Lets segregate the gays!!

[Pianomahnn]

This is a horrible idea in my opinion, but whats yours?

NEW YORK, July 28 — New York City is creating the nation’s first public high school for gays, bisexuals and transgender students.The Harvey Milk High School will enroll about 100 students and open in a newly renovated building in the fall. It is named after San Francisco’s first openly gay city supervisor, who was assassinated in 1978.


“I THINK EVERYBODY feels that it’s a good idea because some of the kids who are gays and lesbians have been constantly harassed and beaten in other schools,” Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday. “It lets them get an education without having to worry.”
The school is an expansion of a two-classroom public school program that began in 1984. A gay-rights youth advocacy group, the Hetrick-Martin Institute, has managed and financed the program since its inception.
The new school’s principal, William Salzman, said the school will be academically challenging and will follow mandatory English and math programs. It also will specialize in computer technology, arts and culinary arts.
State Conservative Party Chairman Mike Long criticized the creation of the school.
“Is there a different way to teach homosexuals? Is there gay math? This is wrong,” Long said. “There’s no reason these children should be treated separately.”
The Hetrick-Martin Institute’s Web site says the school will give its students “an opportunity to obtain a secondary education in a safe and supportive environment. ... We believe that success requires the ability to respect and value the diverse human community.”

It was reported on the much listened to Rush Limbaugh show that this is costing about $30,000 tax dollars per student to fund.

City better give me my $30,000 equal opportunities for all check.

[Mudflap]

Privately funded with voluntary enrollment, and I'd fully support it. I don't blame the students that want to go to the new school. Public schools are crap.

[Venus]

Alright, so here in Denver we have 35 kids to a class room because we can't find enough teachers, and they're opening a whole new school for 100 kids? Fuck that. Look, you choose to do something out of the norm (although anymore it's totally normal to be gay), and you have to realize that people are going to ridicule and harrass you for it. Deal with the consequences of your choice.

[Torque]

Well, I went to high school in the early to mid 80's. It wasn't real fashionable to be gay, but it seems some of the kids "decided" to be gay anyway. Those kids took a whole lot of shit for it, and I'm sure they didn't get the education they could have if they weren't making sure not to get caught alone in bathrooms or the parking lots. It might be a worthwhile idea, this whole school. I would suggest that it be no better funded or staffed than the schools for straight kids, just the same, except they don't get beat up on as often.

And Venus, i don't know how it is today, but I don't think actual gay folks decided to get that way. I think they just got made that way.

[Billyman]

That was the biggest display of ignorence I've ever seen Venus.

[Venus]

Please provide me with some long ass article I'll get a quarter of the way through to prove to me that they were made that way. I've asked gay people to do the same damn thing, and not a one could provide me with a source. So until someone posts it, I'll continue to think Johnny chose to like Billy.

Treated equally is fine. Treated differently, treated better is not. You may have equal rights, but you may not have more than anyone else.

[Pianomahnn]

You do realize, an entire school needs to be made for those who are in band, those who choose to be "nerds", and those who don't dress like the jocks.

These same people are ridiculed daily as well.

If they wan't acceptance, they're sure as hell going about it the wrong way.

[Mudflap]

Its hard to stick to lofty principles when your getting abused daily. I'd imagine the gay students would rather peacefully co-exist with other students in normal schools, but they're outnumbered and prolly tired of the beat downs. I can't blame them for pursuing an education in a less hostile enviornment if the option is available to them.

[Billyman]

First off Venus, I'm not gay, so I can't speak from experience. However, knowing a few and being educated over the years from reading, listening and watching, one does not choose to be gay. You, being a woman, either have a desire to lick a chicks twat or you don’t. You either desire a throbbing cock or you don’t.

You’re straight, thus you have not the desire to lick twat or have your twat licked by a another chick. You were taught, by society, and your parents/family that it’s guy on girl. Well so were 90% of the gay community. But despite Bobs teachings, Bob desired the great white cock. Lucy next door (although experimenting with the cock) desired the twat of another.

The same niche in your brain that repels you from Donna’s twat causes Lucy to lust over it. It’s built in. It isn’t a decision. It’s a pull, a feeling, a desire, a lust, a want, an attraction. Same things you have toward Matt only in some (the gay peoples) it’s of the same sex as oppose to the opposite.

As far as the school:

How are they to be treated...better?

I see nothing different from any private school I’ve ever seen only it caters to the homosexual community.

Where are they getting more than anyone else?

Again, it’s privately funded, just like every other private school.

[Pianomahnn]

The city of New York is creating it. That doesn't seem private to me.

[Billyman]

The city/town created the private school 9 miles from here. The town created it, the community provides the funding.

I'm guessing you applied for a teaching job and you were turned down and now hold a personal grudge.

Shame on you.

[Cruise Director]

The New York school is being funded with public monies. The money per child appears higher because most of it will actually be used to renovate the building, not be spent on the kids.

Not sure how I feel about the whole situation but I WOULD like to see the prom!

[Billyman]

Originally posted by Cruise Director
I WOULD like to see the prom!

I wouldn't.

ick

[PrinceOfStorms]

Originally posted by Venus
Please provide me with some long ass article I'll get a quarter of the way through to prove to me that they were made that way. I've asked gay people to do the same damn thing, and not a one could provide me with a source. So until someone posts it, I'll continue to think Johnny chose to like Billy.


As you requested. Actually, I'll go a little further than you asked for and provide a sample of literature from both sides of the debate. Some of the references listed below are for and some are against the idea of sexual orientation being biologically determined. In several cases the titles make it clear which side they're on. I'll leave you to work through the evidence and make up your own mind, but I've read all of these so feel free to discuss them with me. You should probably start with Hamer, et al. and LeVay, who are both in favour of biological determinism.

Allen, Garland E., “The Double-Edged Sword of Genetic Determinism: Social and Political Agendas in Genetic Studies of Homosexuality, 1940–1994”, in Rosario, Vernon A. ed., Science and Homosexualities, pp. 242–270 (New York and London:
Routledge, 1997).

Bell, David & Valentine, Gill, “Introduction: Orientations”, in Bell, David & Valentine, Gill eds., Mapping Desire: Geographies of Sexualities, pp. 1–30 (London and New York: Routledge, 1995).

Boswell, John, “Revolutions, Universals, and Sexual Categories”, in Corvino, John ed., Same Sex: Debating the Ethics, Science, and Culture of Homosexuality, pp. 185–202 (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1997).

Diamond, Lisa M., “Sexual Identity, Attractions, and Behaviour Among Young Sexual-Minority Women Over a 2-Year Period”, Developmental Psychology, vol. 36, no. 2, 241–250 (2000).

Grady, Denise, “Sex—1992: Gay Genes”, Discover, p. 55 (1993).

Greenberg, Aaron S & Bailey, J. Michael, “Parental Selection of Children’s Sexual Orientation”, Archives of Sexual Behaviour, vol. 30, no. 4, 423–437 (2001).

Hamer, Dean, Hu, Stella, Magnuson, Victoria, Hu, Nan & Pattatucci, Angela, “A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation”, Science, vol. 261, 321–327 (1993).

Irvine, Reed & Goulden, Joe, “Gays Given Wrong Spin on Genetics”, Insight on the News, p. 31 (1993).

Jagose, Annamarie, Queer Theory (Dunedin: University of Otago Press, 1996).

Jones, Stanton L., “The Incredibly Shrinking Gay Gene”, Christianity Today, p. 53 (1999).

Kirsch, Max H., Queer Theory and Social Change (London and New York: Routledge, 2000).

Kitzinger, Celia & Wilkinson, Sue, “Transitions from Heterosexuality to Lesbianism: The Discursive Production of Lesbian Identities”, Developmental Psychology, vol. 31, no. 1, 95–104 (1995).

LeVay, Simon, “A Difference in the Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men”, Science, vol. 253, 1034–37 (1991).

LeVay, Simon, Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996).

Radford, Tim, “Straight Talk on the Gay Gene: Will Eugenics come out of the Closet”, World Press Review, p. 23 (1993).

Rust, Paula C. ed., Bisexuality and the Challenge to Lesbian Politics (New York and London: New York University Press, 1995).

Sardar, Ziauddin, “The Self-Righteous Gene”, New Statesman, p. 40 (1999).

Schneider, Margaret S., “Toward a Reconceptualization of the Coming-Out Process for Adolescent Females”, in D’Augelli, Anthony R. & Patterson, Charlotte J. eds., Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identities and Youth: Psychological Perspectives, pp. 71–96 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).

Schuklenk, Udo, Stein, Edward, Kerin, Jacinta & Byne, William, “The Ethics of Genetic Research on Sexual Orientation”, Hastings Center Report, pp. 6–13 (1997).

Stein, Edward, “Choosing the Sexual Orientation of Children”, Bioethics, vol. 12, no. 1, 1–24 (1998).

Streisand, Betsy, “Getting a Little Science on his Side”, U.S. News & World Report, p. 94 (1995).

Ten, C. L., “The Use of Reproductive Technologies in Selecting the Sexual Orientation, The Race, and the Sex of the Child”, Bioethics, vol. 12, no. 1, 45–48 (1998).

Toufexis, Anastasia, “New Evidence of a ‘Gay Gene”’, Time, p. 95 (1995).

Unknown, “A Gay Gene?” The Economist, p. 80 (1993).

Unknown, “Xq28 Marks the Spot”, New Statesman & Society, pp. 29–30 (1993).

Unknown, “Thanks, Mum: The Evidence for a ‘Gay’ Gene in Men is Increasing”, The Economist, p. 87 (1995).

Watson, Traci & Shapiro, Joseph P., “Is there a ‘Gay Gene’?” U.S. News & World Report, pp. 93–96 (1995).

Weiner, Jonathan, “The Science of Desire: The Search for the Gay Gene and the Biology of Behavior”, The New Republic, p. 35 (1995).

Wheeler, David L., “A ‘Gay Gene’? Perhaps Not”, The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A21 (1999).

Wickelgren, Ingrid, “Discovery of ‘Gay Gene’ Questioned: Gene Supposedly Responsible for Homosexuality”, Science, p. 571 (1999).

Personally, I think Developmental Systems Theory is a much better explanation for sexuality, allowing for an interactionist and iterative relationship between nature and nurture. I'd recommend the following two books as starting points:

Anne Fausto-Sterling, Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality

Susan Oyama, Paul E. Griffiths, and Russell D. Gray, eds. Cycles of Contingency: Developmental Systems and Evolution

Let me know if you want more.

Originally posted by Venus

Treated equally is fine. Treated differently, treated better is not. You may have equal rights, but you may not have more than anyone else.

What about the right to attend school without being harassed over your sexuality? Or is that not a right in your view? It seems that ostensibly heterosexuals get that right, but ostensibly homosexuals don't. What would you suggest we do about this quite obvious inequality in rights? Perhaps we could employ people to harass ostensibly heterosexual students in order to restore equality?

[PrinceOfStorms]

Originally posted by Pianomahnn
You do realize, an entire school needs to be made for those who are in band, those who choose to be "nerds", and those who don't dress like the jocks.

These same people are ridiculed daily as well.


Hmmm. Playing in a band is normally a choice. How you dress is largely a matter of choice as well. Nerds don't really seem to have a choice though, at least not in the majority of cases I've seen :).

Originally posted by Pianomahnn
If they wan't acceptance, they're sure as hell going about it the wrong way.

I don't think they're trying for acceptance here. More like physical safety. I agree with you entirely. Segregation isn't going to help with acceptance and it's sad that small-minded bigots have made steps like this even remotely worthy of consideration.

[MAC]

oh boy.

everything I heard so far says that the school is being built by and funded by the city tax revenue
thus, it is WRONG

why?
thats angle #2 to this discussion

equality has two distinct facets

legal equality
and
social equality

The great rights movements in american history each reached apoint in their interpretation and patronage where they stepped OVER the bounds of "equality under the law". I'm sorry, but Al Gore is right about this. The constitution was laid out to protect your equality under the law. Thats why women rose up to establish their right to own land/own businesses/vote/etc. That's why men & women in this country felt it necessary to give their lives to bring about an end to slavery and then and end to restrictive laws passed to isolate citizens because of their grandfather's voting record. Regardless how these things may have been interpreted by some to be great social issues of moral and philosphical degree, the simple fact is that a fair and just society should NOT create laws that prevent ppl from doing things legally that other men and women have opportunity to do.
HOWEVER: no government has the right to force a segment of society to do anything it doesn't feel is "right" PRIVATELY. Thus seperation of church and state. Thus you may not be forced to house troops.
And with the understanding that the majority's will can always create new laws, it is necessary that each individual have the right to protest and the right to speak, even thou he does not have the right to be heard. He has the right to representation and the right to equality under the law.

So you say, every kids has a chance at a public education, but gay kids are at a disadvantage because they get picked on.
group #1 thinks that the gov't should prvide them with an equal chance at that education because they are having their rights removed by a majority.
group #2 thinks that the right is to access to opportunity not to QUALITY of opportunity. They understand that all men are CREATED equally and then they go on to be different. Different physical and mental abilities. Different philosophies. The value of life may be equal but the abilities and actions of each man as an individual may vary greatly.

I think that if our educational system allowed kids to move to different schools based on their natural abilities and didn't PUNISH them for not surpassing ridiculous generalised standards of failure on ALL topic sof study we wouldn't have much of this problem.
As for some majority of kids picking on the gay kids and isolating them out for abuse: Who decided that the answer to replaceing the mentality of fear and hatred is segregation?
I KNOW WHO!!!!
those caste system mother fuckers in their gated communities with their $1.2M homes on the NEW developement side of town AWAY form the darkies!
And those raised to expect bigorty and racism isolationist hip-hop neo-slaves breaking their necks to preserving a half assed mix matched triablistic culture they where thrown out of by their own neighbors for acting the way they act now.

That's right. no one is buying slaves, but some ppl still ARE slaves. Thus some ppl stil believe in the masters. Segregation and homo'sapien'-phobia is there because its EXPECTED to be there.

As for is homosexuality a choice?
POS seems to have loads of data (which is what venus asked for).
So I'll add this. Psychology is to the brain what alchemy was to gold.
Alchemy turned into modern chemistry tho, so who knows what will happen with psycology.
There is nothing that happens physically to you that is not caused by soemthing physical. Our understanding of the more subtle workings of things are still unraveling.
Einstein wanders around talking about particles of light knocking pieces of atoms free 70 years ago and now we all have that technology in our pocket calculators.
The news reported, the other day, that some big name hospitol removed an egg sized tumor from a man's frontal lobe a week or so ago and his pedophelial tendancies and aggression towards women stopped immediately. We have buttons we haven't even pushed yet, scientifically.
However, our mechanical history shows us that man-kind often figures things out long before they can explain them scientifically. So While I have no doubt that there are physiological reasons for homosexuality I also recognize that men can do lots of things by choice. Things you would consider unthinkable. Somewhere in choice is control. Some where in control is a physical explination.

As for nerds and choices. I was nothing if not a nerd through otu school and still am. Everyone asks me what stuiff is and how to do it, etc. I chose to act and dress like a redneck to fit into my society and NOT stand out. What I AM and what you see depends on where YOU look. Everytime some old gal looks at me and sees a potential redneck bf I am reminded why I do not date. They cannot see me.

I should have had a special school.

[Venus]

New York City is set to open America's first publicly-funded school for gay students.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg says the institution will allow homosexual, bisexual and transgender pupils to study without fear.
Sorce: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/americas/view/45577/1/.html

This is the part I have the problem with. Our public schools don't have the money for decient books, we don't have enough teachers to keep the classrooms below 30, and they're going to spend extra money on a special school that only a minority of the kids can attend! You want a private school for it? Fine. I don't have a problem with that. Have the parents pay X amount of dollars for their child to attend like every other private school. But I'm not going to support it while my daughter's sitting in a class room with 33 other students and 1 teacher, reading out of a book that has torn pages because the school's budget was cut so the state could fund a special school to hold 100 gay students.

[Koliedrus]

Homosexuality is reaching its peak. It doesn't take a braniac to see that all differences will follow suite.

I'm sorry that you see me (white, hetero, middle-class, American) as the stereotypical stooge the world makes me out to be.

I would say that there is nothing I can do to help that perception but I know better. Here it is.

Imagine a school for the likes of me.

Can't see it, can you?

By seperating ourselves, even VOLUNTARILY, we manage nothing more than SEPERATION.

I don't want that. I never have. I don't want my kids faced with scholastic choices based on our differences.

How difficult is it to imagine a school full of white-christian-heterosexuals now that this door has been swung wide open?

[Barbie]

When does the NERD school open up?
When the does the morbidly obese school open up?


The only "special" school I've ever heard of was for the "Challenged" -
Do gay people now view their lives as Handicapped??

[Venus]

Just throw them all into one school. Let the nerds, obese, handicapped, mentally challanged, freaks, and anyone who has ever been picked on go to this one school.
Wait...I was picked on in school too....
I'M BEING OPPRESSED!!
Guess I'll credit my poor spelling to the fact that I had to attend a public school where I got picked on.

[PrinceOfStorms]

Originally posted by MAC
HOWEVER: no government has the right to force a segment of society to do anything it doesn't feel is "right" PRIVATELY. Thus seperation of church and state. Thus you may not be forced to house troops.


Right. So forcing LGBT kids to attend a special school would indeed be wrong. Complete agreement there. The idea of providing additional opportunities is another matter entirely.

How do you feel about women's rooms on university campuses where only women and perhaps young children are allowed? This has been a thorny issue here at Otago for many, many years. One good argument in favour of the Women's Room here is that we have many female Muslim students who cannot remove their headwear in the company of men. You could also make a good case for women wanting to breastfeed away from leering little boys. While I don't like the segregation aspects, and I feel that providing a space for women supports the very notion that women need to be protected from men and is thus potentially divisive in itself, I can see that for some women the space is important enough to for it to exist. I don't like it, my fees in the past have supported it, but I can see why it needs to be there. I look forward to living in more enlightened times when such spaces will be, if not entirely redundant, of far less importance. Perhaps we will end up with a Muslim Women's room and a Breastfeeding Room instead of a general Women's Room.

Originally posted by MAC
group #2 thinks that the right is to access to opportunity not to QUALITY of opportunity. They understand that all men are CREATED equally and then they go on to be different. Different physical and mental abilities. Different philosophies. The value of life may be equal but the abilities and actions of each man as an individual may vary greatly.


So to this group it would be wrong for a bar to ban blacks from its premises, but okay for patrons there to have carte blanche to beat up blacks? It would be wrong for a hospital to refuse to treat blacks, but okay for black patients to be made to wait until all the white patients have been attended to first? If you argue that all you need is access and not quality of access, you don't have anything like equality of access. Access isn't just a matter of getting past the door, you have to be served as well and pay the same prices.

Originally posted by MAC
I think that if our educational system allowed kids to move to different schools based on their natural abilities and didn't PUNISH them for not surpassing ridiculous generalised standards of failure on ALL topic sof study we wouldn't have much of this problem.


How would this solve the problem of LGBT students being picked on? They are all smarter/dumber/different in other ways when compared to heterosexual students and so would gravitate to their own schools anyway? I'm assuming that I'm missing something here...

Originally posted by MAC
As for some majority of kids picking on the gay kids and isolating them out for abuse: Who decided that the answer to replaceing the mentality of fear and hatred is segregation?


In most cases of segregation, it appears to me that it is a temporary solution until society grows up and learns to accept differences. It's easy to tell the LGBT students to tough it out, or that this is what they'll encounter in the real world so they might as well get used to it now, or to say that schools should deal with and suppress the attacks, but none of these is likely to solve the fundamental problem of LGBT students being beaten up and abused in the short term. Especially when those responsible for enforcing a ban on homophobia may well be homophobic themselves. Segregation with the intention that it continues indefinitely would indeed be wrong. Segregation while we wait for homophobia to die out, as it almost inevitably will to be replaced with yet another form of discrimination, doesn't seem nearly as wrong.

Originally posted by MAC
As for is homosexuality a choice?
POS seems to have loads of data (which is what venus asked for).
So I'll add this. Psychology is to the brain what alchemy was to gold.

Alchemy turned into modern chemistry tho, so who knows what will happen with psycology.


When chemistry was still alchemy, psychology was still part of philosophy. I think psychology has already earned its status as a genuine scientific discipline. Almost all scientific disciplines started out as the domain of philosophers, and once the knowledge became applicable to real life, it stopped being pure philosophy.

Originally posted by MAC
The news reported, the other day, that some big name hospitol removed an egg sized tumor from a man's frontal lobe a week or so ago and his pedophelial tendancies and aggression towards women stopped immediately. We have buttons we haven't even pushed yet, scientifically.


The question that then springs to mind is whether or not he should be held accountable for his post-operation actions. It's not as simple as drug or alcohol related crime, where the ingestion of the substance was a choice. Technically he doesn't need to be rehabilitated as long as we are sure that it was only the tumour that caused his behaviour. So what should we do with him?

Originally posted by MAC
As for nerds and choices. I was nothing if not a nerd through otu school and still am. Everyone asks me what stuiff is and how to do it, etc. I chose to act and dress like a redneck to fit into my society and NOT stand out. What I AM and what you see depends on where YOU look. Everytime some old gal looks at me and sees a potential redneck bf I am reminded why I do not date. They cannot see me.


I guess when I talked about nerds, I was meaning those who because of their obviously awkward social manner, physical appearance (not fashion choices), and academic achievement would be unable to hide or fit in. Al la <em>Revenge of the Nerds</em>. However, I don't think that you should need to hide who you are either.

[PrinceOfStorms]

Originally posted by Venus

This is the part I have the problem with. Our public schools don't have the money for decient books, we don't have enough teachers to keep the classrooms below 30, and they're going to spend extra money on a special school that only a minority of the kids can attend! You want a private school for it? Fine. I don't have a problem with that. Have the parents pay X amount of dollars for their child to attend like every other private school. But I'm not going to support it while my daughter's sitting in a class room with 33 other students and 1 teacher, reading out of a book that has torn pages because the school's budget was cut so the state could fund a special school to hold 100 gay students.

Would you be happy with the new school if your daughter was in a smaller class and had new books? I'm taking the above to mean that you don't object to government funding going to the school, as long as it doesn't mean that anyone else has to go without.

Now, how would you feel if your daughter was being picked on at school, verbally and physically, because she was a lesbian and someone said that they couldn't create a school where she could receive a safe education because some of the books at another school had torn or dog-eared pages and needed to be replaced? Which of those would appear more important to you in that case?

And why should the parents of LGBT students have to pay more than parents of straight students in order for their children to receive a safe education?

[PrinceOfStorms]

Originally posted by Koliedrus
Homosexuality is reaching its peak. It doesn't take a braniac to see that all differences will follow suite.


Why do you believe that? What makes you think that 20%, 35%, 50%, even 90% of the population isn't really LGBT and just can't or won't bring themselves out? I'm not making any claims about the proportion of LGBT people in any population, I'm just curious why you feel that it is reaching its peak when homophobia is still so rampant as to encourage people to conform to nice, safe, heterosexuality and to convince themselves that this is what they really want. I guess we'll know what the real proportion is when everyone who is alive cannot remember there being a time when being LGBT was a bad thing and they are free to make their own choices.

Originally posted by Koliedrus
Imagine a school for the likes of me.

Can't see it, can you?

By seperating ourselves, even VOLUNTARILY, we manage nothing more than SEPERATION.


The counter-argument here is that the world is already set up for the majority group and that separation is achieved by rejecting the minority and treating them differently. This claim has been made by women (the world is a man's world, so women need a special space) and blacks (similar) and LGBT (similar) and probably plenty of other minorities. Segregation can be achieved almost as effectively implicitly as explicitly when you are the majority. We already have segregation (how many gay couples attend proms?). What is being proposed is to replace it with a different form of segregation until society stops persecuting those with this particular form of difference and moves on to another group.

Originally posted by Koliedrus
How difficult is it to imagine a school full of white-christian-heterosexuals now that this door has been swung wide open?

There was at least one of those in my home town. Still is as far as I know.

[SocialParasite]

How difficult is it to imagine a school full of white-christian-heterosexuals now that this door has been swung wide open?


They've been around for a long, long while.

[PrinceOfStorms]

Originally posted by Barbie
When does the NERD school open up?
When the does the morbidly obese school open up?

The only "special" school I've ever heard of was for the "Challenged" -
Do gay people now view their lives as Handicapped??

I believe that there are also special schools for gifted children. I know of schools in NZ that are focused on Chinese students and others are intended for Maori students. There are plenty of different special schools already out there.

As far as the "handicapped" question goes, according to Merriam-Webster, a handicap is "a disadvantage that makes achievement unusually difficult". There are two forms of handicap: those that originate from how a person is, and those that originate from how others treat them.

[PrinceOfStorms]

Originally posted by Venus
Wait...I was picked on in school too....
I'M BEING OPPRESSED!!
Guess I'll credit my poor spelling to the fact that I had to attend a public school where I got picked on.


There are degrees of being picked on Venus. What did being picked on in school involve for you?

[SimpleSimon]

Originally posted by PrinceOfStorms:
[snip.....[

There are two forms of handicap: those that originate from how a person is, and those that originate from how others treat them.

Discrimination, mistreatment, abuse of others for perceived differences are the human norm. This is neither right nor wrong, it simply is.

We as animals are social pack hunters. Disguise it how you will with socialization, ideals, legalities, what have you, we live in groups. Anyone who chooses not to so live is perceived widely (and correctly) as not quite right, not fitting in. Given this simple fact of evolutionary biology, human behavior boils down to two rules:

1) All individual behavior is about sex; and

2) All group behavior is about food.

A gross simplification, I know, but at its roots all human behavior fits these two rules. There are layers upon layers of complication added onto this foundation, but that is what they are: complications and addenda.

The above being true, segregation and discrimination will never be eliminated from human society until that day when all people are identical in every significant aspect and attribute (may it never come).

On a personal note, I was very different from my peers in school. Physically handicapped, possessing (at any given age) far more information than my age-mates, refusing to accept and/or conform to any set of social norms (even the rebellious ones), and exceedingly aggressive. I did not fit in, anywhere. In fact, I still basically do not fit in, anywhere.

Was I discriminated against? Hell yes!

Was I assaulted verbally, emotionally, physically? Again, hell yes!

Did I ever seek protection from the storms of childhood and maturation in a socially contrived velvet-lined box? Well, no.

I chose to go about my life despite the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" and made my own choices and my own errors. Over protecting children produces dependent adults, by and large. This school is, in my view, a serious mistake.

[Cruise Director]

I'm taking Muddy to the prom.

That's a "sure thing" if there ever was one.

[PrinceOfStorms]

Originally posted by SimpleSimon
I chose to go about my life despite the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" and made my own choices and my own errors. Over protecting children produces dependent adults, by and large. This school is, in my view, a serious mistake.

I agree entirely with your point about over protecting children and its consequences. I would, however, say that there is a line that must be drawn somewhere between over protecting and justified protecting. A given level of pressure in life can harden some people and even be something they are better off for having experienced, but others will crumble under the same level of pressure. If we want each person to be the best they can be, we need to find that line for them and avoid the temptation of applying our own or someone else's line on them.

An interlude for a tangential question. Both boys and girls do significantly better at single sex schools. Boys stop playing the fool to impress the girls, and the girls stop playing dumb to impress the boys, etc. How do you feel about sex single schools?

What if I said that the LGBT students would do better in their own school without being constantly faced with abuse and the non-LGBT students would do better without the distraction of people who obviously make them feel uncomfortable and encourage them to become distracted from their education? This is just an argument to explore a particular point. I'm not necessarily in favour of it.

[Billyman]

Originally posted by PrinceOfStorms
How do you feel about sex single schools?

Well I sent in an application to an all girl college back when I was in high school. They said I didn’t fit all the criteria and turned me down.

Pffffft.

They have no idea how good I look in a skirt and “fuck me” boots.

The bastards.

[Venus]

POS..if my daughter was getting beat up daily for being a lesbien, I would gladly pay to send her to a private school where she could get a safe education. Since when does homosexual's right to education become more important than my daughter's right to an education? At what point is it ok to say public schools can continue with crappy teachers, not enough resourses, so we can open another school to only allow a minority to attend? Where's the line that says my daughter doesn't have the right to a quality education because some fag does?
My problem with the school is not that it's legalized discrimination, it's that it's tax payer funded. I have to pay for this school. Sorry POS, but money doesn't grow on trees here. If it's being used for one thing, it can't be used for something else at the same time.
Go ahead and make your school for homosexuals. Let them have their special things, and they're supper safe playgrounds. But don't expect me to pay for it when I need to be paying for something my daughter can use to. Sorry, but you can't have a government funded school, and then only allow certain people to attend.

[PrinceOfStorms]

Originally posted by Venus
POS..if my daughter was getting beat up daily for being a lesbien, I would gladly pay to send her to a private school where she could get a safe education.


And let me guess Venus, if you couldn't afford to send your victimised lesbian daughter to a private school, you'd just shrug your shoulders and say "Sorry honey, but we can't afford to send you to a school where you won't be beaten up every day, you'll just have to live with it"?

How exactly does this differ from black kids being beaten up in school? Would you argue the same way if they were creating a school for black kids who were being victimised in their schools? Or does this come down to the fact that you see LGBT as a choice and skin color as not? If sexual orientation were shown to not be a choice, would you change your position at all?

Originally posted by Venus
Since when does homosexual's right to education become more important than my daughter's right to an education? At what point is it ok to say public schools can continue with crappy teachers, not enough resourses, so we can open another school to only allow a minority to attend? Where's the line that says my daughter doesn't have the right to a quality education because some fag does?


No one is saying that your daughter is less important than any other student. However, I would say that physical safety is more important than an overcrowded classroom or a book with torn pages. When there are limited funds, they should go to the place with the greatest need, right?

Anyway, if you don't like your daughter being in overcrowded classrooms with torn books, why don't you just send her to a private school? :)

[MuffyTheVampyreLayer]

I can't help but think this is a giant step backward. The Little Rock Nine had to fight against segregation, now another minority group is fighting for it.

At what point do the good citizens of New York stop thinking of this as a way of offering better opportunities to miniority groups and start using it as a method of keeping the queer/creepy/minority race students out of their kids schools?

[SimpleSimon]

Originally posted by PrinceOfStorms
I agree entirely with your point about over protecting children and its consequences. I would, however, say that there is a line that must be drawn somewhere between over protecting and justified protecting. A given level of pressure in life can harden some people and even be something they are better off for having experienced, but others will crumble under the same level of pressure. If we want each person to be the best they can be, we need to find that line for them and avoid the temptation of applying our own or someone else's line on them.

emphasis added

Who are we to determine the load the structure can bear? Fact is, psychological resilience is a trainable and developable faculty to the inherent limits of the person. No tool exists that can determine those limits beforehand.


An interlude for a tangential question. Both boys and girls do significantly better at single sex schools. Boys stop playing the fool to impress the girls, and the girls stop playing dumb to impress the boys, etc. How do you feel about sex single schools?

No real opinion.


What if I said that the LGBT students would do better in their own school without being constantly faced with abuse and the non-LGBT students would do better without the distraction of people who obviously make them feel uncomfortable and encourage them to become distracted from their education? This is just an argument to explore a particular point. I'm not necessarily in favour of it.


Originally posted by Billyman


Well I sent in an application to an all girl college back when I was in high school. They said I didn’t fit all the criteria and turned me down.

Pffffft.

They have no idea how good I look in a skirt and “fuck me” boots.

The bastards.

I can imagine. Little red apple cheeks, bubble butt, and all.

See: http://www.hmi.org/Youth/HarveyMilkSchool/default.aspx

to quote in pertinent part:

"The Hetrick-Martin Institute (HMI) believes all young people, regardless of sexual orientation or identity, deserve a safe and supportive environment in which to achieve their full potential. HMI creates this environment for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning youthbetween the ages of 12 and 21 and their families. Through a comprehensive package of direct services and referrals, HMI seeks to foster healthy youth development. HMI's staff promotes excellence in the delivery of youth services and uses its expertise to create innovative programs that other organizations may use as models.

HMI was founded in 1979 in response to an incident in a NYC group home. A 15-year-old boy was beaten and sexually assaulted by other residents. Group home staff addressed the incident by discharging the young man, explaining to him that the attack would not have happened if he were not gay. When Doctors Emery S. Hetrick and A. Damien Martin learned of the case, they marshaled the support of concerned adults and founded the Institute for the Protection of Lesbian and Gay Youth (IPLGY). The Institute was renamed in their honor after their deaths."


This is the private organization helping to establish the school.


"The Board of Trustees of the New York City Educational Construction Fund approved $9.5 million in funding to expand two schools in Manhattan and to create another in central Brooklyn. The three schools serve unique school populations in New York City and represent the best in educational collaborations between the Department of Education and several community-based organizations.

Trustees have approved up to $3.2 million in funding for the expansion of the Harvey Milk School, which is located in Manhattan. The school, which is operated jointly by the Department of Education and the Hetrick-Martin Institute, serves gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered youth from all five boroughs of the City. Once renovations are complete in 2003, the school will serve 175 school-age youth, up from the 50 youth it currently serves in its Greenwich Village building. For more information about the Harvey Milk School, visit the school on the Internet at http://www.hmi.org/education.htm."

[SocialParasite]

I really don't see what the hubub is all about. New York rednecks and Christians get to have them no-good, god damn, Satan lovin' Sodomites out of yer skewls *hawk up a big loogie and spit in spitoon* and the gay students have a place where they can learn without the distractions of Billy Mullet's incessant teasing. It's the best of both worlds! Christians can have their private schools so why can't gays? Oh, that's right. Homosexuality is wrong and we don't want to perpetuate the thought that it might not be wrong and all that Puritan stuff.

Lick my nuts with a smile, McNugget.

Hell, I've had to pay for worse with my tax dollars. I might soon be paying for even worse now that Bush is tinkering with the idea of making a national law banning gay union in any form.

Yippey-ki-yay motherfuckers.

[Koliedrus]

When I mentioned a "peak", I was talking only about empathy on a social level. Once upon a time, "Leave them alone and mind your own business", was the general attitude. I'm a proponant of that philosophy.

TV is now saturated with homosexually themed shows. Yes, I know how to change channels and turn it off. I do so more often than I used to which means that I watch the news for an hour or so to see what happened in the last few hours.

"Live and let live" is what reached a peak. When General Ewe starts shoving something in my face and does a victory dance, I get annoyed and tend to look for faults. The fault here is overemphasizing homosexuality; thereby turning it into a "big deal". Well, now it's a big deal. Supreme Court rulings, TV, schools and all.

When someone is gay and proud of it, my response was (and still is) "More power to you". I didn't realize that that meant that they would become seperatists.

I think all the publicity is having a negative affect on the homosexual community as a whole. Didn't anyone equate a school for homosexuals to Christian colleges (props, SP) before making this decision? The children are being played as pawns in a much larger game!

Social matters aside for the moment, look at cause and effect.

By putting gay children together in one building, some sociopath might see that as an advantage. If my kids decide that they're gay/lesbian, you can damned sure bet that they will NOT attend an all-gay school. It only takes one lunatic to destroy many lives and that's one risk I will not take.

The KKK once petitioned for a chunk of land (I don't recall where. Utah was used as an example if I recall) so that they could be left alone with their beliefs. Rightly refused.

Before someone jumps on me for something idiotic like, "you said homosexuals are like the klan", I'm simply stating that once ANY group decides to distance themselves from the rest of the world, nothing good can come from it.

With that, I think I'll go visit some other forums.

Good discussion. Keep it up!

[Venus]

Originally posted by PrinceOfStorms
And let me guess Venus, if you couldn't afford to send your victimised lesbian daughter to a private school, you'd just shrug your shoulders and say "Sorry honey, but we can't afford to send you to a school where you won't be beaten up every day, you'll just have to live with it"?

Right POS, because I care so little about my daughter that I wouldn't do anything about it. Fuck you. How the fuck do you imply shit like that? I don't know anything about you, but I personally take the iniciative to make sure my daughter has what she needs to be safe, warm, fed a general happy kid. If that means I get a 2nd job, I've got the 2nd job. I'll do whatever it takes to allow her a safe childhood. Even if that means suggesting that she not parade around school flaunting that she's a lesbien.


How exactly does this differ from black kids being beaten up in school? Would you argue the same way if they were creating a school for black kids who were being victimised in their schools? Or does this come down to the fact that you see LGBT as a choice and skin color as not? If sexual orientation were shown to not be a choice, would you change your position at all?

It doesn't. Yes I would argue the same way. It's not about them being homosexual. It's about the government funding a school, and then saying that only some people can attend. They can't do that! The governments funds something, it's a public thing. You can't legally tell someone they can't attend a public thing.



No one is saying that your daughter is less important than any other student. However, I would say that physical safety is more important than an overcrowded classroom or a book with torn pages. When there are limited funds, they should go to the place with the greatest need, right?

And I suppose if I suggested that less crowded schools, more teachers and a better learning environment would lesses attacks on homosexuals, you wouldn't believe me.

Anyway, if you don't like your daughter being in overcrowded classrooms with torn books, why don't you just send her to a private school? :)

Because the government funds schools...THAT EVERYONE CAN ATTEND! That's the point of government funded schools.
Why can't you understand that this argument isn't about someone being different weither it's gay or black, or handicapped? It's about the government funding a private school.

[SimpleSimon]

Venus, wake up and get a grasp on reality. Government can, and does, constantly fund schools that are closed to all but a selected few. Look at the 4 military academies. Look at the Armed Forces Universities (three at last count, I believe). Look at the Defense Policy Institute. Look at the Foreign service institutes.

For that matter, look at the funding provided through various public agencies of private institutions of higher education, some of which are the property of religious institutions. Baylor University, for example. Baylor College of Medicine for another. Notre Dame University for a third.

Look at the Black Studies programs, and the Women's study programs, in every university of any size in the nation. Those are government funded.

It isn't about government funding at all - it's about self-imposed and state supported segregation. A very serious mistake.

[PrinceOfStorms]

Originally posted by Venus

Right POS, because I care so little about my daughter that I wouldn't do anything about it. Fuck you. How the fuck do you imply shit like that? I don't know anything about you, but I personally take the iniciative to make sure my daughter has what she needs to be safe, warm, fed a general happy kid. If that means I get a 2nd job, I've got the 2nd job. I'll do whatever it takes to allow her a safe childhood. Even if that means suggesting that she not parade around school flaunting that she's a lesbien.


Venus, I said "if you couldn't afford to send your victimised lesbian daughter to a private school..." In other words, I'm asking how would you feel if you really couldn't get your daughter out of a public school into a safer private school? I'm sorry if that wasn't clear in my post. I'm not questioning your performance as a mother, I'm assuming you would do whatever it would take to get your daughter a good education. I'm asking how you would feel if you had no choice in the matter, if there was nothing you could do to get your daughter into a private school. Let's just say that you already have a second job and still can't afford it. Let's assume you have several daughters and can't send them all to a private school. There will be some people in these situations, so it's not just an academic question. You're obviously dissatisfied with the public school system and your daughter is still in it, so it can't be that easy to send your kid(s) to private school.

I think your final sentence answered my question though, you'd tell you daughter to stop being herself and pretend to be someone else instead. I don't think that's a solution to homophobia any more than asking blacks to paint themselves white would have been a solution in the past.

Originally posted by Venus

And I suppose if I suggested that less crowded schools, more teachers and a better learning environment would lesses attacks on homosexuals, you wouldn't believe me.


Actually I would believe you. If teachers had more power, were more motivated, had better resources, etc., probably a lot of things would be better. I suspect that this wouldn't remove all attacks, but I'd expect it would decrease them. Still, I think the real problems lie elsewhere and even in fully-funded schools, homophobia would still be a problem. It's something that isn't going to go away until a lot of time has passed and certain attitudes have worked their way out of society.

[PrinceOfStorms]

Originally posted by SimpleSimon

Who are we to determine the load the structure can bear? Fact is, psychological resilience is a trainable and developable faculty to the inherent limits of the person. No tool exists that can determine those limits beforehand.


Absolutely. I said that because I got the feeling that you were saying that because you survived being bullied at school, so could other students.

Originally posted by SimpleSimon

No real opinion. [on single sex schools]


So, why is segregation on the basis of sex not an issue, but segregation on the basis of sexuality is? Don't largely the same arguments apply to both forms of segregation? Doesn't sending girls to an all girl school fail to prepare them for the real non-segregated world where there will be men who they need to deal with? Doesn't is suggest that girls and boys are separate and distinct and thus need to be treated differently? There are obviously differences between the two cases, but I'm curious as to which ones you think are important here.

[PrinceOfStorms]

Originally posted by MuffyTheVampyreLayer
I can't help but think this is a giant step backward. The Little Rock Nine had to fight against segregation, now another minority group is fighting for it.


Segregation, I would argue, is neither automatically good nor automatically bad. It all depends on how it is used. How do you feel about Maori schools and single sex schools and religious schools and all the other schools that segregate? What about schools for slow learners and schools for gifted students?

In any case, we are all segregated and segregate to some degree in normal life (how often did the Union freaks mix with commerce students?). This is just a more obvious example of it.

How do you feel about gay pride marches? Gay bars?

Originally posted by MuffyTheVampyreLayer
At what point do the good citizens of New York stop thinking of this as a way of offering better opportunities to miniority groups and start using it as a method of keeping the queer/creepy/minority race students out of their kids schools?

That, I think, is a very real concern. The question remains though, given that this policy would obviously do some good and obviously do some harm, of which would it do more?

[PrinceOfStorms]

Originally posted by Koliedrus
When I mentioned a "peak", I was talking only about empathy on a social level. Once upon a time, "Leave them alone and mind your own business", was the general attitude. I'm a proponant of that philosophy.


Okay, that makes much more sense :). I guess I would say that the peak though would come when it no longer matters.

Originally posted by Koliedrus
TV is now saturated with homosexually themed shows. Yes, I know how to change channels and turn it off. I do so more often than I used to which means that I watch the news for an hour or so to see what happened in the last few hours.


Fair point, but the LGBT community would say that TV is and always has been (and will be for a very long time) saturated with hetersexuality. Every time TV shows a man and a woman kissing, holding hands, on a date, making love, living together, being married, as parents, it's pretty much the same to the L & G communities as two men or two women kissing, etc. is to the hetersexual comminity.

I remember a story about a psychology lecturer who, realising that he used "he" more than "she" in his lectures, tried using them in equal frequency. When he used "he" and "she" in the same frequency, his students complained that he used "she" almost all the time. Are you sure that when you see TV as saturated with homosexuality, it really is saturated and not just something that you haven't yet adjusted to? Maybe TV in the US is different, but here LGBT characters are still very much in the minority as far as I can tell. I'm far more likely to see two girls making out in a local bar or walking along a local street holding hands than on TV.

Originally posted by Koliedrus
I think all the publicity is having a negative affect on the homosexual community as a whole. Didn't anyone equate a school for homosexuals to Christian colleges (props, SP) before making this decision? The children are being played as pawns in a much larger game!


I partially agree here. I guess it might convince some people just how bad things are though if LGBT students need their own school. I don't like the segregation, but I like the violence even less.

Originally posted by Koliedrus

Before someone jumps on me for something idiotic like, "you said homosexuals are like the klan", I'm simply stating that once ANY group decides to distance themselves from the rest of the world, nothing good can come from it.


We're not talking about Gay City here though. We're talking about a problem where some LGBT students are having their education distrupted and some of them want their own school where they can receive an education in safety. I'm not in favour of the segregation, but I am in favour of all kids being given the opportunity to get a proper education. It's the lesser evil to me.

[PrinceOfStorms]

There have been plenty of good arguments here against the use of Government funds for private schools and against segregation in schools. What's missing though are suggestions as to how this problem should instead be dealt with. I'm assuming here that LGBT students being beaten up, etc. is in fact unacceptable. I'm not entirely comfortable with the segregation aspect and the redirecting of funding has the potential to lead to inefficiencies and resentment, but what would be a better way of dealing with this problem?

[MuffyTheVampyreLayer]

Originally posted by PrinceOfStorms
How do you feel about Maori schools and single sex schools and religious schools and all the other schools that segregate? What about schools for slow learners and schools for gifted students?

Hmmm, all good questions. Maori schools I think are necessary as those who grow up being native speakers of Maori find it hard to be emersed in english schools. At the same time though, I do think that Kohanga Reo's and Koru Kaupapa's should have more of an emphasis on English. Although Maori is NZ's national language, primarily we speak English (as you know), so I'm not entirely convinced that full te reo emersion is a good idea just yet.

As for religious schools, I don't like them, and I wish parents wouldn't insist on brainwashing their children at such a young age (no offence meant to those of you who had a religious education).

Schools for slow learners seem to be, again, necessary to some extent, those not born with equal 'natural talents' as the rest of us should be given some extra help IMO.

Originally posted by PrinceOfStorms
how often did the Union freaks mix with commerce students?
A lot of the union freaks were commerce students :).

Originally posted by PrinceOfStorms
How do you feel about gay pride marches? Gay bars?

Gay pride marches are fun to watch, but kind of pointless in my opinion. Gay bars have their obvious ups (a safe place to score), but it is interesting to talk to people like David (a friend of mine and POS's) who actually fought for gay law reform in NZ precisely so they could drink in 'heterosexual' bars and be openly gay.

Originally posted by PrinceOfStorms
The question remains though, given that this policy would obviously do some good and obviously do some harm, of which would it do more?
I'm inclined to think segregation would do more harm than good.

[MAC]

Originally posted by PrinceOfStorms
There have been plenty of good arguments here against the use of Government funds for private schools and against segregation in schools. What's missing though are suggestions as to how this problem should instead be dealt with. I'm assuming here that LGBT students being beaten up, etc. is in fact unacceptable. I'm not entirely comfortable with the segregation aspect and the redirecting of funding has the potential to lead to inefficiencies and resentment, but what would be a better way of dealing with this problem?

Well, lets assume that there are no other political issues involved and all we are discussing is education for a nation with 300,000,000 ppl of varying religions, cultural backgrounds, and income levels.

1) STOP forcing all children to go to school for 13 years. Develope schools that offer different ppl with different abilities the opportunity to get educated and trained in what they are capable and comfortable with. (how european of me, right?)

2) Do away with all federal gov't school funding and give the control and taxes back to the states alone. the fed's role should be solely as a moderator assuring that education depts of the different states are communicating and offering to sharing curriculums.

3) leave it to the ppl. if they can't get along without killing one another over sexual orientation we have BIGGER problems than educational tax $$

which is why this is such a joke

did you NEVER get picked on in school because of what you looked like or how you acted?
you never got HIT by someone because he didn't like you and wanted to fight?

this is why Illiteracy is NOT against the law but truancy IS????

the US constitution protects us from gov't not the citizens
I'll get into that when i reply to pos's reply to my original post

[Venus]

Originally posted by PrinceOfStorms
You're obviously dissatisfied with the public school system and your daughter is still in it, so it can't be that easy to send your kid(s) to private school.

My daughter's not school age yet. She's 3.


I think your final sentence answered my question though, you'd tell you daughter to stop being herself and pretend to be someone else instead. I don't think that's a solution to homophobia any more than asking blacks to paint themselves white would have been a solution in the past.

I'm not saying to pretend to be someone else. I'm saying not to flaunt it. School isn't the place to be showing any sort of romantic tendencies.

[zim]

whether it's right or wrong to have a publically (or even privately) funded school that accepts homosexuals can be determined by simply flipping it around.

How much a stir would there be if a public school publicized that it will not allow homosexual students to enroll? -- private school?

[Koliedrus]

Originally posted by Captain Disgruntled
whether it's right or wrong to have a publically (or even privately) funded school that accepts homosexuals can be determined by simply flipping it around.

How much a stir would there be if a public school publicized that it will not allow homosexual students to enroll? -- private school?

Flip it around...

Ok. What the hell. I'll apply that to religious schools and come up with a link...

http://www.eightballmagazine.com/diatribes/volume01/diatribes014/diatribes271-291/diatribes272.htm

Now I'll go read it.

[Billyman]

Ok, I’m down with the article and all but this guy, like so many others, likes to throw the bible around to use in their defense when arguing with Christians and whatnot. If you’re going to use props in your argument, make sure it’ll support you 100%.

You all know that I don’t adhere to 95% of the contents of the bible. But if I were to use it to make examples and the basis of my argument, I’d try not to skip over stuff that may be thrown back into my face.

Example:

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination.” (Lev. 18:22)

“If a man also lie mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” (Lev. 20:13)

[zim]

nod the 300+ 'admonishments' he talks about against heterosexuals arent for BEING heterosexuals, they're admonishments against people who happen to be heterosexuals as well. the bible clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination, that is one of the VERY FEW thing's its actually clear on.

lucky for homosexuals, that the bible is a pile of rubbish with a couple of nice stories.

[PrinceOfStorms]

Originally posted by Captain Disgruntled
whether it's right or wrong to have a publically (or even privately) funded school that accepts homosexuals can be determined by simply flipping it around.

How much a stir would there be if a public school publicized that it will not allow homosexual students to enroll? -- private school?

You can't just flip this situation around like that. This isn't nearly as much about sexuality as it is about safety. If homosexual male students were regularly beating up and sodomising heterosexual male students, would you object to the heterosexual students wanting a school where they could be safe? This has nothing to do with whether alternative sexualities are "right" or "wrong", it's to do with providing students with a safe environment.

Okay, I'll take a risk here that my point is going to be completely misunderstood and proceed with an analogy. First, note that there is no connection between alternative sexualities and child abuse as far as I'm concerned--I'm just trying to approach the question from another angle. As I understand it, in prison, child molesters are routinely beaten up. Prison guards and management are often willing to turn a blind eye to this. Given that the child molesters have already been sentenced by the judicial system, is it fair that they be assigned to a different area of the prison where their physical safety is more assured? If we say no, they should stay in the same area of the prison as all the other prisoners, we are basically condoning the other prisoners taking their view of justice into their own hands. So, is it fair that child molesters (and rapists and whatever other groups are beaten up in prison) be housed in a separate area of a prison when housing them with the rest of the prisoners so often leads to violence against them? Remember, I'm not drawing any parallels between child molesters and GLBT students, but if you allow segregation of the former, why not the latter?

[PrinceOfStorms]

Originally posted by Venus
I'm not saying to pretend to be someone else. I'm saying not to flaunt it. School isn't the place to be showing any sort of romantic tendencies.

So students at school should not: acknowledge who their boyfriend/girlfriend is, hold hands or kiss their boyfriend/girlfriend, be seen with their boyfriend/girlfriend in any way that might indicate their relationship even outside of the school, attend the prom with their boyfriend/girlfriend, talk about boyfriend/girlfriends they have had, or do anything else that might indicate their sexual preference(s)...?

[MuffyTheVampyreLayer]

PDA = bad!

[PrinceOfStorms]

Originally posted by MuffyTheVampyreLayer
PDA = bad!

Hypocrite! :p

[MuffyTheVampyreLayer]

ssshhhhhhh.

[PrinceOfStorms]

*smooch*

[MAC]

boy do I hate point-by-point :p

Originally posted by PrinceOfStorms
Right. So forcing LGBT kids to attend a special school would indeed be wrong. Complete agreement there. The idea of providing additional opportunities is another matter entirely.

How do you feel about women's rooms on university campuses where only women and perhaps young children are allowed? This has been a thorny issue here at Otago for many, many years. One good argument in favour of the Women's Room here is that we have many female Muslim students who cannot remove their headwear in the company of men. You could also make a good case for women wanting to breastfeed away from leering little boys. While I don't like the segregation aspects, and I feel that providing a space for women supports the very notion that women need to be protected from men and is thus potentially divisive in itself, I can see that for some women the space is important enough to for it to exist. I don't like it, my fees in the past have supported it, but I can see why it needs to be there. I look forward to living in more enlightened times when such spaces will be, if not entirely redundant, of far less importance. Perhaps we will end up with a Muslim Women's room and a Breastfeeding Room instead of a general Women's Room.

The point of restrooms/wash rooms is primarily sanitation. But you are assuredly correct that segregated facilities exist to promote comfort and security for the sexes. Too bad modern society can't handle mass bathrooms. But then again they can't stop child molestation or sexual assault either. So for now, the segregated bathroom is a NORM. Its the most efficient way to handle large groups of men and women in the USA in public. Many offices/private businesses and every home I have been in do NOT seperate men and women's rooms. Instead you have a lock on the door. (except in my front bathrrom where the lock doesn't work and I always forget to tell ppl...I really should fix that) So it appears that bathrooms have to do with a degree of privacy. Such as the breast feeding mothers and muslim women, both of which must handle walking aroundin public when leering men KNOW that they where just in the bathroom with their breast out or their veil off.

but they don't get beat up for it...so it pales in comparison to the gay school I guess :p

Originally posted by PrinceOfStorms
So to this group it would be wrong for a bar to ban blacks from its premises, but okay for patrons there to have carte blanche to beat up blacks? It would be wrong for a hospital to refuse to treat blacks, but okay for black patients to be made to wait until all the white patients have been attended to first? If you argue that all you need is access and not quality of access, you don't have anything like equality of access. Access isn't just a matter of getting past the door, you have to be served as well and pay the same prices.

That happens now anyway. Groups of whites who hate blacks. Groups of mexicans who hate blacks. Groups of black who hate other blacks. Etc Etc

a bar full of white patrons can feel free to attack blacks...as long as they understand they can be held accountable (see arrested in this instance) and that the groups they assail can do the very same thing in return with the very same penalties.

as for access vrs quality of service. I know you won't like the answer that: in a free market they would offer the best service to get the business or that any group unhappy with what's offered it should be free to create its OWN private services (unlike this publically funded gay school) but thats answer ends up back at the beginning which is segregation and the continuance of hatred.

but the sad fact is that if whether one group IS segregated out or incorporated in, they are doomed as a group.

Originally posted by PrinceOfStorms
How would this solve the problem of LGBT students being picked on? They are all smarter/dumber/different in other ways when compared to heterosexual students and so would gravitate to their own schools anyway? I'm assuming that I'm missing something here...

Who picked on you in school?
The kids who liked what you liked and did what you did?
How many of them where your color, religion and sexual orientation? Is that how you picked friends?
From 5th grade to 12 grade I basically had two groups I got along with. One was from the same basic economic and moral standpoint (tho all different religions, sexes and even colors) and one was from the educational achievement standpoint (black & white, girls & boys, upper middle class to dirt poor...based on the area)
So I say let kids be sorted out into groups based on their abilities and interest rather than the gov'ts minimum standards, their sexual orientation, etc.

Its no secret that some cultures and some religions are built around refusing to interbreed with others. Its a bit more than just bigoted individuals. Its cyclic and historical. From anti-semitism to mexican child labor in the USA, there is a audible moan from cultures being assimilated by time and social evolution. They want to be and remain segregated. I spent many summers putting telephone systems into hotels in texas. Almost everyone was owned by members of the same two indian families. Their children ran to american culture and college and possessions and away from centuries old family structure. The married ppl of all colors and sizes and religions. In 5 generations what will their children look like? It doesn't require legislation to let ppl breed. TV commercials do more to make ppl accept human variation and breed accordingly than jim crow laws did to stop most white girl's black bf's grandparents from voting. Stop seperating ppl by color, religion, sexual orientation and start seperating them by their wants and desires as intertwined as those might be. Yes, you may end up with the same thing, but my sad sad moral high ground will feel that it was done "right" and then I can defend its existance. (I know, this is aweak ass arguement :p)

Originally posted by PrinceOfStorms
In most cases of segregation, it appears to me that it is a temporary solution until society grows up and learns to accept differences. It's easy to tell the LGBT students to tough it out, or that this is what they'll encounter in the real world so they might as well get used to it now, or to say that schools should deal with and suppress the attacks, but none of these is likely to solve the fundamental problem of LGBT students being beaten up and abused in the short term. Especially when those responsible for enforcing a ban on homophobia may well be homophobic themselves. Segregation with the intention that it continues indefinitely would indeed be wrong. Segregation while we wait for homophobia to die out, as it almost inevitably will to be replaced with yet another form of discrimination, doesn't seem nearly as wrong.

I agree, that segregation almost always gets swallowed up by time. hatred takes focus and ppl get bored easily. But I have no sympathy for kids who get "victimised" because of what they are. I have never known anything different tho I have tryed so hard my entire life to NOT be that way. I don't see how I can answer that with being terribly hypocritical but they have to deal with what they have and make their own place in our society from the top down. Its accepted at the top. So a generation or more of gays will have to do this. Fuck I should have had my own school. I was the wrong religion, the wrong IQ, the wrong income, the wrong body type, wrong athletic motivation, etc. How the hell could I have had it so bad. I'm a white male in america. I'm supposed to be the oppressor. (please note sarcasm in that last couple sentances, I hated being treated the way I was but I'm not their victim because here I am doing what I want today.)

Originally posted by PrinceOfStorms
When chemistry was still alchemy, psychology was still part of philosophy. I think psychology has already earned its status as a genuine scientific discipline. Almost all scientific disciplines started out as the domain of philosophers, and once the knowledge became applicable to real life, it stopped being pure philosophy.

I seriously do not believe that psychology is any way, shape, or form a science beyond the most rudamentary parlor tricks when compared to more tangible, predicatble, quantifiable sciences.
why? because the link between the understanding of the physiology of the brain and the physical manipulation of it to psychological ends is shotgun surgery at best. They might as well run around yelling "the brain is flat".
But then again I believe inmeditation and crap too....and I take pictures of flowers when no one' around.

I probably don't share your philosophy of philosophy but then again I didn't read all them books. So I have the whole working class education mentality going on.

Originally posted by PrinceOfStorms
The question that then springs to mind is whether or not he should be held accountable for his post-operation actions. It's not as simple as drug or alcohol related crime, where the ingestion of the substance was a choice. Technically he doesn't need to be rehabilitated as long as we are sure that it was only the tumour that caused his behaviour. So what should we do with him?

I made this point to extrapolate on my prior statement about pscychology (which I am relating to physical treatment for mental orientation)
I read too much lovecraft and heinlin as a child because I can't help but think that all physically perceived actions come from unperceived physical sources that we just haven't needed to look for yet.

its magic!

Originally posted by PrinceOfStorms
I guess when I talked about nerds, I was meaning those who because of their obviously awkward social manner, physical appearance (not fashion choices), and academic achievement would be unable to hide or fit in. Al la <em>Revenge of the Nerds</em>. However, I don't think that you should need to hide who you are either.

ppl who cannot dress for their environment will succomb to it shortly
there is no hiding if there is no seeking

[MuffyTheVampyreLayer]

Originally posted by MAC

a bar full of white patrons can feel free to attack blacks...as long as they understand they can be held accountable (see arrested in this instance) and that the groups they assail can do the very same thing in return with the very same penalties.

That's really not the same as being 'free' to do something though is it? It's kind of like saying that I'm free to kill people so long as I am willing to go to prison for it, which is kind of like saying there is no cyanide in my breakfast cereal.

[PrinceOfStorms]

Originally posted by MAC
The point of restrooms/wash rooms is primarily sanitation.


By "women's room" I meant a space/area where only women are allowed. The University here has a special room set aside for women only (and young children). It contains (according to my inside sources as I'll never be allowed to see it for myself--although I believe that photos of it were published this year for the very first time in the student newspaper) a phone, seating, noticeboards, a microwave, etc. Still the segregated restroom is another nice example :). We also have two special members on the student council representing women, despite the fact that there are more women on campus than men and they do better than men on average anyway :).

Originally posted by MAC
a bar full of white patrons can feel free to attack blacks...as long as they understand they can be held accountable (see arrested in this instance) and that the groups they assail can do the very same thing in return with the very same penalties.


I guess the problem then is that at least some homophobic students aren't being held accountable for their actions. How do you fix that? Have security guards who follow the LGBT students around? Post security guards all over the place? Would that make schools a good place to be, somewhere conducive to learning?

Originally posted by MAC
as for access vrs quality of service. I know you won't like the answer that: in a free market they would offer the best service to get the business or that any group unhappy with what's offered it should be free to create its OWN private services (unlike this publically funded gay school) but thats answer ends up back at the beginning which is segregation and the continuance of hatred.


I guess my objection here, which you presumably anticipated, is that public schools are not in a free market and do not compete with private schools on a level playing field.

Originally posted by MAC
I agree, that segregation almost always gets swallowed up by time. hatred takes focus and ppl get bored easily. But I have no sympathy for kids who get "victimised" because of what they are.


Doesn't this reduce everything down to a "survival of the fittest" situation? If you don't feel any sympathy for them, why have laws against beating them up in the first place? Ultimately, laws protect the vulnerable, either from themselves or from others. What is the point of law that is not enforced?

Originally posted by MAC
I seriously do not believe that psychology is any way, shape, or form a science beyond the most rudamentary parlor tricks when compared to more tangible, predicatble, quantifiable sciences.
why? because the link between the understanding of the physiology of the brain and the physical manipulation of it to psychological ends is shotgun surgery at best. They might as well run around yelling "the brain is flat".


I think you're being a little too harsh on psychology here. Our understanding of physics is ultimately about things that we can't see and only have indirect evidence for. Physicists talks about black holes, various exotic particles, collapsing wave functions, strings and branes, multiple universes, and so on and so forth--none of which can be observed directly. Our understanding of the link between the universe as it is and our experimental results is extremely limited. It's the same as probing a bit of a patient's brain and them reporting that they thought they could smell roses. You fire photons through some slits and observe the pattern of diffraction, and then postulate the nature of photons on the basis of the results. Both sciences can be seen as full of parlour tricks, especially aspects of quantum mechanics.

Originally posted by MAC
But then again I believe inmeditation and crap too....and I take pictures of flowers when no one' around.


Meditation is good. So is photography.

Originally posted by MAC
I probably don't share your philosophy of philosophy but then again I didn't read all them books. So I have the whole working class education mentality going on.


The main difference between the upper class and working class in terms of education as far as I'm aware is that the upper class own lovely leather-bound copies of the books they've never read :).

[zim]

it's fucked basically.

the solution isn't in seperating people. it's in educating them. removing homosexuals from general public schools will not be condusive to helping homophobes learn to get along with them. it's treating a symptom, not the disease.

[Billyman]

Well the school is only catering to a hundred homo's. There will still be bookoo's of them left in public schools to whoop the shit out of.

[PrinceOfStorms]

Originally posted by zim

the solution isn't in seperating people. it's in educating them. removing homosexuals from general public schools will not be condusive to helping homophobes learn to get along with them. it's treating a symptom, not the disease.

I agree with you--the best solution would be to prevent homophobia in the first place. Now, how exactly do you propose to treat the disease? If you can't effectively treat the disease in a timely manner, treating the symptoms is the next best thing as far as I'm aware.

As far as getting people over homophobia goes, they are exposed to plenty of alternative sexualities via television, movies, etc. anyway, so I'm not convinced that seeing more of it at school is going to help. These people are against homosexuality, not merely uncomfortable with it. If anything, seeing more may just incite them to even more aggression. And we're not talking about getting LGBT students out of the current school system either; we're talking about offering LGBT students the option to attend a safe learning environment.

I appreciate your points, but still no one here has, as far as I can tell, proposed a way of enabling these students to attend public school without needing to hide their sexuality in a way that we would not expect a heterosexual student to do (which is bound to lead to all sorts of problems later in life) and without being exposed to violence. What is the alternative? Guards on every corner? Re-education for students who display homophobic tendencies? Tougher penalties for homophobic-related attacks? Self defence classes for LGBT students? Self esteem classes for LGBT students so they can have the shit beaten out of them and still feel good about themselves? Cameras all over schools, including in the restrooms?

[MuffyTheVampyreLayer]

Shoot the kids that beat them up :).

Tell me it wouldn't work, go on!!!

[SimpleSimon]

I agree with you--the best solution would be to prevent homophobia in the first place. Now, how exactly do you propose to treat the disease? If you can't effectively treat the disease in a timely manner, treating the symptoms is the next best thing as far as I'm aware.

Eradicate the disease carriers.

[PrinceOfStorms]

Originally posted by SimpleSimon
Eradicate the disease carriers.

That statement is just a tiny bit ambiguous... Who exactly are the disease carriers?

[PrinceOfStorms]

Originally posted by MuffyTheVampyreLayer
Shoot the kids that beat them up :).

Tell me it wouldn't work, go on!!!

It would either work very well at supressing homophobic-related attacks in schools or lead to extremely violent riots against the LGBT community. Either way, the problem would be solved very quickly :).

[SimpleSimon]

Originally posted by PrinceOfStorms
That statement is just a tiny bit ambiguous... Who exactly are the disease carriers?

I'll leave the answer to that one to the discretion of the reader.

Which is the disease?

[3MTA3]

The term homophobia bothers me a bit...because Im not sure if its a phobia...some people just have 'reasons' for disliking gays...

Anyways, this whole school for gays thing is ok with me...one more experiment cant hurt too much...hell, it may be the best thing ever for these kids...I dunno...I dont live it...

[PrinceOfStorms]

Originally posted by 3MTA3
The term homophobia bothers me a bit...because Im not sure if its a phobia...some people just have 'reasons' for disliking gays...


A phobia is "an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation" (Merriam-Webster online). Sounds like the right word to me. There's not much point attacking something if you're not afraid of it in some way or another, unless you're looking for revenge ("my husband was stolen off me by a gay man") or to "save" someone else ("those lesbians are trying to make my daughter one of them and deny her the right to give blowjobs") and these situations would presumably lead to directed anger at an individual or group, and not all those who practice a particular sexuality.

Just out of curiousity, what sort of "reasons" did you have in mind for some people disliking gays? Would these reasons also work against, I don't know, blacks or women? I'd say that "homophobe" generally serves much the same function as "racist" and "sexist" and it's just more convenient than "sexual-orientationist" :).

[PrinceOfStorms]

Originally posted by SimpleSimon
I'll leave the answer to that one to the discretion of the reader.

Which is the disease?

I can't imagine that you are asking this question with any degree of seriousness, but I could do with a break from marking so I'll willingly take the bait and tap out a reply...

How would you define "disease"? Perhaps along the lines of: "an abnormal condition causing harm or preventing normal functioning"? Abnormality is there to exclude the effects of aging, which prevent normal functioning but don't appear to fit the usual meaning of "disease". Something that causes no harm, such as normal intestinal bacteria, don't appear to fit the label of "disease" either, so I'll attach the requirement that some problem must be the result of the thing for it to be a disease. You might also want to add conditions of contagiousness and/or treatability, but I'll leave those out here. My arguments below are at the social level as this seems to be the most common "homosexuality is a disease" angle.

As far as I am aware, alternative sexualities are found in every culture (we have Berdache among North American Indians, Hijras in India, Mahu in Tahiti, Serrer in Africa, Fa’afafine in Samoa, etc.) and during every time in human history. Thus it is difficult to argue that non-heterosexuality is abnormal in the sense that it is not omnipresent. I believe that current figures for men and women who have experienced same sex activity to orgasm as adults are both usually around 20%, and the proportion of the population classified as homosexual is usually around 10%. Some studies give figures above or below these, but they seem to be fairly standard. However, tolerance toward alternative sexualities differs greatly between cultures and over time. If anything is abnormal on these grounds, it is a hostility toward such sexualities.

What about causing harm? The strongest charge that can be seriously levelled against alternative sexualities as far as I am aware is that of causing moral harm to society, an extremely nebulous charge at best. I can't see how such a charge could possibly be seen as more serious than physical and verbal assault, not uncommon reactions against the LGBT community. As far as preventing normal functioning goes, alternative sexualities do not in themselves appear to disrupt society any more than, say, celibacy at the absolute most. In fact, given the problems of overpopulation, homosexuality could be seen as beneficial and arguably should be encouraged as a means of birth control :). Attacks on the LGBT community, on the other hand, are obviously disruptive to society.

The disease, I am forced to conclude, is a mixture of bigotry and displayed violence best labelled "homophobia".

With this out of the way, the question now becomes: are the true carriers of the disease the students or their parents? If it's the latter, then treating the disease becomes that much harder and it's difficult to know how much the students should be held responsible for attitudes drummed into them by their parents.

[SimpleSimon]

Okay, you've identified the "disease". My suggestion? Eradicate the carriers. Identifying them as either the assaultive students or their parents is problematic, so I'll go with the old Marine Corps motto.

"Kill 'em all, let God sort them out."

[PrinceOfStorms]

Should you ever rule America and/or Muffy rule NZ, the world will rapidly become a much simpler place. :)

[MuffyTheVampyreLayer]

I have better teeth than Helen Clark too.

[MuffyTheVampyreLayer]

On a more serious note, it's easy to laugh at the suggestion of killing all the trouble makers as, from an ethical perspective, it seems kind of absurd - replacing one evil with another. However, that's pretty much how I feel about segregation too.

[PrinceOfStorms]

Originally posted by MuffyTheVampyreLayer
On a more serious note, it's easy to laugh at the suggestion of killing all the trouble makers as, from an ethical perspective it seems kind of absurd - replacing one evil with another. However, that's pretty much how I feel about segregation too.

I think one important difference is that segregation can be reversed and so is available as a temporary measure. Killing those who disagree with you is a somewhat more permanent approach to solving a problem.

[MuffyTheVampyreLayer]

The only solution is the final solution? :p

[PrinceOfStorms]

If the final solution was the only solution, we wouldn't need to call it the FINAL solution would we? We'd just call it THE solution. :p

[MuffyTheVampyreLayer]

It's as good as anything I've seen suggested so far.

[PrinceOfStorms]

The final solution is better than segregation?

[MuffyTheVampyreLayer]

Probably not, but it makes just as much sense.

[zim]

education.
if simple education does not work, then negative reinforcement needs to be used.

school, it's the only solution.

[SimpleSimon]

Originally posted by PrinceOfStorms
I think one important difference is that segregation can be reversed and so is available as a temporary measure. Killing those who disagree with you is a somewhat more permanent approach to solving a problem.

I quite agree, it is definitely more permanent, and creates it's own set of problems (what to do with all that rotting meat, for one), but it does solve the problem.

Unfortunatley, due to the nature of humanity, it is only relatively more permanent. Give it 2 generations, there will be a new set of bigots equally obnoxious. Perhaps bigoted in different ways, but bigotry (attitudes/behaviors which are exclusionary of those not part of one's "in-group") is the human norm.


Originally posted by zim
education.
if simple education does not work, then negative reinforcement needs to be used.

school, it's the only solution.

zim, if it were only that simple. It is not - education is an overlay on basic socialization, which is quite literally absorbed with mother's milk.

Besides, I think killing the bigots is sufficient negative reinforcement, adequate to the task of eradicating bigotry (or at least particular expressions of it).

[Solstice_Gray]

Just to add another opinion-

I go to a redneck high school that builds a new gym when we don't have a stage other than the cafeteria. Also, a good half of the student body is made up of Mexican immigrants. Basically my school is a mixing pot for immigrants and rednecks. Save for a few who don't quite fit in or take part in other activities and/or interests. Most of these people have lived relatively sheltered lives from my observations and are somewhat violent towards any changes to what they see as normal (rednecks and immigrants). Based on this it would seem that LGBT would not have a place in my school. We don't. (I'm bi, big deal.)

The only reasons (that I can see) for me not having any real problems with being bi in my school are A) I keep my mouth shut about my sexuality and B) I'm a theatre person so it's not uncommon for people to be LGBT or at least be open to it. Also I don't much care what the people I go to school with think of me as will I be associating with them in ten years? I don't honestly think I will so I?m not going to let them degrade me and take it to heart.

Now for the school as I've probably said enough to disgust half the people who've read my post-

I'm all for it because if nothing else I see it as people taking note of something that is a problem. But I think the issue of why these kids are beating up other kids over sexuality should be addressed too. Mostly I just think everyone involved should be educated. (As stated in an above reply, 'education is the key.') But it's probably not that simple.

There, I'm done.

- L.



P.S. If it's not hurting you why hurt it?

[MAC]

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2028317

its not about gays and lesbians but it fits what we are discussing

[MAC]

Originally posted by MuffyTheVampyreLayer
That's really not the same as being 'free' to do something though is it? It's kind of like saying that I'm free to kill people so long as I am willing to go to prison for it, which is kind of like saying there is no cyanide in my breakfast cereal.

actually muffy, that is the only type of freedom there is.

'the consequences of our actions are as inevitable as the tides' -some guy

[MuffyTheVampyreLayer]

In my view, what we are free to do isn't prohibited or punished.

[PrinceOfStorms]

Unless we're talking about "free" as in "free will" :p.