Public Education Discrimination...

[train]

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.

What about High schools for addicts, etc...

This just doesn't seem right to open a segregated school based on sexual preference...

 

[EricBess]

I agree. This is either special treatment or discrimination and either way, it is not a good idea. To me, though, the bigger issue is that we should be focusing education in a direction that discourages high-school students from being promiscuous. By openly distinguishing between sexuality, we are tacitly condoning the actions. In general, most high-schoolers are not ready for the levels of emotional commitment and other responsibilities that come with sex.

 

[Nightstalkers]

its a nice idea, but won't really fly too far without certain funding

 

[DÛke]

...

That's not the problem. By the end of the century, the general population itself, at least in the United States, would be of homosexuals mostly. You wouldn't need to worry about homosexual schools, but rather on the "special" schools for "normal" people. Well, it will not be that bad, but after the 22nd century it will be. "Normal" schools will be seen as "reversed discrimination."

Eventually the world will catch on.

Oh yes – we’re actually progressing backwards.

I thought such a school would open.

The United States first homosexual president (or the world's first well-known homosexual president): around 2167a.D.

Complete acceptance of homosexuality: around 2090 a.D.

Mass celebration of homosexuality, a complete voluptuous holiday of a sort: around 2183 a.D.

The supra-moral level will be devastating, but it will be the future's own morality: to us, if we would be alive to see it, we wouldn't see it as morality, but rather as immorality. Their morality will be immoral par exellence.

 

[EricBess]

Won't be the first time it's happened, Duke. Ever hear of Sodom and Gamorah? There's a reason the act associated with homosexual intercorse is known as Sodomy.

 

[DÛke]

...

No, I haven't heard of them. I learned about homosexuality, sodomy, and a plentitude of other things from my friend, Marquis de Sade. Read "Philosophy in the Bedroom," if you dare. No, wait. I dare you to read it!

 

[Ferret]

I believe this is as good an idea as all-black colleges, Catholic schools, military academies, and of course, golf clubs (the ones you play AT, not with).

If you don't like this kind of thing, then be sure that when you write your congressman be sure to ask to have everything else that shows preferential treatment banned...

-Ferret

"If you need me, I'll be in the back of the bus..."

 

[Chaos Turtle]

I doubt homosexuality will ever be widely embraced, despite DÛke's baseless assertions.

No point either in arguing over the morality of the situation, as it's obvious we're never going to reach a consensus on that.

That said, I think this is a silly idea, but there are plenty of other widely-accepted silly ideas. How is this supposed to help anyone? The message here seems to be that we should run away from the problems of discrimination and harassment based on "sexual orientation" (oh how I loathe that term) rather than address the issues.

 

[DÛke]

...

Chaos Turtle:

I doubt homosexuality will ever be widely embraced, despite DÛke's baseless assertions.

Not as baseless as you might hope. Actually, I find the term "embrace" misleading - more like...how should I put this...more like "growing into it." I am not looking on it from a here-and-now point of view, but from a distance, from an eagle's eye view.

Homosexuals, as many of you may know, do not prefer to be homosexuals - they are by "nature" that way. Nature itself is in constant state of reaction to what man becomes. Man does this, Nature reacts by doing that; man takes that away, Nature decides to add; man adds to his Nature, and in response Nature takes away. There is an internal balance in Nature, an eternal equilibrium if you will - there is no breaking the balance, as far as I'm concerned. Homosexuality, if looked at from this point of view, to a certain degree can be seen as a reaction to some factors that man introduced to his environment somewhere along the way, and by reaction Nature was enabled the breeding of homosexuals.

The term "sexual preference" is quite misleading and could be a source of problems: it is if anything not a preference, but an actuality in existence, it is already in its being when it is in its state - there is no preference whatsoever about it. There is no choosing, needing and wanting, there is no pressure or compulsion – there is only being, and in their case, it is being homosexual.

The openness in which modern society portray itself, its slow but assured willingness to accept homosexuals, along with its sheer blindness, which even you yourself have shown, to the factors that science amongst many other things is introducing to the nature of man, how could you not expect a slight deviation from what is "originally" Natural? Add to this millenniums of slow invention and renovation of what is necessary and unnecessary for man, and you begin to see the degree in which man slowly deviates from whatever form he is or was in into a slightly different form. Across ages, this "slightness" becomes notable.

If homosexuality is not an "original" Nature of man, if it did not belong to man from the very "beginning," if it indeed occurred as a reaction to man's development and preference of what is necessary and unnecessary to his existence, than by all means, the world will find a way to become that of homosexuals simply because we have taken that particular road in which homosexuality is bred naturally…supposing we are still running on that same road, since neither God nor philosophers have been able to change the world, than homosexuality will increase, and might even dominate. But of course, a dominating homosexuality will be the least of the world's problem by that time...

In any event, as you can see I am quite cautious with the things said here, hence the generous number of quotation marks around words like "original" and "beginning." I don't desire to be mistakenly interpreted as being a little religious. This argument is free of religious poison and spiders. Additionally, if you're ignorant enough, you might even read Darwin in there...but if needed, I can explain how this is entirely different, downright opposing to Darwinism.

 

[Spiderman]

Regarding the original post: I don't see a problem with it, as there is not a general widespread acceptance of homosexuality in schools today (as I perceive it). Kids get ragged/picked/beat on all the time because they're different. If the school can provide a "safe haven" and promote learning, then good for them.

Regarding DUke's ideas, I disagree with them simply because if you look at the time that man has been on the earth, it doesn't make sense that in 100-200 years or so, all of a sudden homosexuals will come to "dominate" society - they should have done so already in the hundred of thousands/million of years man has already been on the planet. Since it is in the gene (as current knowledge has it), by definition homosexuals are not passing this on consistently through reproduction - it is when they're matched up with another latent gene and even then it's not a sure thing. I believe they will remain the minority unless by through some disaster the non-homosexual population is devastated and the homosexual population becomes the majority AND decides to propogate the species, thus passing on the gene in a more widespread way.

 

[DÛke]

...

Spiderman:

Kids get ragged/picked/beat on all the time because they're different.

And it seems to me that because of this very reason, it is a bad idea to focus any more attention on them. Like has been generally said - this is not treating the problem. It's actually enflaming it and taking it to new levels. To treat the problem would be to discuss homosexuality, for example - to make awareness of the subject, to bring closer both ends...not separate them and relocate them each on opposing sides...

Spiderman:

Regarding DUke's ideas, I disagree with them simply because if you look at the time that man has been on the earth, it doesn't make sense that in 100-200 years or so, all of a sudden homosexuals will come to "dominate" society - they should have done so already in the hundred of thousands/million of years man has already been on the planet.

It actually makes more than a perfect sense that in the near future man will change in a fundemental way. You're trying to ask "but why now, why this late?" The speed...or should I say haste...in which science is developing enables this seemingly sudden shift. But actually, man has been paving the way ever since he decided to call himself the "rational animal," or the "reasoning" animal - the "objective" animal who has the ability to see through the eye of the universe, and define the system, or, as we commonly refer to it, define its science. What might happen, as I suggest, is not a sudden change, not even a leap...but merely following the events of what has already been slowly taking place and only gaining speed through innovation and invention. Certainly there is a forthcoming side-effect to counterbalance the godspeed in which science is moving?

Spiderman:

Since it is in the gene (as current knowledge has it), by definition homosexuals are not passing this on consistently through reproduction - it is when they're matched up with another latent gene and even then it's not a sure thing.

I agree. Though I must also question the environment in which we are thriving. It's a basic argument of Nature versus Nurture. We in part become who we are as a reaction to our environment. If the environment, or our surrounding Nature (the Nature of others), has been enabled to breed homosexuals, then there is a chance that it will increase the rate of their breeding. However, if it is completely a question of Nature - that man can originally be homosexual, without any intervention from his own creations on earth, and not as a side effect of what he has done on earth, then the state of balance in which homosexuals are the minority will most likely remain.

...but who here believes that man is by pure Nature able to be born fully homosexual, with such forbidden tendencies that all three major religions to ever curse earth warned against? Or are we all willing to agree concerning the purity and cleanliness of homosexuality, since it is as Natural as anything else that we baptize with he word "natural"?

I myself don't know what to believe...

 

[Spiderman]

You can educate all you want and I agree that it should be done too, but in the meantime, it doesn't make sense that the kids should get beat on in the meantime. Plus, there are ALWAYS people who don't care, either malevolently or apathy where education doesn't do any good. Remember the Lockheed Martin guy in Mississippi/Alabama who left a sensitivity training course to return and shoot 3-5 people?

I'm not sure what "science" you're referring to that's enabling this sudden increase where homosexuals might become the norm. The only thing I can see is cloning and that's still a ways off.

I think man can "originally" be homosexual through the mutation of genes, just by "being on Earth" and not through any artificial inducement such as modifying a gene, but like I said, the mutation rate is small and through normal reproduction measures today, is not passed on in a widespread manner to make that much of a difference, certainly not to the point you seem to be ascribing to.

 

[DÛke]

...

Alright, I'm not talking about gene reproduction or genetics here. By science I'm referring to the general atmosphere of anything to do with science. Yes, the study of genes effects us directly, but science in general - as a whole - has always effected us, maybe more psychologically than physically, but I believe that it has altered us physically as well. You think that driving a car for your entire life, for example, doesn't "do" something to you? If we compare you with those who haven't driven a car at all, people of your exact age, I bet we can note the difference right away.

Or do you think science is just "science," it doesn't effect anything more than itself? Science, as everything else, is interconnected. What we invent in the sciences injects a need for revaluation concerning our society, the social order, our morals. Yet science has been moving faster than society, leaving us dragging down behind it, unable to recreate ourselves, to readjust ourselves to adapt to the new world in which this new invention is applied. Now imagine this being done a thousand times over, and you'll finally see man dragging way behind, way at bottom, looking up as science roams and wanders freely. And all of this is supposed to not touch the behavior and psychology of man, at all? That it doesn't toy with his Nature? And all of this occurs so far away from genetic studies...it doesn't need man toying with his own genes. All it needs is man feeding on science while leaving all other areas of life thriving beneath. And is this not precisely what has always taken place? Even now, even today…you look at science and you look at our ethics and you see the unspeakable gab leering in between.

What do we do about this, at the end? We open special schools for homosexuals. We can't bear treat the problem. We don't like to carry the burden. We like to...reform it. To suppress it. To deny it. We like to give it a new face.

Abortion, an issue of sheer irrelevancy still a debated topic? Not that it is debated, but that it is still debated. What does this say about our social order, our ethics, our virtues...especially in contrast with the sciences. We can speak highly about the sciences. Everything else is..."debatable."

Wars of liberation. Could it be a quick way to erase the problem of different social classes, of different philosophies, of different outlooks? Because there is no time! Science is running fast...we cannot possibly remain in a state of conflict concerning social order, social contracts, culture. No. Therefore: "Liberate all!" A quick answer has always been the "right" answer for us. But we take our time and our best interest in the sciences.

No genetic interference here. That doesn't mean that there are no effects. To speak in term of genetic change only is actually to speak highly and too much of science – it is to speak scientifically. It might as well be that the problems we experience today are interrelated, and one of those strings touches on our greatest admiration: science.

Science, therefore constant social change, constant necessity to reevaluate all values - but as we have had it: science without the need for philosophy. Is that even possible? Yet does it even matter? To us science only appears as a "fact." The only "fact." What matters everything else?

 

[train]

Kids get ragged/picked/beat on all the time because they're different. If the school can provide a "safe haven" and promote learning, then good for them.

I agree with Spidey to some extent...

But if this was the case - Then there should be separate schools for the promiscuous children, the certified genius children, all the ADD children, all the children of parents from mixed marriages, all the children that have birth disorders, etc...

Getting beat on and harassed shouldn't happen - but that stems from the child's upbringing, and general views on society developed through the upbringing... as do the behaviors of a child...

Focus on the family, the upbringing, and there weouldn't be this kind of abuse...

Hate is taught, learned, even absorbed, not inherited...

 

[DÛke]

...

The idea already seems stupid. Where would I have belonged? With the ADD group? With the, who knows, foreigner groups? You can create many more little groups based on minority needs. All it does, in my point of view, is delay the inevitable. You're not going to deter hate by displacing the hated subject. You're only going to delay it. At the end, you'll have a bunch of grown ups who are as pathetic as they could possibly appear on God's good Earth. Sure, you can sit down and teach them about the “good manners” and “respect” for others…it doesn’t do much if its not coupled with immediate experience, as in immediate contact with homosexuals or whatever it is you’re trying to teach.

...but I guess on some base level creating a special school can create the illusion of safety and harmony.

Come to think of it, many adults today are pathetic anyway, and most, if not all, feelings of security and peace are illusionary, especially felt by those who can't look farther than their local town, who don't know anything beyond their farms perhaps.

I guess one more illusion can increase the general high and euphoria the masses like to sniff, which is much needed these days.

 

[Spiderman]

DUke: Interesting perspective on the science thing, but I guess I'm going to have to disagree with you. I don't think science as you describe as altered man physically to the point of determining the gene for homosexuality. I mean, sure, you don't have as many bow-legged people from riding horses as you might have had from last century even, but to the gene? I disagree.

I'm not an expert on the history of wars by any means, but I'm sure "wars of liberation" is not a new thing.

train: There are "schools" for gifted and talented, at least there was when I was classified as such. Not a whole day, but for at least half the day we were bused off to some magnet school to do something or other. Come to think of it, there are magnet schools which supposedly draw the brightest school minds in that area. At least in Maryland.

The other categories don't get picked on to the degree of homosexuals, at least to my knowledge. Although there are also separate schools for high-school mothers which accomodate their needs.

From what I've read, the homosexual school is being set up by the proponents and backers of homosexuality. If the supporters of your various categories want to do the same, I wouldn't have a problem with it either (at least I don't think so).

 

[train]

From what I've read, the homosexual school is being set up by the proponents and backers of homosexuality.

I'd agree except that it is being made public - and not considered private... If it was private - there's no frettin' it... but public means that funds not from exclusive private parties will maintain the school... as such - anyone that wants to go there - no matter what sexual preference should be able to...

If they allow straight students that are tired of their current high school to go there... then I'll abruptly shut my yap... if not, then it's just not right...

I never got bussed to a magnet curriculum, but they had separate classes for us on campus... then we'd rejoin our regular classmates - similar to busing to and fro...

We have magnet, mother schools etc... but the magnet schools offer only the opportunity - the gifted students don't have to go there, nor go there exclusively... same for the mother schools... trade schools - for those not wanting academic education... it's part of the school system...

"Just prove it is a true public school is all I'm asking..."

 

[Spiderman]

I'm not sure of the details but what I have says "it is an expansion of a two classroom program begun in 1984". And it's only 100 students. So they could be using "public high school" loosely, just to qualify for something or other. With that small enrollment, I doubt it will be open to "everyone", although that kinda defeats the purpose.

 

[train]

The 2 classroom program was segregating students - like this - but within the same walls of a school...

Basically the students spent all their days in those 2 classrooms, and if need be the instructors switched out...

This gave them the segregation they are looking at "expanding" now...

 

[DÛke]

...

...

Spiderman - just to clear my point of view a little more. I especially don't like this sentence:

Spiderman:

I don't think science as you describe as altered man physically to the point of determining the gene for homosexuality.

It sounds like you still don't understand. Science didn't alter man to that degree. It would be blind to assert that. But the movement of science, like I said, has effects on more than science alone - it effects our entire life, from the very roots of our society to the very stars. Science alone is alright, but it does not have the power to alter us in drastic forms. However, when you couple it with the psychology left unaltered, society left dragging behind science, ethics still "debatable" and in any case unresolved, in addition to other factors, what do we get? There is our problem, when the balance in life is distorted in such extremes.

Don't look at science alone, but look at every other facet of life that it touches, then multiply that single touch by centuries - the intensity is quite appropriate to have shaped man in numberless amount of ways.

One more thing...

Spiderman:

I'm not an expert on the history of wars by any means, but I'm sure "wars of liberation" is not a new thing.

Wars were not always called "wars of liberation." Hitler, for example, didn't call his idea a "liberation." He called it the Final Solution. There was no desire to liberate anyone but perhaps Germans. Most other wars were wars of invasion - they didn't have an intent of freeing people, but rather overpowering them. Surely, I'm not an expert on the entire history of wars, but "liberation" in history might have to belong to Christian history, not to Islamic history or history in general...

The now instinctive desire to “liberate” says one thing: that people are sick, hence they want everyone to be equal with them. There is no need for distance, no need for order of ranks – there is a need to equalize everyone, why? So as to overrule everyone with ease. And this too is a “final solution” of a sort: it erases the “problem” of different social philosophies for the sake of domination and, later, when man is bored with his equality, for scientific “discovery.” In the long run, it sacrifices man for the sake of science...