 23, 2012 at 07:51 pm

Mark, You have it 100% correct. The solution that works and is growing in HUGE numbers is homeschooling. I was NOT a willing homeschooler but WAS one of my entire street that pulled our kids when the district used our children as guinea pigs with an unproven illogical math program (since abandoned). The final straws for me were: 1. A FIRST year K teacher telling me (advance degreed) that I may have RUINED my child by teaching him to read using phonics (Yes, really! LOL) 2. The child testing out for gifted program but school refusing to put him in it 3. Topic for ALL of First Grade Social Studies was, "What is a Family" (talk about dumbing our kids down!). Ladue School District is NOT worth the taxes. Wake up people! Homeschooling IRRITATES the teachers because they don't want you to know that you can do this yourself and they lose the chance to indoctrinate him to social, economic, and historical ideas that are untrue or don't work. Homeschool! Unleash your child's TRUE potential! See: The Well Trained Mind in books on Amazon.com

trail gal April 23, 2012 at 08:03 pm

WHy can't public schools just do what they were originally intended to do? They were ONLY to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic. They were NOT ever meant to be teaching arts and sports and indoctrinating our children with the views of the liberal insane and unions. Truthfully, Americans lag most in schooling because PARENTS have abdicated their responsibility to: spend time with their children, teach correct moral values, set limits, and encourage academic excellence ABOVE sports or other extracurricular activities. Homeschooling corrects the problems and studies show in every parameter homeschooled students are more sucessful, happier, and more involved in their communities....and they don't have a higher suicide rate because they didn't learn at age 6 that Susie has two daddys!

David Smith April 23, 2012 at 09:38 pm

@Jim Murphy: Jim, I was not citing it incorrectly; as far as the government is concerned we do indeed have freedom from religion. I also recognize that we have freedom of religion. My words were chosen carefully; I am speaking to all taxpaying MO citizens, regardless of their beliefs or non-beliefs. I cited the 1st Amendment the way I did to illustrate one the main reasons that this bill was proposed in the first place: that the sponsor of the bill is using his specific religion (most likely Christian) to force that religions' views of sexuality onto Missouri high school children. My wife and I, as well as a lot of other MO couples do not have children, but our taxes not only help pay for the schools but our state legislators as well. And it's waste of everyones state tax dollars when someone uses their belief system to either create new laws or interpret existing laws that affect people who don't share their beliefs. Creating laws in that way is exactly the opposite of what the Founding Fathers were striving for when they wrote the Constitution.

David Smith April 23, 2012 at 10:00 pm

Our country/world has gotten just a little more complicated then when schools started springing up around the country. I certainly don't have a problem with teaching children reading, writing and arithmetic. However when they get to high school and are looking to graduate and go out in the world, I think they should be learning more then just the three R's. Indoctrinating with the views of the liberal insane and unions? trail gal, I don't know you but I feel fairly secure in saying that you are in no way qualified to judge anyone's sanity, liberal or otherwise. Homeschooling, it's an option for a few; it's hardly the solution for any significant portion of Missouri families. And having met and worked with quite a few young adults who were homeschooled, you're correct that their academics are above par; however their social interaction skills, which are needed on a daily basis in the work world, are woefully inadequate. I've had to leave them out of meetings with clients, simply because their viewpoints end up driving clients away. I think even you would agree that that's bad for any business. They may be successful in a very narrow niche of the business world. However most businesses don't survive on just localized clientele. Maybe they don't have a higher suicide rate because they didn't learn of Susie's two daddy's when they were 6. I'd love to see some peer-reviewed studies that can show the data.

RDBet April 24, 2012 at 12:15 am

Yes, the bill was brought up for one true reason by the GOP , to create a wedge and fire up there base.

David Smith April 24, 2012 at 06:51 pm

@ Jim Murphy: Jim, Washington & Jefferson, as well as our other Founding Fathers had lots to say on the subject of religion (Jefferson had his own version of the Bible). If you wish to play the game of cherry-picking quotes that support your viewpoints, I'll play along too, but that would be taking the issue at hand far-afield. As far as how the 1st Amendment has been interpreted for decades, if not centuries, by various courts (including the USSC) the interpretations clearly show that legislators at any level, are not to make law that are narrowly viewed through or tied to their belief system; they can certainly try, but when challenged in the courts those types of laws have been ruled unconstitutional. I'm sure you and others wouldn't like it if a Muslim legislator proposed a Sharia-like law for any part of the U.S. Unfortunately, I fully expect legislators to attempt to create laws that support their religious views. And I'm not asking them to not follow their beliefs; what I am asking of them is that they constantly keep in mind that they are creating laws that are going to affect all citizens of this state, not just the citizens who share the legislators beliefs. And no, I'm not saying that they're wrong if they don't think like me. It might make you feel good to believe I'm saying that, your belief however does not make it true. And since you brought it up, you might reflect on Ben Franklin's quote yourself.

David Smith April 24, 2012 at 07:09 pm

Class envy has been bought up and promulgated by all sides of the political aisles over this countries history, it isn't something new. I call it a religious issue because there is no reason for a bill such as this one that does not involve someone's religious viewpoint, be it the viewpoint of the sponsoring legislator or a small but vocal subset of their constituents. And it is a parental choice issue, but one that more than likely is religiously based. It only became a political issue when the bill was proposed in the MO-HOR and people got wind of it; because it potentially effects all MO high school students, not just those with parents of a particular religion. I'm sorry you have the "it's all a game" view in reference to our state politics; it's that type of view that leads not only to voter apathy, but to the "whatever we need to do so that our side wins or the other side loses" mentality that permeates our political process. But I am glad that you are now re-engaged in the discussion; it's only through meaningful discussion that we can hope to solve this and other issues, at the state, local or federal level.