Monday, October 13, 2008
Gay Friendly High School?
CNN reports that public school officials in Chicago, Illinois are recommending approval of a "gay-friendly" high school because harassment and violence are causing gay students to skip class and drop out at alarming rates.

The school would not be only for gay students but would provide counseling for teens who have suffered from bullying and include curriculum about sexual history and identity in history and literature classes.

In part, I am sad that it has to come to this and in part and I've considered that the move may reduce tolerance because homophobic straight students will not have any interactions with LGBTQ peers. But, it is not the LGBT students' job to educate their peers on tolerance. Especially when it puts them in danger....

The study found that 86.2 percent of LGBT students reported being verbally harassed, 44.1 percent physically harassed and 22.1 percent physically assaulted at school in the past year because of their sexual orientation.

The rates are startling but understandable when you consider that 39 states do not provide protection via the law. If only ALL schools had diverse curriculum and programs in place to help students understand that sexual diversity is not deviant....

Labels: ,


Blogger John said...

"If only ALL schools had diverse curriculum and programs in place to help students understand that sexual diversity is not deviant...."
Please explain how homosexuality is not deviant? Clearly you have an understanding of sexuality that allows for "diversity" what ever that means. You speak of diversity as if sexuality were something unrelated to reproduction in the proper sense of the word. Does perhaps having sex with your mom or with a horse fit in to your definition of sexual diversity? Aren't there two genders, male and female, with a certain obvious complimentarity? Doesn't that complimentarity point to a greater meaning behind sexuality than your apparently unexamined understanding of sexuality? Even Freud for all his faults could see this: "abandonment of the reproductive function is the common feature of all perversions. We actually describe a sexual activity as perverse," he wrote, "if it has given up the aim of reproduction and persues the attainment of pleasure as an aim independent of it" (Introductory Lectures in Psychoanalysis). Your perception of sexuality seems more along the lines of selecting a flavor of cotton candy at the candy store than something of any real substance with any serious depth.

Blogger kristen said...

What does it matter to you? You'd still get to select your favorite type of candy.

While I appreciate the comment, I feel compelled to answer....

By your logic, anyone who is sterile or chooses not to have children should not be having sex. Certainly male and female are complimentary for the purposes of having sex. What your argument overlooks is that there are other reasons to have sex AND there are males and females who do not want their sexual acts to result in children. is being gay equivalent to having sex with a horse? Talk about a slippery slope. These types of scare tactics show a severe misunderstanding of sexual attraction. Talk about lacking substance and depth...

Blogger Matt said...

John, no, there aren't just two genders. This binary concept of gender is what led to many of the issues we're grappling with, chiefly being forced to self-identify with A or B when you don't fit into the societal molds. There are many, many genetic variations (XXY chromosomal pairs, XXX chromosomal pairs, just to name a few) that are nearly as common in children as being redheaded.

Think about that for a minute. For every redhead you see on the street, there is also a person who doesn't fit into the neat little category you demand of "male" or "female". The entire notion of binary genders is antiquated, dangerous, and forces people to confront really scary decisions very early on in life.

This is one of the many reasons why teen suicide among GLBTQ persons is so high. Not only are many grappling with society's hatred of them, they're dealing with confusing signals from within their own bodies.

Blogger The Ex said...

"as if sexuality were something unrelated to reproduction"

It is, actually. Sexuality is often unrelated to reproduction. In fact, I'd say it's more often related to enjoyment, hedonism if you will. What about birth control? Is that deviancy? What about masturbation? Is that deviant?

If that isn't then how is it any MORE deviant to have sex with another human being of the same sex?

Let's be evolved humans here, please.

Blogger John said...

What does it matter to me? What matters is standing up for what is right and good for the sake of the good of all people. Not living in candyland where your every choice is a good choice as I presume you mean by "You'd still get to select your favorite type of candy."

Secondly, people who have sex and choose not to have children in fact choose to strip the reproductive aspect from their sexual act. I don't make the rules, but that is in fact what happens. And when people choose to separate reproduction from the sexual act they (knowingly or not) work against their own nature. In fact, no one can get pregnant by accident. It means that something happened absolutely right.

Thirdly, there is no comparison between being gay and having sex with a horse. One is a noun the other is a verb. There is, however, a comparison of a gay person or straight person for that matter HAVING gay sex and having sex with a horse. Both ACTS are perverse. The persons engaging in the acts are just that, persons. Persons who deserve love and respect like any other person despite the perversion of their acts. Sorry if objectivity reality scares you.

Please enlighten me as to the proper understanding of sexual attraction. Your logic seems to say that if you are attracted to something or someone it is acceptable to satisfy that attraction provided the other is in agreement. Is this correct?

Blogger kristen said...


"What matters is standing up for what is right and good for the sake of the good of all people."

And who are you to declare that for all people? Lemme guess--you are a straight, white, middle class male who feels he has the ability to dictate normal and abnormal? Why not worry about what is right and good for you. And if that is having sex for the sole purpose of procreation so be it. You and your sexual desires can exist in a world where we grant LGBT people safety and freedom. You've yet to say why sexual difference is deviant. If you yourself say that "straight" people choose NOT to procreate, your own rationale is flawed.

"Sorry if objectivity reality scares you."

There is no such thing as objectivity. Your biases influence your arguments just as mine do. And you are only speaking about YOUR reality. In your reality, you probably are a male bodied person who identifies as male. You are also privileged if you are sexually attracted to female bodied people. You get the title of "normal." While others who don't fit into a simple binary system get the label "deviant." Not all people view the world this way or experience the world this way. You don't get to push your "objective reality" onto them.

I've yet to hear you actually answer a claim. Instead you throw around a lot of words like "normal" and "deviant" that have very little meaning.

Blogger John said...

Terrific! you got my profile down pat. Now what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

I'm as entitled to declare homosexuality's deviance as you are to declare it's not being deviant. The difference here is that your point of view is simply an opinion without any support by reason. That is, you view that sexuality is what we choose to make it. It's purely subjective. kudos!

The case of complimentarity of the sexual organs in both the male and female alone speaks volumes about the nature of the sexual act. When you use things in accord with their nature they fulfill their purpose and that is generally understood to be good. I don't dictate these things they are inherent in their nature. And AGAIN, when people act against their nature as with homosexual acts they are opposing their own nature which is more than a simple bodily function. these are persons like the rest of us who I'm sure certainly hope that there is more to life than satisfying certain urges or attractions.

I hate to point this out, but what seems to stand as the foundation of your worldview that,"There is no such thing as objectivity." IS in fact an objective statement and may sort of take the wind out your sails when trying to say that you have your reality and I have mine. In fact, there is no point in anyone discussing anything if there is no objectivity.

It sort of makes it difficult to have a discussion if we have to question wether we live in the same reality or not.

What IS scary, is to think that there are people who believe and act as if there is no such thing as objectivity while clearly living by the principles of objectivity and applauding decisions and unfortunately likely to be pushing laws that govern people in order to promote perverse things and call them "normal"

Someday, YOUR reality will hopefully come to grips with objective truth in a favorable way. In the meantime, ignorance is bliss.

Blogger kristen said...


I guess my question is...are you scared the human race is going to die out? Scared that we may be under populated? Scared that there are too many resources to use? Since when is better for the human race to reduce us down to our most basic elements?

Yes, sex between a man and a woman can result in procreation. But it doesn't have to....ergo, sex between other individuals is no more deviant than a man and a woman choosing not to procreate. By your logic, contraception, abstinence and masturbation is all deviant. Quite the list....and you indict my use of reason.

People act against their "nature" all the time....we no longer solely hunt and gather. We no longer go without showering or deodorant so our pheromones can attract a mate. By your logic, wearing deodorant is deviant. Isn't it funny that you only choose to value some aspects of the natural order...the ones that repress people in different social groups than your own.

If you view sex as only something for procreation, get on it! Enjoy your sexually repressed life and 50 children...I'm sure Freud would be proud. But don't push that decision on others.

Post a Comment

<< Home