Monday, May 23, 2005

Stupid Stuff Taught In Schools Pt. III

Continuing on with the sex education portion. One thing I was taught in school is that homosexuality is natural and a perfectly acceptable lifestyle. In fact we were encouraged to go home and think about the possibility that we might be gay. I went home and examined and found out I was the straightest person I know.

But the thing that always got to me was the claim that homosexuality was natural. What does that mean? I mean granted I don't think it would have been right to tell kids that if they are gay that they are unnatural or weird. But to me homosexuality is very very unnatural.

Think about it. If nature is only here because of survival of the fittest than how does homosexuality fit into that equation? Not to be too graphic but, the parts don't fit. And even if they did fit it wouldn't matter because they cannot produce more life. If I understand evolutionary thinking, we evolve with purpose. The fish don't grow ears because they don't need ears. We don't grow fins because they don't have any function to us. So why would someone be born "naturally" into homosexuality? There is no functionality in a homosexual relationship. If anything, if homosexuals are truly born that way than it is a genetic flaw. A cruel joke played by nature. I'm sure this viewpoint angers homosexuals, but I don't mean for it to. I know that they choose these relationships because they want to; because it's what they desire. But I don't recall learning that things evolve because of what feels the best.

I haven't settled on whether or not I believe that people can be born gay. The evidence is all over the map. And I don't know how that coincides with my belief in the Bible. So I'm waiting to see before I take a hard stance on that subject. But I don't know if we should be teaching children that homosexuality is as natural as rain. I think that we should teach sex ed, without mention of homosexualty.
Unfortunatly I think conservatives will take a loss on this subject. The liberal agenda would never budge on this topic..never. Homosexuality is in public schools to stay. Once again I think parents should always have the right to hold kids from sex ed classes. This has to be the compromise. And sex ed should never spill out into other classes. It should be a contained subject. This way parents can be sure that kids aren't being taught unwanted subjects behind their backs.(the usual liberal method.)

One thing I know for sure. If I did allow my child(when I have one)to attend public school he/she will be well trained to listen to the teacher and report back to me on any thing that goes beyond what I want him/her to learn. I refuse to give up my right to raise my child as I see fit. More parents ought to be more involved in the education process. Thank you.....very much.

2 comments:

John said...

Awesome post! Homosexuality is not natural. If it is genetic it is as you say, a flaw. If it was about love, then those who are gay would not care whether it was male or female...but obviously it is sexual.

As for it being taught in school, this tolerance stuff...I really don't believe it should be. But thats just me.

Anonymous said...

If homosexuality wasn't natural, then it wouldn't happen There are plenty of things that are seemingly unnatural. Driving around in metal boxes at 70mph is unnatural. Triple bypass heart surgery is unnatural.Abstinence is unnatural. Condoms, spermicidal jelly, and the withdrawl method are all "unnatural". Building towering strutures of steel and packing thousands of people that don't beling to the same tribe in them to live in the same proximity as each other is unnatural.

Although I would argue that everything that happens in this naturalistic universe is natural. Nuclear weapons are a natural extention of man's desire to kill his enemies.

The parts do fit. So what if it can't produce a child? Anal sex is a regular ocurance even in heterosexual relationships and it never produces children. Neither does fellatio. Sterile couples can never have children either, should they be singled out and ridiculed because of it?

Homosexuality fits into the evolutionary equation as an attempt to mitigate overpopulation. We even see in animal populations clear preference toward homosexual activity even in the midst of females during breeding season. Anyone that has worked on a large enough farm for a long period of time can attest to that.

As for it being a 'cruel joke played by nature', or a natural biological phenomena, that would be correct. It has to be a genetic anomaly. Scientists have actually developed flies in the lab that are homosexual by altering their gene structure, so it's obviously genetic if we can trigger it genetically.

And since it is genetic, then it is a born trait. You're born gay, bisexual, or straight. In animal populations they have no control, but humans can restrain their desires.

Sexual preference is not a product of choice. When you hit puberty, you didn't choose to become aroused by girls, it just happened.

Now you can choose which women you would like to form a relationship with, so you do have some choice within that respect, but it is mostly based on predictable traits like facial symmetry and such. Most people can agree on what is ugly and what is pretty. This is a form of visual profiling to select the best mate to carry on your genetic material. Since homosexuals are genetically programmed differently, this applies to males instead.

These all take into account average conditions though. When you're locked behind bars in prison for the rest of your life and you never get to see a woman again, that changes the whole game around.