This component on sexual orientation is an "anti-homophobia curriculum" that is intended to foster an environment free of discrimination.
After stating that he has a gay brother and "doesn't support the view" that homosexuality is a sin, Cripps goes on to pose some Troubling Questions about the anti-homophobia curriculum:
"What happens when little Johnny learns one view at church and home, and then is told that view is unacceptable at school? It seems to me there are a lot of adults playing around with little Johnny’s brain. Who does little Johnny believe? His parents, his church or his teacher?"
Who knows?! His head would probably just right well explode off of his little neck if he learned multiple views from multiple sources! (The brains of little boys, you see, are incredibly delicate and fragile. Not particularly receptive to large amounts of information.)
But seriously, even more disturbing than the fact that people oppose anti-homophobia campaigns in schools, is that some are so quick to underestimate, and oppose the teaching of, critical thinking skills in children. That some people so fear exposing "little Johnny" to multiple opinions on homosexuality from multiple sources and allowing him to form his own opinion on the matter in light of the available evidence speaks to a real insecurity of anti-gay religious belief.
There is much talk of "parents' rights" when it comes to teaching about homosexuality and homophobia, and so I think it's important to clearly define the right in question. For, what people who oppose anti-homophobia campaigns are suggesting is that parents have a right to prevent these campaigns because these campaigns go against their religious beliefs. Here, it's also important to note that this so-called parents' right comes into direct opposition with the right that public school students- children- have to receive an education in a safe environment.
See, what anti-gay folks and unhelpful devil's advocates rarely mention is that when we coddle anti-gay religious beliefs in public schools as though they're legit "other sides" to treating people respectfully, that tangibly means censoring the other "other side." Homophobic bullying is the status quo for children. And so to not address homophobic bullying is to let homophobia and discrimination go unaddressed in an environment that includes LGBT children and that includes kids who live in a society in which gay people exist.
When put this way, it quickly becomes clear that those valiant defenders of The Children are actually, quite boorishly insisting that their own rights with respect to public schools outweigh the safety of children who must actually attend those schools.
Although devil's advocate Cripps says at the end of his piece that "rejecting the dogma of certain faiths doesn't seem very inclusive," what he "doesn't seem" to get is that it's not the job of public schools to include religious dogma at all. Anti-homophobia education isn't about religion, it's about teaching people with respect. It really is as simple as that. And it's amazing (but not really) how so many religious folks are opposed to that.
Yet, to end, watch how Cripps magically transforms an "anti-homophobia curriculum" into a curriculum that Teaches Children Gay Sex:
"Teaching children how to engage in safe homosexual intercourse might be uncomfortable for someone who has been taught since birth that the very act constitutes a sin according to their respective faith."
Fail.
The LGBT community doesn't need faux-allies with gay brothers to play devil's advocate for our issues. There are enough people on the other side already doing that.
No comments:
Post a Comment