Don't know much about genetics, do you, Sawdust?

"Any other setting, including gay support groups in high school, is dangerously close to child sexual abuse."

Wow. So allowing a child to be who he or she is--that's child abuse? Helping a child in pain? That's child abuse? Wow.

"Talking about homosexuality in high school from an academic perspective is one thing. It should be kept in classes that are intended to be sexual in nature. "

And what class would that be? I know of no gay studies courses in public high schools. Biology maybe? What about a course intended to explore controversial issues in today's society? Oh, and English courses--characters come in all shapes and sizes, and any character in a book should be worth exploring. (I am NOT suggesting teaching specifically gay-themed novels. But then again, idealistically speaking, why not? A story is a story is a story. If you argue that a novel with a gay character is gonna make someone gay--no, Bill, you didn't make that argument--then you might as well argue that Huck Finn could make someone racist or an abusive parent, that Hamlet could make one want to murder his stepfather, etc.)

Note that I'm not getting into the argument about this specific guy; I'm tangenting. To me, this shouldn't even be news until and unless the guy is fired. If the district investigated and disciplined according to collectively bargained protocols, they did their job. If they didn't--and even if they did--this should be between the district, the teacher, the union, and appropriate lawyers. And if you live in the community, you should act through the appropriate agents.

"What grade does that student get?"

Depends on what the assignment was. The teacher should have clearly communicated the grading criteria to his students. Given that none of us is in his class, we don't know what they are and we have no way of knowing unless the assignment is posted on his website (if he has one for the kids and their parents).

I hope you're not operating on the all-too-common assumption that teachers grade according to their political beliefs, on whether or not kids say what they want to hear. That would be... unfortunate. (And teachers who do that need to be held accountable and need to change their practice.)

"That would be unfortunate (teachers grade to political beliefs)...."
Sure as hell would be. I think I might want to fire that English teacher's ass."

Well, want all you... want. Unless you are part of that school system, your opinion means exactly diddly-squat. There are protocols, often collectively bargained. And any teacher (any employee) who fucks up should be given the chance to correct said fucking-up behavior (unless it's criminal or otherwise seriously damaging).

That said, I would like to be sure that teachers don't grade according to such criteria as "Did this kid agree with me?" Beyond that, I'd like teachers to be clear with their grading criteria; I know I work very hard on both counts.

"Why on earth would a teacher ever assign "homosexuality in the animal kingdom" as a research topic, unless they are intending on turning it into a class discussion on how homosexuality is natural, etc?"

And no one should have a problem with a discussion about _whether_ homosexuality is natural. If the teacher is not presenting and enforcing his or her view, it should be like any other subject. I bet a huge number of righties would have no problem with a discussion about the value of capitalism (I'd like to add "as long as it shows that capitalism is good"). Why is this any different? 'Cause it's sex. One of the greatest conversations (most exciting and most demanding of me and students--as in use of logic and honest assessment of belief vs. rationale) was about whether homosexuality is wrong. It was GREAT. They told me so. And no one told me after that I was gay or supporting fagdom or any crap like that. It was an honest, stimulating (oops) conversation.

+++++

"All science needs to do is figure out a way to fix them."

I can only hope you're joking.

+++++

"I mean...violence is natural, but that doesn't make it a part of society we should condone."

So Bill, how ashamed are you of who you are? I agree about the violence part (though we certainly do condone violence for certain purposes), but the two are hardly equivalent. Really, honestly, what the hell is _wrong_ with being gay? What is the _practical_ damage in this day and age? Let's see, more gay equals fewer children, fewer abortions, more chicks for the rest of us. How is this bad? Okay, now I'm just being flip, but seriously, the anti-gay argument appears to be founded pretty much solely in moral arguments. I know gay men who have stronger relationship than straights I know and who are more nurturing to the children they know and who aren't trying to spread their gayness.

Redheads, Danforth. They are just evil, and they're trying to force their redheaded agenda on the rest of us. They make me fuckin' sick. (I almost wrote "They make me fuckin' suck." Which would have been much funnier.)

Girls--oh, so funny. Any man who asserts that homosexuality might be natural must perforce be gay or female. Mm-hm. You amaze me, Bill.

But yeah, I got a little carried away at the end there (but it was fun). How about my serious #38--is there really nothing in there that you can respond to?

Okay, Bill. Thanks for taking the time you've taken already.

I'm actually more interested in the teaching discussion than in the homo-natural discussion.

Danforth answered it well, Bill. In my case, it came up in a media class. And that's where I'd say it's appropriate--wherever it comes up. It wasn't an assignment. Many students brought up an issue in what I thought was an odd way, and we created a discussion around it. It was fantastic! It became a critical thinking exercise--valuable in any course, and in life.

I echo Danforth's question about religions. In fact, I would say it's almost exactly the wrong place to have such a discussion, unless the point is to examine different religions' takes on the issue and to break them down, or whatever suits the stated purpose and themes of the course.

Again, Danforth answered it. Valid in any course, pretty much. Depending on context, and like any issue, as long as the teacher isn't pushing a particular agenda (pro OR con). I believe that pretty much any topic is good for discussion in English class--given that English is about communication, logic, support, and rational thinking. Why would I need parental permission? What other topics would I need it for? War? Peace? Drugs? Sex of any kind? Any controversy at all?

Zed, my gay brother-in-law (married to his partner, btw, at least in their eyes--committed in ways that many straights I know are not) points out the choice issue this way: "Why would I _choose_ to be a second-class citizen? If I could be straight and enjoy the rights you do, or even the simple ability to not be looked down on, why would I not choose that?"

You seem to be worried about what men put in their asses when your head is rather far up your own.

"You've never seen homosexuality strike a workforce as a fad?"

WHAT??! Where in the world do you work? A bathhouse?

That's just bizarre. "I think I'll start sleeping with men." "Hey, that's cool--me, too." You have worked in some strange places. Do they display other fadding behaviors?

I was talking about life, man, not work. In American society, homosexuals still receive much more negativity than straights, and they don't have freedom to marry (but in what, six states?) and the rights that come with it. And there isn't such a thing as "breeder bashing." That's what he was talking about.

And Danforth's last line says it, too. Choice? Choice? It's not a hair color. Or a pair of pants.

"You might do that to punish women, if you think women have burned you. I've seen that dynamic."

Then that's a crazy person. Yeah, all those women are gonna be so hurt 'cause you decided to start fucking men.

"The one with the paycheck tends to be the one that counts."

Not on my topic, it doesn't.

"What classes in high school are appropriate forums for discussing whether or not homosexuality is wrong?"

Same answer. For teaching that it _is_ wrong, or that it _is_ right, none. It's not our place to teach values in that way. However, teaching tolerance and not shitting on others--that fits in public school. Or any school. We all need to get along (mostly) in order to learn together.

+++++

"So are teachers only to provide examples of heterosexual relationships...?"
Just examples of good literature.

ME: So Zed, what's good literature? Can it have homosexuals as admirable major characters or homosexuality (positive) as a theme?

+++++

Zed, I'm giving up on your bizarre examples and going back to the HS teacher discussion--that's the part that interests me more anyway.

"Ordinary examples, if you just look at what goes on around you."

The sexuality bit is not bizarre. The social gayness is. The fad you describe. I've never heard of such a thing. And man I worked in New York City for a damned long time. The gays were gay, and openly so; the straights were straights; and the bisexuals did what bisexuals do. : )

+++++

"The liberal agenda would have us believe it is no different than deciding to eat at McDonalds instead of Wendys."

It is no different. Except physically. And socially. Love is love, whether it dares speaks its name or no.

But I don't teach anyone about gayness. I teach my subject matter. And I welcome lots of conversations. Just the other day, I overheard four seniors discussing Christianity; three were very respectfully asking our resident (very serious) Christian about his beliefs. It was great--quiet, kind, thoughtful, serious.

+++++

Again, what's wrong with discussing whatever issue comes up, as long as discussion is calm and rational, open and honest? Shit, we might all learn something.

Bill, you've yet to show me why allowing or even deliberately opening conversation about sexuality (of any kind) is wrong in a high school setting.

Yes, I do, Bill. And you've taken on _none_ of my salient points.

It's irrelevant, your point about liberal agenda. My agenda in school is is to educate, to get kids to _think_. But you've just pigeonholed me, so nothing I say from here on in will matter. I'm just another teacher out to indoctrinate and ruin the minds of American youth.

In our first conversation, a month or so back, I respected you. I'm finding it harder to do so after today's conversations.

To quote myself:

"Bill, you've yet to show me why allowing or even deliberately opening conversation about sexuality (of any kind) is wrong in a high school setting."

To return to the original topic, the teacher in question _might_ have been wrong to do what he did. Without seeing the assignment and his grading criteria and how the students engaged with the question and with any possible follow-up, we cannot know. So I won't judge the man. How 'bout you?

"Of all the English works out there and he picks that?"

First of all, why the hell not? Connecting English to social controversies is bad? Trying to help students engage in actual public discourse is bad? What do you people think English is _for_?

"And what about the conversation or debates in the classroom?
Highly inappropriate."

WHY? No one has yet answered this, except with canards like "the liberal agenda blah blah blah."

And btw, I bet we disagree on what great literature is. Clearly, we disagree on what English is for.

Again, the community, the school culture, and the curriculum should determine what is appropriate in a school. Are those of you decrying this guy's actions the same people who suggest that school issues should be left to local governments? If you are, it's time you shut the fuck up about this guy's assignment--which, again, we have not seen.

""I'm just another teacher out to indoctrinate and ruin the minds of American youth"
That's not quite how I'd word it.
I'd say you're another teacher who doesn't quite understand the scope of their job."

And I'd say you're another person who doesn't understand what teaching is or has become. And who thinks he can put his views on how teachers and other schools operate in the real world. When my students, their parents, members of the school board, or my administrators talk to me about how I run my classroom, I'll consider their opinions. But you? You have no fucking idea. You continue to judge an assignment about which you know nothing. You continue to blather on and not take on any salient points besides your little soapbox. Which I'm surprised you can even stand on.

"you've yet to show me why allowing or even deliberately opening conversation about sexuality (of any kind) is wrong in a high school setting."
Again...unless it's your job to discuss sex with children/young adults, it is not wise to do so.
It's just that simple."

I don't discuss _sex_ with students. We have discussed sexuality, gay marriage, the war in Iraq, objectification of women, communism, socialism, the death penalty, and numerous other important social issues. If I were discussing a kid's sex life with him or her, you'd have a point.

All you've showed me is, to be generous, you have an extremely different view of education than I do.

"Prag,
So...what class is Gay Marriage part of the curriculum?"

Do you know what curriculum is? It would seem not. Curriculum in many courses is about skills, not content. And many of us believe that we should allow students to have conversations that are of interest to some majority, and of value in the world beyond high school.

"Just wondering?"

No, you're not. You're asking me to fit into your narrow view of what a teacher is.

"Do you expect me to believe you teach all these things you mentioned without sharing your own personal beliefs?"

I don't _teach_ any of those things. I said they have been discussed in my classroom. I _teach_ English (among other things), which includes reading, writing, and speaking. And I never said I didn't share my personal beliefs. I said (or implied) that I am open to dialogue, that I create opportunities for discussion. I don't force my beliefs on anyone, and I firmly believe that hiding one's beliefs, as a teacher, is stupid and dishonest. (By and large--there are lines.) But I don't think your mind is open to that.

"What do you suppose would happen in your school if a professing Christian teacher were to do the same thing?
You know...so long as everyone is "calm and rational"."

I have no idea what would happen in my school. I have no idea what would happen if every single person in my school knew about every single discussion that arose in my classroom. I am surprised that it took you so long to ask the question, though. It's actually a good one. If a teacher (and there's at least one very serious rightwing Christian teacher in my school, widely respected, and yes by me) assigned a "homosexuality is unnatural" article that was serious... Is that what you mean? Again, I'd have to see the assignment. I think that said teacher could be subject to the same things I could be subject to if I assigned something like this guy did. If a teacher were preaching hate of homosexuals in the classroom, judging people for being open to others, etc., I'd have a problem with that. But I'd have a problem, as stated, with any teacher grading based on agreement with the teacher's ideas, etc. Again, you won't believe me because you are disinclined to do so, but I don't grade that way. And in the aforementioned discussion over whether homosexuality is wrong (actually, it wasn't quite that), I didn't shut anyone down for honest expression of opinion, as long as they were calm and not hateful. That went for both sides of the argument. But again, you won't believe me.

So I'll go back to that. I don't expect you to believe me about anything. I do, however, expect you not to call me a liar, or to insinuate that I am a liar. I haven't done so with you, though I find your positions quite unpalatable.

For the record, I wouldn't assign an article like this one--too controversial, as seen here. But I would allow a conversation around it to occur, if, say, a kid brought it up. And I might have to ask kids who wanted to engage in it to read the article or listen to it being read. I don't know. It would be more impromptu than setting out to "teach homosexuality." And that's a point Bill keeps missing. It's about grappling with (oof) real-life ideas, controversial issues. School cannot be safe and quiet all the time. And I don't think it should be.

And yes, it's different at different grade levels. There are reasons that I teach high school rather than middle school, not least of which is the level of conversation and the very topics that are in play. What are the _students_ interested in? You'd be surprised to know that hot-button topics are actually of interest to students. And they're ready to go beyond the sound bites.

"----Keep it within the subject material (which is where the English Teacher failed. If he had assigned the reading of poem by a gay writter he would have been on firmer ground)"

You make an interesting point about a poem by a gay writer, but I'm willing to suggest that that wasn't the teacher's point. He wasn't trying to assign a work by someone who happens to be gay; I'm guessing he was trying to get a hot-button topic to think about and discuss in the classroom.

Again, other than assumptions about agendas and stranger assertions about sexual acts, I have yet to see anyone advance a reason why this is inappropriate. (Again, I've not seen the assignment, and neither have any of you.)

Would you feel differently if a teacher assigned a piece of writing by someone who asserted in the writing that homosexuality is UNnatural?

"In school I had teachers*"

Funny. Nice correction. : )

I should have been more pointed. I meant for those who are coming out (heh heh) so strongly against this assignment, would you feel differently if the article asserted that homosexuality is UNnatural? (I have a bad feeling I know the answer.)

I don't have a problem with the lack of empirical/scientific data, depending on the assignment--maybe part of the assignment was to examine the idea of conclusions made without evidence.

I do question the language (genital massage) in a high school setting, but I don't teach in his community.

Again, we do not know what the assignment was. And if you're one of those who says it should all be up to local control, and you're expressing a problem with this, then you're at least bordering on hypocritical.

I like your list of three, USAF. Those criteria seem mostly fair, though I'm not with you on the "favorite issues" part. I shy away from almost nothing.

And for #3, I don't believe in extra credit. : )

"I don't see where this article would be academically beneficial for any high school literature class."

Who says it's a literature class? English doesn't have to be restricted to literature. Open your minds, folks. UPL8, take a look at the arguments I've made--well, if you're interested in a conversation rather than assertion of an agenda you don't agree with.

I just read the article again (if one can call it an article). Two points:

1. The teacher "allowed" the students to read. Whoa. So did he assign or allow? Big difference.

2. Nowhere is it explained whether it's a literature class, a writing class, or some other sort of course. We know only that he is an English teacher. For all we know, it could be a course devoted to examining hot-button topics, and this could have been part of a larger, more even-handed approach.

I am being realistic--what does "allowed" mean? Required and allowed are different. Maybe some kids wanted to read this sort of thing. We have _no idea_.

"Here are three sources regarding the same story and the only facts I can pull is that Mr. DeLong is a 10th and 12th grade Honors English teacher at Southwestern High School that he did give the assignment to his 10th grade class to read and that the assignment was optional and the article to be read was to be found on the internet."

If it was optional, one possibility is that there was a variety of articles on hot-button issues or on this issue. I, being an optimist about teachers, would then assume that Mr. DeLong created a unit connected to communication, being informed, and being able to debate issues of interest beyond the classroom. (And "beyond the classroom" is something we should all do more of.)

If such is the case, where's the problem?

(Of course, I don't know; I'm being optimistic. Which is as well-founded as many posters' pessimism. And of course, he could be a loon and be pushing whatever his agenda is on unsuspecting youngsters.)

All that said, 10th grade seems a bit young. But again, I don't know the students' capabilities.

"Funny. My gay friends don't believe any man is really bisexual. Instead they think any guy who believes he's bisexual is either in denial about his homosexuality and/or having heterosexual relationships only out of peer pressure."

Right on. I remember a conversation in college, in which one of my gay friends made pretty much the same points. (I think he might have made the comparison between bisexuals and agnostics, but that may have been another friend. Insert joke about "sitting on the fence" here.)

Phoenix, good point about great literature and endorsements of whatever acts.

Wow. USAF, it is extremely rare that we agree. But here we are. Not only do I agree with what you just wrote, but I think you presented the case well, and got to the heart of my points quickly and concisely. (Maybe I can learn from you. Or maybe it's a difference in teaching style.)

Holy shit, now Luna and I have common ground. Wow. I'm so glad this thread came around--I'm learning about many of my fellow posters: "You can believe what you wish, but if you don't know WHY you believe that, then the belief is worthless. Teachers should be allowed to even back one side of the debate or the other so long as they honestly allow for their students to have differing views and not punish them by docking their grades." BINGO.

Dockj clearly has read nothing about Obama and Secretary Duncan's educational policies/goals. There's nothing like talking about your ass (through your hatred) for serious political/educational conversation.

"There are a ZILLION things of greater value which could be being "taught" in that school. Whether or not there is homosexual activity in the animal kingdom is of such little consequence in the big learning picture, that it is an utterly useless topic to devote more than an in passing sentence to it."

In your opinion. Again, we do not know what the assignment is (though we do know that particular article was reading, at least from the report posted here). From what little we know, it's impossible to conclude with certainty that Mr. DeLong was _teaching_ that homosexuality is natural. He could easily have been engaging in a larger critical thinking/deconstruction assignment. I wish you critics would stop thinking you know.

I agree with the stuff about awards and not being equal. And you might be surprised that the vast majority of my colleagues (in my school, I mean) agree with that, too--you shouldn't get an award for showing up.

As for these:

"The Liberal agenda, as I called it, is one which strives to shift as much control away from the individual - and to the "state". Let's say -- to centralize power at the governmental level.
Almost everything Liberal is moves to remove personal responsibility. After all, the government is best at making all the decisions."

I have to call bullshit. That's about as valid as saying that the conservative agenda is to force Christianity on everyone, declare abortion illegal, engage in every single war possible to expand the American hegemony, and round up all the liberals and shoot them in the fucking head. Critics on both sides need to get this straight. People who self-identify as one group or the other do not then perforce join some monolithic entity. Perhaps if you read a post or two right here on DR, you'd notice that. Just as people are not equal, people can't be as easily pigeonholed as you'd like to think. This liberal (progressive), for instance, wants government presence in a number of things, but not government control over our personal lives or intruding into our communications (these last two belonging to self-identified conservatives of at least the last ten years; cf. abortion, anti-gay screeds, and the most energetic defense of warrantless wire-tapping and other PATRIOT Act-related shit--but see, I also know conservatives who think wireless wire-tapping is bad, very bad).

"My own way is "Heart on the sleave". Hide nothing. But be respectful of other beliefs. There is a vital lesson here: I'm trying to TEACH that you can hold a firm view on something, and NOT be an ass about it (and I've come right out and told the kids what I was doing and why)."

Sir, I applaud you.

I might disagree about teaching evolution, though, or rather question whether you would _need_ to approach it that way. If the specific content is to teach Darwin's theory and the science of it, then intelligent design might not have a place. But I don't know. Is there a stated _science_ behind intelligent design, or is it creationism under a new label? And therefore religion? (I honestly haven't done research on this one. I'm not a science teacher, and it's not part of what I do. However, it might be an interesting exercise. I recently received a paper--yes, it was connected to our course material--in which the student, among other things, asserted that ID should be taught next to evolution. He said things like "science for the non-atheistically minded." I asked him, on the paper, if ID was science and pointed out that many Christians, serious believers, also believe in evolution. He didn't adjust his points or go deeper in the subsequent draft. Given the context of the assignment and the other elements of it, he got a fine grade.)

"It may not be a biology assignment but it is a sexual education assignment. What other motive could he have other than showing that homosexuality occurs naturally in the animal kingdom and thus is natural for human beings."

Asked and answered--several times. Have you read the thread? If not, try it out. Or fess up from the beginning that you're not bothering. Helps with _conversation_.

+++++

"What I have issues is with people who are pointing it out to merely make sure I know I'm inferior to them because vagina's make me gag and throw up."

I have always found this odd, and I feel bad for you. No body parts make me gag, though maybe if some were to connect with my gag reflex. Hm. (I find this odd in straight people, too, btw.) But I am in accord with the inferiority part. Stupid, stupid humans.

"I was just being dramatic (*gasp* a dramatic gay, oh no!)."

HA!

"As far as it goes though, I don't find anything remotely 'lifting' when I see a naked woman. I can see the beauty,"

And you know, I think it's sad that a man can't say that another guy is handsome or attractive without others wondering if he's gay.

"... I mean survival to see if I can just live a NORMAL life."

Ironic?

"And my life to me is incredibly hetero-normative at this point,"

What does that mean? You don't swish?

"but I do understand that it is by definition abnormal to the rest of society. But it doesn't mean I deserve to be a second class citizen."

RIGHT. You don't deserve that. No one does, for any reason I can think of. (Well, I'm sure I could think of some very extreme examples.) I'm even troubled that felons who have served their time can't vote in many states. If you've paid your debt to society, you've paid your debt. Shouldn't you be fully integrated? (Oops--there's a tangent for ya!)

+++++

Thanks, UPL8, for the update. (Btw, I just figured out your userID. : ) ) Nicely done, on the part of the admin and the teacher. "Age appropriateness," not the sexuality stuff. Sweet. I wonder if the administration's concerns are the same as the concerns of any large number of local citizens.

Now I'm hoping that the Notice of Remedial Warning (there's some interesting district jargon) is the lowest level of reprimand a teacher can get. And nothing that can lead to just cause. (At the same time, if this teacher is frequently bringing up this topic, and it's not in a class devoted to such topics, then I hope that is being addressed, too.) All teachers have said or done some stupid shit in class at some point--ain't nodody perfect--but boards and administrators and citizens should never leap to conclusions. (I once posted four rules regarding questionable material on this site. I don't know how to search for such things, if there are archives. If anyone's interested, they can probably find it. Hey, we can start a whole new thread, and all the closed-minded anti-education rote-learning lovers can rant and rave about teachers' liberal agendas.)

"Teachers need to understand their job is not to teach critical thinking. Their job is turn out conformist, submissive, uncritical, unthinking little wage-slaves for capitalist enterprises."

Seems to be what more than a few poster here think. Sad, ain't it, Null. But I can see the point about sophomores. In my community, I don't think I'd even suggest this article to seniors. But that's political, not because they wouldn't understand. (Well, that and I don't teach sophomores.)

One has to wonder about those books being banned. Why? I teach Of Mice and Men; the kids dig it. What is it that is found to be controversial? The murders?

Of course, I also teach Lord of the Flies.

If I taught the right grade level, I would teach Huck Finn.

What's really stupid is that there's more questionable material in a single act of a Shakespeare play than in most banned books. It would be oversimplifying (and too easy), I suppose, to conclude something about the critics' reading abilities?

But I don't think that was Null's point. I don't think he was shocked; I think he was shaking his head in ongoing sadness. Speaking of which, I wonder if I might get in trouble for the short story I assigned today--it has murder, sexual desire, and a father implicitly coveting his son's girlfriend (she's clearly of age, btw).

"If the teachers would simply tell the handful of whining parents to stfu, maybe things would change? Personally, I blame the apathy of the other parents. They don't know or care what happens in their kids school, so they can't tell the vocal minority to take a hike."

I hear ya, man. But the problem is that the _administration_ (principals) need to tell the handful of whining parents to stfu. If teachers do it, we get in trouble. (Actually, I've never had a problem with a parent for more than a week or two, as long as it took to talk face to face or for the whiner to just go away, but really, we need support. I've seen more than one administrator throw more than one teacher under the bus. Some of these cases--the administrative actions, I mean--were more egregious than others.)

"Swish? Not sure I get you."

I meant are you straight-acting? (By "swish," I was shorthanding, referring to being obviously gay, as in stereotypically limp-wristed, flaming, effeminate voice, etc.)

"By Hetero-normative, I'm in a living situation with a long term boyfriend, we attend our progressive church together every weekend, and this holiday season it'll be our first time attending each other's family's events.:"

Acceptance is good, no? The church I sometimes attend is gay-friendly (I wanted to say "welcoming," but I think that's jargon with a specific meaning).

"We're hetero-normative in the idea of the committed relationship as our example. We're both guys, who believe in monogomy, and who concentrates a lot on our relationship. The only example we have is that of a heterosexual marriage, and that is the basis on grounds of the life we live. We can't deny its the standard, but we've obviously had to alter things a bit."

Had to alter? Gays can't be committed and still be gay? I'm not sure I follow this part.

"Straight Acting... ooooooh. It depends. Apparently if I put my hands in my pocket, I walk more butch. I ride motorcycles, don't mind minor car maintenance and know the rules to most sports (though I don't follow). But you're likely to hear me singing a soundtrack from a musical (Legally Blonde the Musical? Heck yes!) Just knowing the rules is butch enough. The boyfriend? You could pick him out in a crowd, though his parents were so shocked.. *shrug*"

Well, shit, I'm more gay than you. Er, other than the actual defining act. And I love laundry. (Now just wait for the commentary. This should be fun.)

And GreenEyedGuy--glad you're here.

"If reading an article makes one chick want to eat another chicks vag, then that makes her a college freshman..."

Oh, my. It's a damned good thing I wasn't drinking milk, 101. (And btw, what is up today? First I agreed with USAF, now you. My DR life is in a whirl!)

Oh, Hag, your line about name worked too. And Hag, whatever happened to your trip to NH/VT?

I've lived in New England for three-quarters of my life, and I have never skiied. I don't skate either, or do any boating. Nor hunt. I supposed my real New Englander license should be revoked. OTOH, I do have the ability to talk funny. (Well, lemme know when you expect to be up here. I'll buy you a beer. You know, in a real manly way.)

HopeyChangey, do you know how school works? What do you think school is for?

If we have to worry about someone being offended every time we open our mouths--in school or out--we will be completely stifled. The world can't work that way. Specifically to school, we need to challenge and engage young people, and sometimes that's by doing something that they and parents might find offensive--outside their norm. Opt in? Opt in? Too many students already choose to opt in or out as it is. Are you suggesting we let kids do what they want when they want it? I know parents who figure "What does my kid gotta take English for? We talk English at home!" Yeah, great.

Oh, and btw, the phrase climate change has been around for something like thirty years. Do some research.

But if you really want to talk about what's offensiveness--I'll dial back my rhetoric now--you need to look at community standards. I've fared quite well being risky in a conservative community. Zero complaints (at least to my face) about my rhetoric, my inclusionary nature, or my choice of topics or texts.

Dialing rhetoric back up, I guess it's good that you're not in charge of anyone's school. It would be pretty fuckin' bland, judging by what you've written here. I think your take on politics and this president are offensive. And, sir, I bet if you opened your eyes and actually went into a school, you might find that teachers are much more even-handed than you seem to assume.

Good one, Danforth! If it were, there'd be no danger, right?

And Hopey, again, I will suggest that you read the thread in its entirety. I don't feel a need to explain for something like the fifth time the possible value of an article like this one, if used in certain ways. Assigning anything, no matter how controversial or in what taste, doesn't mean you are condoning that thing, or that thing depicted therein.