I know this is wrong in society, but like it or not the majority of the America can accept people dying in wars, and babies being aborted, much faster than they can accept a teacher introducing such a topic as homosexuality in the animal kingdom which naturally, (and proven by the previous 40 something posts) leads to introducing homosexuality in the human kingdom to their children.
What is your basis for claiming that such a majority faction, as it were, actually exists? Granted, there is obvious basis to assume that some
opposition to this sort of education exists. There is the aggressive "defense of family and childhood" sort of rhetoric in circulation, but I think that may well only be coming from a vocal minority. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1107/polling-evolution-creationism
you could be right, because the religious right is so fixated with opposing teaching biology regarding evolution. The only numbers I have found on this (not having researched it at any length) suggest that the polling questions are really open to various interpretations by the respondents. But there is a trend away from creationism in the last few years, and only a minority would have only creationism taught rather than evolution... You could perhaps point to statements like, "polling finds that a solid majority of Americans over the past 20 years has supported the teaching of both evolution and creationist accounts of the origins of life." I'm dubious on how useful that is for predicting the next 20 years, though. If the issues are connected to this degree, then the status of gays in the 1980's, say, also didn't change so fast that it was a solid indicator of how much recognition they would gain by the 2000's. The direction of change actually turned out to be historically consistent (and the AIDS crisis helped fuel gay political activism during the 1980's, which probably helped) -- but the yearly
change was about 1% in national polls, probably less than the margin of error.http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marp.htm
On gay rights alone, if we take marriage as an indicator, some polls indicate that the majority of Americans are actually in favor of gay marriage. Of course, that doesn't speak directly to what numbers would favor discussion of sex acts among animals in high school. It just makes me wonder more how you could show that a majority would necessarily object to it. Has there been a national poll on this kind of issue per se? ...We do
have national polls showing that in addition to long-term national trends toward increasing support of same-sex marriage, the positions youth take on homosexuality appear to be more tolerant or more accepting than those of prior generations. To me, that suggests again that whatever the present numbers, the historic trend may actually be toward more interest in a broad scientific exploration of sexual orientation. In that sense, if schools do not at least facilitate exploration of the issue (again - while it's increasingly mentioned in the news), they are arguably doing a disservice to their students.
A parent's child... I'm more inclined to believe that a parent will always see their child as their baby from the instant it's born until it's 110. They do that, it's how it normally works. Normally this protection is a good thing, but when an educated teacher decides to introduce the topic of homosexuality to these parents children... He HAD to expect repercussions. It would be extremely naive of him not to.
Again, the class is dealing with approaches to debate
and you can hardly expect that to be discussed without using a real controversy. Illinois
also recently legislated that parents of minors about to have abortions must be notified. So, I suppose you could have as easily mentioned that suspension could have occurred for "allowing" them to debate abortion.http://catholicexchange.com/2009/11/05/123333/
Of course, if elders feel like opposing something they will, without much regard to the wishes of youth. They will go out of their way to blindfold people who soon enough will be expected (and often, demanded) to vote, get married and/or go to war. The next generation will be told positively how and why
, as good little sheltered junior citizens, to do such things -- and information to the contrary is restricted. No argument there, but not much to discuss about it either. Often enough, educators are just damned if they do and damned if they don't. Some of the specific points they are attacked over are much more debatable.