| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/13/2009 07:31:47 PM · #2926 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
As a social worker and guidance counselor for a high school, doesn't he have a responsibility to his students, a proportion of which are likely homosexual, to appear unbiased toward their sexual orientation? While he entitled to his own opinion, he must also remain credible at work. Other students at this school could misinterpret what they saw their guidance counsellor say on television, and use that as justification for bullying homosexual students at the school. |
So would you be against a teacher campaigning for gay marriage? Wouldn't this be a first amendment thing? Paul can answer this one too...
From this article:
First appearing in an advertisement last month for the "No on 1" campaign, Nokomis literacy coach Sherri Gould was included briefly to rebut claims that same-sex marriage would be taught in public schools if the law were not repealed.
Gould is a former chairwoman of the English department at Nokomis, but it was only her designation as Maine's 2005 Teacher of the Year that identified her in the commercial.
"I've been teaching in Maine since 1983. We teach respect and Maine values. That will never change," she says.
Message edited by author 2009-11-13 19:32:43. |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 07:32:38 PM · #2927 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
As a social worker and guidance counselor for a high school, doesn't he have a responsibility to his students, a proportion of which are likely homosexual, to appear unbiased toward their sexual orientation? While he entitled to his own opinion, he must also remain credible at work. Other students at this school could misinterpret what they saw their guidance counsellor say on television, and use that as justification for bullying homosexual students at the school. |
Originally posted by Cited Article:
The complaint also cites an e-mail sent by a student "to another school social worker" that says, in part: "I sure hope some poor kid that loves and respects him hasn't been struggling with their own sexuality and thinking about coming out to him ... God only knows how that broadcast affected their decision. Some kid listening to some Vote Yes on 1 commercial that sees Mendell ... isn't going to think, 'Well, he still loves me and accepts me and my choices' ... they're going to think, 'Great, he hates me too.'" |
|
|
|
|
11/13/2009 07:33:25 PM · #2928 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
As a social worker and guidance counselor for a high school, doesn't he have a responsibility to his students, a proportion of which are likely homosexual, to appear unbiased toward their sexual orientation? While he entitled to his own opinion, he must also remain credible at work. Other students at this school could misinterpret what they saw their guidance counselor say on television, and use that as justification for bullying homosexual students at the school. |
It's a tough question. Here's another quote, from the people defending him:
"No American should have his or her livelihood threatened for believing marriage is a union of one man and one woman," said Austin R. Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. "This threat to Don, and his family and his livelihood, reveals that those who want to redefine marriage also want to punish and silence anyone who disagrees."
How do you answer that?
And look, people, I'm 100% in favor of "gay marriage", and I've signed petitions and I've voted affirmatively on the issue. I'm just weighing in like this because it's absolutely clear that, at the moment, a majority of voting Americans don't want it, and I think it's important to understand why instead of just demonize them as bigots.
R.
Message edited by author 2009-11-13 19:34:28. |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 07:38:50 PM · #2929 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So would you be against a teacher campaigning for gay marriage? Wouldn't this be a first amendment thing? Paul can answer this one too... |
Debunking disinformation about the effect of the law on school curriculum is not quite the same as promoting the law ... but yeah, I'd be willing to say that any government employee should not be campaigning for either side IN THEIR ROLE as (whatever their job).
However, if the other side lies about that the law would do (e.g. force schools to "promote the homosexual agenda") you sort-of need someone with expertise and authority in the field to rebut the lie ... kind of like having a public health official speak to the relative safety and benefits of vaccination. |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 07:48:41 PM · #2930 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So would you be against a teacher campaigning for gay marriage? Wouldn't this be a first amendment thing? Paul can answer this one too... |
Debunking disinformation about the effect of the law on school curriculum is not quite the same as promoting the law ... but yeah, I'd be willing to say that any government employee should not be campaigning for either side IN THEIR ROLE as (whatever their job).
However, if the other side lies about that the law would do (e.g. force schools to "promote the homosexual agenda") you sort-of need someone with expertise and authority in the field to rebut the lie ... kind of like having a public health official speak to the relative safety and benefits of vaccination. |
So that first grade class that took the field trip in California to see their teacher's lesbian wedding wasn't somehow "promoting the homosexual agenda"? (I mean, really, the movement is just shooting themselves in the foot with fodder like this. Who goes on a field trip to ANYBODY'S wedding? Then the principal calls it "culturally relevant" when they get called on it?)
But really, the reality is people should be able to speak their view for or against no matter their job. We can't just silence a chunk of people because they are teachers. That seems pretty counter to our country's standards.
Message edited by author 2009-11-13 20:02:03. |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 08:10:22 PM · #2931 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But really, the reality is people should be able to speak their view for or against no matter their job. We can't just silence a chunk of people because they are teachers. That seems pretty counter to our country's standards. |
Just like Christian pharmacists should be able to deny you contraception just because they don't like it themselves! No wait... what?
Jobs come with responsibilities. I can't wear a "I hate Christians" t-shirt to work. That does not mean my freedom of expression has been violated. This act would mean I have violated the code of conduct I agreed to abide by when accepting money from my employer. Very different.
Message edited by author 2009-11-13 20:11:11. |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 08:14:07 PM · #2932 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But really, the reality is people should be able to speak their view for or against no matter their job. We can't just silence a chunk of people because they are teachers. That seems pretty counter to our country's standards. |
Just like Christian pharmacists should be able to deny you contraception just because they don't like it themselves! No wait... what?
Jobs come with responsibilities. I can't wear a "I hate Christians" t-shirt to work. That does not mean my freedom of expression has been violated. This act would mean I have violated the code of conduct I agreed to abide by when accepting money from my employer. Very different. |
So you don't think that teacher should have appeared on that pro-marriage ad in Maine? Nobody should say anything one way or the other? |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 08:26:13 PM · #2933 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But really, the reality is people should be able to speak their view for or against no matter their job. We can't just silence a chunk of people because they are teachers. That seems pretty counter to our country's standards. |
Just like Christian pharmacists should be able to deny you contraception just because they don't like it themselves! No wait... what?
Jobs come with responsibilities. I can't wear a "I hate Christians" t-shirt to work. That does not mean my freedom of expression has been violated. This act would mean I have violated the code of conduct I agreed to abide by when accepting money from my employer. Very different. |
So you don't think that teacher should have appeared on that pro-marriage ad in Maine? Nobody should say anything one way or the other? |
No, people should just not promote their agenda in the context of their job, unless they have special dispensation for doing so (ie: parental permission forms for a field trip, which I'm sure were sent out in your one example, although if they weren't and the kids were just arbitrarily taken on such a field trip with no parental knowledge, than yah, I'd be a little angry about that). I don't have enough knowledge of this case at hand, but if the counselor was say, telling the kids that he was counseling that gay-marriage was 'bad' or 'evil' or whatever, then that would be a job-threatening decision. However, if he was just putting his name on outside media or bills or petitions or whatever, then no, nobody has any right whatsoever to threaten his livelihood.
I think most people here are really trying to say this, but not really getting it across well. I don't even know if I'm getting it across well. |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 09:19:15 PM · #2934 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But really, the reality is people should be able to speak their view for or against no matter their job. We can't just silence a chunk of people because they are teachers. That seems pretty counter to our country's standards. |
Just like Christian pharmacists should be able to deny you contraception just because they don't like it themselves! No wait... what?
Jobs come with responsibilities. I can't wear a "I hate Christians" t-shirt to work. That does not mean my freedom of expression has been violated. This act would mean I have violated the code of conduct I agreed to abide by when accepting money from my employer. Very different. |
So you don't think that teacher should have appeared on that pro-marriage ad in Maine? Nobody should say anything one way or the other? |
No, people should just not promote their agenda in the context of their job, unless they have special dispensation for doing so (ie: parental permission forms for a field trip, which I'm sure were sent out in your one example, although if they weren't and the kids were just arbitrarily taken on such a field trip with no parental knowledge, than yah, I'd be a little angry about that). I don't have enough knowledge of this case at hand, but if the counselor was say, telling the kids that he was counseling that gay-marriage was 'bad' or 'evil' or whatever, then that would be a job-threatening decision. However, if he was just putting his name on outside media or bills or petitions or whatever, then no, nobody has any right whatsoever to threaten his livelihood.
I think most people here are really trying to say this, but not really getting it across well. I don't even know if I'm getting it across well. |
I thought it was pretty clear. Whatever you do after hours is your business. Isn't that like Liberalism 101? Maybe the scope needs to be readjusted for the correct target...
Message edited by author 2009-11-13 21:23:02.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2009 09:41:26 PM · #2935 |
So, after hours, I should be able to get on the internet and write posts about how much my employer and their products suck, under my own name, and not lose my job over it?
|
|
|
|
11/13/2009 09:45:55 PM · #2936 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
So, after hours, I should be able to get on the internet and write posts about how much my employer and their products suck, under my own name, and not lose my job over it? |
Oh c'mon Mousie, you can do better than that. Of course you're gonna get fired if you run your employer down. What's more to the point though: what if your employer was a radical conservative and he fired you because you campaigned for Obama on your own time? THAT would be actionable...
R. |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 10:15:34 PM · #2937 |
Seems fairly clear to me. He used his position as a counselor -- an authority position -- to endorse a personal viewpoint that has all the hallmarks of bigotry. Sorry, but it's true.
He said, "people would know at least one experienced educator, counselor, thought at stake here was something that would have a profound effect on the raising of children." So he used his well-known counselorage to add weight to a viewpoint he aired publicly.
He went on to say that he believes the gay marriage issue to be one of "equal rights of children to have a mother and a father, if at all possible." This is outrageous in many ways, because his main argument presupposes that all same-sex couples desire to have children (they don't), and he seeks to arbitrarily advocate on behalf of a right that doesn't exist (nobody has an inalienable "right" to parents). If he isn't just being cynical and duplicitous in his concerns, he sure as hell better be boycotting this and this and this.
If this was an example of what rights will be withdrawn when marriage rights are extended to everyone, you'll have to do better. At worst, this is an issue of politics on the "pro" side -- pushing an agenda by any means possible. At best, it's the exposure of a bigot. All around, it's a sad state of affairs.
Additionally, you only need to look at those countries having legalized same-sex marriage -- Canada, The Netherlands, Spain, etc. -- to see that society has not failed those who still choose to discriminate. They still have every right to do so. |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 11:03:50 PM · #2938 |
I think you missed the subtlety of my post Louis. I'm not making the argument myself, I was just trying to offer an opportunity to put yourself in their shoes. People who fear gay marriage is the cultural equivalent of letting the genie out of the bottle are derided on this thread as completely irrational, but the truth is, these crazy examples, for better or worse, are real enough to feed the fear. Punishment for stating your opinion on a TV ad? First graders attending a lesbian wedding as a "culturally relevant" field trip? We can't blame Maine's vote on a "crazy God thing" because only a minority go to church with any regularity, so we must look to other explanations. The fear that your belief will suddenly be punished or actively repressed may be the real explanation. With people viewing the media and politicians as lying to them 24/7 it's no wonder they can't just take the word of the people who say, "trust us, we just want marriage, nothing else".
Currently I'm not trying to make an argument, I'm just trying to do some explaining. I probably shouldn't bother because the author Bear quoted is saying the same thing, but much more eloquently, and he didn't get two seconds of attention. |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 11:23:29 PM · #2939 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
People who fear gay marriage is the cultural equivalent of letting the genie out of the bottle are derided on this thread as completely irrational, but the truth is, these crazy examples, for better or worse, are real enough to feed the fear. |
People who feared that allowing equal rights to blacks or women was the cultural equivalent of letting the genie out of the bottle were derided as completely irrational, too. So was their fear.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We can't blame Maine's vote on a "crazy God thing" because only a minority go to church with any regularity... |
No? The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, Maine accounted for 81% of in-state fund-raising to fight Equal Marriage. |
|
|
|
11/14/2009 12:43:59 AM · #2940 |
Nevermind. That wasn't even worth replying to.
Message edited by author 2009-11-14 00:45:06. |
|
|
|
11/14/2009 12:59:51 AM · #2941 |
Ah, go on... I'd love to know why unmarried, celibate, white male priests are the chief lobbyists for defining marriage in the context of state recognition (outside the church).
Message edited by author 2009-11-14 01:00:29. |
|
|
|
11/14/2009 01:09:14 AM · #2942 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Punishment for stating your opinion on a TV ad? |
Sure, if done with the weight of one's authority in a public sector job.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
First graders attending a lesbian wedding as a "culturally relevant" field trip? |
Sure, if all the children who attended had the permission of their parents. I think it's stupid myself, but what difference does it make to me, or to the raging talking heads who "exposed" this story? |
|
|
|
11/14/2009 02:23:13 AM · #2943 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But really, the reality is people should be able to speak their view for or against no matter their job. We can't just silence a chunk of people because they are teachers. That seems pretty counter to our country's standards. |
People in the military are not allowed to freely express their views - you do know that, right? We cannot, in an official capacity, attend the events of either side of a political issue in uniform. Technically, we can participate on our off-duty time, but even that is cautioned, because we are never really "off-duty". We are allowed and encouraged to vote, but because of the PERCEPTION it may create, we are not really supposed to actively "campaign" for issues. |
|
|
|
11/14/2009 09:11:59 AM · #2944 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But really, the reality is people should be able to speak their view for or against no matter their job. We can't just silence a chunk of people because they are teachers. That seems pretty counter to our country's standards. |
I suspect a policeman, judge or teacher actively supporting a KKK rally wouldn't go over too well if reported, so there are some limits. |
|
|
|
11/14/2009 09:35:07 AM · #2945 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But really, the reality is people should be able to speak their view for or against no matter their job. We can't just silence a chunk of people because they are teachers. That seems pretty counter to our country's standards. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I suspect a policeman, judge or teacher actively supporting a KKK rally wouldn't go over too well if reported, so there are some limits. |
My wife, an employee of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, is expressly prohibited from campaigning for any candidate for state government as part of the terms of her employment.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2009 12:18:34 PM · #2946 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
We cannot, in an official capacity, attend the events of either side of a political issue in uniform. |
This reminds me of a police union action at city hall in Toronto a few years ago. Some cops attended, a few in uniform. There was a hellstorm, and the chief was apoplectic. There was disciplinary action. |
|
|
|
11/14/2009 05:22:39 PM · #2947 |
| I think that maybe the voters in Maine did what they thought was best for their state and not what is fair or unfair to the individuals the vote will effect. |
|
|
|
11/14/2009 06:09:32 PM · #2948 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I think that maybe the voters in Maine did what they thought was best for their state and not what is fair or unfair to the individuals the vote will effect. |
A new airport or sales tax structure may or may not be in the best interest of the state, but a private decision to commit your life to a blonde, Asian, Presbyterian or same-sex partner has no effect whatsoever on the community. It's none of their business.
Message edited by author 2009-11-14 18:19:16. |
|
|
|
11/14/2009 07:26:07 PM · #2949 |
This changes the subject a bit, but it may be an interesting conversation. Let us assume our hunch about homosexuality is correct. We discover it is a genetic predisposition which is triggered by environmental conditions (if the conditions are met, the gene is expressed and your son is gay). We have discovered what the environmental trigger is and find that it occurs very early in life, before a year of age. You have a son and discover he has the genetic predisposition to homosexuality. In what manner would you use the knowledge of knowing what the environemental trigger is for your son?
I'm assuming the easy answer right now is to avoid that trigger because we would currently be setting the son up for a life of discrimination, but let's remove that as an option. As our scientific knowledge has advanced so has our toleration and homosexuality has become equal in the eyes of society in all regards. What is your answer now? |
|
|
|
11/14/2009 07:38:49 PM · #2950 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This changes the subject a bit ... |
We're discussing the issue of equal legal rights for adult human beings, not eugenics. You could propose a similar hypothetical for any other trait you like -- it would be just as irrelevant a distraction (highjack) to the topic at hand. |
|
