Tolerance In Public Schools

[kraychik]

It's an interesting thing to think about though. It seems that the traditional family unit is under constant attack by those who would seem to wish to destroy them.

Absolutely, this has been going on for decades. Somehow the left thinks that we need to revisit the family unit and redefine it, and then force society to comply through centralised planning (primarily through control over education of youth). Nevermind the fact that the family unit is a function of biology rather than a "social construct" that the left wants to reshape.

While "normal people" is a bit vague, I know exactly what you mean. Leftists are intentionally being obtuse with you, as if somehow two same-sex homosexual women raising children they conceived by browsing a sperm donor catalogue is now normal.

Edited October 3, 2012 by kraychik

[kraychik]

Traditional families are brow beaten for not being in an alternative relationship it would seem.

That's ridiculous. Although I think there is plenty of evidence to support the view that there are elements on our society that wish to "normalise" homosexuality.

Edited October 3, 2012 by kraychik

[kraychik]

That's a good thing IMO, as people are probably happier and more productive when they aren't forced by social convention to adopt a lifestyle they don't want to be a part of.

Not only is it a lifestyle they don't want to be a part of, it's also a lifestyle they're likely incapable of succeeding in. You probably know this better than most, right? I wonder if this qualifies as a type of natural selection.

[kraychik]

I'm not anti-gay. But they should just stay in the closet for their own safety imo. I'm against students bullying other students in any way shape or form for any reason.

There's something very wrong with an environment in which a person feels compelled to hide his or her homosexuality for fear of violence. Still, you gotta live in the world as it is and not the world you wish it was, so unfortunately I think I understand where you're coming from, and I think there are plenty of homosexuals out there that are cautious about being open about this part of their lives for that very reason.

[bleeding heart]

Although I think there is plenty of evidence to support the view that there are elements on our society that wish to "normalise" homosexuality.

Yes...that's uncontroversially the case. It is explicitly so.

Further, I think a lot of evidence could be found that it is succeeding.

What's the problem?

As you say, accurately, in another post:

Still, you gotta live in the world as it is and not the world you wish it was, so unfortunately I think I understand where you're coming from, and I think there are plenty of homosexuals out there that are cautious about being open about this part of their lives for that very reason.

And that's part of the purpose for the attempt at normalizing homosexuality within the broader society.

Edited October 3, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Black Dog]

Not only is it a lifestyle they don't want to be a part of, it's also a lifestyle they're likely incapable of succeeding in. You probably know this better than most, right? I wonder if this qualifies as a type of natural selection.

Ah, the master baiter tries again.

[cybercoma]

I'm not anti-gay. But they should just stay in the closet for their own safety imo.

Do you tell your wife and daughter to stay home so they don't get raped too?

[cybercoma]

(Please... it's spelled "they're"... I hate to be a spelling cop but ...)

*there

[Bonam]

Do you tell your wife and daughter to stay home so they don't get raped too?

People tell their loved ones all the time to be careful, to stay away from dangerous areas at dangerous times, etc etc.In an area where going outside resulted in a high probability of being raped, I imagine many people would tell their loved ones not to go outside, and rightly so. Nothing wrong with exercising a bit of care and caution for your own safety and well being. Of course, we'd all love to live in a world where there are no dangers, and it is a fine ideal to work towards, but in the meanwhile one must also be practical and survive.

[Bonam]

Nevermind the fact that the family unit is a function of biology rather than a "social construct" that the left wants to reshape.

I'm not sure that the traditional one male one female monogamous family unit is really mandated by human biology. In fact, it is, from a biological standpoint, far from the only possibility. Remember that biologically, a single male has the capability to impregnate hundreds if not thousands of females, and thus ensure the survival of his genes. And, many mammals including primates do live in this manner, where a single dominant alpha male will procreate while many other males do not. Indeed, this was also the case in many early human societies, where the most powerful males had large numbers of concubines, or spent their time conquering and raping large numbers of women, or had harems, while males lower on the pecking order were slaves, or died early in life, or otherwise did not have the chance to reproduce.

At the most basic level, biologically, human males are perfectly happy to have sexual intercourse with large numbers of different females, there is no biological impulse that drives them to sexual monogamy, as is seen in some other species.

However, regardless of all that, the traditional family unit is superior from a sociological perspective. If a large number of males in a human society are unable to find mates, that usually leads to unrest and violence, which is undesirable. If every male gets his own female, there's less restless violent males out there, and society works more smoothly. Hence, as humans started to live together in cities that required social cohesion and order, monogamy became not only the norm but often enforced by law.

So in some sense, the traditional family unit really is a "social construct".

[Michael Hardner]

*there

How'd I do that ?

[bleeding heart]

People tell their loved ones all the time to be careful, to stay away from dangerous areas at dangerous times, etc etc.In an area where going outside resulted in a high probability of being raped, I imagine many people would tell their loved ones not to go outside, and rightly so. Nothing wrong with exercising a bit of care and caution for your own safety and well being. Of course, we'd all love to live in a world where there are no dangers, and it is a fine ideal to work towards, but in the meanwhile one must also be practical and survive.

I can sympathize with this view. I think the argument is strong, therefore, that homosexuality be normalized, so that dangers due to bigotry become less pronounced.

[Black Dog]

So in some sense, the traditional family unit really is a "social construct".

As you've pointed out, the "traditional" family unit has meant very different things at different times in different societies. Based on that, the conclusion should be that the family unit is entirely a social construct.

[kraychik]

I'm not sure that the traditional one male one female monogamous family unit is really mandated by human biology. In fact, it is, from a biological standpoint, far from the only possibility. Remember that biologically, a single male has the capability to impregnate hundreds if not thousands of females, and thus ensure the survival of his genes.

Yeah, and you're conveniently forgetting that women don't just lay there waiting to be impregnated. Courting a woman is a little more complex than a male peacock showing its feathers, and a woman is quite a bit smarter than a female peacock and knows what's at stake. The family unit is a function of biology.

And, many mammals including primates do live in this manner, where a single dominant alpha male will procreate while many other males do not.

And many mammals practise monogamy, including humanity (for the most part).

Indeed, this was also the case in many early human societies, where the most powerful males had large numbers of concubines, or spent their time conquering and raping large numbers of women, or had harems, while males lower on the pecking order were slaves, or died early in life, or otherwise did not have the chance to reproduce.

Those practises don't cover a majority of human history.

At the most basic level, biologically, human males are perfectly happy to have sexual intercourse with large numbers of different females, there is no biological impulse that drives them to sexual monogamy, as is seen in some other species.

I can agree with the first part of this, but you're ignoring the female half of the equation. As the phrase goes: men are the gas, women are the brakes.

However, regardless of all that, the traditional family unit is superior from a sociological perspective. If a large number of males in a human society are unable to find mates, that usually leads to unrest and violence, which is undesirable. If every male gets his own female, there's less restless violent males out there, and society works more smoothly. Hence, as humans started to live together in cities that required social cohesion and order, monogamy became not only the norm but often enforced by law.

There's a lot more to it than that, and I'm not even sure the argument you just advanced in defence of monogamy is even in the top ten of primary reasons why it is the superior model for the family.

So in some sense, the traditional family unit really is a "social construct".

In some sense, yes, but it is primarily a function of biology, contrary to the narrative of the left which wants to redefine it. The left hates all almost things it defines as "social constructs" from the primitive times of history (before they were born and became the centre of the universe).

[Wild Bill]

I can sympathize with this view. I think the argument is strong, therefore, that homosexuality be normalized, so that dangers due to bigotry become less pronounced.

I couldn't care less if someone is gay or if children are being raised by gay parents. No big deal.

However, I am getting both ticked off and bored from being over-exposed to the rantings of those pushing an agenda.

I wish many of them would just shut up! They should get over themselves. Most of the acceptance they demand is already there. It would seem that what they really want is to be considered "special".

Nobody is special! We are all the same - abused citizens taken advantage of by their government.

I am puzzled by what is driving these people so hard. One would swear they want to make their lifestyle compulsory!

[cybercoma]

How'd I do that ?

I don't know, but I got a good chuckle from it.

[guyser]

Yeah, and you're conveniently forgetting that women don't just lay there waiting to be impregnated. Courting a woman is a little more complex than a male peacock showing its feathers, and a woman is quite a bit smarter than a female peacock and knows what's at stake. The family unit is a function of biology.

Which is the case made for the social construct. Ergo you agreed, but in your prickly way wont admit it.

And many mammals practise monogamy, including humanity (for the most part).

Dont forget the ones that practice homosexuality.

[Michael Hardner]

I am puzzled by what is driving these people so hard. One would swear they want to make their lifestyle compulsory!

Having followed this issue for my entire adult life - I can tell you what is driving them: they have experienced abuse, prejudice ... disapproval, intolerance ... and they want to push back so that others don't have to experience it.

Whatever an 'agenda' is - it doesn't sound like a bad thing to me. Everybody has an agenda of some sorts. If you have some complaints then be specific. From the Mother Jones article I posted, it seems that pushing back of agenda of tolerance creates an atmosphere of intolerance - not a neutral atmosphere.

We'll know when these programs aren't needed anymore, and nobody will complain if we get rid of them.

[bleeding heart]

In some sense, yes, but it is primarily a function of biology, contrary to the narrative of the left which wants to redefine it. The left hates all almost things it defines as "social constructs" from the primitive times of history (before they were born and became the centre of the universe).

I think you're misreading this "narrative of the left" (actually multiple narratives). There is nothing more sinister going on than an effort at greater inclusiveness, so that the many already-existing alternatives to the "traditional family" have their place as well.

And the married mother-father-children paradigm certainly isn't even faintly under attack; that their place is secure, as it should and mustbe, is a given. It's not even a question.

It's only "under attack" as the phrase has it, insofar as people themselves are freely choosing, for themselves, to do things another way.

That's not something engineered by the left.

It's that the left generally has no major issues with the major societal shift.

Edited October 4, 2012 by bleeding heart