The Instigator
Calypso
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CanWeKnow
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Should LGBT be discussed in school?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
CanWeKnow
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,318 times Debate No: 34474
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

Calypso

Pro

In my entire time in school, LGBT has always been taboo and we weren't allowed to discuss it. I think that it will become much more accepted if we learned about it in school. Even when talking about bullying, there is no mention of LGBT bullying. It's like it doesn't exist or that we don't matter. I think that starting from the time kids enter school, we should discuss all types of relationships, straight, LGBT, etc. That way it will be more accepted and students won't think of it as "wrong".
CanWeKnow

Con

I would like to thank Pro for this chance to debate and since no rules were provided take this round to clarify my position as Con and provide some definitions.

LGBT: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Trans gender.
School: An institution for educating children.
I would also ask of Pro that school also be constricted to that of public school.
Public School: A school supported by public funds.


As Con I will be arguing that LGBT should not be discussed as part of mandatory curriculum in Public Schools on the basis that as a public institution oriented towards providing a non-biased and pragmatic education there is no obligation to provide information regarding the sexuality, gender identity, or anatomy of human beings other than for the sole purpose of scientific explanation of reproduction.


I also propose that we use the next round to present our full opening statements.

Debate Round No. 1
Calypso

Pro

Many kids going into school right now think that love only goes one way, straight. Or maybe they think the opposite because of gay parents, etc. I want the next generation to be our most open-minded. If children are educated about gender identity and sexuality early on, bullying will be almost non-existent towards the LGBT group. Children won't think of it as "wrong" anymore. More children will begin to accept their own gender identity and they won't be scared to come out anymore. I don't believe it should be discussed in a way inappropriate for the age. I do however think it should be explained in the best way possible for the particular age and that children understand that being born a certain way isn't "wrong". Thank you for posting the definitions and thank you for responding to my argument.
CanWeKnow

Con

From the get-go you are already contradicting yourself, but I will refrain from criticism until I present my points.

Reasons why LGBT should not be taught in school:
    1. It's not the job of Public School to teach or discuss LGBT.
    2. Discussion of LGBT would violate the constitution.



1. As we know, Public School is considered Public because it is supported by public funds. Why does the public put funds into any governmental institution? Because, Public institutions are oriented towards accomplishing a specific goal. This goal must be something that advances a common good. Obviously, if it weren't then no funds would be allocated to it.

The common good that Public School is oriented towards is the education of children. However the word education here does not encompass all things that are capable of being learned. Specifically, the role of the public school is to teach material that will produce hard-working and efficient laborers. Laborers, who through work, will generate revenue for the state. In short, the reason a Public Education is provided is because the government wishes to stay in power. In order to stay in power it needs funding. By educating it's future working class it can ensure proper funding for future years.


This brings me to my main point. If Public School has a purpose, then the only things need to be taught are those things that are essential to achieving that purpose. The purpose, as I stated before, is to ensure funding for the future by educating children in a way where they will be most successful in the economy. It is not necessary to instill any specific set of social values into any child in order to achieve this purpose. The school, as a public institution, has no obligation (arguably no right) to provide any information regarding what is "right" or "wrong" especially in regards to human relationships. They do not send children to school to learn moral values, to figure out their identity, or to make friends with each other. These things are to be taught in the home, at church, or other private institutions. They go to school to learn what is necessarry to provide for themselves and their community.

2. This is specifically why we we have separation of church and state. The secular state is not meant to protect just one side of belief. It is meant to protect Atheism and Theism alike, this is why the teaching of Evolution is so controversial. The issues of LGBT however, do not equivocate to Evolution. It is up to the parents to teach children what is "right" and what is "wrong" because if the state did it would violate the constitution. Separation of church and state is great this way, because it means that Theists cant sneak in there ridiculous morals into education and neither can Atheists. Gays, Lesbians, Bi, Trans, and Straight people can't sneak their values into education either. If LGBT goes against Biblical values and it was taught in schools that it is "O.K." then religious Theists would cause a riot. Similarly if we taught that straight relationships were the only correct relationship then Atheists and LGBT would have a riot. We don't teach that straight relationships are correct in school, however we do teach them history, biology & anatomy, and math. If the point of a straight relationship is 3 or children and 1 is a man and 2 is a woman, then 1+2=3. This doesn't mean that straight relationships are the only correct relationship, but they are if you want to conceive children.





Points against Pro's argument:

    1. It is not taught that Straight relationships are morally correct. This is a misinterpretation by anyone who claims it.
    2. Since neither LGBT or Straight relationships are taught at school, there is no need to "balance" this equation.
    3. Simply providing information regarding the nature of these relationships would do nothing to change the situation.


1. If anyone DOES come out of education feeling like straight relationships are the only morally correct relationship then they have committed an egregious logical mistake. They are deriving an ought from an is. Hetero sex is required in order to conceive a child therefore it OUGHT to be the only "right" relationship. The conclusion clearly does not follow from the premise. It is arguable that we could blame the state for not teaching the children how to use logic, but that's not the point.

2. Pro seems to be making the claim that it's unfair to LGBT since Straight relationships are already being promoted in school. This is clearly not correct in light of previous points. Since there is no imbalance there is no need to add LGBT education.

3. Pro might argue that we can simply provide the information without imparting morality because it would make people feel "better" about themselves and it would advance a common good. Should we educate everyone on how rape works because it would make rapists feel better about themselves? Would it change the attitudes of everyone else regarding the morality of rape? No. I realize this is not equivocable but I'll tell you why it still applies. This argument is relevant because Morality & Attitude are almost identical. You can look with your eyes and see this to be true. People who believe that it is morally wrong to be gay will act like it is wrong to be gay. They may ignore gay people, spit on gay people, or tell gay people flat out that they are wrong to be gay. You can't change the way people feel about LGBT by telling them how it works. Without implying some kind of moral value when educating about LGBT it won't change the attitudes of people.


Even if you tell people that it's the "Same Love" then you're just teaching lies, and we try not to teach lies to the public if we can help it. Let's be real for a second, even if you could define "Love" in an objective and accurate way it would not be the same for Straights and LGBT. It would be different for S, L, G, B, and T all separately. They are all different KINDS of love, but they are not identical.

Debate Round No. 2
Calypso

Pro

Calypso forfeited this round.
CanWeKnow

Con

There isn't much more that I can reiterate upon. I'd like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the Debate.org community and the chance to learn more through debate. I think this website should be used by every person in the United States that has a computer and an internet connection.

Since there are no refutations or questions from Pro I don't see why it would be beneficial for me to say the same things over again. I am looking forward to the next round of debate.
Debate Round No. 3
Calypso

Pro

Calypso forfeited this round.
CanWeKnow

Con

It's fairly clear where this argument is going. There is no way for me to know what kind of circumstance my opponent may have encountered that prevented her from posting for the previous two rounds, so I won't hold it against her.

I'll use this round to just restate my argument.


As Con I argued that LGBT should not be discussed as part of mandatory curriculum in Public Schools. A public school's main purpose is to give children the tools they will need in order to become contributing and productive members of society and the economy. Neither Straight or LGBT relationships are taught to be morally right or wrong, and the only information regarding straight relationships is in respect to Science and reproduction. LGBT couples do not serve any natural or biological purpose in regards to reproduction, and therefore have no place being taught in the classroom as a part of education. Pro argues that discussing LGBT in schools will make children feel "better" and stop "bullying". I clearly refute this assertion based on the fact that morality and attitudes towards others who are considered to be immoral are not so easily changed by a few discussions about how LGBT works.


I'd like to thank anyone who read my arguments in this debate, and strongly encourage you to think about my arguments and evaluate it's validity. If anyone would like to ask a question about my stance on this issue or regarding what I have mentioned in my debate then I would love to answer you. Send me a message or leave a comment. Thank You.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by CanWeKnow 3 years ago
CanWeKnow
Sorry it took me such a long time to post my argument. Unfortunately this debate wasn't the highest on my priority list.
Posted by jzonda415 3 years ago
jzonda415
Stupid exams... Wish I could accept this.
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
LOL.

Hahaha
Posted by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
Very tempted to troll this.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by tulle 3 years ago
tulle
CalypsoCanWeKnowTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's opening was way too vague. Discuss in what way? Unfortunately, it allowed Con to exploit it in any way. Con's arguments were much more articulate and comprehensive---Pro forfeited.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
CalypsoCanWeKnowTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Nice job Con.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 3 years ago
Maikuru
CalypsoCanWeKnowTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro loses conduct upon forfeits. Pro also presents no affirmative case or case against Con's rebuttals.