SHARE THIS SHOW:
ON THE BLOG:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
The TOL Blog
TAGS:
Equal Protection for Sexual Minorities?
Seth Stambaugh was just another student, trying to get his teaching credential at Lewis & Clark college. That is, until he had a brief but fateful exchange with one of the students he was assigned to teach. A fourth grader asked him if he was married, and he replied that he was not because it was illegal. When the student pressed him further for his reasons, Stambaugh said he would want to marry another guy.
A parent complained, and the district asked Lewis & Clark to find Stambaugh another school. District officials say they value diversity and that Stambaugh's reassignment had nothing to do with him being gay. Rather, a district spokesperson, says, the issue is one of professionalism and good judgment that was not reflected in that conversation. Stambaugh says he did not read in the school's conduct code or anywhere else that discussing marital status was unprofessional, and says he believes his abrupt reassignment reflects a violation of his civil rights. His lawyer says he's preparing to file a lawsuit against the district.
Meanwhile, some gay rights activists are concerned about what gay students are experiencing in the course of their everyday lives. Many are decrying the recent of spate of gay teen suicides. They say that the cultural climate that sexual minorities face leads to discrimination, bullying and, in some cases, can contribute to gay teens' decision to take their own lives. Seattle author and columnist Dan Savage has started a YouTube project aimed at gay teens, telling them, "It Gets Better," and that they can live through what many consider the excruciating experience of high school. Activists in Portland have organized a vigil in light of the suicides, and an Oregon State University student has launched a nondiscrimination campaign in Corvallis.
Are you or were you a gay teenager? Have you experienced bullying? How did you handle it? Have you faced discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation? Should teachers or student teachers be restricted in their conversations with students with regard to sexual orientation? If so, why? What are those limits and who should set them?
GUESTS:
- Lake Perriguey: Attorney for Seth Stambaugh
- Brad Avakian: Oregon Labor Commissioner
- Marilyn Shannon: Retired republican state senator and school teacher, lobbied for repeal of "Everything But Marriage Act"
- Dan Savage: Author and columnist, creator of the It Gets Better Project
NOTE: There's a fair amount of discussion in the thread about what exactly Seth said to the fourth grader. If you want to listen back, here is how he described the incident to us.
Tagged as: education · politics · sexual identity
Photo credit: just.Luc / Creative Commons
-
So you are in favor of allowing discrimination against people who are members of the LGBTIQ community to be legal?
Help me understand how it is that EQUAL RIGHTS are Special Protections, because I apparently don't see how that is.
.
.
.
(For the benefit of anyone who does not yet know what LGBTIQ stands for, it means
Lesbian,
Gay,
Bisexual,
Transgendered,
Intersexed, and
Queer.)
-
We HAVE to keep adding, bc america is so bigoted.
-
I am not sure that this student teacher's sexual preference was the only issue. I am pro-gay/lesbian marriage. However to mention the legality of this to a student brought in political issues. However, this in a way brings something out that needs to be discussed. I was told that I was not ethical to want to student teach as pregnant woman and had to fight to student teach.
Schools do not want to fight these battles often
-
What I'm saying Penny is that I don't care if you get it on with a 1972 Pinto in your spare time... it's none of my (nor anyone elses) business... but I also don't want to have to listen to you extol it's virtues... the same reason I don't open the door for religious groups when they come knocking.
Second, I think the original comments to this article mentioned something about special protections, hence my comment. That said, I don't believe we need special protections when we're all supposed to have the same protections and rights under the constitution... if they aren't being enforced then let's address that question.
-
You shouldn't be able to fire someone because of their sexual orientation (or gender identity). That's discrimination. In fact, I thought Oregon was one of the few states that already had LGBT related anti-discrimination laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Non-Discrimination_Act#State_law).
Minorities should have equal protection and for sexual minorities that means legal same-sex marriage & adoption rights. All this hate makes me sad. These are people living in our communities. We should treat them like one of us because they are one of us!
-
Oregon is one of only 12 states to prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Apparently, however, from reading the account of Mr. Stambaugh's case, it seems as though re-assignment is still allowed.
It is high time that our Federal Legislators got down to business and passed the Trans-inclusive version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). If they have all gone home to campaign for re-election, then it will have to wait for the lame duck session, unfortunately. I am happy for my Lesbian sisters and Gay brothers who should soon be able to serve Our Great Nation without having to worry about being outed and discharged just for being who they are. (After all, not one, but TWO Federal judges have found that DADT is unconstitutional; and another one found that California's hateful Prop 8 was unconstitutional.)
.
.
In summation, EQUAL RIGHTS are not Special rights!
-
So now it's "don't ask, don't tell" in the Beaverton Public Schools..?
Talk about unprofessional behavior - the District forced out an enthusiastic, qualified, graduate student teacher because he answered a question about his marital status - honestly?
Face it: religious Oregonians wrote their baseless prejudice against their gay and lesbian neighbors, family members, co-workers and friends into our state's Constitution with the passage of Measure 36...
...which selectively erased the basic civil right of marriage for Seth Stambaugh - and for many other hard-working, contributing members of our Oregon community.
Parishioners funded this successful, reprehensible, and un-American political effort to selectively deny us equal protection - and if you contribute money to Catholic, Mormon and Albina Ministerial Alliance coffers, YOU remain partly responsible for the inequality suffered by Seth and others...
* To the Beaverton School District: What sort of message are you sending to gay and lesbian students by endorsing unfounded, evidence-free religious prejudice against a well-qualified, and honest, student teacher at Sexton Mountain Elementary?
Are you actually trying to encourage more Catholic, Mormon and Christian bullying, more bigotry - like the kind that has led several young people to recently end their own lives?
-
Since schools are purportedly a place for developing open mindedness and the ability of students to reason and discover truth for themselves, teachers should not be restricted in their conversations with regard to sexual orientation, provided that these conversations occur at the right time, and in the right context.
The conversation of sexual orientation is different with a fourth grader than it is with a high school student. The high schooler theoretically has more life experience than a fourth grader so the sexual orientation conversation can be more involved and specific.
I'm opposed to more laws prohibiting what can be said and when. Life is inherently risky and we shouldn't box ourselves in unnecessarily. Provide education and opportunity so people can guide their lives without undue interference from meddlesome authoritarians.
-
As long as sex education in schools tiptoes around non-heterosexual orientations, nothing will change. It is still treated like a no-no subject. Hetero sex is discussed in detail, and everything else is mentioned as an oh-by-the-way topic. What on earth would have been accomplished by the teacher not mentioning his situation to this student? Do the parents not realize that probably more than one student at the school has gay parents? Do they think their child won't notice and wonder about that? My kids have attended 4 schools in the Portland metro area, and there were 2 or more gay parents at all of them.
-
Matona (above) has hit the nail on the head! We absolutely need to start in our schools. Education is the forefront of any progress or movement. If homosexuality remains taboo, it is tantamount to demonization because children pick up on what is supposedly "normal" based on what is validated by their peers and mentors. When is it ever mentioned that same-sex or non-heteronormative lifestyles are okay? Children in today's world (and through most of our history) have never been given a reason to see queer people as anything other than abnormal. The silencing of Seth Stanbaugh, a potential mentor, is further perpetuation of the oppression of non-hetero individuals.
-
From what Mr. Stambaugh's legal counsel has said, it sounds as if the Beaverton School District has violated Oregon's Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which prohibits employers from making employment decisions based on an employee's sexual orientation or gender identity.
(Bear in mind that I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, either, and make no claim to be any sort of legal expert.)
-
Our ultimate success on this planet is defined biologically as REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS: How successful we propogate our genes into posterity.
We can enjoy RECREATIONAL sex, either hetero or homo. And it can be cultural sanctioned or banned. Or legally accepted or not.
But the right of PROCREATIONAL sex is biologically limited to heterosexual couples. And this the ultimate benefit that will not be legislated or brought forth by cultural acceptance. It is based on Meiosis and Mitosis, not an underlying discimination. Just as a male cannot birth a child reguardless if the government law permits it.
A Gay marriage because of biology fails to become the equal of a heterosexual couple...it has nothing to do with law or culture. OF course some heterosexual couples choose not to have children, but it is a choice. And biology is not the limiting factor.
But we all need to couple. And I see a benefit of gay unions/ partnerships...but gay marriage falls short by definition.
-
Marriage is a religious institution, not a scientific one, so your argument falls flat by mixing the two polar opposites. And what about overpopulation? Based on your argument, humans will kill themselves off and take the rest of the the planet with it due to overbreeding and overpopulation.
-
"OF course some heterocouple choose not to have children, but it is a choice. " -- jacob — Mon Oct. 11th 9:17a.m.
Heterosexual couples DO NOT always HAVE a choice -- either partner may be unable to become a parent due to biological reasons. (Impotence or infertility are a couple of reasons.)
-
Jacob,
The idea of marriage, the word marriage, everything about marriage and who can do it, has been defined by humans. Marriage is not some inherent characteristic to life or biology, it is a construct of culture and religion, the definition of marriage could be changed at any time, with no one version being more valid then another. Even sticking to your incorrect guns, marriage is about more then procreation, even by the traditional definition it is about more then procreation. You are attempting to state the obvious, which isn’t really obvious at all, and additionally it isn’t even worth stating in the first place.
-
Marriage is a commercial contract, an exchange of property, just look at the history of it. One side buying a woman as property, in exchange for compensation in the form of some sort of dowry. Women were property, and children too.
In the time of kings, marriages was used as contracts to create political alliances between kingdoms.
Now religionists have revised the history of it and glorified it in order to pick on and bully minority persons as part of their campaign to fear-monger and keep their base living in fear and easily manipulated politically.
Now. If schools are to teach morality, they have to teach that the Beaverton School district is managed by haters, which is immoral. And that former Senator Marylin Shannon is also a hater, an immoral person.
-
Timing or order of occurrence might be of importance, because when I read the introduction above, I got the impression that Mr. Stambaugh immediately after being asked whether he was married said that ‘he could not marry because it was illegal,’ which seems to go beyond the scope of the question. In the Oregonian’s version it says he answered ‘no’ and then there was a follow up question as to ‘why?’ When I read TOL’s version I thought it seemed a bit provocative of Mr. Stambaugh, but if he was indeed pressed and asked why, then it is perhaps a different scenario.
It seems like even if it could be shown that he exercised a lack of discretion, that discretion is only necessary because of the public’s bigoted response to a biological characteristic. It is a discretion that could be suggested or required only because of bigotry, there is no other reason to request discretion, because there is no other inherent aspect to homosexuality that makes it controversial or an ‘adult topic.’ Even if society is heteronormative as Mr. Fletcher from Lewis and Clark states, it wouldn’t matter, because a person has no control over who they biologically are. Being a biological minority is in a different category altogether from minorities of choice, preference or ideology. If Mr. Stambaugh was for instance polygamous and he expressed this to a student that would be going against was is normative in a controversial way, because polygamy is a moral question that might be considered relevant to society and cultural norms, and it is also something that can be debated. Homosexuality and any other biological characteristic is not up for moral and ethical scrutiny or debate.
-
If you'd like to listen back, here is the audio (mp3) of how Seth described the conversation to us. We played it during the show. This was from an interview last week with our producer Allison Frost.
-Emily
-
I can tell you why this happened. The teacher should have said, "No, I'm not married", he should not have said, "No, I'm not married because it is illegal". The same problem could have come up if a straight man had said, "No, I'm not married because my girlfriend is already married to someone else". TMI!!! But the school responded totally inappropriately too.
-
The conversaion as recounted was that the child asked additional questions, I think the next was "why, are you too young?" The teacher answered that he would like to marry a man, but that was illegal. The child replied something like Oh, you like to hang out with guys, huh? and that was the end of the conversation.
This was related by the student teacher's lawyer (sorry if I got any details wrong, but several people are assuming that the the only questions asked was if he was married)
-
Actually, the question,"Why, are you too young?" was in response to Mr. S. saying he couldn't get married because it was illegal. If he hadn't mentioned the illegality of it, the kid probably would't have asked any more questions, because lots of people are unmarried. And if the child HAD asked why, THEN it would have been totally okay for Mr. S. to answer as he did. that still doesn't change the fact that the school district acted totally inappropriately.
-
Given the statistical likelihood that some of the children in each classroom are gay, including gay adults in the normal and accepted group of role models seems quite reasonable. Why such a fuss, Beaverton School District?
-
If the student asked why he wasn't married, I think it is appropriate to explain. Why should a gay person let people make assumptions about their sexuality? I am a nurse and am disgusted by the fact that patient's families assume I have a husband. I often tell them that I don't have a husband but rarely feel comfortable telling them I have a wife of 14 years.
-
This vote that the guest is referring to (Measure 36) may be struck down, if the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirms Judge Walker's decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
-
about the person speaking in-studio at about 9:25
-hemming and hawing and expressing inarticulate unsettlement is not an argument for or against - it is inarticulate, whether uneducated or lazy, nothing more
thank you ma'am, for your willingness to engage and rely on stereotypes and the implications within careless language -
it seems to me that what you really express is your own discomfort with being ignorant, and you are trying to blame someone else's behavior, rather than address your own situation
-
Who is this person trying to say that by saying that the student teacher's answers were amoral? The religous right does not have the corner on the market for morality. The moral tenants that this country was founded on the ideals of equality, operatunity and freedom. Those are the ideals that need to be promoted in the classrom.
In addition, who cares if the people say marrage is between one man and one woman? The people have often needed a push to be more intigative. Civil rights, and women's rights, for example needed mandated integration before the cultural shifts.
How dare you ask gay teachers to stay in the closet?
-
Who is this woman who can't even get a sentence out without stuttering and loading it with filler speech?
What a pro-discrimination apologist!!!
-
What a cowardly response from the Beaverton School District! Not even being willing to come on and discuss what they have done!
-
Okay, here's the thing, guess what, some parents don't want their 9 year olds to know that sometimes men want to be with men and women want to be with women, especially if they find it offensive from a religious standpoint.
-
Exactly.
-
There's also this thing called separation between church and state. Keep your religious sentimentalities under your own roof.
-
I am wondering if he had answered, "No I am not married, but I live with my partner...Bill (or whomever)" , if the parent in the room who had complained still would have...and he would have been still fired.
Straight people are also often not married but cohabitate with a partner for lots of different reasons. Fourth graders still have a sort of juvenial idea of "marriage". It could still be confusing for them.
Is the issue that he brought up the illegality about gay marriage? It touches on politics in the classroom which is sort of not ok right?
As a parent I would not have batted an eye at all and neither would my kids as they are aware of Gay rights and that the marriage law is discriminatory. However the teacher could have been coached on a better way to discuss it with a fourth grader and still not hide the fact that he is indeed gay.
The fact that he was let go because of that, though, is really disturbing.
-
There is such a thing as too much information. When I'm asked by a student if I'm married, I don't recount my relationship history. I just say "no, I'm not." End of story. This was true when I was a regular classroom teacher as well as now that I substitute.
-
Amen.
-
If they then asked you why, what would you say?
-
"That's just the way that things have worked out."
Then re-direct.
-
But, this case is different from all the other reasons why you might not elaborate on martial status, because all the other reasons why people don’t get married are based on conscious choice, personal preference or individual circumstances, that can all generally be controlled by the person. Mr. Stambaugh has no choice, he is being discriminated against based on a fundamental biological characteristic that he did not decide for himself. So he is not stating something that he can control, or that he has decided, or that is based on a controversy he has created himself. He is stating something that has been decided and restricted for him by outside forces. Saying something like ‘I am not married because I hate commitment and like to sleep around’ is very different and going a step further then Mr. Stambaugh did---commitment and promiscuity are personal preferences, that wrongly or rightly can be controlled, established and determined by the individual. Those preferences perhaps express an opinion on morals or the way you want to, or like to live, which is very different from simply stating who you are.
-
Just because Mr. Stambaugh "is being discriminated against based on a fundamental biological characteristic that he did not decide for himself" doesn't mean he should give more than the basic information to a student, especially a 4th grader. A teacher is not there to "stat(e) who they are," but to help a student to the best person they can be. Yes, that includes learning to accept others as they are, but there are better ways to do that than in a conversation about the teacher's personal life. As a teacher, you have to walk a fine line between being yourself and being who your students (and their parents, who, after all, are paying your salary, at least indirectly) need you to be. When in doubt, less information is the wise choice.
Also, you say "all the other reasons why people don’t get married are based on conscious choice, personal preference or individual circumstances, that can all generally be controlled by the person." I'm sorry, but there are plenty of "individual circumstances" that can't be controlled by the person - age, physical attractiveness, personality, inablility to be in more than one place at a time, etc. And do you really believe that "personal preference" can be controlled, especially when it comes to relationships? Sure, one can control how one acts on their preferences - for example, "I prefer hot fudge sundaes for dessert but I only indulge once a week" - but that preference doesn't go away just because one wants it to. Realistically, one can't expect a potential mate to perfectly match a list of preferences, but if the available and interested "contestant" doesn't come close, is it better to "settle" or be true to yourself?
-
SubstituteTeacher,
Parents don’t get to decide who their children's teachers ‘need’ to biologically be. If they did, then I guess racist parents could choose only white or black teachers. There are many ways to “help a student to the best person they can be”---and it would be hard to make a case about what that means, or requires, exactly. It would also be hard to make a case about which parents get to decide whether their children receive censored information because of bigotry.
This discussion about relationships in the way you have introduced it is irrelevant. But, I will say, I don’t generally believe in free will so I would tend to agree with you in this ‘relationship’ area, but even so, any of those preferences are often malleable and certainly not as concrete as the way sexuality appears to be. What is clear, there are many degrees between who you like to date and a biological characteristic you were born with. There is a big difference between being born white, and preferring to date white people.
If you want to introduce your determinism argument fully, then it might end up hurting you rather then helping you, because if what you propose is true, that “there are plenty of ‘individual circumstances’ that can't be controlled by the person,”---then you might end up in a loop that says ‘well perhaps Mr. Stambaugh should have controlled himself, but he could not control himself because of individual characteristics (such as a big mouth). And, if he can’t control these characteristics then why are you punishing him for them?’ That is perhaps why it is important to draw a line between the biological characteristics and other areas that may be less concrete.
-
It is my experience with the Beaverton School District that the school board is quick to bow to pressure from parents on all kinds of issues. They don't have a lot of courage to stand up for what they believe when parents atart complaining.
-
As hard as it can be for gay and lesbian teens in school, imagine how hard it is for a student who knows they should be the opposite gender of what they were born. I personally KNOW someone who had to deal with this and was afraid to speak to their parents about it at the time (during their school years).
-
An answer such as this on a controversial question such as this is advocacy. Public school is not to be used for acvocacy. Supreme court decisions prohibit teachers from wearing political campaign buttons in class. Outside of school, a teacher has every right to express himself/herself as he/she wishes. In class you are not to be an advocate--whether for a sexual orientation position, political position, or other. School is supposed to help students with age appropriate ways of logically reaching their own positions.
-
What if Seth had stated that people should not discriminate against people of color? What if he had said, "We shouldn't use the n-word because people find it offensive"? Would such words have been considered "advocacy"? Should they then have been avoided?
The truth is that teachers are encouraged to advocate for all sorts of accepted values: don't discriminate against women, exercise your right to vote, etc. We want them to do this. The only thing is, unfortunately, many people don't want teachers to advocate for tolerance of, let alone acceptance of, gays, because too many people are intolerant of them. They are, simply put, bigots.
The irony is that Seth wasn't even advocating for acceptance. He was simply stating facts. God forbid that we should teach a fourth grader facts!
How shameful of the Beaverton School District. How shameful is our nation.
-
To teacherinoregon:
If a 4th grader had asked specifically if he could use the n-word a teacher should say no, its a bad word that we do not use. If the child asks why, yes, it would be appropriate to respond that people find it offensive so it hurts people's feelings. If a 4th grader asks if he or she can call someone gay, the answers should be the same. In both cases a teacher is educating children how not to offend and bully others, which 4th graders need to learn at their age. Unlike these examples, Seth was not advocating for tolerance. He was advocating for gay marriage.
The issues that Seth's un-requested information brings up is something that school policy apparantly dictates should be taught later than 4th grade. There are many facts that we COULD teach children at any age, but all parents do not agree on what should be taught when. School policy describes what educators and the community have compromised on. If you dont agree, get involved with your school district. Run for the school board. Just calling everyone else bigots merely shows that you only understand your own point of view.
If Seth had the skills and knowledge to be a good student teacher he would have understood better why we have school policy and what it was with respect to issues involving homosexuality. As a homosexual AND an aspiring teacher it seems unlikely that he did not know where these two topics intersected. Thus, it appears that Seth was more interested in being a gay rights activist than a good elementary school teacher. -
My son, a senior at Cleveland High School is openly gay and has been out at school since the beginning of his junior year. He has never had any problems with classmates or teachers. I am truly thankful to be raising my family in such an open, accepting environment.
I think it is important to note that not only does it "get better" but it IS better now in some places. I think Dan Savage is doing a great thing, but it is also important to let middle school kids who are coming into high school know that it might not be so scary in high school.
-
I am happy for your son, scooterpdx, that he is one of the lucky ones. Not all students who are gay, lesbian, transgendered or bisexual are so fortunate as your son has been.
-
This woman (what's her name?) her complete inability to awnser any question directly just speaks volumes to her bigotry. I guess one can not be well spoken, smart and full of hate. She sounds horrible. As a straight parent of two children, I support equal rights for LBGT people in work and in marriage.
-
I think that the fact that protocols were not followed by either school in how the handled the situation is very telling. I completed an intenship in counseling last year, and part of the point was to learn. Self-disclosure is very tricky in my profession, and I would guess for teachers as well. The fact that this was not seized upon as a learning/teaching moment for staff to talk about how a minority can talk to the children about his life, even if it brings up a topic that can be very fraught with emotions. Discussion that listened to and validated all the sides of this issue could have led to understanding and expecations could have been clarified to this young teacher.
My personal view is that Seth answered honestly, directly and succintly. I hope he wins his case on the merit that this issue was handled outside of established channels.
-
The only good served by having this woman on the show is that able-minded adults (and children, for that matter) can be exposed to the inarticulate and feeble-minded arguments of bigots such as she.
-
And, thank heavens she is no longer in the classroom or the legislature. (TOL couldn't find a more qualified person than this?)
-
>TOL couldn't find a more qualified person than this?
The arguments against equality are clearly bogus (my invisible supernatural friend Jesus, or Moroni, or Whatever, apparently hates gay people - and my Jesus must trump American constitutional guarantees of equal protection)...
...so Marilyn Shannon is probably about as eloquent in defense of a nasty, baseless prejudice as you're ever gonna get... (but you could always invite the Pope!)
Though what I'd like to hear is a Catholic parent (or a Mormon, or a parishioner at one of the Albina Ministerial Alliance churches) defend their continued financial support of these churches -
** Catholic, Mormon and AMA church members raised most of the money for the political effort to pass Measure 36, the constitutional amendment that made sure that if Mr. Stambaugh gets married, his marriage would be illegal in our state...
(though legally recognized, of course, in freer, more equal, less religious parts of the world...).
With gay teenagers killing themselves, and qualified gay and lesbian soldiers and student teachers being routinely fired, and gay families living under legal assault, and inequality...
...how does anyone justify continued support of the organizations that are the actual source of that awful, unfounded prejudice?
That would be a much more interesting discussion.
-
I was a long-time teacher in Oregon and would never have gone into the detail this student teacher went into if I had been asked the same question of a fourth grader. The issue is the AGE of the student, not the answer. This student teacher definitely had an agenda or is very naive about how protective parents are about what is or is not said to their children. Overprotective parents cause all sorts of grief for regular classroom teachers, substitute teachers, and volunteers as well. The only group that has protection from parents complaints are the certified and classified teachers who have a union contract. I was recently a substitute teacher and left because of the lack of respect from all sides (parents, other teachers, students, and administrators). This student teacher should have known better. Keep private information to yourself when you're working with young kids!
-
So what do you say to the young child with two moms, or two dads? Can they fill out the family tree assignment - or would that be TMI for you, too?
Reality, and equality, aren't hard for children...
...but clearly they are hard for adults who'd prefer to cling to religious prejudice against the many qualified gay and lesbian friends, co-workers, family members, and professionals in their midst...
So Mrs. Shannon can talk about her family, and her husband, but Mr. Stambaugh can't?
-
I heard a comment read on the air: "I don't think we should add another protected group." I don't think that there is a other group that NEEDS more protection than gays, especially young gay people, right now. A dear friend of mine was killed, and left in a field, for being gay.
-
According to his description of his conversation with the child, Seth was asked why he was not married. He did more than just answer the question, he added information about why, that the child had not asked. This seems to me to be the crux of the problem because:
1. Regardless of what people would like, gay marriage is not legal in Oregon. So Seth's additional information could be seen as promoting something illegal. Although far from a perfect analogy, think about a teacher volunterring his or her opinion about legalizing drugs or similar topics that are of an activist nature. That would be inappropriate behavior on the part of a teacher. Addressing sexual preferences with 4th graders requires more than just a short answer and I would think that an aspiring teacher who happens to be gay would have been aware of when the school ciriculum covers this topic.
2. The additional information that Seth choose to tell the child brought up a subject that the school policy does not deem appropriate until 7th grade. This would be like a child asking a male teacher if they have children and the teacher answering no, because my sperm count is low or because I have erectile dysfunction. Such an answer would also bring up sexual information that is likely not appropriate in 4th grade and I would expect similar action against any student teacher discussing it with a 4th grader.A teacher needs to be able to use appropriate judgement about when certain sensitive topics are ok to discuss and when they need to be purposely avoided. My guess is that the school decided that Seth needed to improve his skills in this aread before being exposed to young children.
-
See my reply to "ex-teacher." Your comparisons are not apt. Mine are.
-
If a 4th grader had asked specifically if he could use the n-word a teacher should say no, its a bad word that we do not use. If the child asks why, yes, it would be appropriate to respond that people find it offensive so it hurts people's feelings. If a 4th grader asks if he or she can call someone gay, the answers should be the same. In both cases a teacher is educating children how not to offend and bully others, which 4th graders need to learn at their age. Unlike these examples, Seth was not advocating for tolerance. He was advocating for gay marriage.
The issues that Seth's un-requested information brings up is something that school policy apparantly dictates should be taught later than 4th grade. There are many facts that we COULD teach children at any age, but all parents do not agree on what should be taught when. School policy describes what educators and the community have compromised on. If you dont agree, get involved with your school district. Run for the school board. Just calling everyone else bigots merely shows that you only understand your own point of view.
If Seth had the skills and knowledge to be a good student teacher he would have understood better why we have school policy and what it was with respect to issues involving homosexuality. As a homosexual AND an aspiring teacher it seems unlikely that he did not know where these two topics intersected. Thus, it appears that Seth was more interested in being a gay rights activist than a good elementary school teacher. -
Econotechie, your comparison is ridiculous. Saying "I would prefer to marry a man, but it's illegal" is NOT a sexualized statement. Talking about sperm count or erectile dysfunction would be. If a female teacher said "I am getting married next month" would that be inappropriate and sexualized? Also, your "assumption" about what the district did is a huge one. The district has said no such thing, and the evidence is that they did not follow their own prescribed processes for removing a student teacher from a classroom.
-
The Nazis during the Holocaust murdered homosexual people as well as Jews.
I suggest that we establish and build Holocaust Memorials to those murdered Homosexuals, just like the Jewish Holocaust Memorials, because the hatred, beatings, bullying, and murders of Homosexuals continues even today.
This would help to let the entire world know who the anti-homosexuals have aligned themselves with and that the decent people of the world support the Human Rights of Homosexuals and oppose the haters.
We put a stop to the right-wing extremists in WW2 and we need to put a stop to them now and every time they try to attack the Human Rights of Homosexuals.
-
I'd prefer it if the comparable millions of Chinese murdered by the Japanese had some sort of recognition in this country. It is shameless racism that has kept them from receiving the same levels of recognition for the atrocities perpetrated on them as what the Jews have.
-
nunya — Mon Oct. 11th 11:09a.m.
I'll agree with you about building Memorials to the murdered Chinese, in addition to the Gay Holocaust Memorials, though not as one "preferred" to the other. Build 'em both.
-
I lived 1/2 mile from Sexton Mountain Elementary for seven years. I moved in no small part because I didn't share the right-wing, hate filled values that pervaded the neighborhood. I tried to call in to get on the show with a comment. Seth Stambaugh's comment was entirely contextual and appropriate. What is inappropriate is the homophobic adults who when they think about gay people or are confronted with them, think about them having sex. Mr. Stambaugh didn't say that he wanted to have sex with men. He said he wanted to marry one. Do you think that the fourth grader who heard him immediately thought about him having sex with men? Absolutley not, any more than a fourth grader who heard his female teacher talking about her male husband would think about them having sex. Even Emily Harris fell into this trap. She said at one point that Mr. Stambaugh revealed his "sexual preference" in class. That is projecting our adult sensibilities and prejudices into the minds of fourth graders. It absolutely would have been inappropriate for him to talk about wanting to have sex with men, just as it would be inappropriate for a male teacher to talk about wanting to have sex with women. So he didn't. Finally Marilyn Shannon is a hateful bigot. I am so grateful that Dan Savage came on and called her out for what she is and what she's doing, which is promoting hatred and contributing to an environment that is killing gay kids.
-
Well said!
-
There is powerful cultural pressure in our society for gays to keep quiet. For all of you arguing that being out in the workplace qualifies as "special rights," Think about how often you talk about your family with coworkers during the day and with students if you're a teacher. It it OK to have photos of your spouse and kids on your desk? Why not your same-sex partner?
What's notable here is that the students in Mr. Stambaugh's class learned a valuable lesson from the experience: If you tell the truth, you could be fired from your job. Also, some people can tell the truth, while others are not allowed to. The "rules" behind who gets to be truthful and who must lie are difficult to ascertain, and often cloaked in secrecy. That is how our society really functions, and not how it should function. In his final act with his students Mr. Stambaugh did a lot of teaching, indeed.
Fourth graders in the 21st century are intelligent enough to understand the basics about what being gay means. Marriage is a topic they are capable of understanding, and discussion about it should not be off limits. They also can understand the idea that there is a debate in society about the rights of gay people, and it is not settled yet. If fourth graders are able to bully and tease about being gay, they are also ready to learn what's wrong with doing that through measured inquiry. Heterosexualist parents don't like to hear that because it means they can't as easily indoctrinate their kids with their own values, which the parents don't want to question. But part of being a good parent is letting your kids make their own decisions about the values they want to have, and to make the decision through examining a topic from many perspectives, not just the parents' one.
The recent spate of youth suicides leaves us with the responsibility to come together and challenge bigotry in every corner of life, not chastise those who speak out against it as Mr. Stambaugh did. When we deflect or cover up the inquiry, as some suggest, it does everyone a disservice and hampers the progress gay people are desperately seeking, and rightfully deserve.
-
Nicely put.
-
Suppose the inverse of this situation. A student asks a male heterosexual teacher if they are married and the teacher responds, "Yes, because it is legal." When the student asks why, the teacher elaborates, "Well, I prefer to be married to a woman."
Does this make sense? The only response requisite to answer the original question was given in the first word of the response; what follows from that first word is a string of non-sequiturs!
Look, was this Seth guy's answer inappropriate? I don't know, but nearly all of it was not warranted given the question asked. Should he have been removed from the classroom for his reponse? I don't know that either. What I do know is that I am highly suspect of anyone teaching children whose sexual habits are more than 1.5 standard deviations from the norm and who is, however slyly, advocating for for those habits in front of impressionable children.
-
It doesnt make sense because the student did not ask why, which is the main reason Seth's response was advocacy rather than a simple answer to a question.
But if the student did ask why, suppose the response was that "I prefer to be married to someone who I can make children with." Factual? Yes. Appropriate? No. How about "I prefer to be married to a woman so that G-d approves of the relationship." Factual? Yes. (It is a true preference and belief.) Appropriate? No. I suppose I could go on and on, but the point is that a similar situation could be used to advocate for a great many ideas that would provoke controversy or outrage among a some of the parents. But thankfully it is not appropriate for public school teachers to express such preferences. Seth is learning an important lesson about being a teacher.
-
The woman guest speaker (the Spokeswoman for the Beaverton School District?) was woefully ignorant in her responses and very clearly afraid of this issue. If I was her superior I'd be pretty disappointed in her interview this morning. Did she ever directly answer any questions? It sure didn't sound like it from our end.
Also, the Beaverton School District really took the coward's way out by refusing to appear on the show or make a statement.
Mr. Stambaugh had a right to answer a question he was asked. Could he have answered it differently? Sure. Was his response inappropriate? Different people will have endless answers to that I'm sure. It doesn't matter though. What really matters is this: Was his response illegal or grounds for LEGAL dismissal? The answer is clearly no.
The mother of the boy in Mr. Stambaugh's class asked about all of the other parents' voices and perspectives. How can they be heard? They can be heard by making it so. Get together, get organized, and talk to the people that you should. Promptly.
Wishing Mr. Stambaugh the best of luck.
Kristina Brewington
Albany, Oregon
-
Our guest you're referring to was Marilyn Shannon, a former state legislator and a leader in trying to overturn Oregon's domestic partnership law.
The Beaverton School District declined to come on the program. Our producer talked with their spokesperson Maureen Wheeler last week and invited her on. She said no one would be available for the program as they had given their side and we had all the information.
Cheers, Emily
-
There is a huge difference between advocacy for civil rights versus advocacy on ideological grounds. Saying I am an equal person, and the law is not allowing me to be an equal human being, is not general advocacy!, it is a fundamental right. Imagine if years ago a black male teacher was in a heterosexual relationship with a white women but was not allowed to marry, and when asked he said he was not allowed to marry because the women he wanted to marry was white. Explaining this is not typical advocacy, if it can even semantically be considered advocacy at all---it is an advocacy that is not commensurate with political advocacy or ideological advocacy. It is a fundamental type of advocacy that only the most barbarous of us would question.
What Mr. Stambaugh did was state the truth, if this truth is considered controversial, it is not a controversy created by Mr. Stambaugh, it is controversy created by our bigoted laws. He was essentially forced into this controversy and is really an unwilling participant in this controversy. Saying he should have exercised better discretion is like torturing someone and then citing them for disturbing the peace because they are screaming. The burden is on the side of the bigots, not on the peoples' rights they are restricting.
-
Homosexuality deviates from the biological norm, not merely a social norm as in your example of the black man. It follows that this kind of advocacy is in fact ideological and political in nature. Also, political and ideological advocacy is inappropriate for an elementary classroom.
-
"Homosexuality deviates from the biological norm, "
nunya — Mon Oct. 11th 11:01a.m.
Actually the biological norm is that there is some percentage of homosexuals in the human population. As well as many other variations of human sexuality. They are all humans and they all deserve Human Rights. -
nunya,
Even if homosexuality is not the biological norm, you have not shown that homosexuality is not a biological characteristic, and you have certainly not shown it is a social characteristic. What is normal biologically is irrelevant. If someone was born a hermaphrodite and they are not biologically ‘normal’ is that then a reason to discriminate against them? Is that then a reason to say that talking about who they are is ideological or political advocacy? You have made an error with your logic, and taken an ungraceful leap with your conclusions.
Mr. Stambaugh is being oppressed and is being forced to defend himself as a human, he is not defending some cause he merely believes in, he is simply stating who he inherently is. If that statement is by proxy some kind of advocacy, then that is not the fault of, nor did it originate with, Mr. Stambaugh.
-
@Tom D Ford
Right, there is a percentage of homosexuality in nearly all animal populations, including humans. If it didn't then it wouldn't be measurable as being a deviation from the norm. It turns out the human sexuality falls rather nicely into a Gaussian distribution, with homosexuality being, by definition, significantly far below the norm of sexual preferences/lifestyles. The same can be said of mental and physical disabilities; yes, they occur in the population with a fairly stable level of occurrence, at any given time, but they are not the biological norm for the population of human beings. I am not suggesting that homosexuals be treated as less than human, just as I would not suggest that a physically or mentally disabled person be treated as less than human despite their deficiencies; however, it does not make me a bigot to recognize that being disabled is an undesirable and abnormal state to be in. Nor does it make me a bigot to take steps to try to diminish the occurrence of said disabilities and help others to overcome their disabilities. Interestingly enough, incidence of physical and mental disabilities have been significantly reduced in our time due to modern medical science. Note, I am not trying to say that being homosexual is disabling like unto mental illness or physical handicap; it is merely to illustrative of the statistical relevance of being N- standard deviations from the biological norm. What I am saying is that, homosexuality is not a desirable state to be in, not to the same degree as handicap to be sure, but it is absolutely not something to be advocated for in a fourth grade classroom.
-
"What I am saying is that, homosexuality is not a desirable state to be in, not to the same degree as handicap to be sure, but it is absolutely not something to be advocated for in a fourth grade classroom." What nonsense. Homosexuality is not a choice. A minority of the population is sexually attracted only to people of their own sex. There is no "advocating for people to become homosexual." Worrying about having our children exposed to gay people as though they are recruiters, or carriers of a contagious disease, is irrational bigotry. To the extent that "homosexuality is not a desireable state to be in," that is entirely because of the discrimination, bullying and lack of acceptance in society for people who are homosexual. Change that. You can't change them.
-
nunya,
Your own argument contradicts itself, because it admits that homosexuality is biological but then goes own to say that advocating homosexuality is a problem. What problem exactly? How can you advocate for something that you can’t change or choose? How can you really be said to advocate for a biological characteristic that people can’t aquire? What would be the point really? What would be the harm? (It is hardly like advocating drug addiction, which someone could very realistically aquire.) In the way you have proposed it, advocating for homosexuality is like paying to advertise a product you can never buy and is not for sale. Mr. Stambaugh was not suggesting that people become homosexuals? Was he? He was simply saying that he is what he is, and because of that, he is not allowed to get married. I don’t even know if he went so far as to say ‘he should be allowed to get married,’ but, either way that isn’t advocacy in the way we normally think of advocacy, based on the reasons I have listed previously. Mr. Stambaugh was not even saying his sexual orientation was biologically normal, he was saying ‘this is my orientation and I am not allowed to marry.’
Advocacy is a tricky word and the meaning or the implications vary depending on what it is being applied to. If you are advocating that the earth is round, or even that people should accept that earth is round, it is conceptually very different from advocating Yoga as a form of exercise. Why? Because advocating for Yoga indicates a positive choice, it means standing behind one type of exercise, as opposed to another type of exercise. Someone who might be called an advocate for homosexuals is not selling or promoting homosexuality over something else, they are not saying it is preferable, or necessarily that it is normal---what they are asking, is that you don’t discriminate against them because of it.
-
"What I am saying is that, homosexuality is not a desirable state to be in, not to the same degree as handicap to be sure, but it is absolutely not something to be advocated for in a fourth grade classroom. nunya — Mon Oct. 11th 11:45a.m."
I was bullied and made fun of in school because I was a bright intelligent kid. I remember as a sophomore in an advanced placement senior math class at Corvallis high School, the teacher told a joke "you can tell a sophomore but you can't tell them much".
Well like a homosexual, I was born that way, I didn't "advocate" for the "intelligent preferences/lifestyles". And I did not ask for or deserve the bullying. Intelligent people deserve to have our Human Rights respected just as much as people of average intelligence do.
Being intelligent in the lower school levels was not "a desirable state to be in" and I can't imagine how anybody could advocate for it in fourth grade or any other grade because being born intelligent means that advocating for intelligence would not change me or anyone else to be more or less intelligent.
Now. I understand that many little girls who are intelligent keep themselves in the closet so that boys will not be intimidated by their intelligence and will like them for girlfriends. I wish that would change, that intelligent girls would learn to be themselves in school and public, to out themselves as smart women.
And I understand that intelligent black kids do the same, they act dumb because acting intelligent is seen as acting "white" in the ghettos and brings on the bullying. I wish they would out themselves and help black kids to learn to value intelligence among them.
Born right the first time, even if I was oddly intelligent and many many "N- standard deviations from the biological norm".
-
@Tom D Ford
There is a big difference between negative and positive standard deviations. Being a nerd might not feel desirable, but being extra intelligent is definitely in the positive direction statistically and biologically speaking, i.e it better furthers biological goals than the norm.
Also, being born with deficiencies is not not being born right. I doubt the mother of a child with down syndrome would say that their child wasn't born right. We are all born differently some of us with more advantages than others, and some with significantly great deficits. I'm not suggesting we treat people with less respect and dignity due to their short comings. But making illogical concessions to ease people's consciouses or advocating for said concessions doesn't sit well with me.
@scottmill
My apologies, to be honest, I am not convinced that all cases of homosexuality are biological, I was merely using biological imperatives as a standard of measure; nevertheless, what I meant was that homosexuality should not be advocated for as an appropriate lifestyle or as a lifestyle that is equal in value to those that significantly better meet said biological imperatives. To be blunt, if you are homosexual, there is something wrong with you (maybe biologically, maybe not, though more likely not). This flaw should not be paraded about as though it is a fine way to be, especially in front of children. Acknowledging that homosexuality is adversely abnormal by denying gay marriage, among other things, is not a form of persecution, and it would appear as though Mr. Stambaugh would like to cleverly convey that he thinks the opposite at every given chance no matter how inappropriate or uncalled for.
-
"Being a nerd might not feel desirable, but being extra intelligent is definitely in the positive direction statistically and biologically speaking, i.e it better furthers biological goals than the norm. ..."
Except that I am all too well aware that when a nation goes to the extremes of the right or left, intelligent people get attacked; examples being like Pol Pot in Cambodia, Stalins Soviet Union, and in Mussolinis Italy, Pinochets Chile, Francos Spain, etc. And we now have the rise of right wing Conservative Republican Extremism in the US, the moderate Republicans have been kicked out of their party and now it is run by extremist thugs like Rove, Boehner, McConnell, Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, and the rest of that ilk.
And as to:
"what I meant was that homosexuality should not be advocated for as an appropriate lifestyle or as a lifestyle that is equal in value to those that significantly better meet said biological imperatives. To be blunt, if you are homosexual, there is something wrong with you (maybe biologically, maybe not, though more likely not). This flaw should not be paraded about as though it is a fine way to be, especially in front of children. Acknowledging that homosexuality is adversely abnormal by denying gay marriage, among other things, is not a form of persecution, and it would appear as though Mr. Stambaugh would like to cleverly convey that he thinks the opposite at every given chance no matter how inappropriate or uncalled for."
nunya — Tue Oct. 12th 1:52a.m.
You're just promoting and continuing the Gay Holocaust, except you are using fine and pretty words to do what the Einsatzgruppen did with bullets and gas chambers.
-
@Tom D Ford
I am in no way whatsoever furthering the "Gay Holocaust," and I'm not using pretty words; in fact, I accidentally misspelled "conscience" in my last post. I'm merely using the language of mathematics and science. I am not for the culling of people based on their sexuality or for any other reason. It feels like you are calling my a Nazi, which seems like more of a Glenn Beck thing to do than an anything else. Let's not be base here. Finding homosexual relations to be of an adverse value when compared to heterosexual relations, and treating it as such is logical. This does not imply in anyway that homosexuals should be treated as less than human. To make the jump to saying that I am furthering a "Gay Holocaust" is defamatory to those who have been victims of actual holocausts and is exceedingly kind to the perpetrators of holocausts. It's like seeing a picture of president Obama with a Hitler mustache. It's apples and oranges, and it is really just a form of unsubstantiated, base name calling. I can understand your not being pleased with someone articulately illustrating that the lifestyle you live is a poor lifestyle at best. But I don't see the need to resort to quasi-name calling and hyperbole.
-
1 - nunya,
This biological imperative doesn’t go very far, all the imperative suggests if that to continue as a species humans must have children---which is pretty obvious---and it doesn’t go any further then that. This imperative doesn’t say that every human must have children. It doesn’t say that people who don’t have children are inferior. It doesn’t say that people who have sex when they cannot have children are somehow violating the imperative. It doesn’t say people must be married to do this. It doesn’t say people can’t do this artificially. It doesn’t say people can’t do this many times with multiple partners. Some people theorize that men have the genetic imperative to have sex with multiple partners. So, even if we stick with the imperative it presents many conflicts with current traditional averages that I assume you allege we live by.
There may be an imperative on how someone is born and how humans can give birth, but you can certainly not say that there exists an imperative once we actually get here, that this imperative extends to sexual activities in life and what we do in life. A biological imperative is a basic and simplistic idea that only speaks to what it speaks to and nothing more. Sex is clearly about more then procreation, and obviously humans have sex when procreation is not possible and not desired. We have clearly evolved beyond the simplistic imperative that our only function in life is to further the human race. We can also decide that the human race doesn’t need furthering, or that it is not our responsibility to do so, and be no more right or wrong then anyone else.
-
nunya — Tue Oct. 12th 7:14p.m.
You don't understand and either you are unable or unwilling to learn.
I've "walked in your shoes" and it is frustrating to not be able to get through to you.
-
"I can understand your not being pleased with someone articulately illustrating that the lifestyle you live is a poor lifestyle at best. ... nunya — Tue Oct. 12th 7:14p.m."
And I think it is hilarious that you think of a person being intelligent as a "lifestyle" choice.
How about describing what you see a a typical "intelligent person" lifestyle and what is wrong with it?
I have met so many different intelligent people and seen so many on NASA TV and many other places that I really don't think there is a typical "intelligent person" lifestyle. For example, back in the 1970s the night janitor at Mt Bachelor was a man with a PhD in English Literature. And one finish carpenter I knew had been a high school English teacher who quit teaching to do carpentry.
Oh, and I've even met a very intelligent and happy heroin addict, long ago.
-
@scottmill
What is statistically normal biologically is not irrelevant, it is an objective measure by which to judge to value of human behavior. I have not provided evidence for a causal relationship between biological or social factors and homosexuality, because it doesn't matter the cause, what matters is the inherent value of the behavior itself with respect to biological goals. As per my last post, there are no acceptable reasons to discriminate or persecute another human-being. Talking about who you are, what you are, or how you feel is fine; however, I think many people would take issue with a hermaphrodite walking up to a fourth grade student and unsolicitedly telling him, "I have a penis and a vagina." Clearly, the problem with logic is not mine in this case. Indeed, the Mr. Staumbaugh's advocacy comes in the form of unsolicited whining about pretended persecution, veiled though his whining may have been.
I neither have any more to say about this issue, nor do I have the time to say more; I've said enough and I need to get back to my studies. I do appreciate your thoughts, Scott; my posting to this forum began as a thought experiment (no, not trolling), and your responses were much more well thought out than I expected. It hasn't changed my stance, but I'm glad to see people who deeply think about these issues instead of simply following emotional appeals or party lines. I appreciate the time you took to respond. Would that I could talk to more people like you. If I had a way of safely getting you my contact info., I'd take you to lunch sometime.
-
@Tom D Ford
Tom, you claim that I don't understand or am unwilling to understand. So far, all I have seen is that you don't understand basic statistics and logic; you've misunderstood my clear arguments at nearly every post and resorted to using half-veiled put-downs in place of reason to further your arguments.
Case in point: "And I think it is hilarious that you think of a person being intelligent as a "lifestyle" choice."
Like I just posted to scottmill, I have made no arguments for or against a given cause of homosexuality. It isn't relevant. biological goals are simply an object measure of the value of a human behavior regardless of cause for said behavior. In no way whatsoever did I convey the thought that being intelligent is a "lifestyle choice". All I said was that being highly intelligent is an example of being some standard deviations away from the norm that furthers the meeting of biological imperatives as opposed to hampering them. Your lack of logical coherence astounds me!
Though I didn't find any of your arguments particularly compelling, as they were mostly emotional and without reason, I appreciate your time too. You obviously feel strongly about this. Thank you for discussing this via an appropriate environment, i.e. this forum and not a fourth grade classroom. I hope you are more careful in the future about labeling people; after all, that is literally what the Nazi's did.
-
I guess I do have a little more to say!
@Tom D Ford.
Oops! I made a HUGE mistake and owe you an apology! I accidentally confused your post on being bullied in school for being smart with someone else's post on being bullied for being homosexual! I guess that's what I get for trying to divide my time between Verilog logic synthesis and writing to this forum! My sincere apologies! I guess I did accidentally equate your "intelligent lifestyle" with being a poor one! I have no one to blame but myself for my inattention at the time I wrote the post. Again, I am SOOOOOO sorry! That being said, I guess I really should have said "the homosexual lifestyle" as opposed to "your lifestyle". Nevertheless, everything I said in my very last post with respect to your lack of logical coherence and stooping to petty put-downs still holds. My having made a silly mistake doesn't change that.
-
2 - nunya,
For some reason, you leave the door open that some cases of homosexuality may be genetic. Which seems odd, because then it at least half the cases your argument would have a problem. Potentially, you might propose that whether homosexuality is biological, or is not biological, it doesn’t make a difference; because either way it is a mistake. But, even if homosexuality is a mistake, a choice, an error, or even a disease, it wouldn’t make a difference in how we treat homosexuals. It wouldn’t mean they deserve different rights because they are allegedly ill or inferior in one aspect.
What happens biologically many not be ‘irrelevant’ to everything, but I think its relevancy to how a person lives their life is very limited. We differ from most species because of our ability to do ‘more’---in a way we break free from the imperative to replicate. At times some of us even decide not to replicate, because we don’t have the economic means necessary, or think the planet is at capacity. A homosexual sterile male might develop a cure for cancer and save many lives, which would seem to do more then enough to satisfy any imperative to further the species. Or a homosexual male might get together with a homosexual female and have a child, what then? Humans have advanced consciousness and abilities that go above and beyond their biological imperatives. And, implying a simplistic imperative to a complex life can be dangerous, especially when the conclusions being drawn from it could never logically extend that far.
-
3 - nunya,
“Homosexuality should not be advocated for as an appropriate lifestyle or as a lifestyle that is equal in value to those that significantly better meet said biological imperatives.” Even if we accept your statement as fact, it still doesn’t say or lead to the conclusion that homosexuals should not be married. ‘Advocating’ that homosexuals have equal rights, such as marriage, is in no way advocating for homosexuality itself, or homosexuality as a sexual orientation. It merely says people have this orientation, which we cannot deny, whether by choice or biology, and they should not be discriminated against, particularly in a commitment that has nothing to do with biological imperatives. Additionally, can you even conclude from the imperative that the homosexual lifestyle is inappropriate? How do you classify someone who is bisexual, in fact I have met such a person, who had a child and then entered into a homosexual relationship several years later. What if she later decides she would marry her partner if she could? How far in life does it extend? If you are broken and old and can no longer reproduce is your heterosexual relationship somehow inferior?
P.S. Thanks for your time also!
-
My experience is that bullying occurs in both public and private educational institutions. I have not, however, seen any indication that school administrators, as a general rule, are anti-gay or homophobic, even though I am certain that some are.
My experience with private educational institutions is that while they may have good sounding policies (on paper) the enforcement of those policies is haphazard. Sometimes students are called on their behavior and sometimes they are not. Often it seems like in private educational institutions it depended very much on how a teacher perceived the offending student. If the student was thought of as being a good student (or the family of the student was thought of as being a good family) the bullying was ignored. If, on the other hand, the student was thought of as being a bad student (or the family was not highly prized by the private institution) the student was disciplined for behavior that other students would get away with.
My experience in the public educational setting is that while a classroom teacher may be very attentive to bullying, more likely than not lunch and recess are being monitored by volunteers or high school students or a person who has little contact and therefore knowledge of individual students in a wider context. The adult is putting out too many fires to worry about specifics of who did what, to whom, and why.
This is how bullying is treated in the public system. Administrators often don't investigate upfront, they remove the offender and the victim and wait to investigate based on the blow-back such capricious actions create. No blow-back, no further action needed - problem solved! Everyone feels good at a fraction of the cost.
-
This mess is the legacy of the Boyd Applegarth years, where Boyd's Mormon religion was the basis for how the district has been run.
Much revered by conservative, homophobic "nuclear families," Boyd managed to spout all of the correct platitudes about diversity and inclusiveness while catering to the white, religious families in the district.
It's an attitude that still prevails to this day. The composition of the district's patrons has changed, yet it still acts as though Ward, June, Wally, and The Beav are its primary (and preferred) customers.
It would be wonderful to hear from the likes of Tom Ptacek and Gretta Grimala, gay and lesbian administrators in the district. Or should we interpret their complicit silence to be an act of enablement?
-
You act like the school system acts independently of those who live in the district. In fact, school boards are one group of elected officals that are most responsible to their constituency. Their constituency generally cares passionately about school board decisions and have the opportunity to speak directly to the elected members at frequent and public school board meetings.
So I suspect that you are wrong. If the primary customers of the district wanted changes in school policy, they would elect different school board members that would change the policies.
-
As a former high school teacher within the Beaverton School System, I am not surprised to hear this unfortunate news. Sadly, this is not the first time the district has condoned a discriminatory decision around gay rights. Refer back to 2005, when the Laramie Project production was cancelled due to what then Principal, Amy Gordon, referred to as "controversial." I feel for Seth and want to encourage him to continue his teaching endeavors elsewhere. I can personally assure you that you will be an asset in a school district that truly values individuals.
-
I would have been disappointed if the teacher hadn't addressed the issue of gay marriage with his student. Silencing LGTBQ voices in schools is just simply not ok, especially considering the lack of role models and allies available to LGBTQ students who often struggle with bullying, shame, etc. If you, like me, believe that schools are a place to learn about the world and acquire the tools to advocate for a more just and equal society, then I don't see how you could disapprove of this man speaking out about his struggle. What this man did was true social justice education in action. I commend him.
-
Totally agree with you, as an educator how had to "cover" for so many years, how can our young gay, bi, questioning youth ever learn that they are not alone...not the alien that I felt I was at that age. All I had was straight role models. I never quite fit and would have so benefited from knowing someone to talk to.
-
Rethomas said:
"I don't believe we need special protections when we're all supposed to have the same protections and rights under the constitution... if they aren't being enforced then let's address that question."
Gays and lesbians do NOT have the same protections under the constitution. We have become the last group to harass, bully, minimize and exclude. My domestic partner and I are legal in Oregon, married in California but do not get the same right to file Federal Tax forms, like we do jointly in Oregon. So, do we have the same rights as a hetrosexual couple? No.
If you are a white, straight, male and religious, your world is perfect...it's called "Unearned priviledge." (I use to be that man until I realized that I was lying to my wife, my kids, my church and the world.) It feels much better being in my skin even if I don't have all the rights that you do. I don't need your blessing, just know it's going to change even more once the elders have passed on.
Respecthumanity
-
Comments are now closed.
As long as an individual isn't proselytizing whatever it is they are or believe in it doesn't matter what they do in private, but I'm against adding yet another group to the growing laundry list of protected groups (or adding another layer of protection).